Quote of the Day: Pastor Rick Warren

by TKOEd • Monday, Feb 11, 2013 • no responses - be the first

I predict that the battle to preserve religious liberty for all, in all areas of life, will likely become the civil rights movement of this decade. If it takes a popular movement to reign in overreaching government, then Hobby Lobby’s courageous stand, in the face of enormous pressure and fines, will likely be considered the Birmingham bus boycott, where good citizens finally got fed up with having their rights trampled on, and decided to challenge those who favor conformity over freedom.

Warren is speaking on a lawsuit brought by Hobby Lobby, an arts & crafts chain, to keep them from having to pay for healthcare that provides reproductive care to women. My first response is FUCK YOU, Rick Warren. I have to other point to make though:

1. The idea that a company already restricting women’s rights is at the forefront of any “new” civil rights movement is not infuriating, but extremely laughable. In the eyes of people like Rick Warren & Hobby Lobby’s owner, David Green the only person who’s right’s matter are the owner’s. Women, as usual, in these arguments are irrelevant. Their rights don’t even begin to matter.

2. I’m need people to immediately stop using the Civil Rights Movement (and MLK in particular) as some sort of leaping point for their hatred of the poor, women, & even minorities. That “content of character” quote doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Source.

Quote Of The Day: Black Turnout

by TKOEd • Friday, Dec 28, 2012 • no responses - be the first

This year marks an increase in black turnout for the fourth consecutive presidential election

So our turnout has been increasing since well before Barack ran for POTUS. Surprise, surprise.

Source.

 

Tags:

Quote Of The Day: All My Babies’ Mamas

by TKOEd • Thursday, Dec 27, 2012 • no responses - be the first

Via Shadow and Act:

“‘All My Babies’ Mamas’ will be filled with outrageous and authentic over-the-top moments that our young, diverse female audience can tweet and gossip about.”

Django is the least of our media problems (if it’s a problem at all). I won’t be watching. Hopefully, neither will you.

Tags:

Black Woman Fired For Being Nice

by TKOEd • Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 • no responses - be the first

Via Journal-isms:

“Hello Emmitt–I am the ‘black lady’ to which you are referring. I’m sorry you don’t like my ethnic hair. And no I don’t have cancer. I’m a non-smoking, 5’3, 121 lbs, 25 mile a week running, 37.5 year old woman, and I’m in perfectly healthy physical condition.

“I am very proud of my African-American ancestry which includes my hair. For your edification: traditionally our hair doesn’t grow downward. It grows upward. Many Black women use strong straightening agents in order to achieve a more European grade of hair and that is their choice. However in my case I don’t find it necessary. I’m very proud of who I am and the standard of beauty I display. Women come in all shapes, sizes, nationalities, and levels of beauty. Showing little girls that being comfortable in the skin and HAIR God gave me is my contribution to society. Little girls (and boys for that matter) need to see that what you look like isn’t a reason to not achieve their goals.

“Conforming to one standard isn’t what being American is about and I hope you can embrace that.

“Thank you for your comment and have a great weekend and thank for watching.”

That’s former KTBS-TV meteorologist, Rhonda Lee responding to a comment about hair on the channel’s Facebook page. This comment:

the black lady that does the news is a very nice lady.the only thing is she needs to wear a wig or grow some more hair. im not sure if she is a cancer patient. but still its not something myself that i think looks good on tv.

All I kept thinking to myself is that Lee’s response is exactly what many white people say they want from Black people. They want us to explain our strange ways to them. Explain our strange hair that they love to touch, explain our “attitudes”, and why we’re so damn “angry” all the time. Here you have someone who did that in a nice, and professional way. Does she get praised for handling a difficult comment well? No. She gets fired. Damned if you, damned if you don’t. Meanwhile, as of today, the original comment by “Emmitt” is still on KTBS’ FB page, AND to add insult to injury the station “liked” his comment:

 

KTBS

 

But hey, race had nothing to with it.

Tags: ,

Quote of the Day: bell hooks

by TKOEd • Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012 • no responses - be the first

No other group in America has so had their identity socialized out of existence as have black women… When black people are talked about the focus tends to be on black men; and when women are talked about the focus tends to be on white women.

I really don’t know if I agree with this statement, but it’s some serious food for thought.

Tags: , ,

Black LGBTQ History Comes To Morehouse

by TKOEd • Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012 • no responses - be the first

 

Via Colorlines:

 

Morehouse College, the nation’s most well-known all-male college for black men, announced this week this week announced a new course focusing on LGBT pop culture, history and society.

This is good news, and potentially a major step forward for HBCUs. I love that they are approaching this from historical prospective as well. Just within the civil rights movement there unsung LGBT heroes. Let alone wider society. A key component of progress is understanding, and nothing fosters better understanding like knowledge of history. Many props to Morehouse.

Tags: , ,

The Big Story: Jeffrey Goldberg’s Gunsmoke!

by TKOEd • Monday, Dec 10, 2012 • no responses - be the first

Jeffrey Goldberg advocates for more guns, and more gun control in this month’s Atlantic magazine:

I shared—and continue to share—the view that muscular gun-control regulations, ones that put stumbling blocks in front of criminals seeking firearms, are necessary. But I was also seized by the thought that, had I been on the train, I would much rather have been armed than unarmed. I was not, and am not, under the illusion that a handgun would have necessarily provided a definitive solution to the problem posed by Colin Ferguson. But my instinct was that if someone is shooting at you, it is generally better to shoot back than to cower and pray.

The problem with this, and Goldberg’s entire argument is that it’s mostly built on the back of fighting back an assailant who also has a gun. Goldberg asks victims of gun violence if they would have preferred to have been armed on the day they were shot, and all them dismiss the idea to varying degrees. Now the people who were actually in the middle of it all are highly skeptical that being armed would have done them any good, but Goldberg is pretty damn sure it would have. Lots of people like to think they would have saved the day had they been in the theater in Aurora, but the folks who went through it are much less sure. That should give us all pause. Not Jeffrey Goldberg though:

But the worst thing that could have happened to Daniel Mauser did, in fact, happen. The presence in the Columbine library of a well-trained, armed civilian attempting to stop the killers could hardly have made the situation worse.

The fact that extremely few civilians are “well-trained” in the use of firearms doesn’t seem to faze Goldberg in the least. Furthermore he knows that it wouldn’t have made the situation worse. Because he was there! Wait, no, he was not. He doesn’t consider how a shoot-out could have easily made things worse. He moves on to Columbine after talking to an Aurora survivor who’s pretty sure that armed civilians wouldn’t have been helpful at all. You know because it was a theater, and it was fucking dark, and who knows who’s shooting at who? And did I mention the shooter was wearing body armor?

The whole piece seems built around a fantasy Goldberg seems to have about taking down someone shooting at him or someone else. He mentions places with less gun violence in passing, but only to say that we’ve gone past the point of no return, and that we already have so many guns so the only answer is MORE GUNS. Or he posits that the U.K. has more home break-ins when people are home because they have less gun ownership. Never mind that those places have far less gun violence, and crime in general.

Goldberg mentions Trayvon Martin, but only to call Zimmerman a “cowboy.” I’m also thinking of Jordan Davis, and Robbie Tolan, and Oscar Grant, and Sean Bell. All of who were killed or shot by people who were lawfully carrying guns. I point this out because that’s the crux of Goldberg’s argument. Lawful gun owners. He puts up lots of statistics to show that concealed-carry laws don’t create more gun violence. But when I look at how many people seem to have an irrational fear of Black men more guns on the street, no matter how they were obtained doesn’t make me feel any safer. I also think that’s what makes it easier for Goldberg to be so dismissive of the idea that more people with guns could be a problem. It’s doesn’t seem to be a problem for people who look like him. All the most famous instances of people being shot by someone who legally carried a weapon are Black men.

Goldberg seems to assume that when a law-abiding citizen pulls a gun on a criminal the criminal will flee. But given his focus on fighting guns with guns, then what seems more logical is to assume is a shoot-out. Does a shoot-out sound safer then a stick-up for the general public? Shouldn’t we also assume that faced with an increasingly armed populace that more, and more criminals will take up James Holmes’ lead, and wear body armor when they go out to commit crimes? There are so many issues & questions he fails to consider in what is a relatively long piece. In addition his other “evidence” he strongly implies that the rise of concealed-carry laws has played a significant part in bringing down the crime rate in America:

Today, the number of concealed-carry permits is the highest it’s ever been, at 8 million, and the homicide rate is the lowest it’s been in four decades—less than half what it was 20 years ago. (The number of people allowed to carry concealed weapons is actually considerably higher than 8 million, because residents of Vermont, Wyoming, Arizona, Alaska, and parts of Montana do not need government permission to carry their personal firearms. These states have what Second Amendment absolutists refer to as “constitutional carry,” meaning, in essence, that the Second Amendment is their permit.)

He throws out a couple more stats like that in other parts of his piece. But he also hints that his attempts at providing causation between c-c, and less crime might be bullshit:

Others contend that proving causality between crime rates and the number of concealed-carry permits is impossible. “It’s difficult to make the case that more concealed-carry guns have led to the drop in the national crime rate, because cities like Los Angeles, where we have very restrictive gun-control laws, have seen the same remarkable drop in crime,” Winkler told me. (Many criminologists tend to attribute America’s dramatic decrease in violent crime to a combination of demographic changes, longer criminal sentencing, innovative policing techniques, and the waning of the crack wars.)

He attempts to refute it in the very next paragraph though. The above quote mentions L.A., and its restrictive gun-control laws, but leaves out many other cities like say, NY or D.C. Large cities are responsible for a large majority of the reduced crime in America, and they are also the places most likely to have strong gun-control laws.  All of this gives me the sense that rather than going in trying to find the best resolution to out gun problem, Goldberg went in trying to figure out how to have it both ways. He wants to have his gun so he can one day be a hero, but he wants to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill & criminals. All of this is supposed to make us safer. Despite all the stats he throws out in this piece, at no point does he even hint at any other country where more guns = less crime. Only America do we have this backwards logic. He says 47% of people in this country own guns, he wants us to believe the only real way for the rest of us to stay safe is by getting one ourselves.

It’s clear to me that Goldberg has succumbed to “The Seductive Dream of Standing Your Ground”, but the biggest fantasy is the idea that we can get even get moderate forms of gun control passed at a national level. We’d get more guns, and but no more control.

Tags: , , , ,
Page 1 of 41234

Search