The "Redskins" could become the "Redtails"? Not if the Racists Can Help it...

In Washington DC,  Council member David Grosso plans to introduce a non-binding resolution to urge the Washington Redskins to change their name.  And they fucking should.  That name, along with the various other racist club names in professional and college sports, do not honor the first Americans, they trivialize them, and what we as a nation did to them.

Now of course even if this resolution passes, it will be completely non binding.  The NFL and all of it's teams are private businesses and can do as they like.  But that hasn't stopped racist sports dicks like those at the Washington Times from getting severely butt-hurt over this.  It is to these specific dicks that I would like to respond today.  As the editorial does not have a name in the byline for me to address directly, I'm just going to call you dick.  Cool?

"Mr. Grosso, a composer yet, says the team’s popular anthem can be easily modified — “Hail to the Redtails” — and “you can still keep the feather.” Hooray. But if “Redskins” demeans Indians, why wouldn’t “Redtails” demean fighter pilots?"

Is this a serious question?  Do you actually not understand the distinction here? On the chance that you really have a cognitive disability and you're not just being a fucking asshole because "Football!" or whatever, I'll answer your question.  Because "red tails" does not refer to the race of the people you're describing, dick.

"The first-term councilman doesn’t appear to have any particular connection to football"

Nor does he need one.  I don't even live in D.C., and I find myself perfectly capable of being offended by your racist traditions, dick.

"Mr. Grosso might not know that “Redskins,” as they have been called for 80 years, was actually adopted to honor its second coach, Lone Star Dietz, who was descended from American Indians"

I didn't know that either, dick.  I also don't care.  If the dodgers had changed their name to "The Coons" or some other horrible name, and said it was to honor Jackie Robinson would that make it okay?  Do you not understand that "redskin" is a racial slur? It's always the same thing with racists, you guys think if you can find someone not offended that it somehow negates everyone who is.  Or you throw out those "Someone will be offended by something no matter what we do" tropes but have you ever asked yourself why you think it's so awesome to offend people?  What exactly is so great about everyone thinking you're racist, dick?

"before “Indians” became “Native Americans” (which is what most of us are)."

nothing racist here right?
This is what respect looks like

Just fucking wow, dick.  I think we're getting to heart of the matter here. First of all, most American Indians are fine with the word "Indian"  but they still don't like the Cleveland Indians because "Chief Wahoo" is a fucking racist caricature, and white people waving inflatable tomahawks and wearing war bonnets is not a way to "honor" their culture and history.

 Furthermore, from a cultural standpoint, no, most of us are not native Americans, dick.  We are a nation of immigrants and their descendants. Which is why that term was coined for the original inhabitants of this land.  But regardless of weather you like either term, or feel that political correctness is a personal slight against you because offending the people that America systematically tried to eliminate from the planet is your god-given right as an American, the fact remains that "redskin" is not okay.  It's a slur.  It's a reduction of a people to their skin color.  The fact that you don't get this, doesn't make them or me or Councilman Grosso oversensitive, it makes you a dick, dick.

"Mr. Grosso says Democratic council members Muriel Bowser (Ward 4) and Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5) have signed up so far for his crusade. This issue bubbles and squeaks from time to time because certain politicians are more concerned with getting their names in the newspapers than with the pain of the masses who are not offended by a name honoring the bravery and fighting spirit of the original Americans"

Remember: You don't tell me when I'm offending you;
I tell you.  That's how being white works.

Or, Dick,  Or maybe it "bubbles and squeaks" from time to time, because some Americans, and Washingtonians find it makes their skin crawl that their football team has a racist slur for a name.  Maybe, that name is not in fact used to honor anyone, but rather to reduce an entire people to a fucking mascot.  Maybe some people are a little more sensitive to the holocaust that was carried out by this country on an entire people.  Maybe if you have a problem with his name being in the paper, dick, you shouldn't have published your racist rant.

