Tag Archives: NAACP

Selfish, stupid ‘Black Lives Matter’ slacktivists again infringe on others’ First-Amendment right to assemble

Updated below (on Monday, August 10, 2015)

Embedded image permalink

Photo Tweeted by Dan Merica, CNN

Incredibly selfish “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists refuse to allow Bernie Sanders speak before a crowd of thousands at a city park in Seattle, Washington, today. Fuck political correctness — now that this bullshit has happened twice (the first time was last month in Phoenix), Sanders needs to have significant security at his future events, and disruptors need to be removed immediately, because those who gather for events have the First-Amendment right not to have their gatherings shut down by selfish, stupid members of special-interest groups.

So thousands of people gathered at a city park in Seattle, Washington, today, to hear democratic socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speak.

But what those thousands of people wanted was not at all important to the handful of “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists who, according to The Huffington Post, forced Sanders to leave the gathering before he meaningfully could speak to the crowd.

I call these ignoramuses “slacktivists” because think about it: They are not taking on the powers that be, those who are the real problem, but they are targeting the very one presidential candidate who, being a pacifist, is the least likely to give them any resistance (thus, his public appearances — thus far, anyway — are pretty easy for these slacktivists to disrupt and to commandeer), and who probably is the one who is the most on their side.

Serious political activism would necessitate attacking those who actually are the problem, but you won’t see these “Black Lives Matter” morons interrupting, say, law-enforcement or Repugnican Tea Party gatherings, will you?

No, these are fucking geniuses: Attack your strongest ally! That’s always a political winner!

What if we LGBT individuals had commandeered black-rights gatherings after 70 percent of California’s black voters hatefully voted for anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition H8, claiming that Gay Lives Matter? How well would that have gone over? Um, yeah.

The issue is not whether or not the “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists have a point. Of course they do. They have many points. Unarmed black Americans continue to be slaughtered by mostly white cops (and it is no consolation that Sandra Bland was pulled over by a light-skinned Latino cop) at a much higher rate than are unarmed white Americans. This is a fucking problem, as is the crazy-disproportionate incarceration of non-white Americans (on top of over-incarceration in general). The so-called “criminal” “justice” system indeed needs a major overhaul.

None of those facts here are in dispute.

But the tactics of the “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists are sorry-ass. Bernie Sanders — Bernie Fucking Sanders — thus far has been their main public target when he is the one candidate for U.S. president who is the most and the best positioned to help them.

Democrat in name only Billary Clinton talks a good game, but hers is a record of talking (and of holding titles), not of actually doing anything.

And on the Repugnican Tea Party side? Would a President Ben Carson help the “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists? No, sorry — he calls them “silly” and “divisive.”

By all means, “Black Lives Matter” activists need to be in dialogue with all of the candidates for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, but they wouldn’t dare to even try to disrupt a Billary Clinton speech or public appearance.

That’s because Team Billary keeps quite-tight control of her public appearances — something that, unfortunately, Team Bernie is going to have to do from now on, now that “Black Lives Matter” morons have commandeered two of his public appearances.

Again, these tactically challenged fucktards have the right to have their political cause, but they don’t have the right to shut down public gatherings — to hijack them, to try to force their own narrow political agenda down the throats of those who have taken the time, energy and expense to assemble not to hear them speak, but to hear someone else speak.

I would remind the “Black Lives Matter” terrorists — yes, terrorism, broadly defined, is using the intimidation of others, or at least trying to use the intimidation of others, to advance your own political agenda, and that’s what the “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists are doing when they shut down public gatherings — that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the U.S. government may not infringe upon “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” what right do the “Black Lives Matter” terrorists have to infringe upon that right?*

Team Bernie needs to do what Team Billary does: Have tight security at public gatherings and ensure that no fringe groups ruin the gatherings for everyone.

It’s a progressive trait to eschew policing like that, but sometimes policing is necessary, lest chaos ensue. In the case of the last two shutdowns of Bernie Sanders’ public speeches by “Black Lives Matter” fucktards, I rest my case. The “Black Lives Matter” assholes make such policing necessary.

The “Black Lives Matter” terrorists apparently calculate that we white and other non-black progressives will be too intimidated, lest we very predictably slanderously and/or libelously be labeled by them as “racist,” to call them on their shit; therefore, these terrorists are to be allowed to do as they please, lest they defamatorily brand us “racist” if we do so much as to dare to protest their reprehensible actions.

Nope. It’s not about race — it’s about the constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble peaceably, the right that the “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists selfishly, stupidly have come to believe they have the right to violate (as long as it’s someone else’s right to assemble peaceably, of course).

I’ll tell you what is racist: refusing to call a black person on his or her bad behavior because of his or her race, that is, putting his or her race before his or her bad behavior. That is racist.

If the “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists want their agenda and their rights to be recognized by others, they at the same time need to recognize the agendas and the rights of others. Now.

In the meantime, Team Bernie needs to protect the constitutional right of those gathered to hear Bernie Sanders speak by employing the very apparently necessary security measures — as Repugnican or Billary Clinton a thing as that might feel like doing.

The needs and the rights of the many outweigh the needs and the rights of the few — something that the selfish, self-absorbed “Black Lives Matter” slacktivists need to realize, lest they fizzle out much sooner than any of them had realized could happen.

