"Something," Ilhan Omar, and Islamophobia

Why is the GOP hating women of color today?

Well, here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/pure-racist-act-ny-post-slammed-using-attack-rep-omar-over-speech-islamophobia/

 So several things here. People are mad because she didn't call 9/11 murder, she called it "something." And why she might have done that - the answer to this is absolutely illustrated in the Post's reaction and in people's reaction below. See the quote a few paragraphs down.

She may have said that because she was talking in that moment that was picked out and over-analyzed about the resulting Islamophobia and the blanket assumption after 9/11 that all Muslims and more widely all brown people are terrorists and dealt (and it remains) with everything from death threats and discrimination to actual physical harm.

So proving her point, the NY Post puts the signature picture of the burning towers and responds to the Congresswoman's words with all the power of its shoddy journalism on the front page with a giant headline, guaranteed to whip up the uninformed hatemongers into a frenzy. Aaand this happens...

Quote:

"Hundreds of people protested Omar outside the banquet, with chants that included “Burn the Koran,” “Ilhan Omar go to hell,” and “Shame on you terrorists.”

She used her speech to talk about Islamophobia, and she did not mince words about President Trump, saying she believed that he played a role in fueling “hate against Muslims.” "

So you see the Islamophobia she was referring to is alive and well.

When someone says 9/11 is murder, it puts the attention on the perpetrators, which was done after the tragedy to generate hate widely for brown people and Muslims and flag waving vengeance and a desire to kill in another ill-conceived invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter having nothing to do with it. Do we call those murders?? There were far more victims of 9/11 than those who died in the towers and she was differentiating between them.

Note that these people aren't criticizing her words, they are saying that she is a terrorist which was the very point she was making about the atmosphere after 9/11 where government policy and GOP/Bush fearmongering had dangerous effects then and continues to now through GOP/Trump.

You can question her phrasing, her tone, or her clothes - women deal with this EVERY SINGLE DAY with sexism and women of color more so than me through racism - but she is making a valid point that we need to pay attention to.

This is the NY Post's front page news:

And here you have another example of the NY Post's opportunistic bottom feeding exploitation of fear, racism, and stereotypes. Sub par journalism would be one thing. Inciting hatred is far worse.

McCain gets his last pass, remembered lovingly as a mavericky moderate

While McCain's death is being mourned as the death of political civility and remembered as everyone's favorite middle of the road maverick, I'm struck by a bit of deafening dissonance. 

I get that by lavishing praise on a guy you disagreed with a lot seems like a credit to your own vast open mindedness in the era of Trump, where encouraging the beating of protesters is normal, executive toilet time includes degrading people you disagree with via Twitter, and voting as a block is more important than who is president because white supremacy and the patriarchy are in danger. Now, I respect his time suffering a POW  (and lasting effects) and his willingness to sometimes not vote Republican, but as for everything else, you might want to consider another hero...

An incident that sums up McCain's life and philosophy could be that time in 2008, when his bigot supporter stood up, stating she didn't trust Obama because he's an Arab. He corrected one fact, but did so at the expense of revealing his true dangerous, far right of center beliefs: No, ma'am, he's not an Arab. He's a decent family man. He was widely praised for this half response/half insult in every corner of the US as brave, courageous, civil and polite. He was never seriously questioned on what most believed a harmless slip of the tongue. His public statements and policy positions on war, the Middle East, immigration, and adjacent issues support the harmless slip being intentional.

At least one was talking about it:
Arab or Decent? --from 2008
https://archives.cjr.org/campaign_desk/arab_or_decent.php


So as we read the eulogies and feel some warm fuzzies, remember what was - as well as what wasn't. He had some good qualities or moments, but his politics were still pretty terrible run of the mill GOP white supremacist sexist fare. We were able to forget about all of Bush's incompetence, lies, warmongering, prisoner abuse and other atrocities because he made a silly with his rain poncho that one time. Maybe this will be the same.

Respect people by all means, but that doesn't mean giving them a political face transplant and sweeping bigotry and destructive policies under the rug.


Despite what the press says, John McCain has a long record of horribleness -- from  July 2017
Not so mavericky:  voted with Trump 90.7% of the time, hawk, Reagan republican, ran on tax cuts and trying to block MLK Day, supports Israeli massacres.

