Doubling Down on Blackness

This weekend I watched a re-run of last week’s Real Time with Bill Maher. It was actually the most frank & informative hour of TV I’ve seen in at least two weeks. I was particularly excited when Bill announced that he would have Touré, author of “Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness: What It Means to Be Black Now” on the program. I haven’t actually read the book, but any summary of it and Touré’s own synopsis point to the same overarching theme - there’s no longer one way to “do” blackness. You’re just as “black” when you’re rapping as you are when you’re playing country music. I like where he’s going with this idea, but I don’t think he gets all the way there. The problem is simple: being post-black & still black is a contradiction in terms. Touré wants to have his cake & eat it too. When it comes to any identity, you either believe it limits you in some way or you discard it entirely. The middle ground is vacuous word-play. (This is not to say that the identity you came up with wasn’t completely arbitrary to begin with - in fact I believe it necessarily is, but I digress.)

When Touré comes out to the panel late in the show, he describes a moment of transcendence he had while skydiving that, if he had listened to black peers that told him skydiving is just not something black people do, he never would have had. I completely, 100% agree with the fact that people (of all colors & genders & religions, &c.) miss out on positive, enlightening experiences in pursuit of some identity & I seriously appreciated that point. But the experience he describes is one of those “The world is incomprehensibly beautiful, therefore the only possible conclusion is that God exists & created it” moments that are spiritually (& intellectually) superficial & drive me insane. He celebrates how overcoming someone else’s irrational subjective racial understanding led him to an irrational conclusion about objective reality. Womp. Just like with the ideas from his book (which, again, I haven’t read), Touré only gets me halfway there.

Then things get really meta. Maher & Touré later talk about the inherent racism in denying racism in racist acts. “Denying racism is the new racism,” says Maher. Of course, when he originally said this a week earlier, it was in the context of the likes of Herman Cain who falsely believe that race is in no way a barrier to anyone’s success anymore which many people, usually located in the South, will quickly & happily tell you isn’t true. But in this segment, Touré & Maher start getting into some murky water. Speaking more about specific acts of racism, Touré compares racism to fog - something that’s there but hard to put into one’s hand & show someone. He can see something racist happen & to him & many others it’s obvious, but it’s less clear to others. In such circumstances he says that “Being asked to prove it is, in and of itself, racism.” This idea is not only wrong, but dangerous.

The phenomenon they’re talking about is actually pretty well summed up in the birther controversy. Lou Dobbs was right when he said that, on a philosophical level, a country has the right to see any President’s birth certificate, so how it is racist to ask that of this President? We could just as legitimately have asked George Bush or Bill Clinton, so how’s it racist when we ask Obama?

This question is exactly the kind that Touré is talking about. Explaining why the situation is racist is difficult, “foggy” to use his terminology. Many people who opposed this controversy knew deep down in their gut that there was racism at the heart of the issue, but couldn’t quite put their finger on it. So I sympathize with where Touré is coming from, but the blanket statement “Being asked to prove it is [...] racism” comes from the same oversimplified, naïve thinking it criticizes.

I don’t believe it’s ever impossible to show that something is racist. Sometimes it’s a matter of time & imagination & you’ve very often already left the classroom or dinner table where racist thing was said or done, but if it’s racist, it’s racist. In the case of the birther movement, Lou Dobbs & others are right that we should be able to ask this of any President, but we didn’t & wouldn’t ask it of “any” president - we’d have thought it absurd to ask Bush or Clinton or John McCain to validate that they were American - we only asked it of the black one. It certainly is a fair question, but it was being asked in an unfair, racially motivated way.

The danger of Touré’s statement come from the fact that people very, very frequently mislabel something as racism. Since the word has such huge moral, social & psychological implications, its use shouldn’t be taken lightly or go unchallenged. Not only is “racism” thrown around as a catch-all phrase for any kind of xenophobia (i.e. people decried the #blamethemuslims hashtag as racism, not islamophobia), but people often miss the mark when they’re actually using the word they mean. As I wrote in this article about Vogue’s then-titled “slave” earrings, people were right when they said that the earrings were racist, but they were usually wrong about the way it was racist. Many complaints exposed the complainer’s racist assumptions, not the manufacturer’s. I just read a comment on a New York Time’s article that said abortion advocates were actively trying to make life difficult for Muslims & Hispanics whose religions found abortion abhorrent, which is a false way of thinking. There’s a difference between opposing anti-abortion laws (or rap music or getting your nails done) & thereby concluding that Muslim/Hispanic (or black or women’s) culture has some adjusting to do & opposing Muslim/Hispanic (or black or women’s) culture & then hating everything you believe is symptomatic of that culture. When you paint the picture that it’s racist to ask someone to justify their claim of racism, you ignore that difference.

