Monday, January 20, 2014
Dr. King
“A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.” Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 1967 speech.
Labels: birthday, holidays, human rights
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Nothing in history suggests ...
"America is such a compassionate nation, nothing in history that suggests that churches and communities and our families would let people die of hunger, there is absolutely nothing." Kenneth Blackwell, Family Research Council, supporting "Food Stamp" cuts.
What? & this guy's American ancestors were slaves!
How ignorant can one be of both American & Christian history. It boggles the mind. We didn't get a fairly firm handle on widespread hunger in America until the Sixties. John F. Kennedy, when he was running for President in 1960, toured Appalachia at the request of some governors & was appalled; he saw children with bloated bellies. People have always starved in America. Churches have never made more than slight dent in hunger, well-meaning as they are. Most churches do little at all, or just enough to assuage the consciences of their congregants. It's sickening what happened to poor people in the United States from industrialization through the New Deal.
We are a "compassionate nation," but let's not be delusional about it.
SNAP may be the best social service program we have. It is entirely income/resource-based & has only one goal - providing food to people who lack income to buy sufficient amounts of food to feed themselves & their families. Food purchases made with SNAP cycle back into the economy, & the food industry from farm to retailer benefits so well that I can't understand how the Republicans can buck the lobbies. SNAP is not a welfare-to-work program because it is designed to also help able-bodied working people. Years ago the "middle class" didn't need Food Stamps except during layoffs or periods of unemployment, & the benefits tended to be short term for them. It is hardly the fault of the middle class that its income has declined into food stamp eligibility. Are we to order underpaid working people to take second full-time jobs because they are "able-bodied." Even with SNAP, food pantries cannot supply the demand for food. A lot of families that would benefit from SNAP are disqualified because they have too many "resources" - savings accounts, a late model car. The moral issues here are hunger & wages so low that people literally work themselves into debt & poverty.
How ignorant can one be of both American & Christian history. It boggles the mind. We didn't get a fairly firm handle on widespread hunger in America until the Sixties. John F. Kennedy, when he was running for President in 1960, toured Appalachia at the request of some governors & was appalled; he saw children with bloated bellies. People have always starved in America. Churches have never made more than slight dent in hunger, well-meaning as they are. Most churches do little at all, or just enough to assuage the consciences of their congregants. It's sickening what happened to poor people in the United States from industrialization through the New Deal.
We are a "compassionate nation," but let's not be delusional about it.
SNAP may be the best social service program we have. It is entirely income/resource-based & has only one goal - providing food to people who lack income to buy sufficient amounts of food to feed themselves & their families. Food purchases made with SNAP cycle back into the economy, & the food industry from farm to retailer benefits so well that I can't understand how the Republicans can buck the lobbies. SNAP is not a welfare-to-work program because it is designed to also help able-bodied working people. Years ago the "middle class" didn't need Food Stamps except during layoffs or periods of unemployment, & the benefits tended to be short term for them. It is hardly the fault of the middle class that its income has declined into food stamp eligibility. Are we to order underpaid working people to take second full-time jobs because they are "able-bodied." Even with SNAP, food pantries cannot supply the demand for food. A lot of families that would benefit from SNAP are disqualified because they have too many "resources" - savings accounts, a late model car. The moral issues here are hunger & wages so low that people literally work themselves into debt & poverty.
Labels: human rights, in the news
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
The March on Washington
I don't recall The March on Washington having any effect on me one way or another. Puzzled me. I was aware of it. Knew it was happening, Read papers, heard news on radio if not always on TV. Surely my family didn't like it. By that time I was becoming uncomfortable with the language of racism & turned off by the violence. I was beginning to feel the civil rights cause was unstoppable. It wasn't affecting me much where I lived.
Then I realized I was almost certainly with my Grandmother in Atlantic City on Wednesday August 28, 1963. Rarely read newspapers there. Watched TV only for an hour or two in the evening if I wasn't on the boardwalk. I usually had a novel to read in bed, & listened to the local rock station my small transistor radio. I simply wasn't paying attention.
Recently read this book: The March on Washington: Jobs, Freedom, and the Forgotten History of Civil Rights, a new book by William P. Jones. Not the most enjoyable prose I ever read. Crammed with facts. It begins before WWII, with A. Philip Randolph's plans for the first March on Washington in 1941, how the groundwork was laid then for the 1963 march, with many of the same leaders & organizers. About 80% of the history, involving labor unions, African-American organizations, African-American women's groups, many unfamiliar names, was new to me.
One of the demands of the 1963 March, stated at the end from the podium by Bayard Rustin, was for a higher minimum wage.
Then I realized I was almost certainly with my Grandmother in Atlantic City on Wednesday August 28, 1963. Rarely read newspapers there. Watched TV only for an hour or two in the evening if I wasn't on the boardwalk. I usually had a novel to read in bed, & listened to the local rock station my small transistor radio. I simply wasn't paying attention.