P.S. I see from further news reportage that, thankfully, Bernie Sanders had a second engagement in Seattle this date, that tonight he spoke to “a packed crowd” at the University of Washington campus — uninterrupted this time, apparently.

“No president will fight harder to end institutional racism and reform criminal justice system,” Sanders told the crowd, according to The Associated Press. “Too many lives have been destroyed by war on drugs, by incarceration; we need to educate people. We need to put people to work.”

The AP also added more details from today’s earlier debacle in Seattle (emphasis in bold is mine):

When the crowd asked the activists to allow Sanders to speak, one [“Black Lives Matter”] activist called the crowd “white supremacist liberals,” according to event participants.

After waiting about 20 minutes, Sanders himself was pushed away when he tried to take the microphone back. [That’s called assault and battery — of a U.S. senator, no less; someone should have been arrested.] Instead, he waved goodbye, left the stage with a raised fist salute and waded into the crowd. He shook hands and posed for photos with supporters for about 15 minutes, and then left.

The AP reports that only two “Black Lives Matters” morons had managed to ruin Sanders’ appearance today. Again, they should have been removed from the venue. I, a white man, certainly would expect to be removed — forcibly, if I refused to cooperate — were I to try to commandeer someone else’s public event. To say that a black person similarly should not be removed because of his or her race — again, that’s racist.

And “white supremacist liberals” — what a nice touch. And awfully ironic, coming from an apparent black supremacist.

That said, though, ironically, perhaps if you are a (guilty) white liberal who believes that blacks should not be held accountable to the same standards of behavior that white people would be — if, say, you believe that “Black Lives Matter” morons should just be allowed to selfishly, stupidly ruin public events — perhaps you are a “white supremacist liberal,” since one who is not racist believes in equal treatment and equal expectations of and for everyone, regardless of his or her race.

P.P.S. The Washington Post reports that Bernie Sanders’ crowd tonight in Seattle at the University of Washington was his largest crowd yet, at 15,000 people. The Post notes that thus far in this presidential election cycle, Billary Clinton hasn’t garnered a crowd of even 6,000 people.

Gee, is this why the “Black Lives Matter” fascists are targeting Bernie? Because he’s so popular, because more people want to hear him speak than they do any other presidential candidate, at least on the Democratic side?

At any rate, clearly the “Black Lives Matter” terrorists, who very apparently incredibly stupidly put the nation’s race-based problems at Bernie Sanders’ feet, are vastly outnumbered. And, methinks, because of their misguided and short-sighted tactics — and not because of their basic cause, which is just — their days as anything resembling a real political force quite potentially are numbered.

Update (Monday, August 10, 2015):

The Huffington Post now reports:

A day after being interrupted by Black Lives Matters protesters at a campaign event in Seattle, Washington, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released a detailed platform on combating racial inequality.

Sanders’ campaign posted the platform on his website [yesterday], and he addressed the issue of racial justice [last] evening in front of more than 20,000 supporters in Portland, [Oregon,] drawing his largest crowd yet along the campaign trail. Nearly 12,000 people attended Saturday’s event in Seattle.

The platform delineates policy proposals pertaining to what Sanders calls “the four central types of violence waged against black and brown Americans: physical, political, legal and economic.” …

So Bernie’s crowds continue to grow by leaps and bounds. More than 20K is a lot of people. (Again, thus far Billary hasn’t even hit 6,000 people, to my knowledge.)

Although Team Bernie has released a fairly detailed platform on racial justice (I will study it shortly), frankly, I don’t expect the race-based harassment of him to stop. He was born while white, and so there’s nothing that he can do to gain the favor of the most hard-core black supremacists (whom I think of as an awful lot like white supremacists, just black). Just sayin’.

I have been woefully negligent in not mentioning until now that as a U.S. senator, Bernie Sanders scored 100 percent — one hundred percent — on the NAACP’s latest civil rights legislative report card. His vote on every piece of legislation that the NAACP found important was in line with the NAACP’s wishes on that legislation.

Some people like to claim that Sanders hasn’t done anything good on race-based civil rights lately, but the NAACP itself reports otherwise.

As I’ve noted, Sanders lives in and represents in Congress an overwhelmingly white state, but that doesn’t mean that his heart and mind aren’t in the right place. Those who judge his stance on civil rights primarily or solely based upon his race (and not upon his actual record) are — well, racist…

*If you’re even tempted to claim that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech allows public gatherings to be hijacked by a handful of terrorists to exercise their free-speech rights, I’d remind you that there are limits on the First Amendment, and that one’s own right to free speech ends where others’ rights begins.

I may not legally break into your home, for instance, in order to deliver you a soliloquy, claiming “free speech” as my defense.

There are time, place and manner restrictions on the right to free speech, which never has been absolute.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Millions murdered Trayvon Martin

These editorial cartoons pretty much sum it up, methinks.

I haven’t written much, if anything, about the Trayvon Martin case, since I usually don’t blog about incidents of shootings, stabbings, rapes, etc. unless they have a wider significance.

But the Trayvon Martin case, of course, does have a wider significance.