As FAIR.org media analyst Adam Johnson has observed, we have been fed a “childlike narrative of McCain as brave truth-teller, rather than predictable champion of war and empire who occasionally makes toothless references to human rights for the purposes of image curation.”

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/john-mccain-fake-maverick-horrible-record/


Here's a quote from the Palestine Chronicle piece:

And that last pattern has been typical of McCain’s entire public career. Shoot off his mouth, make big noises about being tough and honest, and then crawl back quietly shortly afterward, having achieved nothing but adding a notch to the reputation he relishes as a maverick.

 John McCain: A Matter of Character -- from 2008
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/john-mccain-a-matter-of-character/


And two more, if you want: The Man Who Never Was -- from 2010
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/mccain-201011

The real McCain -- from 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/22/johnmccain.uselections2008


There were quite a few from 2008 when he was running for president because I guess that was the only time it was okay to challenge him on the whole most moral, most civil, most bipartisan guy thing.

The racist disclaimer, decoded

I've seen a lot of good things about equality through the discussions of shooting of unarmed black men, the Charleston massacre and the confederate flag fuss*. And I've also seen some bad. So here's another rant.

I don't like talking about race. I'm a much better listener anyway. I don't have the experience to talk fluently about discrimination, but even I can see some of it and it's disgusting. I mean sure, people assume things about me because I'm quiet, we all have these types of struggles, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about real discrimination based on something arbitrary and seen immediately (like skin color, duh).

One meme making the rounds of social media says white people are not responsible for things their ancestors did.

 Hmm. Ok. . . That may be true on the surface. You don't own slaves, good on you. But sometimes you need to look a little deeper and break the code. (Side rant, excuse this- Like when you are told to be a Christian in and out of the voting booth. Are they telling you to be a Christian or are they telling you to vote Republican- or I'm sorry- not Republican, how dare I assume!, but rather the candidate, whatever party (see how open minded I am!), who opposes abortion and gay marriage and is for making the Bible our civil law) This kind of thinking not only exonerates them from crimes of their ancestors (they assume), but kind of (they hope) gives them a blanket amnesty from any racist thought or action on their part today. They are trying to disengage and wash their hands of this matter, racism, as though it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. They don't experience it, so why bother. They won't be pulled over for being black or searched in a normal traffic stop or be considered suspicious for walking home with too many people, so we are post-racial.

Black people are dealing with the consequences of slavery (even though they are not slaves currently) still and yet white people bear NO responsibility because they don't currently own slaves?? There is something seriously wrong with that thinking. Racism is learned and passed down. Racism is alive and well unfortunately. I certainly WANT to be fair and impartial, but am I consistent in that? I have no idea. Probably not. But I'm trying. That's an important difference. Your parents and grandparents may have had racist ideas, but you can break out of the bubble and decide you want to contribute to making the world better. Doing nothing encourages the status quo, the broken system.

You can't wash your hands of this and say I'm not responsible for your misfortune. We need to be asking instead how we all can succeed. We need to be striving for equality and justice FOR ALL. And to do that we might need to ask what it's like to be driving while black or what it's like to explain to your kids the injustice that exists that is part of life, that they will have to work doubly hard to succeed or be doubly "non-threatening" (using this as I have heard it used, hoping I can get the point across and not be offensive) to be heard, the things they have to be aware of so as not to be shot- not by criminals- but by the police.

[7/26/15 edit- In recent events, at the Netroots Nation conference, it was said black lives matter, all lives matter, which is kind of the same - though more of an attempt at solidarity - as the 'I don't own slaves meme.' Of course all lives matter, but the issue we are having very obvious problems understanding in actions if not ideology is that black lives in particular matter as much as everyone else's and that is the reason for the hashtag and movement. If that was an attempt at solidarity, we need to try something else.]

Also included in this self righteous racism are the political games, like the anti affirmative action argument- we just want real equality, why do black people get all the breaks? What do you even say to that kind of ignorance??

And then there are black comics like Bill Cosby (I guess he's lost some credibility, but there are probably dozens who fit the mold) who tell boys to pull up their pants and tell white people they should be able to say the "n word" too and any number of more offensive actions. See? He's black! It's ok to be racist- or- it's not racist because I'm quoting a black guy!! Wrong.