Recently read this book: The March on Washington: Jobs, Freedom, and the Forgotten History of Civil Rights, a new book by William P. Jones. Not the most enjoyable prose I ever read. Crammed with facts. It begins before WWII, with A. Philip Randolph's plans for the first March on Washington in 1941, how the groundwork was laid then for the 1963 march, with many of the same leaders & organizers. About 80% of the history, involving labor unions, African-American organizations, African-American women's groups, many unfamiliar names, was new to me.
One of the demands of the 1963 March, stated at the end from the podium by Bayard Rustin, was for a higher minimum wage.
Labels: Atlantic City, growing up, human rights, in the news
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Rosa on a Pedestal
Rosa Parks statue unveiled at Capitol
When I was high school, a full decade after Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a Montgomery, Alabama bus, she was already being portrayed as the "Good Negro, " a rather ordinary African-American who just became fed up with being disrespected. That was easier to sell to the White Folks Up North. Our segregation was de facto.
That wasn't Rosa Parks. She'd had been a civil rights activist for decades in a place where it could get you killed. A few months before her act, she had attended Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, which trained union & civil rights activists. Rosa Parks fought for justice her entire life.
On the occasion of this unveiling. Mary C. Curtis wrote: "And let’s hope that as the country places Rosa Parks on a pedestal, it can pay her the tribute of letting her step down from it and be appreciated for the complex, beautiful, righteously angry woman she was."
When I was high school, a full decade after Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a Montgomery, Alabama bus, she was already being portrayed as the "Good Negro, " a rather ordinary African-American who just became fed up with being disrespected. That was easier to sell to the White Folks Up North. Our segregation was de facto.
That wasn't Rosa Parks. She'd had been a civil rights activist for decades in a place where it could get you killed. A few months before her act, she had attended Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, which trained union & civil rights activists. Rosa Parks fought for justice her entire life.
On the occasion of this unveiling. Mary C. Curtis wrote: "And let’s hope that as the country places Rosa Parks on a pedestal, it can pay her the tribute of letting her step down from it and be appreciated for the complex, beautiful, righteously angry woman she was."
Labels: human rights
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Lesley Gore: You don't own her
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Some thoughts related to yesterday's post. I don't know many observant "conservative" Christians. By observant I mean people upfront about what they believe & for whom it's more than a convenient rationalization for their political views. Those people - they number two or three - get a bye from me on marriage equality. I've found them over time to be kind people, not vicious in their beliefs. They support some protections for LGBT in the workplace, & legal acknowledgement of some levels of LGBT personal relationships but stopping short of "marriage." Marriage is sacred & untouchable.
Marriage equality for me is essentially a civil human rights issue. As much as I'd like various religious denominations & churches to change their views, it's not that important to me what they require members to believe, only how they as institutions influence public opinion.
However, just mumbling you're a Christian will not do. If you say your civil ethics & most of your right wing political views are determined by your Christian beliefs, then I'm not going to accept you sitting around on your butt Sunday morning reading the newspaper, or doing lawn work, or going fishing, or cracking an early can of beer. I'm not buying any garbage about not being interested in "organized religion" or that you're Christian in your "own way." Once you've removed yourself from a "Church," you've announced two things: The first is that Christian practice doesn't intend an actual, physical community of believers. It most certainly does; although Jesus never expressed himself on homosexuality, he made his intentions clear on community, through both word & personal example. The early history of the movement in the New Testament is mainly about the establishment, organization, education, & occasionally the disciplining of scattered communities. It is here, in letters dubiously attributed to Paul, that we encounter some apparent condemnations of homosexuality. Paul does not condemn slavery. We also find the first strictures on the role of women, who had been community sponsors, & important preachers of the Gospel from the moment Mary Magdalen (possibly other women) ran from the tomb, the first to proclaim the risen Christ, having seen him (or in Luke, angels: "two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning"). The second is that you cherry pick scripture according to what suits you, refusing to submit yourself to the creeds, doctrines, & charitable, social & mssion duties of Christian community (a "mission" in a church may be anything from singing in a choir to helping in a soup kitchen).
Marriage equality for me is essentially a civil human rights issue. As much as I'd like various religious denominations & churches to change their views, it's not that important to me what they require members to believe, only how they as institutions influence public opinion.