I don’t know which individual on that fateful night of February 26, 2012, in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, physically posed the larger threat to the other, the 17-year-old Martin, who was black, or the then-28-year-old half-Latino-and-half-white George Zimmerman. (Yes, in this case, the race of the individuals involved has mattered.)

But the indisputable facts are that Zimmerman had a gun and Martin did not, and that Zimmerman shot Martin dead.

The indisputable fact is that Zimmerman was playing cop in a gated community (those two words, “gated community,” speak volumes as to the sociological context of Martin’s death*), and that such vigilantism should be illegal in all 50 states.

There is a reason that actual cops, in order to become actual cops, in most instances have to demonstrate a minimum amount of intelligence and a minimum amount of psychological health: Because you don’t want morons and/or those who have head issues walking around communities with guns, playing cops.

And I can’t see that Zimmerman wasn’t racially profiling Martin: What’s a young black man doing in this gated community? (Let’s fucking face it: The No. 1 function of a gated community is to keep certain “undesirables,” who more often than not have darker skin, out and away from the wealthier and usually lighter-skinned denizens of the gated community.)

Oh, wasn’t that Zimmerman’s mindset? Would Zimmerman have pursued, with his loaded pistol, a young white man who was dressed as a preppy?

And once you have made yourself into a pseudo-cop, don’t you want to “have to” play the role at some point? So wouldn’t you be looking for such an opportunity?

Zimmerman was just acquitted in Martin’s shooting death, but, it seems to me, Zimmerman was guilty at least of manslaughter. In a saner and more just state, such as my state of California, Zimmerman most likely would have been found guilty of at least manslaughter, I surmise. However, the backasswards state of Florida (along with other backasswards states) allows yahoos to walk the streets with guns, and to use those guns to “stand their ground.”

That’s Wild-West bullshit.

Martin wasn’t pursuing Zimmerman on that night. Zimmerman, playing cop, was pursuing Martin. Zimmerman was acting offensively, not defensively. He wasn’t “standing his ground” against an unprovoked attack on his person. No, he was playing cop.**

The state of Florida, along with George Zimmerman, killed Trayvon Martin, along with the gun-nut lobby and, of course, the institutional racism that of course still persists and will persist in the United States of America for some time to come. Martin’s murderers number in the millions.

These “stand your ground” laws need to go, or at least need to be modified to make clear that you aren’t “standing your ground” if you are the fucking aggressor — especially if you are the armed aggressor against an unarmed (or hell, even armed) individual who has made no threatening advance toward you in public. (“In public” is key there; no, I do not assert that an individual does not have the right to defend his or her own home against an actual intruder, for instance, and for actual self-defense I do support the Second Amendment.)

For the reasons that I have just laid out, I support the NAACP’s and other black community leaders’ push to have Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice file federal civil-rights charges against Zimmerman, even though such an action probably would touch off a race-based firestorm, given that the U.S. president and the U.S. attorney general are black.

(President Barack Obama is conflict-adverse, however, perhaps especially when it comes to issues of race — recall that he quickly and summarily threw the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod, all of whom are black, under the bus when they came under attack from the white-supremacist right wing — so I certainly don’t expect the Justice Department to file federal civil-rights charges against Zimmerman, regardless of how appropriate doing so might be.)

However, the seeking of justice for the very apparent race-based murder of Trayvon Martin needs to go waaay beyond George Zimmerman. It needs to encompass the entire state of Florida and every other state with the so-called “stand your ground” laws, which are a white supremacist’s or other racist’s wet dream: the opportunity to commit race-based murders while claiming self-defense.

If you believe that the U.S. Department of Justice should file civil-rights charges in the Trayvon Martin case, you can sign this petition and/or this petition. I have signed both of them.

*On that note, I very much look forward to the upcoming sci-fi film “Elysium,” starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster and written and directed by “District 9” creator Neill Blomkamp, whose 2009 “District 9” apparently was a statement on the white-on-black racism in South Africa.

From the previews, “Elysium” appears to be a bold statement on the direction in which the United States of America — as well as other nations, too, of course — with their haves and their have-nots, are going.

**A friend of Trayvon Martin, Rachel Jeantel, infamously testified that while she was talking to Martin on his cell phone shortly before he was killed, Martin reported that he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.”

While I don’t know that I’d call George Zimmerman a “cracker,” as he looks Latino to me, and technically isn’t a “cracker,” I imagine that on the night of February 26, 2012, he indeed looked “creepy-ass,” pursuing his victim with a loaded pistol while playing cop. He probably looked crazed, because he apparently was.

And Rachel Jeantel, was treated horribly in the courtroom, was treated as though her English was not clear when it was quite clear if you actually just listened to the words that came from her mouth. Her mistreatment smacked of racism, and that the court allowed this mistreatment of her is yet another indication that there is a huge fucking problem in the state of Florida — and so that, again, it would be quite appropriate for the U.S. Justice Department to act on this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

When it rains, it pours: NAACP now is on board with same-sex marriage

I still believe that President Barack Obama, for his ubiquitous campaign promises of “hope” and “change,” publicly came out for same-sex marriage too late in his presidency — the time to do the right thing is (almost) always right now — and I still believe that Obama publicly came out for same-sex marriage only after he’d calculated that it was politically safe to do so (and maybe even only after he’d calculated that it was politically harmful to continue not to do so).