I know you don't own slaves, but you still have to think for yourself and take responsibility for your own garbage TODAY.

Silence is complicity. I don't know who said that.

*fuss= 7/26/15 edit= looking back, this seems not a serious enough word. I only meant that it is a no brainer to me that if something is as offensive as a flag under which slavery was fought for, we should take it down immediately, why was it flying anyway, especially since it doesn't represent the US or the unity we seek even aside from slavery and especially considering it.

Confederate flag fight

I've been seeing a lot of posts on this confederate flag business, cheering for the flag, disparaging the flag. So. . .

First I'm going to say I personally don't put any stock in any flag. Pledging allegiance to any thing, especially a flag, is ridiculous to me. *takes cover* Taking pride in your particular neighborhood, state, country, etc to the extreme that you are ready to fight if someone states an opinion or looks at you funny- this over an accident of your birth in a particular place? Why?? An arbitrary border is more important than people starving, people being mistreated by other people, trashing the environment we ALL depend on to live?

On one hand, it's just a flag and it's your right to fly anything you want. Fine. And it's in the past and who cares about flags anyway. They're meaningless. Not to mention, taking down a flag isn't going to get rid of racism, racial profiling, police brutality, poverty and the rest of the inequalities slavery helped entrench. . .

On the other hand,
Why are we up in arms over our "right" to fly this flag that represents division of this country that I'm guessing a lot of people upset over the contentious flag coming down will say they will fight and die for, are so proud to be citizens of, are ready to kick people out of if they aren't sufficiently loyal to ( remember 'love it or leave it'?). It represents to so many the allowing of people to hold others captive and say they are property by law and fighting for this "right".. Like drawing Muhammad, sure, you have the right and it's no big deal to you, but do you really want to be the lout who finds the one thing most hateful and throws it in someone's face simply because you have the right to do it? Your "freedom" to do this trivial thing trumps another human being's right to live in peace? It reminds me of kids all trying to be the first through the double doors in college when we're all going to the same place and have plenty of time to walk several feet to a seat- or adults tailgating and cutting people off on the road- you'll get there, don't be a baby, your time is no more or less important than anyone else's. Your rights and "rights" are no less important than anyone else's. You are not special. I am not special. With all this claiming of trivial rights we are becoming a nation of people to take offense too easily. And I say "becoming" like this is new. . . but that's another soapbox. A nation of babies. We are children. I mean, you can blame Muslims for getting offended at cartoons and black folks for being offended by cloth, but you don't see it's equally stupid or more so to claim your rights are being violated when you can't put cloth anywhere you want or make everyone (not to say all confederate flag supporters are religious, just an example) abide by your religious law (abortion, gay marriage opposition) or say and do hateful things simply because YOU have the right. I know what the response will be. I agree, you can go too far bending over backwards for people, making allowances for all the quirks, but lets have some balance and common courtesy and respect and introspection. And grow the heck up.

7/26/15 edit- I heard a great comparison in the last few weeks on possibly the BBC's World Have Your Say, but maybe Democracy Now or the Diane Rehm Show because I've been listening to all of them and they're mixed up in my head. Some folks want to say the Civil War was more about states' rights than slavery, though this represents a shift from the actual event. Or they want to say that individual soldier's reasons were protection of home, family, farms, their state and not necessarily slavery. A guest on the show pointed out that the same was true for the Iraq invasion. We used 9/11, WMD and terrorism to go to war, those were the reasons (never mind that they turned out to be wrong!). Individual soldiers' reasons for going can be very different- freedom, protection of family or country, responding to a stated need, or because it's their job. It would be false to use those reasons as the reason we attacked Iraq. Ignoring the bigger picture is not accurate or helpful in understanding that time period as in the case of the Civil War.

Riots and racism

I don't even know what or how to talk about what's been going on with the brutality/execution by police and recent riot in Baltimore after the funeral of a man there after being chased and apprehended by police, having his spine severed and dying as a result while in custody. 