While it may be hard to prove the way in which something is racist, it’s not impossible. A lot of the time a person cries “racism,” they’re reacting more to the racist bits in their head than anything inherent in what the person they’re accusing did. I would challenge Touré to reach into the fog. If the racism is real, it’s simple, objective, & tangible. If not, you’ll find your hand in your own head.

Tawakkalna ala Momo. [MdG]

for marriage

[Matt deGomme]

i would
go from one end of the universe
to the other
and back again
(that is called eternity)
with you
and never have grown
old,
bored,
or tired.

that is the distance
i see into your eyes;

that is the distance
between our lips

...when they come together
we shed time
and become forever.

“The Whites Have Become Black” & the similarly racist stuff you say daily

I’ve been looking at the #RiotsDebate trending topic on Twitter & the below video illustrates how the debate over the causes & response to last week’s London Riots is going. A guy in a suit with a lot of titles that suggest he has great judgment gives a simplistic reason for a complex problem that proves his judgment is terrible. Other people in plainclothes with much less esteem have a better picture the true issue, but don’t quite get it out clearly.

The one bit that has everyone in a stir comes from the guy in the suit, Historian David Starkey. About a minute & a quarter in he poetically describes why the rioters were of such a broad range of skin tones. “What’s happened is that the substantial segment of the ‘chavs’ that you [Owen Jones] wrote about have become black,” he explains. “The whites have become black.”

Yea. It’s racist as fuck. But, as a manner of speaking, he’s not saying something much different than what lots of people - black, white, Indian, whatever - say in their daily lives.

About two minutes into the conversation he talks about David Lammy, a Member of Parliament (MP) who is black. Starkey says that if you listened to Lammy on the radio, you’d think he was white. As someone regularly called “a well-spoken black man” by many a surprised black woman & an “oreo” by black peers throughout my adolescence, I can vouch that many of the same ideas behind Starkey’s point about Lammy & the ‘chavs’ are perpetuated among black people themselves. In fact, all Starkey is doing is calling Lammy an oreo.

Google the phrase “Real black man” & you get over 2 million results. I’m currently looking at a .pdf file titled ‘Obama and the Arithmetic of Racial Authenticity’ whose contents are as convoluted & misguided as the tittle suggests. All of these ideas have the same ingredients as Starkey’s statements. When you talk about a “real black man,” you’re talking about some conceptual “blackness” (a culture, which Starkey clarifies is what he means by ‘black’) that you want him to have on top of his literal “blackness” or skin color. To put it another way, Starkey could have just as coherently said “the blacks have become black,” where “blacks” & “black” refer to two separate things.

As the debate unfolds, Deda Say Mitchell, another panelist, says it’s inappropriate to talk about “black culture” as some monolithic set of norms. Blacks are so diverse & have so many different cultural behaviors that we should shift the dialogue to talking about “black cultures.” Great. She’s one pluralization less wrong. The problem here is actually one that’s frustrated me in discussions about culture, race, & ethnicity since high school. It’s not that we don’t have enough groupings of black people, it’s that we have those groupings at all.

The flaw is simple to expose: take two black people who come from different environments and have conflicting understandings of what it means to “really” be black, your entire paradigm is thrown off. It’s impossible to say that one’s definition of ‘black culture’ is more correct than the other. But rather than debating which one of them is really “black” (which anyone who says Starkey mischaracterizes ‘black culture(s)’ tacitly does), it’s simpler to realize the inanity of that entire way of speaking. As well-intentioned & uplifting as your ideas of ‘black culture(s)’ are, they’re never any less stereotypical or more “authentically” black than whatever it is Starkey meant. In truth, what you’re really talking about a set of environmental pressures that, as these riots made very clear, “whites” can react to in the same way that “blacks” do. The response isn’t “black” - it’s human.

So yes, Starkey’s statement was condescending & racist - but no more so than yours are when you talk about the qualities you want in a boyfriend or that one kid with the kinky hair & salmon colored polo that loves Phish. The definitions might be different, but the sentiment is the same.

Astaghfiru limomo. [MdG]

An American’s Thoughts on the London Riots

“Burn, Wall, burn.”

My mind’s eye is utterly captivated by the London Riots. A part Most of me wishes I was there to bear witness. No doubt, there is so much to say about the burning & destruction that’s well into its fourth day. With so many people involved, with so many rioters each to his own idea, with so many men & women whose livelihoods have been destroyed - all around a movement void of a charter - there will be so many accusations & complaints that the Truth can easily go buried in confused frustration. This is precisely what the system of injustice that fostered these riots wants & why we must be sure to find the Truth amid the debris before it is lost.

