Recently, in a dramatic display of political theater, black students at Dartmouth College tore down a Blue Lives Matter display set up by campus Republicans and "reclaimed" the space for the Black Lives Matter movement.
The knee-jerk reaction to this story is to scream about censorship and the death of classical liberalism on the college campus, and I get that. But I can also sympathize with these black students in a big way.
The “Blue Lives Matter” reaction to Black Lives Matter is more than just a political response to some of the overblown anti-police rhetoric we’ve heard lately. It is, as these students realize, an attempt to co-opt and obfuscate the message of Black Lives Matter, which is that the gunning down of unarmed teenagers in city streets is an occasion for outrage and a national conversation about police tactics and the value we place on the lives of young black men.
“Blue Lives Matter” steers the narrative away from this and plays into conservative notions of Black Lives Matter “really” being about justifying criminality, breaking down police, law & order and, ultimately, the safety of white people. (See the recent right-wing media—Breitbart, etc.—reactions to the Section 8 policies of Julian Castro, framed as an attempt to flood the suburbs with poor nonwhites.)
The Dartmouth students’ need to “reclaim space” and the belief that Blue Lives Matter “facilitates the erasure of black lives” can be understood in the context of a whole host of passive-aggressive narratives circulating today that seek to minimize, trivialize or turn the conversation away from the historical concerns of black people. Replace “slavery” with “state’s rights.” Replace “protest” with “political correctness.” Replace “black” with any of several once-disadvantaged European ethnic groups (ignoring the historical reality of white privilege and white economic mobility). Replace “black” with “blue.”
Monday, August 22, 2016
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Mass Murder: Comparing Orlando and Paris
To commit mass murder in France, you train abroad, establish complex criminal networks across borders, set up smuggling rings and safe houses and coordinate attacks among multiple individuals.
To commit mass murder in the U.S., you go down to your local gun store and buy an assault rifle.
France’s weakness is geographic. America’s weakness is political. Unlike France, we will never be undone by external forces. We will do it to ourselves, by allowing our country to turn into something we no longer recognize.
Case in point: there was an armed “good guy” at the Orlando nightclub. He could not stop the slaughter. Is the NRA’s solution to match threat for threat, and post military-style guards with assault rifles outside of nightclubs, movie theaters, stores and schools?
As Obama said, we need to decide what kind of America we want. It’s entirely up to us.
More on the fallacy of the 'Good Guy With a Gun' doctrine »
To commit mass murder in the U.S., you go down to your local gun store and buy an assault rifle.
France’s weakness is geographic. America’s weakness is political. Unlike France, we will never be undone by external forces. We will do it to ourselves, by allowing our country to turn into something we no longer recognize.
Case in point: there was an armed “good guy” at the Orlando nightclub. He could not stop the slaughter. Is the NRA’s solution to match threat for threat, and post military-style guards with assault rifles outside of nightclubs, movie theaters, stores and schools?
As Obama said, we need to decide what kind of America we want. It’s entirely up to us.
More on the fallacy of the 'Good Guy With a Gun' doctrine »
Monday, May 23, 2016
Why is Abortion a Conservative Cause?
This is a serious question. In 1972, Gallup reported 69 percent of Republicans agreed that “the decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.” At the time, this was a higher percentage than among Democrats. *
According to political scientist Greg Adams, among voters, “Republicans were more pro-choice than Democrats up until the late 1980s.” *
A lot of water under the bridge since then, as the abortion issue was so effectively hijacked as a political and cultural shibboleth by the Right. This began with Nixon and his political strategist, Pat Buchanan, as a way to win the Catholic vote, and took off in the ‘80s with evangelical fervor.
Republicans have traditionally always been in favor of “hands off” government policies, of which abortion restrictions and bans are, literally, the opposite, when they dictate mandatory ultrasounds and the like.
But there is no scientific, ethical, moral, or religious consensus on this. Even the Bible contradicts the idea that a fetus is a person, in Exodus 21:22-25. Abortion opponents are basically trying to impose a factional religious belief on society as a whole, something we would never tolerate if it were Hindus and beef, Muslims and pork, or any other of a number of faith-based injunctions.
Why should some be able to force the rest of us to follow their worldview, at the risk of imprisonment if we behave differently?
Again, why is abortion a conservative cause?
* See Jill Lepore, "Birthright," the New Yorker, 11/14/11
According to political scientist Greg Adams, among voters, “Republicans were more pro-choice than Democrats up until the late 1980s.” *
A lot of water under the bridge since then, as the abortion issue was so effectively hijacked as a political and cultural shibboleth by the Right. This began with Nixon and his political strategist, Pat Buchanan, as a way to win the Catholic vote, and took off in the ‘80s with evangelical fervor.
Republicans have traditionally always been in favor of “hands off” government policies, of which abortion restrictions and bans are, literally, the opposite, when they dictate mandatory ultrasounds and the like.
Minority Rules
Of course the answer to the privacy and women’s rights argument has always been that a fertilized egg should be considered a human being with the same rights as a born person.But there is no scientific, ethical, moral, or religious consensus on this. Even the Bible contradicts the idea that a fetus is a person, in Exodus 21:22-25. Abortion opponents are basically trying to impose a factional religious belief on society as a whole, something we would never tolerate if it were Hindus and beef, Muslims and pork, or any other of a number of faith-based injunctions.
Why should some be able to force the rest of us to follow their worldview, at the risk of imprisonment if we behave differently?
Again, why is abortion a conservative cause?
* See Jill Lepore, "Birthright," the New Yorker, 11/14/11
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Exodus 21:22-25: The Bible Weighs in On Fetuses
Those who have religious objections to abortion believe the practice violates the law of God. Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
But what does The Bible have to say about this? Does scripture weigh in on whether fetuses are equivalent to born people?
The life of a fetus, in other words, is not equal to the the life of a born person.
Like many Biblical rules meant to guide the actions of ancient Hebrews, this seems rooted in common sense. The idea that the life of a days- or weeks-old embryo is worth the same as a living, cognizant human—loved, treasured and vital to society—and that an adult woman should perhaps even sacrifice her life to protect this embryo—is more than just nonsensical. It is immoral, and offensive. And would have been considered so by the people of the Bible.
At the very least, this biblical passage underscores the fact that there is no consensus—moral, political, scientific, religious, even scriptural—on the issue of abortion. From a social and legal standpoint, this is why there is no justification for an outright ban.
But what does The Bible have to say about this? Does scripture weigh in on whether fetuses are equivalent to born people?
The Bible and Abortion
Actually, it does. According to the Old Testament, Exodus 21:22-25, if a woman is killed in the course of a brawl between two people, the one who killed her must be killed. If she is pregnant, and the brawl injures her and causes her to miscarry, the guilty party must pay a fine.The life of a fetus, in other words, is not equal to the the life of a born person.
Like many Biblical rules meant to guide the actions of ancient Hebrews, this seems rooted in common sense. The idea that the life of a days- or weeks-old embryo is worth the same as a living, cognizant human—loved, treasured and vital to society—and that an adult woman should perhaps even sacrifice her life to protect this embryo—is more than just nonsensical. It is immoral, and offensive. And would have been considered so by the people of the Bible.
At the very least, this biblical passage underscores the fact that there is no consensus—moral, political, scientific, religious, even scriptural—on the issue of abortion. From a social and legal standpoint, this is why there is no justification for an outright ban.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Clearing the Air on Kim Davis
Re: Kim Davis And Pope Francis Had A Private Meeting In D.C.
With the news of the pope’s meeting with Kim Davis swirling today, it’s worth reiterating: Kim Davis is free to believe whatever she wants about gay marriage, and we cannot realistically expect the head of the Catholic Church to take any position other than one sympathetic to her on this matter.
But this is not the point. The United States government, and the state government of Kentucky (modeled on the Constitution), does not mirror or represent any one stripe of Christianity, Christianity in general, or any other religion.
There is nothing more un-American than the idea that the government or its representatives should act on behalf of one particular religious ideology. This is what the Founders most feared, and why freedom from (proscribed) religion kicks off the Bill of Rights.
Kim Davis unquestionably broke the law, which is grounds for impeachment. She did it not to expand the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to more Americans (as the Civil Rights movement sought to do), but to constrain that right.
With the news of the pope’s meeting with Kim Davis swirling today, it’s worth reiterating: Kim Davis is free to believe whatever she wants about gay marriage, and we cannot realistically expect the head of the Catholic Church to take any position other than one sympathetic to her on this matter.
But this is not the point. The United States government, and the state government of Kentucky (modeled on the Constitution), does not mirror or represent any one stripe of Christianity, Christianity in general, or any other religion.
There is nothing more un-American than the idea that the government or its representatives should act on behalf of one particular religious ideology. This is what the Founders most feared, and why freedom from (proscribed) religion kicks off the Bill of Rights.
Kim Davis unquestionably broke the law, which is grounds for impeachment. She did it not to expand the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to more Americans (as the Civil Rights movement sought to do), but to constrain that right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)