And I certainly don’t want to be told that I should be thankful that Obama politically went out on a limb for my fellow non-heterosexuals and otherwise non-gender-conforming individuals when, in fact, we helped put him in the Oval Office, and when, in fact, our equal human and civil rights always have been and always will be far more important than is one politician.

All of that said, Obama’s belated pro-same-sex-marriage proclamation seems to be having benefits that perhaps even he didn’t foresee.

Not only have leaders within the black community such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton proclaimed that they support same-sex marriage — Jackson not long ago enough was adamant that same-sex marriage is not about civil rights — but the NAACP yesterday announced its support of same-sex marriage, calling same-sex marriage a civil right.

The Associated Press quotes NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous as having proclaimed: “Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people.”

Wow.

True, Jealous is a young black leader — he’s 39, the youngest president that the NAACP has ever had — and it’s true that younger people are much more accepting of same-sex marriage and other equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals than are older people. And it’s true that there are many, many older people (and yes, plenty of younger people), of all races, who are going to take their homophobia with them to their graves, regardless of what Barack Obama or Benjamin Todd Jealous or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or you or I have to say about same-sex marriage and equal human and civil rights for all.

But the good news is that old bigots do die, that they have fewer days ahead of them than they have behind them. And as today’s younger bigots grow older and their bigotry becomes less and less acceptable, at least they increasingly will keep their stupid fucking mouths shut and keep their ignorance and hatred to their miserable selves.

Given that blacks have been the one racial group in the United States most opposed to equality for non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals, having the likes of Obama and Jealous and Jackson and Sharpton now proclaiming that the black community should share the civil rights pie already with non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals should, within a few years, I surmise, put a fairly solid majority of Americans (say, at least 55 percent of them) in favor of equality for all.

There is a pretty good article on the topic of black homophobia that Slate writer William Saletan posted in November 2008, shortly after the nation elected its first black president — and after black voters were the largest racial group of voters in California who voted down same-sex marriage by voting yes on Proposition 8. Saletan begins:

[November 4, 2008] was a good day to be black. It was not a good day to be gay.

Arkansas voters approved a ballot measure to prohibit gay couples from adopting kids. Florida and Arizona voters approved measures to ban gay marriage. But the heaviest blow came in California, where a gay-marriage ban, Proposition 8, overrode a state Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriage.

A surge of black turnout, inspired by Barack Obama, didn’t help liberals in the Proposition 8 fight. In fact, it was a big reason why they lost. The gay marriage problem is becoming a black problem.

The National Election Pool exit poll tells the story. Whites and Asian Americans, comprising 69 percent of California’s electorate, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin of 51 percent to 49 percent. Latinos favored it, 53-47. But blacks turned out in historically high numbers — 10 percent of the electorate — and 70 percent of them voted for Proposition 8. …

I remember that Election Day well. I had cast my vote for Barack Obama, only to learn within the following days that while I had supported the black community, the black community had coldly turned its back on me.

Saletan’s article even indicates that perhaps black homophobia helped get George W. Bush a second term in 2004:

A report from the pro-gay National Black Justice Coalition attributes President Bush’s 2004 re-election in part to the near-doubling of his percentage of the black vote in Ohio, which he achieved “by appealing to black churchgoers on the issue of marriage equality.” This year, blacks in California were targeted the same way.

The NBJC report paints a stark picture of the resistance. It cites surveys showing that “65 percent of African Americans are opposed to marriage equality compared to 53 percent of whites” and that blacks are “less than half as likely to support marriage equality and legal recognition of same-sex civil unions as whites.”

It concludes: “African Americans are virtually the only constituency in the country that has not become more supportive over the last dozen years, falling from a high of 65 percent support for gay rights in 1996 to only 40 percent in 2004.” Nor is the problem dying out: “Among African-American youth, 55 percent believed that homosexuality is always wrong, compared to 36 percent of Latino youth and 35 percent of white youth.”

Saletan then goes, at some length, into the black homophobes’ “mutability”/“immutability” “argument,” which I just don’t fucking buy. (Who chooses to be a member of an historically reviled and oppressed minority group? Fucking duh.) I still surmise, as I wrote recently, that most homophobic blacks remain homophobic primarily because (1) they want to remain, in the national story, the only victims of prejudice and discrimination and oppression, because their identity is wrapped up in race-based victimhood, real or imagined/fabricated, and (2) because they want there to be one minority group that even they still can shit and piss upon, because it’s better to be near the bottom of the sociological dog-pile that is the United States of America than it is to be at the very bottom, isn’t it?

This is cruelty and hypocrisy, of course, to demand equality for one’s own minority group but to continue to shit and piss upon the members of another historically oppressed minority group. When the historically hated and oppressed become the haters and oppressors of others, it’s pretty fucking ugly. (Are you listening, Palestinian-oppressing Israelis?)

And, of course, homophobia within the black community doesn’t just hurt gay whites like me. It hurts blacks in many ways. Being rejected by your own family for not being heterosexual and/or gender-conforming contributes to such problems as drug and alcohol addiction, emotional and psychological disorders, suicide attempts, and the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, because individuals who have come to believe that they are shit for not being heterosexual and/or gender-conforming often don’t worry too much about protecting themselves because they probably want to die anyway, their self-esteem is that low.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in fact, reports:

African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV of all racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Despite representing only 14 percent of the US population in 2009, African Americans accounted for 44 percent of all new HIV infections in that year. Compared with members of other races and ethnicities, African Americans account for a higher proportion of HIV infections at all stages of disease — from new infections to deaths.