I understand the limits of what I can say about this event. I am not English - I’ve never even been to England. I have few English friends & know little about the nuances of the English political system. But, firstly, I am a person & I believe that this affords me the ability to understand the mind of the rioters, citizens, police, & government involved in this event. What’s more, I’m an American, which means that I come from many of the same social, cultural, & philosophical traditions that my brothers in England do.

Most importantly, from what the rioters say about their own actions - the ones mature enough to have reasons anyway - they have many of the same grievances much of my generation does. We’re bombarded with acclaim for our exceptional political systems but perpetually see these systems openly perverted for greed. We’re told to obey the authority that does not obey its responsibility to us. We’ve grown up in an increasingly apathetic, self-centered, & self-aggrandizing society that shows few symptoms of the greatness it carries as a banner. So while I am not there, I share enough bits of the rioters’ & bystanders’ disposition that I believe I can see some of the heart of the matter. In other words, though I recognize I cannot name a street that’s on fire or local politician, I sympathize with the essence that spurns the rioters on.

Many Londoners who observe the riots from without believe the riots are nothing more than criminal frenzy. The rioters, they say, are only out to selfishly loot & destroy. I believe this is an oversimplification of what is in truth a sordid mix of helplessness, justification, & confusion. Ask the rioters & they will respond that they’re sick of the police & the government – “The Man” – that takes advantage of them but neglects to care for them. It is, no doubt, happy coincidence that they are free to take what is not properly theirs & that they’re having what some of them call “fun,” but that is their unsavory response to the truth that they have been wronged. Their justifications are sordid, but no more so than hearing “fairness” & “liberty” as justifications of their oppression.

If I am wrong about this & they are merely criminals lost, then the accusers should look first inward at themselves & their role in the society that permits, however indirectly, such behavior. Anyone who questions the rioters should first question the generation that raised them; the generation who showed them that looting & plundering would go unpunished (if not corroborated) so long as the criminal has the anonymity a mask, like the businessman’s money & corporate walls, provides.

Despite the looters’ intent, their victims are arbitrary. That is a fact that every bystander & police officer recognizes. It is also one that the rioters, when they see the fruits of their labor, will recognize themselves. If the attacks had half as much intelligence as righteous indignation, the damage would be limited to buildings like police stations, banks & perhaps government institutions. The thing is that, right now, the rioters do not feel that their attacks are arbitrary. Many of the rioters don’t know the difference between big business & small business - they see business & are sick of it continuing as usual, so their rocks fly indiscriminately.

& you’ll say the difference between a police station & a business is a matter of degree - citizens still pay the taxes that build police stations. Herein is buried the truth that as much as these teenagers burn your tax dollars to the ground, these police officers slap those same tax dollars around your & your children’s wrists for crimes much less grievous than the those committed by the wealthy; the same wealthy who, for decades now, pay less & less in those same taxes for your bondage. At their very worst, the riots make tangible what corporations & the government they own have done to your hearts for years.

Last night on BBC Radio, I heard a small-business owner respond to criticisms that the rioters would cause more struggles for the people in the neighborhood. He responded that he understood the rioters frustration, but more importantly any victim was probably struggling already. The little these owners had was everything to them, but in the end, it was little. So yes, their troubles have been magnified, but now - perhaps - their long overdue aid will be increased in kind. If the victims’ needs are not met, the riots have burned with a cold sense of Justice. The rioters will only have proven the callousness against which they rally; they will have proven the ineffectiveness of the political system the pacifists believe they would have done better to use.

The most inspiring aspect of these events comes not from the rioters; nor from the government whose leader remained on vacation 3 days while parts of the city burned; nor from the police officers, who stand in as much solidarity against the rioters as they collude in defense of a corrupt comrade. Rather, the purest aspect of this altercation is the response of the community. This morning, London awoke & repaired itself. Individual citizens donned gloves, trash bags, & brooms to help their neighbors recuperate from the destruction. When the sun rises again in London a few hours from now, I’m sure the response will be even greater. With thousands fewer police officers responding to the city in flames than stationed at a pompous & circumstantial wedding, Londoners were right to not wait for police & the government to aid them. Today London affirms that, whether from the government or from your neighbor, help is help. Government is meant to fill in where society cannot - not the other way around. This is what, it seems, England - like the US - has forgotten but as discovered again today.

London, scorn the rioters less than you learn from them. Their crime is a momentary spark of juvenile irritation & will be snuffed out while greater, more penetrating crimes persist. London, take care - & not just of yourselves, for that is the selfish disposition that fostered this destruction. As you did this morning & will do again tomorrow, take care of one another. Start there & your - our culture will begin to heal these wounds.