I hear people say don't run from the police, and in general  that's good advice. If you're white. White people and black people have entirely different experiences and perceptions of even the simplest interactions with police. White folks have a very Sesame Street or muppet version of these interactions where they call them up if there's an intruder in their house or they have an accident or if they're a lost kid, find a policeman and they'll help him or her find the way home. Black folks, who are often assumed to be guilty unless they can prove innocence and routinely racially profiled have good reason to want to keep a safe distance from police to avoid unreasonable searches. I'm sure some white people will say well no, they've had plenty of complications and run ins with police, and while that may be true, I don't think this is helpful in understanding what is really going on. Segregation may have been struck down and we now promote equal rights outwardly, but there are historic wrongs and racism is institutionalized. I don't know how to fix it, but it certainly won't be by ignoring those facts and saying well I'm white and have suffered but I'm not angry like you. That's just self-righteousness and frankly, inexcusable ignorance.

There is a lot of condemnation of the riots for various reasons and I can see that on one level.  We want there to be a correlation. If I'm angry at news coverage, throw things at news bureaus. If I'm angry with large corporations, protest or loot those. 

A kind of funny response I heard was why can't people peacefully protest? Here's one reason. When I first heard about the riot in Balitmore, I heard nothing about the peaceful protests. The media showed up and only bothered to cover it when the violence erupted. Peaceful protests are ignored. And when it doesn't work (have we not seen peaceful protests about racism EVER??) and people who are supposed to be protecting you are killing you, THEN WHAT? Is rioting the answer, I don't know, I would say it's more of a result than a planned activity or solution. In the same way, the police killing these individuals recently isn't a planned policy, it's the result of the atmosphere, the profiling that isn't policy, but happens anyway, the broken system. 

And this is kind of what I just said but better. I heard it the day after I wrote this post:

When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." --The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates

Yes we want to say that violence is never the answer. We want to believe there's always a peaceful way. (What would Iraq war supporters say about that. . . ? Never mind.)

BUT

"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

--Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968

Before cameras were on almost all phones, white people were able to explain away police brutality, say it was rare, that racism was over. There is understandable anger, now that there is visual proof that police statements of innocence on the killings are patently false after all this time of having these things easily swept under the rug for so many years.

There is another line of reasoning saying there were peaceful protests and thugs turned it into something very different. That may be true to some extent, but it doesn't mean we can or should ignore or explain away the cause or the riot. There is systemic injustice and racism and that needs to be addressed.


http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/28/national_guard_deployed_as_baltimore_erupts

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/29/you_can_replace_property_you_cant

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/25/riot_as_the_language_of_the  (old- Ferguson)

Volunteer cops?!?!

Another detail came out about the killing of Walter Scott (or details). Something called a reserve police officer in his 70's mistook his gun for his taser, going for the wrong hip to draw. And on top of it, the department falsified his training records so he'd be eligible. 

There are so many questions that need to be answered.

How does one become a volunteer- is it a large donation, is there an interview or application process, something that qualifies one besides desire to shoot people?

What are their duties- crowd control or making arrests and being issued a service weapon?

What SHOULD their duties be? Minimal I'd say! Be there for that old fashioned idea of asking directions, helping people with groceries or to cross the street. Maybe crowd control at festivals or road races or something. They should NOT be armed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/13/the-73-year-old-reserve-cop-who-mistook-his-gun-for-a-taser/

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/21/401296066/too-often-some-say-volunteer-officers-just-want-to-play-cop

If you want to play cop, there should be a CrossFit for police where you can do physical tests, obstacle courses, shoot inanimate dummies, do self defense, but I guess that doesn't quite satisfy those who want to hunt down and arrest people whether they need it or not.

Walter Scott murder in SC

Since overall very little action is really taken (yeah, a point of contention) when police officers kill, one Congressman entered a list of recent victims for the record:

Hank Johnson: ‘It feels like open season on black men in America’

In one of the recent murders, a man who was late on child support was shot in the back 8 times. Police originally released a version of the story that included a struggle, the victim grabbing the taser and putting the officer in danger.

In other cases, this police version of a life or death struggle and the fact that the victim had committed an offense (late child support, shoplifting, smoking pot, holding a toy gun, or the very general "troubled"  in other cases) in the distant or recent past eclipses the main fact of a man being executed without trial for a crime (and there's not always a crime!) that doesn't carry the death penalty. 

A good interview  What if There Was No Video

This time, there was a continuous video and the police had to recant that story:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/9/after_cops_shooting_of_unarmed_walter

A handy guide to your rights in filming police officers publicly:

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers?redirect=kyr-photo