Black homophobia — and its attendant ignorance and fear and stunning lack of education and enlightenment — probably is the No. 1 reason for those grim statistics, and, of course, heterosexual black women are less likely to contract HIV and other STDs if their black male sexual partners who actually are homosexual or bisexual don’t feel pressured to lead double lives in order to give the appearance of heterosexuality in order to please the homophobic bigots in their lives. (The CDC reports than for 2009, “Most [85 percent of] black women with HIV acquired HIV through heterosexual sex. The estimated rate of new HIV infections for black women was more than 15 times as high as the rate for white women, and more than three times as high as that of Latina women.”)

And, of course, it’s much easier for me and other non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals to be supportive of the members of the black community if we have the same love and respect from them that they want from us.

With equal human and civil rights for everyone, everyone wins.

Except, perhaps, for the members of the right wing, who have opposed equal human and civil rights, who have opposed liberty and justice for all, forever.

That so many blacks have shared that trait with the white wingnuts is nothing short of tragic.

P.S. Here is the text of the NAACP’s decision to support same-sex marriage, from the organization’s website:

The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the “political, educational, social and economic equality” of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.

Of course, that last sentence, an apparent afterthought, apparently had to be thrown in there in order to appease the churchgoing set. Of course, one’s religious freedoms do not include the “right” to impose his or her own religious beliefs upon everyone else, which the churchgoing set has a problem understanding, thus their incredibly insane claim that they are victimized if they are not allowed to victimize others, because their religious beliefs include the supposedly Bible-based victimization of others.

Not being a member of the black community, I don’t know how much sway the NAACP has within the black community. The organization’s website proclaims:

The NAACP has addressed civil rights with regard to marriage since Loving vs. Virginia declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act, and most recently, North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which changed the state constitution’s to prohibit same-sex marriage.

While I am happy to see the NAACP’s comparison of same-sex marriage rights to mixed-race (heterosexual) marriage rights, if it is true that the NAACP showed “strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California,” the fact that 70 percent of the state’s black voters voted down same-sex marriage nontheless indicates, unfortunately, that the NAACP doesn’t have an awful lot of sway within the black community, at least not here in California or in North Carolina or in the other states where black voters have shot down same-sex marriage in much higher percentages than have their white, Latino and Asian counterparts.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Barack Obama’s one-term presidency seems fairly unavoidable

Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush both lost re-election primarily because of a shitty national economy. How will “underdog” Barack Obama avoid their fate, even with his “vision”?

So the 2012 presidential race is shaping up to look like a hybrid of the 1980 and the 1996 presidential races.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked the people of the nation if they were better off, under then-President Jimmy Carter, than they were four years previously.

Today, President Barack Obama freely proclaims that Americans are not better off now than they were four years ago, giving the Repugnican Tea Partiers an early Christmas gift.

Obama proclaims that the 2012 presidential election will be about “who’s got a vision?”

“Vision” doesn’t pay the average voter’s bills, however, and I can’t see what Obama’s “vision” thus far has accomplished — the constitutionality of his “signature” legislative “accomplishment” of health care “reform” is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its current term — but whatever.

Obama also has found a way to make the nation’s economic collapse all about himself, proclaiming himself to be the “underdog.” Why are you worrying about yourself when you should be focusing on Barack Obama?

These statements, apparently meant to bolster Obama, only demonstrate how out of touch with the common American he is.

And it certainly doesn’t help Obama’s re-election chances that the same young people whom he apparently lied to in order to get into the White House are now filling up Wall Street and other metropolitan areas protesting his solidarity with the Wall Street weasels and other treasonous corporatocrats and plutocrats who tanked our economy.

Obama’s best shot at re-election is that the Repugnican Tea Partiers pick the worst candidate that they possibly could, a candidate so manifestly awful that he or she makes Obama look like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln by comparison. That candidate would be Texas Gov. Rick Perry, but Perry seems to be imploding.

While Perry might have survived Niggerheadgate — he could be criticized fairly if his family hadn’t changed the racist name of the Texas property after they bought it, but it appears that they did — the scandal/“scandal” has cast a spotlight on other aspects of Rick Perry, such as this, as reported by The Associated Press today:

Austin, Texas — Eleven years ago, when the NAACP stepped up a campaign to remove the Confederate battle flag from statehouses and other government buildings across the South, it found an opponent in Rick Perry.

Texas had a pair of bronze plaques with symbols of the Confederacy displayed in its state Supreme Court building. Perry, then lieutenant governor, said they should stay put, arguing that Texans “should never forget our history.”

It’s a position Perry has taken consistently when the legacy of the Civil War has been raised, as have officials in many of the other former Confederate states. But while defense of Confederate symbols and Southern institutions can still be good politics below the Mason-Dixon line,
the subject can appear in a different light when officials seek national office. …

Yup. What plays well in Texas tends to wither on the national scene.