[MdG]

Chapter 439 Scene 1T (or “Pamphlet”)

[Matt deGomme]

       “Excuse me, sir. I see you have a Bible there,” said an unfamiliar man who extended a tiny pamphlet. “I have some information.”
        He did have a Bible resting on his lap, spine outwards. One of the casualties of living in America is that anyone who sees you reading a Bible assumes you believe its contents. There, in the back of the bus, he looked through sepia tinted sunglasses first at the stranger across the aisle and then down at the pamphlet. He didn’t dwell on either image very long, but he could see on the cover the drawing of a man’s back. The figure was standing and facing into some giant door or opening out of which came a bright, consuming light. “How Will You Survive?” was written in large white text immediately underneath the figure’s feet.
        He could imagine the contents already. It was likely a specific account of how the Bible long ago predicted so many recent tragedies, which meant the end of the world was nigh. Failing that, it was almost certainly a more general account of the eternal damnation he and anyone else who didn’t so believe could expect after death. There was probably a ‘Did You Know?’ column and perhaps even some juvenile animations of the kind he’d read in Sunday School years ago. In his heart he knew he already had all of the apocalyptic proclamations and promises of eternal damnation he needed in his lap and at home, he didn’t need another pamphlet.
        Nonetheless, he knew that it would be rude to deny the offer, so he thought to take it. In a split second, he imagined receiving the pamphlet and at least pretending to look at it - the polite things to do. After a quick though curious glance, he would fold up the paper and slide it into his already cluttered backpack and promise himself that he’d discard it as soon as possible. He’d smile at the stranger for the gift but, since he was so forgetful, would find it weeks later crumpled and covered in ink or ketchup. Between the existential and practical stresses, he decided it’d be simplest to decline.
        He raised a hand to the pamphlet. “No, thank you,” he said. (He always meant those thank you’s since he knew first-hand where these offers came from. The greatest thing you can do for someone is secure their place in eternal glory, if not save them from damnation. Such pamphlets, then, were only ever given out of concern and selfless love, and for this he was sincerely grateful. It is what the pamphlets give men into that pushed him away.) He realized how softly he’d said it, but something about the fatigued way he rose his hand assured him the message got across clearly. He kept eye contact from behind his glasses and could feel how still his lips were. The man looked down at the pamphlet with something like confusion and slowly retracted it.
        Sitting across the aisle, he could feel frustrated thoughts in the stranger’s head. The man slowly pulled a little zip-up case he had at his side onto his lap and put the pamphlet inside gently, like an animal that had just been badly and unnecessarily bruised. The stranger let his hands rest nervously on the case for a minute before he leaned forward, picked up the bag seated on the ground in front of him, put the case with pamphlet inside, and walked up to the front of the bus.
        The timing of his departure disclosed that it was unnatural. The bus wouldn’t stop for another several minutes, so to exchange sitting comfortably in the back for standing in the crowded front must have been spurred by some deep discomfort. Still seated in the back, watching from behind his sepia tinted sunglasses as the stranger walked away, he knew that something about their interaction had caused the man to leave. What that was exactly, he couldn’t say - at least not with certainty; at least not with faith.

On Amy

I realize it's been a bit since Amy’s passed, but I’d be remiss for letting the passing of such a Prophetess go unmentioned on BdG. At first I didn’t know what to say... There was something odd about Amy’s death. Lots of people in my iTunes have passed away, but I hardly wince when they do. When I learned that Amy died, I - for the first time - got emotional about someone whom I’d never met.

This is going to sound a tad bit insensitive since I’m in no place to judge how people feel, but it always irks me when people get sad about celebrities passing away because, they say, “I felt like I knew him.” Yes, you love his music; yes, you love her legacy; but what do you really know about him? Michael Jackson never wrote songs about his darkness. It’s only after his death that many ‘fans’ learned Luther Vandross was gay. We feel like we know them, but do we really?

Then I realized that that was the difference - why I felt so moved by Amy’s death in the same way that irritates me when I see it in others: what most artists hide in their closet, Amy wore on her sleeve. Amy didn’t sneak into the trailer for a sip from her flask, she was unapologetically drunk during the show. She lived her darkness & let it be part of her art. There was no pretending, no polite posturing - just Amy, always. I’ve been in the psychiatrist’s chair with her & I heard her tell him “I’m gonna lose my baby, so I always keep a bottle near.” I’ve watched her punch a fan while she was singing. Amy’s consistency on-stage & off meant that we knew her in a way we don’t know most other singers. Amy & I never had a personal relationship, I can’t say we were “friends,” but I know more about Amy than a lot of people I come across in my daily life & that’s because she was so honest.

So yes, we’ll miss the albums she’ll never produce like every other singer. But it’s not just her music, it’s not just her performance - it’s her.