"A D.C. councilman’s life can be a lonely one."

Apparently so can an editorial writers' for the Washington Times.

Look there's really nothing to discuss here.  You have no argument.  Your only point is "tradition"  The idea that we've done it a certain way for long enough that it now justifies itself.  That logic holds exactly zero water, dick.  It's a football team.  You keep making the argument that there are more important things for the council to do than worry about football, which means you ostensibly agree that football doesn't fucking matter.  So what do you care if they stop calling themselves a racial slur?  Football may be a silly subject for the council to address but racism isn't, Dick.

Holy Shit. Did I Just Agree with Bill O'Reilly?

I'm seriously speechless.  Bill O'Reilly is telling conservatives to keep religion out of the policy debate?  I don't know what to believe anymore.

Islamophobia in the (New)Atheist Community

Sam Harris is under fire again for being an Islamophobe.  In this e-mail exchange, he confronts one of his critics, and I want to talk about a few of these points.

Atheists (or I suppose I should say the "New Atheists" as though that term still has meaning) in fact, do have some problems with racism, sexism, and homophobia.  I couldn't pretend to have numbers on what percentage but the idea that we're a a wholly liberal movement is patently absurd.  Our libertarian faction alone (Ayn Rand was an atheist after all) should be proof enough of that.  If there's anything you can glean about the group as a whole, besides a simple disbelief in god, would be a critical take on religion.  Of that, it's fair to say anyone who identifies as a "New Atheist" could probably find little to quibble with.

But is there a faction that singles out Islam as Sam Harris is accused of?  I've often been accused of singling out Christianity, though it's tough to conclude that I'm a racist if the accusation is true.  But Muslims, worldwide anyway, are not predominantly white.  They are largely Middle Eastern, African, and Asian.  We've all seen the strong racist under(and often over)tones of racism from those critical of Islam from the perspective of the Christian right in this country, and so Sam Harris is not out of line for pointing that out.  But apparently, he fails to distinguish himself from them in the eyes of his critics.

I'm a little torn on the issue.  If we just lined up the various religions in some sort of cultural vacuum  and let me just go nuts criticizing them on their own stated merits, I bet I would be pretty even handed.  But as I'm fond of saying, we don't live in a vacuum, and I would wonder very much about the motivations of anyone who spends too long on one specific silly fairy-tale. (I'll get to whether I think Harris does this a little later...)

Let's take me for example.  I took a look back through this blogs history (and at my own facebook history, where I also often rant about things political and religious in nature), and I've had a thing or two to say about Islam and Judaism and a few other religions besides Christianity, but Christianity is definitely in my cross-hairs more often.  By factors.  Why do I seem to be picking on Christianity, and not Islam?  Is it because I'm some neo-liberal ideologue who embraces all diversity but only because I hate Christians?  no.  That's fucking stupid.  It's because Christians are the ones actively pushing their fundamentalism here. In my country In my home.

Like in North Carolina, where their legislature has just put forward this bill, that will allow them to make an official state religion of North Carolina.  Seriously.  A state sponsored religion, because fuck the Constitution.  And it's not Muslims trying to slip this garbage in, it's Christians.

But Sam Harris does seem to be a little more preoccupied with Islam. Sam also operates on a world stage, where as I, regrettably do not.  I've never been to Africa, the Middle East, or south Asia.I do not live in France or the UK where these threats from fundamentalist Islam may be more real than they are here.  I keep relatively well-informed, but I just don't feel expert in the nuances of those cultures to weigh in on how serious a threat this may be. Perhaps if I had grown up indoctrinated by Islam instead of Christianity I'd be more focused on the dangers of fundamentalist Islam than fundamentalist Christianity.