I’m fine for never forgetting our history (indeed, we forget it at our own peril), but the Confederate flag, like the word “nigger,” belongs in the
history books
not on public display, except perhaps at a museum (ditto for the swastika). Besides, the white supremacists who run the state of Texas make damn sure that the publishers of the history textbooks used in the state’s schools don’t offend white (or “Christian” or heterosexual or capitalist or…) sensibilities, so what’s the problem, Ricky?

The Repugnican Tea Partiers seem anxious to identify their champion to go up against Obama, with more and more red states moving up their primary or caucus dates. I doubt that Perry has time to recover in an ever-contracting Repugnican Tea Party presidential primary season. If he were eloquent he might be able to get past Niggerheadgate, but the fact that he has a penchant for stumbling into incoherence during nationally televised debates bodes ill for him.

As much as I never want to see a President Perry, it seems to me that Barack Obama’s best chance for re-election would be if Perry emerges as his opponent. Recent nationwide polls show Obama beating Perry in a hypothetical matchup by three or more percentage points.

Those same polls, however, show former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Obama within only one to three percentage points of each other, with Romney beating Obama by two percentage points in at least two recent nationwide polls. (I define “recent” as taken within the last month.)

A while back I likened Mitt Romney to Bob Dole, the incredibly wooden and uncharismatic Repugnican Party presidential candidate of 1996, the year that Bill Clinton fairly coasted to re-election.

Against Bob Dole II, Obama would be assured re-election, I thought back then, but back then I’d also thought that the nation’s economy would have shown some improvement by now.

However, the economy shows no signs of improvement between now and Election Day in November 2012, and so my money is on the 2012 presidential election looking like a cross between the 1980 and the 1996 presidential elections: Yes, the Repugnicans will front an uncharismatic candidate whom (unlike was the case with Ronald Reagan) no one is excited about, but, given the shambles that the economy is in, the uncharismatic Repugnican candidate (Mitt Romney, in case that isn’t clear) will beat the Democratic incumbent. The voters will be that thirsty for the change that was promised to them in 2008 but that never was delivered: that they’ll drink sea water, even though drinking sea water will kill you even faster than will plain old dehydration.

Many progressives whom Obama punk’d in Round One with his hollow promises of “hope” and “change” won’t bother to vote in November 2012 at all, having no progressive presidential candidate to vote for. If they do hold their nose and vote for Obama in November 2012, because of their lack of enthusiasm they certainly won’t talk up Obama’s re-election like they talked up his initial election, and if they give Team Obama any money in Round Two, they certainly won’t give as much as they did in Round One.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, on the other hand, I surmise, want a Repugnican, any Repugnican, back in the White House more enthusiastically than most of Barack Obama’s (former) supporters want four more years! This enthusiasm gap, I believe, is the biggest threat to Obama’s re-election.*

But, of course, the Obamabots — those invididuals for whom Barack Obama can do no wrong and who have some excuse for virtually all of his miserable failings – will blame Obama’s November 2012 loss on those of us who are actually progressive, who instead of selling out our progressive
principles steadfastly stick to our progressive principles (among which is not the idea of supporting the lesser of two evils). Some of them will even stoop to calling us “racist.” Some of them already have started doing that.

All of that completely fucking ignores, of course, the fact that Barack Obama, early in his presidency, did what even dipshit George W. Bush damn well knew better not to do: to shit and piss all over your base, to extend the middle finger, repeatedly, to those very same people who got you into the White House in the first place.

Competent historians, I believe, will identify that as Obama’s biggest mistake: having shat and pissed all over his base.

Had Obama followed the progressive economic advice that his base gave him from Day One of his presidency, the nation’s economy would have improved. But by trying to win over those whose support he never was going to gain in the first place through his countless “bipartisan” capitulations, by trying to make everyone love him to death, Obama sealed his own fate.

If Barack Obama actually manages to eke out re-election 13 months from now, I will be shocked.

I once expected him to be like Bill Clinton, easily fending off a challenge to a second term by a snooze-inducing Repugnican challenger. But now I expect Obama to be like Jimmy Carter, a one-term Democratic president. Especially when Obama freely publicly admits that we’re not better off now than we were four years ago.

*Lest any Obamabot try to deny that there even is an enthusiasm gap, a nationwide McClatchy-Marist poll taken less than a month ago asked, “Do you definitely plan to vote for Barack Obama for re-election as president or do you definitely plan to vote against him?” A whopping 49 percent declared “against him,” while only 36 percent declared for him, with 15 percent declaring that they aren’t sure yet. I surmise that the lion’s share of those 15 percent in the end will vote for the Repugnican Tea Party candidate.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The real problem with ‘Dr.’ Laura

File:DrLauraSchlessingerByPhilKonstantin.jpg

Baby-boomer wingnut “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger maintains that there’s no difference whatsoever between a rich white wingnut like herself using the word “nigger” and a black person using the word “nigger.” She also doesn’t want to be “NAACP’d” (I never knew that that was a verb), calls historically oppressed minority groups “hypersensitive” (it’s easy to say that someone else is “hypersensitive” when you yourself are a member of the historically oppressive and dominant group), and advises the “hypersensitive,” “Don’t marry out of your race.” 