However, just mumbling you're a Christian will not do. If you say your civil ethics & most of your right wing political views are determined by your Christian beliefs, then I'm not going to accept you sitting around on your butt Sunday morning reading the newspaper, or doing lawn work, or going fishing, or cracking an early can of beer. I'm not buying any garbage about not being interested in "organized religion" or that you're Christian in your "own way." Once you've removed yourself from a "Church," you've announced two things: The first is that Christian practice doesn't intend an actual, physical community of believers. It most certainly does; although Jesus never expressed himself on homosexuality, he made his intentions clear on community, through both word & personal example. The early history of the movement in the New Testament is mainly about the establishment, organization, education, & occasionally the disciplining of scattered communities. It is here, in letters dubiously attributed to Paul, that we encounter some apparent condemnations of homosexuality. Paul does not condemn slavery. We also find the first strictures on the role of women, who had been community sponsors, & important preachers of the Gospel from the moment Mary Magdalen (possibly other women) ran from the tomb, the first to proclaim the risen Christ, having seen him (or in Luke, angels: "two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning"). The second is that you cherry pick scripture according to what suits you, refusing to submit yourself to the creeds, doctrines, & charitable, social & mssion duties of Christian community (a "mission" in a church may be anything from singing in a choir to helping in a soup kitchen).
Labels: human rights
Friday, August 03, 2012
Eating Godly Values
Somebody tried to tell me that the Chick-Fil-A "Appreciation Day " was in defense of free speech. Utter bullshit. There's no serious free speech issue involving the owners of Chick-Fil-A. Mike Huckabee wrote:
I grew up with the same kind of evasive bigotry in the form of racism, the personal distancing from actual racist acts, the "states rights" crap justifying Jim Crow, the pretensions to innocence or even naivete. Letting proxies do your talking (& violence). I'm not fooled by it. No surprise that the person with the "free speech" excuse grew up in my hometown. He wouldn't have had the nerve to go to a Chick-fil-A on "Appreciation Day."
"The goal is simple: Let's affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1."In other words, show up at Chick-Fil-A if you're against marriage equality & LGBT rights. Those are the "godly values." When you give me the free speech nonsense, what you're really saying is you won't express your honest opinion on the issue at hand, so you set up a strawman, "Those People Against Free Speech," & knock that down. We want the views of the Cathy family known, & the anti-LGBT organizations they & the non-profit arm of Chick-fil-A contribute to exposed.
I grew up with the same kind of evasive bigotry in the form of racism, the personal distancing from actual racist acts, the "states rights" crap justifying Jim Crow, the pretensions to innocence or even naivete. Letting proxies do your talking (& violence). I'm not fooled by it. No surprise that the person with the "free speech" excuse grew up in my hometown. He wouldn't have had the nerve to go to a Chick-fil-A on "Appreciation Day."
Labels: cuisine, human rights
Monday, July 30, 2012
Chikin served with a side of hate & bigotry
The owners of Chick-fil-A oppose more than marriage equality; they're against every extension of rights to LGBT. Every single one. Rights to family status in hospital visitation by gay & lesbian partners? Yep, that one too. Cruelty. They would if they could refuse to hire LGBT & non-Christians. I'm not exaggerating. Geezer founder S. Truett Cathy & his sons Dan & Donald “Bubba” back up their beliefs with their fortunes.
It's unfortunate that a few individual Chick-fil-A franchisees here & there support LGBT rights & place signs to that effect in their stores. But they are "operators" not "owners," sending a lion's share of their profits to the home office. Chick-fil-A owns the restaurant & pays the rent. Sorry, folks, you don't get a bye.
The Chick-fil-A slogan is "Eat mor chikin," a plea made by anxious cows. Chick-fil-A unleashes its corporate lawyers on anyone, any business using the two words "Eat more" for promotion. Doesn't have to be "Eat mor." Does seem a stretch for trademark infringment. Common sense tells us "mor" & "chikin" are the trademark words. Even Hershey won't fight Chick-fil-A to offer the "Eat-More" bar now sold only by Hershey Canada, I've had one, it's a very good candy bar, would sell well in the United States.
One guy is standing up to Chick-fil-A, a small time Vermont entrepreneur named Bo Muller-Moore. Bo home manufactures an "Eat more kale" tee shirt, which he sells online & at flea markets. Hardly anyone outside of Vermont had heard of him until he received a cease-&-desist letter from Chick-fil-A. Bo refused to cease & desist. The international exposure of Chick-fil-A's owners as homobigots also brought Bo's battle into the spotlight.
Government has no right to deny Chick-fil-A the right to open & operate restaurants. It can make certain the restaurants are up to codes & obeying legal hiring practices. But where Chick-fil-A operates restaurants inside private colleges & other institutions, it certainly can be shown the exit when the current contract ends. I doubt the one at New York University in Greenwich Village will survive.
If you're "Christian" like Sarah & Todd Palin, be aware that enthusiastically supporting Chick-fil-A because of the owners' anti-LGBT activism goes well beyond what your literal reading of scripture requires. If you think LGBT ought to be stripped of all their civil rights & driven back into the closet, then "Eat mor chikin" served with a side of hate & bigotry.
Labels: blogging against theocracy, human rights, in the news