I believe the general issue is one of intellectual consistency.  Allow me to provide a parallel or two.  If you refuse to support marriage equality, and you give the reason that you don't think the government should be in the marriage game at all, but you have thus far engaged in zero attempts to get it out of the straight marriage business,  then you're not being intellectually consistent. Clearly your stated reason is just not the case, and I'm not out of bounds to call you a lying homophobe.   Another example is immigration.  If you claim you want to secure our borders for economic reasons, competition for jobs etc.  but you only want to build a fence on the border with mexico, and not Canada, and you don't want to shut down ports of entry from Europe, well, you're not being intellectually honest. You're clearly motivated by racism.

The same logic can apply here, and here's where I part ways with Sam Harris.  If you claim the separation of church and state are crucial and that's why you campaign so hard against Islam or sharia law, but you don't also campaign against shit like that NC bill,  well, you're an Islamophobe.  Yes Sam,  it is a thing.  I'm not saying Sam Harris is one,  but we have them, lots of them in this country.  They are racist, and xenophobic, and aren't in the least bit interested in protecting church state separation, or freedom of religion, they just don't want any competition for their own fundamentalism.

I sleep well at night (and I'm sure Sam Harris does too) with my own intellectual consistency, but let's not pretend that there aren't atheists who are very clearly motivated in their hatred of Islam by racism.  And let's not continue to allow atheism to provide a better argument for their racism.  Let's hold them accountable.

Some Thoughts on Responsible Gun Ownership

I read this story today. It turned my stomach.  Two Boys, aged 10 and 11, were found playing with a knife on the school bus, and upon further investigation, it was learned that the two boys were planning the violent rape and murder of a classmate.  Oh yeah, and they had a gun. Apparently, they stole it from one of the kids' older siblings.

So my liberal fear mongering desire to take guns away from "responsible gun owners" kicked in. Except, please explain again how responsible this older sibling was with his .45 caliber pistol and ammunition that was stolen by a 10 year old.

In Chicago, where they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, they still have some of the highest rates of gun violence.  Police say the guns are simply bought outside of Chicago and trafficked in, and sold to minors, felons, and other persons who would never pass a background check, presumably by law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

See this is the straw man of the pro-gun lobby.  That any laws we enact to combat gun violence will only "harm" you responsible, law abiding, sportsmen and home and self defense enthusiasts.

Back in January, a total of 5 people were shot, on accident at gun shows in North Carolina and Ohio. Some responsible, law abiding gun owners brought loaded weapons into large crowded convention grounds with the intention of selling them, and with all of their responsible safe-handling expertise, managed to accidentally shoot 5 people.

I've never owned a gun, but every gun I've ever handled, I was shown how to clear it before handling it.  I guess they just skip that bit at fucking gun shows, where they're also allowed to skip bits about waiting periods and background checks, because that shit annoys you responsible, law abiding gun owners.

You know, the world is just chock full of examples of people ruining it for everyone.  It's usually the asshole who's sitting around talking about how awesome he is at whatever, and so the rules shouldn't apply to him, and then goes drunk driving, or fills his foot full of buckshot.  I know anecdotes are not evidence, but enough of them and you have a trend.  I'm not trying to talk about those million to one odds school shootings, (though it would certainly be a bonus if responsible law abiding gun owners like Nancy Lanza could have secured her weapons) I'm talking to all you responsible gun owners.  The ones who say us liberals are targeting you, because Obama's a socialist Kenyan or whatever.  Tell us how responsible you all are when in addition to stories like those above, 1.7 million guns are reported stolen each year.  Don't you guys insist your guns are for preventing theft to your person and property? Do any of you lock shit up? Tell us how responsible you are with over 20,000 accidental shootings every year.  Seriously guys, one or two fuck ups, even a few hundred in a nation this large, I'm sure we can all agree is gonna happen.  But 20,000?  Could perhaps some of you responsible gun owners step up, and start training the idiots?  Maybe get behind some legislation designed not to increase profits for Bushmaster, but rather to increase safety?  Seriously, who the fuck are the "responsible" gun owners?

Oh look at that,  you've all raised your hands.  Good thing too.  I was starting to worry that maybe you're not as responsible as you think you are.

On Macklemore, Straight White Privilege, and Being an Ally

"We" can be a tricky word.  It's a lot more loaded than people tend to realize.  Whenever it's used, the speaker is effectively claiming to speak for a entire group, which can be problematic.  Equally difficult is "they" The speaker then defines an entire group.  Add in privilege and shit gets really messy.

I read an article today criticizing Macklemore and Ryan Lewis for... Well, I'ts difficult to say exactly what the  problem is.  The article is a month old, but I also found it relevant to the recent Facebook user response  to the SCOTUS hearing arguments on DOMA and Prop 8.  Macklemore is straight and white and male, and a rapper, and has become a voice of criticism of misogyny and homophobia in Hip Hop.  I read the article with interest, because while I'm no rapper, I am also white and male and straight, and tend to agree with Macklemore's message.  I also dig the music. (and no I'm not surprised by any side-eyes to the effect of "Of course you like that rapper")

The article's criticism seemed to be about Macklemore's standing to criticize, and his choice to do it in what is more or less a community space for Black folks.  There is definitely something to the tendency for white allies to (perhaps inadvertently) attempt to distance whites from responsibility for homophobia.  The best example of this I've seen was during the last election, when the issue of marriage equality came up, I suppose because we had a black president, all anyone wanted to talk about was weather black voters would still support him or if those super homophobic black churches would keep people home on election day.  As if white churches had all finally come around and the last vestiges of religious homophobia were clinging on only in the "black churches".  And what's more these questions and criticisms seemed to be coming entirely from white people.  For the record, Churches are where homophobic messages flourish, and there are still a hell of a lot more white people in church in this country.  To call out only people of color is racist. It's a clear attempt to distinguish a specific "we" from a specific "them" when assigning blame.

But Hip Hop isn't a church.  It's obviously a product of my privilege and cultural biases that I've heard of Macklemore but none of the other queer artists listed in that article, as much as it's a product of Macklemore's that he's blowing up right now.  But Macklemore is still an artist, and this idea that he's using art that doesn't belong to him to lecture a community he doesn't belong to is just as problematic.  Not all homage is appropriation.  And isn't all art theft anyway?  Perhaps I can't claim the Hip Hop community as my own, but I'm a fan. It seems to be as much his as much as anyone else's.  With art, we should be careful when saying that anything is "ours" to the exclusion of some other.

So which "we" does someone have the responsibility to criticize?   I work in a homeless men's shelter. The population is predominantly black, and there is an immense amount of misogyny,  homophobia, and transphobia here.  It would be easy for me to fall back on the privileged position of claiming color blindness, and assert myself condescendingly as a voice of authority when I hear the word "faggot" or any of the other disparaging gender slurs, but by what right do I, who has suffered virtually no oppression in my life, start to participate in the 'Oppression Olympics' by telling anyone about someone else's? Or for that matter their own?

I believe the causes of inequality in this country, exist in every community. And the solutions must come from within those communities.  When do I feel justified lecturing people on racial or gender politics?  When I'm talking to white men, that's when.  When people of color or queer folk are speaking on behalf of their communities, I see it as my place to listen.   I saw Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' "Same Love" as talking to the straight fans of Hip Hop, and I can't see a more appropriate "we" for them to address, or a more appropriate message for us to hear.

Pope Shmope

I tried to watch some CNN yesterday (I know, I guess I was just angry at myself or something) and there was exactly one story in the 24 hour news cycle: The Catholics have been given a new leader.

I'm not going to write an entire post about how I don't care, or he's just as bad as the last one, or whatever, because it's well worn territory (and also I kinda do care).  But I'd rather just talk to Catholics for a second, and maybe one or two of you could get the word out to the rest of you and maybe even some other Christians in the US who seem to feel that their religion is under attack.  Seriously, you guys just picked a new leader (or rather if you had one picked for you because half of you are women, and don't matter, and the other half only matter if you've spent your life not having sex and telling everyone else when they are and aren't allowed to) and it is the only story.

Every American now knows the word "Jesuit" and is learning what it means.  They are all learning who St. Frances was.  They all know way too fucking much about a pair of red fucking shoes.  All this because your religion is now on a 24 hour circle jerk on every channel.  In what fucking universe is this kind of attention considered an attack?

I'm not going to rant to you about all the homophobic shit this elderly ass has said.  You've heard it.  You know his stance on birth control, abortion, women's rights, and even you Catholics (at least any that might listen to anything I say) know it's repellent, archaic, and on the wrong side of both history and decency.  I'm going to ask Catholics like Bill Donohue and anyone else who feels victimized to climb off their cross and turn on a TV, and thank Jesus that raped children don't merit the same attention as a 76 year old virgin's red shoes.

And have a Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Bigot School Fires Unwed Mother; Mother Acts Surprised

So I read this article today about a woman, who was unmarried (though engaged) and pregnant  being fired from her job as a financial aid specialist at San Diego Christian College.  She was fired because by getting herself knocked up before a clergy member could officially declare she was someone else's property, as god apparently intended, she had proven that she was in fact a morally depraved strumpet in direct violation of the Handbook and Community Covenant of the school.

This story is making the rounds because of course she is suing, and in an especially insulting twist, after firing her, the school offered a job to her (then) fiancee, despite knowing that he had clearly thought he could do whatever he wanted with his own bathing suit area as well, but that was totally cool, cause he's a dude.  It makes for some good Christian bashing in the blogosphere; "Misogynist Bigot School Fires Woman for being a Slut, Then Offers Job to her Man".  And normally, I'm all about some good old fashion Christian bashing, but there's this other side to this that bothers me.

A lot of people are discussing the legality here.  Apparently you can fire someone for violating a code of conduct, but you can not force someone to sign away a legal protection, and being pregnant is one such protection.  Having premarital sex is not.  So it really depends on what a judge is going to say, and I have to admit, I don't care.

I actually read this "community covenant" and it would appear that this is the relevant clause:

"Biblical character is highly valued and desired at SDCC. Scripture describes character qualities by what it is and what it is not. The positive traits we commit to included in our character are love, joy, kindness, patience, humility, compassion, forgiveness, hospitality, integrity, generosity, care for the oppressed, commitment to justice, and the recognition of the rights and needs of others. The traits that should not inhabit our lives are identified as abusive anger; malice; jealousy; lust; sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography, and homosexuality; evil desires; prejudice based on race, sex, or socioeconomic status; greed; idolatry; slander; profanity; lying; drunkenness; thievery; and dishonesty."

And concludes:

This covenant is binding for all members who choose to become a part of the SDCC Community and are standards that should be maintained while a member of the community. We agree to be held accountable to the biblical standards and the traditions of  this commitment. We understand that appropriate action will be taken if the covenant is disregarded. The goal of the appropriate action will always be characterized by Christ’s love and redemptive spirit; however, we must recognize that ultimately withdrawal from the community may result if these commitments are not honored.

I love Christians and their euphemisms; "Withdrawal from the Community" = Shitcanned.

Anyway, so it turns out that Teri James, the poor woman who was fired, signed this vile document and worked for this disgusting institution for 2 years.  It's unclear whether she signed it prior to beginning her employment or not, only that she signed it prior to getting pregnant.

Which says to me that Ms. James was fine working for an employer who was firing or refusing to hire gay people, non Christians, and unmarried disobedient strumpets, so long as they turned a blind eye on her personally.  She "just needed a job".  Well, I won't be joining in the process of making this woman into an equal-rights martyr.  The way to combat this kind of bigotry is not to silently condone it and support it until it harms you personally, it's to denounce it from the beginning.  I hope she and the school both lose this case, but somehow I'm sure no matter how it turns out, I'm not going to feel great about the outcome.