CALLER: How about the “n”-word? So, the “n”-word’s been thrown around [by her white husband’s white friends; the female caller identifies herself as black] —

SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is “nigger, nigger, nigger.”

CALLER: That isn’t —

SCHLESSINGER: I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it’s affectionate. It’s very confusing. Don’t hang up, I want to talk to you some more. Don’t go away.

I’m Dr. Laura Schlessinger. I’ll be right back.

… 

CALLER: So it’s OK to say “nigger”? … It’s OK to say that word?

SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it’s said.

CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?

SCHLESSINGER: It’s — it depends how it’s said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it’s OK.

CALLER: But you’re not black. They’re [my husband’s friends are] not black. My husband is white.

SCHLESSINGER: Oh, I see. So, a word is restricted to race. Got it. Can’t do much about that.

CALLER: I can’t believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out the “nigger” word, and I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: I didn’t spew out the “nigger” word.

CALLER: You said, “nigger, nigger, nigger.”

SCHLESSINGER: Right, I said that’s what you hear.

CALLER: Everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: Yes, they did.

CALLER: I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: They did, and I’ll say it again —

CALLER: So what makes it OK for you to say the word?

SCHLESSINGER: — “nigger, nigger, nigger” is what you hear on HB[O] —

CALLER: So what makes it —

SCHLESSINGER: Why don’t you let me finish a sentence?

CALLER: OK.

SCHLESSINGER: Don’t take things out of context. Don’t double N — NAACP me. Tape the —

CALLER: I know what the NAACP —

SCHLESSINGER: Leave them in context.

CALLER: I know what the N-word means and I know it came from a white person. And I know the white person made it bad.

SCHLESSINGER: All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Can’t have this argument. You know what? If you’re that hypersensitive about color and don’t have a sense of humor, don’t marry out of your race….

And what I just heard from Jade [the caller] is a lot of what I hear from black-think — and it’s really distressting [sic] and disturbing. And to put it in its context, she said the “n”-word, and I said, on HBO, listening to black comics, you hear “nigger, nigger, nigger.” I didn’t call anybody a nigger. Nice try, Jade. Actually, sucky try….

From “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger’s radio show of August 10

I haven’t chimed in yet on the “Dr.” Laura* brouhaha, so here goes. In a word, it isn’t about “the ‘n’-word.”

What it is about is that “Dr.” Laura Schlessigner is an overly comfortable right-wing white person who is unable to or refuses to even try to have empathy with members of other groups that don’t have the same comfort and ease and the same privileges that she and her lily-white ilk do.

Schlessinger claimed, on her August 10 radio talk show, that if black people can say “nigger,” so can she and other whites.

It’s as though there were no such fucking thing as social context.

She’s another fucking dipshit, another wingnutty dingbat, but she’s a “doctor” and a baby boomer, so she actually makes money dispensing her “wisdom” and “expert advice.”

If black people want to call each other “nigger,” that’s fine with me. It’s their business. It’s their free speech. It was their right to take back an ugly word that had been used against them for decades if not for centuries by racists and white supremacists.

For a rich white right-winger like Schlessinger to use the word “nigger” obviously is different, because her cohort is representative of the group that once used the word “nigger” as a venomous pejorative against blacks and held blacks down for generations (and still holds them down).

Duh.

Similarly, as a gay man, if I use words like “queer” or “faggot,” that’s quite a different social context than if a known homo-hater uses those words.

There are some of my uptight fellow gay men who take themselves and their sexuality way too seriously who believe that no one should use such words as “faggot” or “queer” or “Froot Loop.”

That’s fine. If they don’t want to use such words themselves, more power to them. But those fucking faggots they have no right to dictate my free speech.

So “Dr.” Laura’s biggest sin, in my book, is not her simple use of the word “nigger,” even repeatedly. It’s her assertion that there really is no difference as to whether a rich white wingnut like herself uses the word or whether a black person uses the word.

It seems to me that no person whose empathetic ability and logical skills are so absofuckinglutely non-existent should be using the title “Dr.” and be a commercially successful dispenser of advice.

I wholeheartedly support “Dr.” Laura’s right to free speech, and, as this news analysis makes clear, legally the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects us from governmental interference in our speech, not from such things as boycotts or social pressure that arises as the result of our saying things that are unpopular.

When we fags and dykes non-heterosexuals started to boycott businesses that gave money to the Proposition H8 effort, I remember pro-Prop H8 assbites positing, at least implicitly, that boycotts are illegal. (The wingnuts’ insane “argument” seemed to be that we consumers have to give our money to businesses. “Free” enterprise apparently means that the business owners, but not we consumers, have economic freedom.) 

No, boycotts (and similar pressure campaigns) are not illegal.

They’re just another form of free speech in a society that we claim is free.

“Dr.” Laura has the free-speech right to go on air and have an entire show in which the only word that she says is “nigger.” She can have “nigger”-a-thon if she fucking wants to. But if this causes people to complain to the broadcasting business(es) that put(s) her bile and venom on the air, and to boycott her show’s advertisers, well, it’s the free-speech right of those individuals to do so.

“Dr.” Laura should not be relegated to the dustbin of wingnut history because she repeatedly said the “‘n’-word,” though. She should be put out to pasture because she has demonstrated, amply, that she’s only a husk of a shell of a human being with no feeling or compassion whatsofuckingever.