As-salaam Momokum. [MdG]

Bishop Eddie Long

Bishop Eddie Long can’t win for staying in the closet losing. You’ll probably remember when Pastor Long came under public scrutiny after four young men raised charges of sexual misconduct against him. This was particularly “shocking” since he’s the pastor of the evangelical New Birth Megachurch where boys poking boys is a big no-no. After the charges were raised, a fifth victim joined the talks & was part of the settlement. To Long’s Chagrin, Centino Kemp has reared his ugly tackily permed head after long staying anonymous.

If Long paying off the boys instead of fighting the charges, as he said told his congregation he would wasn’t proof enough of his misconduct, Centino actually has Long’s name tattooed on his wrist. But don’t worry, Long didn’t leave Centino out to dry. Centino, an aspiring singer, is now recording at a studio that charges $100/hr & sprinted into a stretch limo to escape reporters.

I expect this will fiasco will lead lots of self-hating Catholics to convert into self-hating Evangelicals. Who needs the Holy Father when you can have a holy Sugar Daddy?

& now, Kanyé:

Momohu A’lam. [MdG]

BLAME THE MUSLIMS (part trois)

The last thing I saw last night on Fox & the first thing is saw this morning Fox were the hosts saying it’s correct to consider the 9/11 attack as Muslim extremism while simultaneously incorrect to see Brievik’s attack as Christian extremism. I called it... America, the land of the double standard.

Bill O’Reilly is painting this as a campaign against Christians. He misses the point entirely. The message is to stop the campaign against Muslims.

(& still, no matter what happens, we won’t see anti-Christian profiling in airports.)

CHRISTIAN HEGEMONY BITCHESSSSS.

Baraka Momohu fika. [MdG]

BLAME THE MUSLIMS (part deux)

Anders Breivik’s attacks in Oslo make the single largest act of terror & violence Norway has seen since World War II. The shockwaves of fear, sadness & angers will undoubtedly leave the victims’ families with far more questions than answers. As we find out more details, people will point fingers & voices will be raised, but there’s an important lesson in something that, I wager, will not happen.

Amid all of the passionate debate for solutions on how to make sure a tragedy like this never happens again, you won’t find the suggestion that airport security should suspect every Nordic-looking person wearing a cross of terrorist sympathies. If a Christian announced plans to build a church across the street from the Norweigian Prime Minister’s office, you’d be confused at suggestions that the building was an affront to the 7/22 victims’ memory. Muslims, unfortunately, were never afforded such considerations after 9/11. Americans of all colors & creeds quickly embraced the idea that Islamic ideology & not an atypical breed of hatred & violence were at the heart of the attacks on the World Trace Center.

The evidence of this fear is all too fresh. I’m sure you’ll recall about this time last summer when American politicians bashed Park51, the Muslim community center which will open a few blocks from Ground Zero later this year, as insensitive & disrespectful to the 9/11 victims & their families. Of course, the creators of the project, like many Muslims in their everyday life, did everything in their power to distance themselves from the extremists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, but it was not good enough. A symbol of Islam was a symbol of the 9/11 attack & you couldn’t tell some New Yorkers anything else.

Here is the crux of the issue: white(s &) Christians will never feel the need to distance themselves from the Brievik’s behavior (nor should they) & that’s because no one would think to clump them together in the first place. Whites & Christians have the luxury of being taken as individuals. Breivik’s madness is the result of his extremist ideas, not the result of his religious/cultural austerity. This logic doesn’t hold for Muslims. Many Westerners conceive of Muslims, despite being as diverse & individual as those of any other religion, as a monolithic whole. Most Americans know few, if any Muslims & even less about the nuances of Islam. Thus, blaming all Islam for the actions of an infinitesimal minority is not only easy, but goes without consequence to the perpetrators.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Any American can imagine how belittling & infuriating it would feel to be assumed to support Brievik’s acts when his beliefs are as foreign & noxious to you as they are to the rest of the country. Times like these are telling about our “progressive” Western society; they illicit very different responses to what are, at the root, very similar tragedies – & the only differences will be color & creed.

At a moment like this, I call on all those who love democracy & freedom to get your picketing signs & march on the nearest church – preferably one with a majority white congregation (don’t worry, you won’t have to look far). After all, it’s the American way.

Astagfiru limomo [MdG]

Just Married

We could try to put some words together to describe what today means for gays & lesbians in New York & across the country, but words fail. This picture will do:

Alhamdulimomo w ashkrulimomo. [BdG]

(image c/o NYTimes.com)

BLAME THE MUSLIMS

So I’m on Twitter & looking at all these people complaining about the “blamethemuslims” hashtag. Their complaint is that it’s islamophobic to attribute the atrocities in Oslo to all Muslims.

The guy who committed the bombing & murders at Oslo wasn’t Muslim.

It’s called irony & it’s making you look like an idiot.

Enna limomo. [MdG]

Grandma Abstinence

Will Sarah “Barracuda” Palin please sit down.

The most recent Palin family babymommadrama: Sarah Palin’s son Track has been married for two months! ...to a wife who’s been pregnant for several? Because abstinence-only sex education is a better solution to extramarital pregnancy than condoms are. How could I have been so blind?

This is, of course, none of my (or your) business. What Britta & Track do in their bedroom & what they do about what they’ve done in their bedroom is of no direct concern to me. It does, though, reflect problems with someone who has been & continues, per her own volition, to be influential in American political life. Sarah hasn’t commented on this debacle, but I’m sure she still maintains that abstinence only sex education is the best way to keep away unwanted pregnancies, even though her own household has now twice proven her wrong. It matters to the country that a politician wants to base legislation for millions of strangers on logic that doesn’t even work for the few people under her roof.

On the bright side, Britta’s too old to be manipulated into nonsense campaigns against extramarital sex (even though the self-same “Abstinence Ambassador” a.k.a. Bristol Palin is on record saying that abstinence for all teens is “not realistic”) &, on a more serious note, this is Track’s high school sweet-heart, so maybe there’s some longevity & ostensible stability they can count on. One can only hope for the child’s sake.

& remember kids, a baby does not a marriage make.

Bismomo [MdG]

Keep the Trash in Your Bin, Grover

I hate word games.

Grover Norquist, like too many conservatives, is great at them. Norquist complains that low taxes aren’t this country’s problem, it’s “overspending.” ...Because historically low tax rates aren’t half of the “overspending” game. By definition, we wouldn’t be “overspending” if the government had more revenue/taxes. He complains about a problem his pledges exacerbate. (& that’s not the only problem pledges exacerbate... but I digress.)

I’m SO over it.

La ilaha illa Momo. [MdG]

Susan Rolls Over: The Anti-Abortion Perversion of Susan B. Anthony’s Legacy

In a New York Times editorial released today, the editors decry a recent trend among conservative politicians. They argue that some Republican & Tea Party candidates’ habit of signing policy pledges cripples their ability to make critical decisions they should, but have promised not to make. One of the pledges the article cites bears the noxious, misleading title “Susan B. Anthony pledge.” The anti-abortion content of the pledge coupled with the very fact that it exists show not only how conservatives misrepresent the history they’re so obsessed with, but highlight how their political strategies go against the very values Susan B. Anthony stood for.

The “Susan B. Anthony pledge” commits signers to support anti-abortion legislation; appoint only anti-abortion persons to the Supreme Court & relevant cabinets; & defund Planned Parenthood & similar organizations. (To date, Republican candidates Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, & Thaddeus McCotter have all signed on the dotted line.) This pledge was proffered by the group called “Susan B. Anthony List” (SBAL), which purports that “Courageous women leaders like Susan B. Anthony [...] believed that abortion was just a tool of oppression used against women.” You’d imagine that with such a bold description of Anthony’s beliefs & a pledge in her name entirely dedicated to anti-abortion policy, she was a staunch, vocal opponent of the practice.

You’d be wrong.

It turns out that Susan B. Anthony was more or less mum on abortion generally, never mind on how public policy should relate to it. The SBAL website gives exactly one quote written by an anonymous “A” and published in Anthony’s magazine, The Revolution, as evidence of Anthony’s “boisterous” opposition to abortion. “Most logical people would agree,” the site argues, “that writings signed by ‘A’ in a paper that Anthony funded and published were a reflection of her own opinions.” “Most logical people” would be wrong. Those most well versed in Anthony’s work believe that the article was not written by her, as she was never known for signing things “A” & the article had other content that did not fit Anthony’s writing style or beliefs.

Perhaps most importantly, I can safely say that Anthony would oppose the pledge as undemocratic -- not because it takes a pro- or anti-abortion stance, but because it locks the signer into any stance at all. The Revolution was dedicated to arguing all sides of an issue. Anthony would be appalled at these Republicans’ willingness to sign onto this & other pledges that actively halt discourse & stop politicians from weighing other viewpoints, a practice essential to the democratic process & one that Anthony went to great lengths to encourage.

So what would Susan B. Anthony say about the “Susan B. Anthony Pledge”? We don’t know if she’d support the policies it outlines, but we know she would oppose anyone signing it. If conservatives are as obsessed with the values of the brilliant, though certainly flawed leaders of our past; if they are concerned, as they constantly repeat they are, with “real” American values, they’ll oppose this & the other pledges, too. It’s exactly what Susan B. Anthony & our Founding Fathers would do.

Jazaka Momohu Khairan. [MdG]

Chapter 475 Scene 3 (or “The Conversion of Matt”)

[Matt deGomme]
     It was the end of the service and the college students had just been called to the altar – that meant him. In his heart, he knew he had no business at an altar; he had no business in a church, at least not the business the congregants expect. He only ever came to church at his mother’s insistence and, even then, only after much insistence. The preacher had requested that his mother sing in the service, so he had come to support her. Now, the preacher – a former lesbian – was calling the youth up for special prayer before they went back to school. Elementary school. Middle school. High school... His turn.
     He had no excuse. “College students” was so general. She didn’t ask for “College Christians” or “College Believers,” though these were probably what she thought she was getting. The words the preacher used made remaining seated next to his mother an act of defiance he did not want to justify to her, so he got up and went.
     He stood and waited for the preacher to get through the rest of the few college students. Eventually she reached him with her bottle of oil. She poured some out onto her fingers and rubbed it onto his bowed forehead while saying a prayer. When she was done, she paused with his hands in hers and looked up at him. “There is a glow in your face,” she said. She narrowed her eyes and raised a thick index finger up to his nose, “Don’t let the Devil steal it.” He stopped short of a full smile and returned to his seat.
     When he sat down, his mother was leaning slightly away from him. She focused on him while he settled. “You looked like your father up there,” she said. Such a statement might seem obvious, empty to most. His father is half of the people you’d expect him to look like. But the statement’s simple, ostensible innocence both shrouded and magnified the vague, though deeply penetrating criticism it conveyed. If you’re an only son whose mother has been abandoned by your father and not replaced in 20 years; if you’re an only son who is always immediately recognized as his mother’s child, you know exactly what that statement means. What prompted such a statement, on the other hand, was as mysterious to him as what brought him into the building.
     At that moment, as he looked into her eyes, he thought about what the preacher had just said about that same face. He thought about the preacher’s spiritual and, therefore, sexual “conversion.” He thought about his mother’s singing and her ability to inspire. He thought of the glow he knew the preacher could see dwindling in his face and the warning she gave before he returned to his seat. He thought about the God he didn’t believe existed; the Authority from which all of these divers inspirations, conversions, and judgments presumably came, and he thought about what such an entity must think about all this. At that moment, as he had these thoughts and absorbed the look in his mother’s eyes, he didn’t smile; but in his heart he laughed. He also knew that somewhere, God was laughing, too.

Chapter -4 Scene 19 (or “Theories of Humor & the Absurd pt. 1”)

[Matt deGomme]
     “How do I know if a guy is gay?” Adam asked.
     Instead of laughing in Adam’s face, he took a drag of his cigarette, looked down for a moment, then replied, “If it’s not obvious, his eyes will betray the secret. When your eyes connect his are a question, as if he’s unsure whether he’s looking at you or not. Even when his gaze is not directed towards you, his eyes are always looking, searching. Sometimes it’s most pronounced when he’s staring straight ahead at what looks like nothing. You can see it even when they’re closed. When he enters the room, you’ll see him scan all of the faces with a sort of… modest intensity. He will always look up to examine when someone new, especially a man, enters the door. Always looking — always hungry for other eyes. A welcome often rescinded before you even knew you were invited.”
      “What?”
      In spite of himself, he laughed. He took another drag of his cigarette and let it out slowly. “Wear sunglasses.”

"I'm Surrounded!" - Understanding the Plight of the Oppressed Heterosexual Male

At first I didn't... I couldn't understand why straight men were always complaining. I really thought they had everything going for them, but then I listened to this rant:

Now I get it. Poor Mr. Pilot man! After recounting that eleven out of twelve flight attendants he had to deal with were "f**king over-the-top f**king *ss f**king homosexuals" he says, "Think of the odds of that!"

What are the odds?! Your statistical reality is so unfortunate. What are the odds that, in America's great "equal opportunity" society, the top 5% of wage earners are about 90% white?(1) What are the odds that a male with a doctorate will earn over $40,000 more annually than a female with the same degree?(2) What are the odds that those "*ss f**king homosexuals" you're so sick of attempt suicide up seven times as often as their heterosexual counterparts?(3)

Well, those odds are 100%, because that's reality. What are the odds that Mr. Pilot man is the beneficiary of all of this? I don't know, but it must be pretty low since his life sounds rough.

This pilot was so infuriated for feeling like what women, gays, & ethnic minorities feel like all the time, except he only had to endure it for a few weeks. He seems to believe the myth -- & it's perpetuated in our media, our schools, & in too many of our homes -- that the only people who count are the ones like him; all of the "real" people share his traits & to deal with people who don't is a severe imposition on his life.

Mr. Pilot man complains of the "continuous stream of gays & grannies & grandes" & says "I hate 100% of their *sses." But when I think about it, I can see where he's coming from: Check the profiles of the leaders of Fortune 500 companies & you'll see a continuous stream of white, male faces. Turn on your TV & you will see a continuous stream of white, male faces. Look anywhere our society on the whole says you want to be, & you'll see these problematic continuous streams, except they're not full of gays, grannies, & grandes. They're endless pools of straight, white, male faces. What are the odds?

In the end, Mr. Pilot man, I'll admit it. I feel your pain.

Yarhamuka Momo [MdG]

1. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0689.pdf

2. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0228.pdf

3. http://www.sprc.org/library/SPRC_LGBT_Youth.pdf

Triflin' Ass (Jewish) People

Get. In. The. Synagogue... or Else.

That's how it works if you're a resident in New Square, New York. The Hasidic Jewish community recently had some squabbles over who worshipped where. The local Rabbi, David Twersky, was upset when some people tried to worship outside of his synagogue. Therefore, he made an edict that no one could pray outside of it. One resident, Aron Rottenberg, set up an alternate prayer group in a nursing home and, as a result, the town launched a series of verbal & emotional assaults on Rottenberg & his family. He found his daughter's school desk & books dumped on his front lawn; the windows in his home & car smashed &, in a moment of particular solidarity, 50 men outside of his home chanting "Aron Rottenberg, leave the neighborhood." The last, most damaging attack came from Shaul Spitzer, a man who lived with the rabbi. Spitzer took the edict as lisence to incinerate Rottenberg's house... along with half of the man's body.

This underlies my problem with humans who believe they (or others) have supernatural authority. If Shaul Spitzer believed that the rabbi had made the edict because he was speaking entirely on his own behalf, Spitzer likely wouldn't have taken "stay in my clubhouse" to mean "burn a man's house down." As it happens, Spitzer believed that Twersky is unique among others in his proximity to God. To you & me, it's readily apparent exactly how this command didn't have any divine roots; that it's clearly a self-centered person abusing his power & influence. But to Shaul -- & any other person in a similar situation -- when you're under the religious rule of such people, there's no way for you to tell the difference. In fact, you're often told not to.

I won't pretend that religion doesn't lead people to do many, many beautiful things. But it also inspires so much terror & destruction. What makes my stomach turn the most is that it comes from the sincere belief that you're serving God, the greatest, most loving force in the universe. Clearly, it's not religion per se; but the disposition religion often requires, when used in the wrong direction can have devastating effects. If we got over complete trust in flawed texts written & interpreted by flawed people, I'm sure we'd see a severe drop in the frequency & most certainly the vigor with which people commit such heinous crimes.

While faith makes all kinds of claims on what is objectively true, there's little you can say definitely about faith as right or wrong, but I will say this: If these are the fruits of your faith, you have the wrong faith.

Inshmomo [MdG]

Super Ate

Just got back from J. J. Abram & Speilberg's alien inspired baby. It was ET with about half the character development, though the main kid's father was a cutie.

Baraka Momohu fika [MdG]

Stalled

For the people who are always the first to send some other people's children off to fight wars for "freedom" against "terrorism," I'm repeatedly finding Republicans among the most artfully spineless politicians I've ever seen. Last week, the New York State Assembly passed gay marriage in a land-slide vote, which they've now done four times. Unlike a few months ago, legal gay marriage is one vote away from passing the Senate. Unfortunately, all the votes left are Republicans' & so, one week after the Assembly's vote, gays still can't get married.

This NYTimes article lays out the four familiar reasons why Republicans are stalling on this (& other issues) & here's why they're all bs:

1. "Some of the Republicans are morally opposed to same-sex marriage" - Great. Don't get one. Don't attend any. Keep your morals in your church & I'll keep my gay marriage in my bedroom.

2 & 3. "Some are open to it but concerned about the political implications for themselves and their party" & "Some argue that the issue should be decided by popular referendum, not legislation" - read: "I am spineless."

4. "Some say they are worried about the repercussions for socially conservative religious organizations" - this argument the one that has been the most frustrating because, on the surface, it seems the most legitimate. It's not:

I don't know what the rules on religious adoption agencies are (Catholics the group most frequently cited as potential "victims"), but if a religious group is allowed to deny adopting children to gay couples, they should be required to deny all other families that don't suit their particular religious tenets. These groups should have to take marriage on the state's broad terms or their own narrow ones & be expected to stick to that. Thus, I'm officially throwing the furrowed brow & "I'm just worried about religious rights" in the "how to avoid standing for principles while looking like I'm standing for principles" tool-box. I'm over it.

New York Senate, please take this chance to stand up for New Yorkers.

Momohu A'lam [MdG]

On revient

Hadha min Fadhie Momo. [BdG]