MLK Day Race Fail

Racefails, aren't they awesome?

My 11 year old niece was aghast when she discovered that I was working on Martin Luther King Day. "How can you work on Martin Luther King Day?! He had a dream and then he gave a speech and that got rid of racism!" Yeah, so we need to have a talk* (with the school board about their curriculum), but at least she has a basic understanding of what MLK was about. Racism. Ending it. I'll take what I can get from 11 year olds.

C. Jane, however, is not 11. So this racefail is not excusable.

If this holiday is all about having a dream, I'd like to declare mine: I have a dream where I get a private audience with Mormon writer Emma Lou Thayne. We'd have tea and readings. Tea and readings--doesn't that sound nice?

No, Martin Luther King Day is not about having a dream. And even if it were, his dream was for equality and opportunity and an end to bigotry and racism. Your dream is to drink tea with someone. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent time in jail to achieve that dream. He suffered terribly, he sacrificed greatly and then he died for it.

And you fucking want tea.

Thus answering the question of how much of a self-indulgent spleen weasel one can be. From now on, we will refer to being truly self absorbed as cjane. As in, "Yeesh, what a cjane he is!" or "How cjane can you be?"

*I tried to explain about nonviolent resistance, but as she said, if that worked why are we always at war? I sputtered something about Ghandi and then went to cry for lost innocence somewhere private. (The bathroom.)

Yeah, I Got Dreams, Too

poor, mlk, poverty, food stamps, hunger,
Last night, I read South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's feelings about poor people and was confused.

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better,” Bauer said. [...]

I wasn't confused about what Mr. Bauer was saying, I have read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich* after all, but I was confused about why he thought it might be a good idea to say that in public. I mean, he said, in public, that feeding the hungry is bad. He implied that the solution to poverty is to kill the poor. Who hears that and is not appalled?

Well, thanks to google reader, now I know. I Have a Dream** by blackandgoldfan.

I have a dream that one day all citizens will earn the fruits of this great nation. With freedom comes great responsibility to respect one's uniqueness in this world. There are those in this society who feel entitled to the prosperity of another, and, as free human beings, we must not stand for the theft by government to give to the idle and irresponsible. The slaves of the system have defined "entitlement" for far too long. Liberty dies a slow death under these circumstances.

It's more subtle than Mr. Bauer's stray animal speech, but it's the same ideology. . . . those in this society who feel entitled to the prosperity of another doesn't refer to the military-industrial complex or politicians who receive, on my dime, a level of health care I'll never see. No, those are poor people. Those are children who receive free lunches at school (and don't eat much on weekends). Those are adults who work for minimum wage, which just doesn't cover food and shelter. Those are the disabled who must rely on government programs for health care, food and shelter. Those are leeches on the body politic, rats breeding out of control. Those are vermin who should be exterminated.

Just so we can be clear on the vermin people like bngfan and Bauer are perfectly okay with, in fiscal year 2002, the US spent $18.2 billion dollars in food stamp benefits. The US spent $10 billion a month on the war in Iraq. A month. That means that we were spending as much in 2 months on a war that had no reasonable basis as we were on feeding people for an entire year. That's okay. Feeding the hungry is not.

Just for the record, I don't feel entitled to anyone's prosperity. If you have money, good for you. If you have a nice house and a nice car and take nice vacations every year, good for you. However, I don't think your vacations are more important than starving children.




*I am not Godwining my own post. That is almost word for word Nazi rhetoric concerning Jews and other "undesirables".

**White people editing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s seminal speech to make points exactly opposite what Dr. King was fighting for make me very angry.

Oh, Reverend King, You Had No Idea

Rev. King, we needed you more than we knew, and we need you still

Martin Luther King, Jr. said

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

I can only imagine what he would have thought of today's America, but it makes me weep for us all.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Confused

discrimination, mlk, playful, walrus, opine, editorials, same sex, gay, marriage, traditional, stupid, asshat,

Or so says The Playful Walrus of the Opine Editorials in his latest exercise in sophistry.

The truth is, we all discriminate. We couldn't function if we didn't. We discriminate against staying in bed longer or getting up earlier. We discriminate between eating this or eating that. We discriminate in whether or not to ask any given person for a date or whether or not to accept a request for a date. In decisions large and small, we discriminate - and we should. In addition, all of our laws discriminate - separating what is legal from what is illegal.

It's almost like Walrus just now realized that words frequently have more than one meaning. Or that he thinks we haven't realized this yet.

The definition of "discriminate" that Walrus is using is a valid one. It's the second definition of the word: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

However, we all, including Walrus, know damn well that this second definition is not the definition in play when discussing same sex marriage. That would a use of the first definition of discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality.

If we accept Walrus' use of the second definition of discriminate in this context, then we also have to argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. was confused. Apparently, the entire civil rights movement was based on Mr. King's inability to grasp that discrimination is a good thing, without which society would grind to a halt, and possibly explode. I doubt even The Playful Walrus is enough of an idiot to make that assertion, but I have surprised by his level of asshattery before, so don't count on it.

Civil Disobedience Fail

tea bag, tea party, teabag, teabagging, conservative, asshat, mlk,
Thoreau has doubtless achieved orbit by now.

Tea Party Permit Troubles:

Protesters, using a rented truck to haul the million tea bags, began unloading their cargo at the park this morning but were told by officials that they didn't have proper permits and must move the tea . They complied with the order but are still considering what to do with the load.

. . .

The protesters got more bad news when security officials also told them that they did not have proper permits for a rally in front of the Treasury building.

Yeah, how much do you really believe in what you're doing if you're not willing to get a ticket for it? (See also: how many times was Martin Luther King, Jr. arrested?)

At Least She Waited till After MLK Day

racism, martin luther king, homophobia, prop 8, marriage, gay, homosexual (this is an experiment to see if it makes me more searchable. if you find this completely objectionable, please let me know.)

Our friend Nugget has decided to put words in the mouth of one of the greatest men our country has ever produced- Martin Luther King, Jr. It's easy to do that with dead people, but it doesn't make it less offensive.

Martin Luther King has a dream- gay "marriage" is not a civil right. normally, i don't pick apart titles, but they're not normally this bad. where to start? Martin Luther King, Jr.; HAD a dream, being dead, he no longer "has" anything; why is marriage in quotes? if she keeps this up, i'll start putting quotes around "intelligent", "educated" and "informed" when i refer to her nuggetyness.

Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream. A commendable dream; a dream that has not only been realized, but has radically changed the course of history in its fulfillment. And now, almost 46 years later, Martin Luther King, Jr., champion of civil rights, speaks to homophobic marriage defenders from the grave to reiterate that dream in a different context. if MLK is now speaking to you from the grave, i want an audio file. Gay “marriage” "interesting" is another word i will now put in quotes in reference to the nuggelicious one is not a civil right. A country that makes special concessions for sexual attractions and orientations is a country consciously heading for troubled waters, not freedom and justice. "special concessions"? you mean like the tax benefits, inheritance benefits, hospital visitation rights and health insurance coverage i currently enjoy as a married person? it's not special if everyone has it, asshat! oh, wait . . . i get it, that's your point. Says Shelby Steele of the Wall Street Journal in her BWAHAHAHAHAHA Shelby is one of those unisex names, like Leslie. It's called "research" essay entitled, Selma to San Francisco?:


“Dressing gay marriage in a suit of civil rights has become the standard way of selling it to the broader public. actual, it is about civil rights. gays are born the way they are, just like blacks or women. gays can no more stop being gay than i can stop being a woman, or Saul Williams can stop being black. so, why are we denying a group the exact same rights the rest of us enjoy because of something they can't change? we allow alcoholics to marry. why don't we ask them to stop drinking first? born gay, too bad, suckah! Here is an extremely awkward issue having to do with the compatibility of homosexuality and the institution of marriage. what incompatibility? and what about the incompatibility of drug addiction and marriage? abuse and marriage? dishonesty and marriage? (why do we want gay people to lie, marry heteros and make everyone involved miserable? why is that good? i just don't get bigotry, i guess.) But once this issue is buttoned into a suit of civil rights a satin lavender suit!, neither homosexuality nor marriage need be discussed. i'd be happy about that. gay people probably don't spend this much of their time thinking about gay sex. honestly.

Suddenly only equity and fairness matter. yeah! oh, this is bad? okay, can somebody please explain hatred to me? And this turns gay marriage into an ersatz civil rights struggle so that dissenters are seen as Neanderthals standing in the schoolhouse door, fighting off equality itself. yes, that is how i see dissenters, cause that's who you are. funny, usually i have to say that. Yet all this civil rights camouflage is, finally, a bait-and-switch: When you agree to support fairness, you end up supporting gay marriage.” reframe the argument all you want, asshat, it's still about civil rights. unless you're trying to say that civil rights are for blacks alone. i'm pretty sure that wasn't MLK's dream.

“But gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. equality, anyone? we got ours, now get in the back of the bus, suckah? It is a struggle of already free people not free to marry, now are they. somewhat free, mostly free is not the same as free. for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof--a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. i would like that, too. hating people for being as they were born is like, well, hating people for the color of their skin. you'd think i would't have to point that out on today of all days. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. explain to me how homosexuality is not innocuous? how is homosexuality effecting you at all? in fact, if you would stop obsessing about it . . . Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. yeah, it is. my brown eyes aren't affecting you either. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma.” the stigma's in your mind, buddy.
…
“The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. how is gay less innocuous than black? seriously, how? you find gay sex icky, so it's bad? lots of people found black icky. just sayin' Racism was evil all bigotry is evil, not just bigotry that affects you. because it projected a profound difference where there was none -- white supremacy, black inferiority -- hetero supremacy, gay inferiority (they're immature! promiscuous! selfish!) for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. some people always need someone further down the ladder. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. what, exactly? once you get down to brass tacks, the difference between gays and straights is every bit as "profound" as the difference between black and white. suck it. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. wow, that's profound. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals most heterosexuals. if that's what we're using as the basis for marriage, i propose that all heteros be tested for fertility prior to marriage. infertile people will not be allowed to marry., a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. there are over 6,000,000,000 people on the planet, we're not dying out. calm down. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly--not innocuously--different. i'm beginning to think this guy doesn't really know what those words mean. Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.”

Yes, folks, a black man just said that racism is bad, but homophobia is good. i bet Martin Luther King, Jr. is very proud.

On Agnes Ethelwyn Wetherald, Dreams and MLK

On MLK Day, which really ought to be every day of the Obama administration, I give you my thoughts on Agnes Ethelwyn Wetherald, using her words to support bigotry, the dreams of little girls and feminism.

So, let's start with what feminism means to me. Feminism is choices for women. It's that simple. Because of Agnes Ethelwyn Wetherald (born 1857), and other women like her, I have choices. I can choose to get married, or choose to remain single my entire life. I can choose to own property, choose to go to college, choose to have a career, or I can choose to have children and stay at home to raise them. I can choose to have no children, 2 children or as many children as I can before my ovaries give up.

All of these choices are valid. Whether they are a good choice for me personally is irrelevant: they are all my possible choices. While I would not choose to have 20 children, I look at the woman who does and say, "Hey, good for you." I would prefer a PhD and a career, but I see the woman who has chosen children and home and say, "That's a good choice, too."

What I cannot agree with is the idea that only one choice exists for everyone with an XX configuration, and Nugget's got it all figured out. Imagine the sheer, unaldulterated arrogance it must take to say, without hesitation, that any woman who does not choose to get married, have children and stay at home is wrong. That's it. Wrong. Wrong and immature and selfish.

Wow.

There are over 3,000,000,000 women in the world. And Nugget wants to make sure that every single one of them has only one choice: hers.

Nugget also chooses to use the words of Agnes Ethelwyn Wetherald, poet, lifelong feminist, and single mother (she adopted a 10 year old on her own in 1910. Agnes was quite something else.) to support her position that (a) gays shouldn't have civil rights and (b) that girls shouldn't be allowed any choices at all. Nugget, who "likes the words" of Agnes' poem, derides Agnes as "feminist dominated" and "testosterone deprived." She calls Agnes' decision to adopt a 10 year old girl on her own "selfish."

This is appalling. I would say that were Agnes alive today, she would smack Nugget, but Agnes was also a Quaker, and Nixon notwithstanding, the Quakers are a gentle people. I do believe that, if I am wrong and there is an afterlife, Agnes is undoubtedly weeping.

Right now, there is a little girl looking at the night sky dreaming of becoming an astronaut. Right now, a little girl waits in the hospital for her mother to get out of surgery and dreams of becoming a doctor. Right now, a little girl is watching a plane go by and dreams of learning how that works.

Right now, Nugget says, "Silly girl. You have a uterus. You can't have dreams. Dreams are for boys."

I'll speak for Agnes and say, "Little girl, stop reading this blog. You're not old enough. But, hold onto your dreams. Dreams are for everyone, girl or boy, straight or gay, black or white. It took a long time, but we are 24 hours away from a black president. We're on our way. Keep dreaming. And come back when you're 18."