And her other words outside of “nigger” — “Don’t double N — NAACP me”; her charge that blacks are “hypersensitive” (despite the long history of white-on-black discrimination and violence, not to mention the historical white enslavement of blacks); and “Don’t marry out of your race” — demonstrate amply, I think, what “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger is all about.

*I use quotation marks around the title “Dr.” because Schlessinger does not have a degree in psychology or psychiatry or the like. Her 1974 doctorate was in physiology, for fuck’s sake.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Black racism’ is pure bullshit

“Is black racism a real problem? Or is it pure politics?” asks an analytical Associated Press piece today.

The answer is simple: Politics. Pure. And simple.

It gets the white supremacists off to assert that blacks (or other non-whites) actually are the racists. Never mind that whole slavery and post-slavery oppression thing: Blacks should just wuv whitey, because hey, we’re all equals now! (Except that we’re not, not in terms of sociopolitical power, we’re sure the fuck not.)

The charge of “black racism” is just projection, which is all that the right wing is capable of: seeing wrongs in everyone else except themselves, and accusing others of the exact same wrongs that they’re guilty of themselves.

And, of course, the plutocrats just love it when the masses are fighting amongst themselves instead of going after the real enemy: the plutocrats.

Which pretty much is what “black racist” Shirley Sherrod actually was saying in her wildly misrepresented speech at the NAACP banquet in Georgia. She said in her speech that she came to realize that socioeconomic class, not race, was the real problem, and that she found solidarity with a poor white farmer through their shared lower socioeconomic status — which is exactly the message that the plutocrats don’t want you to hear, so they’ll assert, as the lying right-wing traitors on Faux “News” did, that Sherrod is a “racist.”

(Faux “News,” owned and operated by a fucking billionaire, exists entirely to keep the dipshit, easily duped mouth-breathers mired in their ignorance and to ensure that they never correctly identify the actual cause of their misery: their corporate overlords and their own fucking stupidity that prevents them from being able to tell friend from fucking foe. Instead, Faux “News” instructs its zombified viewers to blame undocumented immigrants, non-heterosexuals, Muslims and others for all of the nation’s ills.) 

Sherrod also says in the full video of her speech at the NAACP banquet — but not, of course, in the dishonestly pared down and carefully deceptively edited video that white supremacist scumbag human dog shit wingnut he-should-donate-his-organs-now-so-that-someone-else-can-make-better-use-of-them neo-Nazi Andrew Breitbart passed off (quite successfully, initially) as “evidence” of Sherrod’s “racism” — that her father was slain in 1965 by unknown white men.

But yeah, really, Sherrod should just love whitey, and we should fucking lynch her if she doesn’t sufficiently kiss white neo-Nazi ass.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Uh, are they STILL not racist, Joe?

FILE - In this March 30, 2010 file photo, Tea ...

Associated Press photo

Racist Mark Williams, right-wing talk-radio host and a leader of the “Tea Party Express” (photographed above in Salt Lake City in March), had his “tea party” group ousted from the “National Tea Party Federation” because of blatantly racist “satire” that he posted on his blog.

So at about the same time that Vice President Joe Biden stupidly was babbling that neither he nor President Barack Obama believes that the “tea party,” overall, is racist, the “tea-party” dipshits were having an internal squabble in which the “National Tea Party Federation” (um, shouldn’t that be “Tea Party Confederacy”?) ousted the “Tea Party Express” from its ranks because “Tea Party Express” “leader” Mark Williams had posted this “satirical” (Ha ha ha ha ha!) letter from blacks to Abraham Lincoln on his blog (this is an excerpt):

Dear Mr. Lincoln,

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Right-wingers are soooo very funny!

The “Tea Party Express” refused to rebuke Williams for his “satire,” and so it was expelled from the “National Tea Party Federation,” reports MSNBC

Williams and his fucktarded ilk apparently are fixated on the pulled-from-their-ass “idea” that the NAACP is “racist” because “NAACP” stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the word “colored,” they proclaim, is “racist.”

Uh, I know that the wingnuts don’t know shit from shinola or U.S. history from their assholes (although that certainly doesn’t stop them from pulling all of those whitewashed “U.S. history” books from their assholes), but the NAACP was founded in 1909yes, in Nineteen Oh Fucking Nine –when “colored” was the common term used for blacks at that time.

If the NAACP wants to keep “colored” as part of its name, that’s NAACP’s fucking prerogative, and it’s not “racist” if a black person wishes to refer to him- or herself as “colored.” Antiquated, perhaps, but not “racist.” (In my book, it’s not even racist if a black person wishes to refer to him- or herself as a “nigger”; it’s racist if a racist refers to a black person as a “nigger.”)

If I want to refer to myself as a “queer” or a “faggot” or even a “pole-smoker” or a “fudge-packer,” that doesn’t make me homophobic. As a gay man, I may use whatever fucking label for myself that I please.

I only regret that words such as “cracker” or “honky” or even “fucking prick” don’t even begin to capture how despicable and worthless such white supremacist fucktards as Mark Williams and his “tea-partying” ilk are.

And Joe Biden really needs to get his head out of his elitist ass and fucking stop proclaiming that blatantly obvious racists aren’t racists.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized