Crab Bucket

My niece posted a link to a facebook rant, reacting in hostile way to the recent events in LGTBQ(.....) history: Darkmatter - This whole "Trans rights is the new priority" fiasco...

I pass on as an excellent example of 'crab bucket' behavior.


In case you are wondering, it is the behavior of crabs in an open bucket.  If one crab tries to get out, the others will pull it down.


That's very useful if you are selling crabs.  They can be kept in open buckets.


They also don't have to be fed.  A saves to the person who actually owns the bucket.

I have noticed this before, particularly in association with identity politics, and amongst 'progressives'.

It's a tribal attitude -- what might be called "amoral familism" (see The Moral Basis of a Backward Society -- Edward Banfield).

It implies a hierarchy of success of:

1. I win, you lose
2. We both lose
3. We both win.

It makes me somewhat home sick for my alma mater/pater.

From Darkmatter:

This
whole "Trans rights is the new priority" fiasco needs to stop. This
framing of the trans struggle as a "new" priority absolves Gay INC of
its complicity in literally stealing from us, pathologizing us, harming
us and erasing us. Trans people have been here lying under your bus
forever. We were actually the old struggle of this movement -- we just
got kicked out of it.

Let's get a few things straight:

1. The separation of "gay" from "trans" and "sexuality" from "gender
identity" has a political history. This distinction was a conscious
strategy to make the gay movement more palatable to straight cis white
middle class society.

2. "Love" became separated from "Gender"
because Gay INC knew that a politics of love would be much more
palatable than a politics of gender. "Love" allowed gay activists to
say, "We're just like you!" instead of "We look different from you."
Trans become the repository for difference, for otherness, for
transgression.

3. In order for "homosexuality" to become
de-pathologized, gender nonconformity had to become re-pathologized.
Gayness had to distinguish itself from trans: "We are not freaks like
them." The modern gay subject only emerged in distinguishing him/herself
from gender nonconformity.

4. The history of the gay movement
is a history of (re)producing the gender binary and gender conformity.
It is a history of institutionalized transphobia. The gay movement is
foundationally trans violence. It would not exist without trans
violence.

5. Now transphobia is discussed with no history or
origin story. It's only discussed as individual episodes of harm and not
a structure of violence. This de-historicization of trans violence
means that individual trans people are blamed for both their violence
and their outrage. People ask, "Why are you so angry?" instead of, "How
am I complicit in your oppression?"

6. There is no gay celebration without trans violence. Love won because gender didn't.

Just a quick PolySci Reality Check

And if...

At Least 5 Predominately Black Churches Have Been Destroyed By Fire In The Past Week

Ah yes, forgiveness is working.

One wonders:

1. if theses churches are in "stand your ground states"
   And
2. if they posted armed guards (you know second amendment rights),
   And 
3. if these guards were black,
   And 
4. if they shot and killed an arsonist, 
   And 
5. if the arsonist was white

the guards would be acquitted.

Be aware of celebrations

There was a brilliant, unsentimental discussion of the reasons to support same sex marriage published after its passage by the Washington State Legislature, and prior the defeat of an initiative that sought to repeal it Two Cheers for Gay Marriage:

The debate about same-sex marriage, on both sides, misses the main point: marriage is not about "love" or "sex".  It is about the creation and accounting of economic units which can accumulate property (which historically includes children), and the maintenance of kinship organization (which is also about property).

Societies and the state need to track such units so as a resolve problems of ownership.  Marriage law, even and especially religious marriage law ,is dominantly about property -- who has access to it, how it is inherited, how it can be separated.  That is, it is contractual.  Definitions of marriage, and its legal status, have always reflected this, for example the reason that monogamous marriage is the norm in west, and now the world, that it simplifies property issues. 

Gay individuals are forming kinship units, accumulating property, having offspring in significant numbers.

It is in the interest of the the state and society that such units be allowed to be regularized, as it would  to facilitate the management of property, assign responsibility the care of children, and clarify kinship relations (for example next of kin in medical cases).

This argument is secular, and does not appeal to abstract values -- so it is not, shall we say attractive.

I still contend, that it is the strongest argument to use, however, with those who will oppose the change.

And the opposition will continue, it is too juicy to be ignored by those whose real agenda lie in economic privilege and political control.  The strategy to rally the base and suppress others will continue.

The sympathetic long term lover stories that could perhaps counter sway will not be in the media in 2016.

Similarly, the ruling on health care faces the same possible negative result.  Though I believe it to be the correct result -- for formal legal and judicial argument reasoning -- it is just as likely to be a God send to those same forces. 

Again, stories about health care disasters won't be in the media in 2016.

For a similar reason, the killings and Confederate Flag debate now provide similar breathing space for reactionary forces.

There is no plan to counter this inevitable reaction.  I predict it will win.

Charleston and Amalek

The survivors of those killed in Charleston have expressed a forgiveness for the attacker.

I cannot criticize this on their part, and would not deny them the right to do this.

This forgiveness by the survivors may be very helpful to them, in an existential way. It can help them to choose to continue on with their lives as real people, and not as victims and exemplars.

For them, as they bear the direct consequences of the act, this is a supportable moral choice.  I will say that to me rage would also be a supportable moral choice.  Whatever helps them.

Much as has been made  of calls forgiveness issued by many and varied outsiders to the event (see
Forgiveness, Tolerance: Sunday Themes After Deadly Church Shooting).

But it is arrogant for the rest of us to speak about forgiveness.  Who are we to forgive, who have not ourselves been injured.

I am not, here speaking about the terrorist*.  He is an irrelevant detail.  Forgive him, if it makes you feel good.

Consider instead, Amalek.

In Torah, Amalek is a nation related to the Israelites, but an implacable enemy -- see D'varim (Deuteronomy) 25:17-19.  In later rabbinic writing, the term is used to describe all implacable evil.

The greatest of the crimes was

he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary

This passage is one of those sections of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) that makes 'modern Jews', itchy, as it goes on to say:

thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget

as it doesn't seem speak about how we would like the world to work.


However, I will suggest that this message of non-forgiveness is applicable and to the world today.

I submit that it is wrong to forget the actions of those who

• Profit from an environment of 'coded' messages
• Want the votes of racists -- without seeming racists themselves.  
• Seek to shift the blame for their policies to another people's inferiority

I cannot do better than quoting an exponent of this school, Lee Atwater

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

I know that forgiveness is viewed as a form of love, divinely sanctioned, and is the cornerstone of their faith.

So, at the risk of sounding like Koleth (Ecclesiastes), there is a time not to forgive.

And when is the time to forgive?

Consider Claudius (Hamlet III:iii 52-54):

'Forgive me my foul murder'?
That cannot be; since I am still possess'd
Of those effects for which I did the murder

 ---
* Which I define here (thanks to Treebyleaf McCurdy for the inspiration of a workable definition) as a violent crime committed against non-combatents with the intent of creating pressure to change laws, policy, or social norms.

Who needs truth if truth is dull

The quote is from Mason Williams' The Exciting Accident, but it applies here.

Take a look at the Washington Post's Obamacare repeal could add $353 billion to the deficit and the Huffington Post's Obamacare Repeal Would Swell The Deficit Even Using GOP's New Math, Budget Office Says.

Specifically:

The economist that Republicans handpicked to run the Congressional
Budget Office just told Republicans that one of their favorite arguments
about Obamacare is wrong.

According to a report the CBO released Friday, repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn't reduce the deficit, as Republicans have long claimed.
It would increase the deficit, by at least $137 billion over 10 years
and maybe a lot more than that -- with the effects getting bigger over
time.

Not that this will matter.

June 19th -- Juneteenth -- Freedom Day

News of the termination of the illegal Confederate state did not reach Texas until May of 1865.

The liberation of Texas could not begin until the Army of the Trans-Mississippi surrendered on 2 June, 1865.

By June 18, 1865, 2,000 federal troops arrived to occupy Texas on behalf of the people of the United States, establishing the Department of Texas.

The commanding Gordon Granger read aloud the contents of "General Order No. 3", announcing the total emancipation of enslaved United States citizens:

The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor. 

Memorials for this event, now referred to as Juneteenth and Freedom day, are observed by 43 of the 50 states (Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah do not recognize it), and it is not a federal observance.

To those who do not find this a good and just thing to remember, I say

Since accident, not conspiracy or planning, dominate human history, the proximity of the shootings of Wed, June 17 to this data is probably just an accident.

I hate to be fair...

..but this 'I Don't Know What Was On The Mind' Of Charleston Shooter  is an example of bad -- and in misleading journalism from a non-Foxish news source. (Not that the Huffington Post is bell weather for good journalism.)


Bush's response when asked whether the shooting was because of race,

 "I don't know. Looks like to me it was, ] but we'll find out all the information.
It's clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their
lives, and they were African-American. You can judge what it is." [emphasis added]

The video click actually has him sounding actually reasonable.

Pillory people properly, not pettily.

The race is on,

I made a guess (Small prediction  below ), as to how the reactionary media were going to handle the Obama's statement about why we have some many of these killing.

Charleston shooting.  I expected a major focus on tearing at


Well, there is some of that already,Jindal on Obama's gun control comments: 'Now's not the time'


But, I may have been mistaken in what the main thrust would be.


Some are going with the focus on the church, not the racial, aspect of the shooting: specifically anti-Christianism: Todd Starnes: Security Expert: My Fear is That More Churches Will be Targeted.  (


I wonder if they are going to try and tie it to the LGBT community, which according to them is bullyingly anti-Christian and discriminatory.  Hm.



Anyway, I will be interested in which track it taken -- it's Obama's fault or the beleaguered Christian community.

It's going to be hard to judge which deception the reactionary press (can we call it the red press?) is going with.  For example, the Todd Starnes mentioned above seems to be hedging his bets here, his facebook page attacks Obama's comments a political.



Anyone interested in helping keep score?

Late yesterday (6/18), I submitted a post to Facebook on the shooting in Charleston, SC , where I said: "Perhaps I am just old and tired, but my first thought was to wonder how Fox News and other reactionaries will find the root cause of this to be a) The Black community, b) White liberals, c) Muslims." Adding later: "Oh, I left out d) LGBT people " I mention this because I was too small minded in my prediction. There is whole panoply of spn that can be used, some of which I hadn't thought of, for example that it the attack was part of hostility to Christianity (primarily) and this is an example of why we have got to be armed (see Fox's Steve Doocy: It's Extraordinary That Charleston Church Shooting Is Being Called A Hate Crime ). You have to admire the speed, creativity, and choice of messengers there But still, I will make a prediction, the big reactionary attack will be on Obama's comment (See Obama Reacts To Shooting ): At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other countries."  That's going to be red meat to them.

Small prediction

Late yesterday (6/18), I submitted a post to Facebook on the shooting in Charleston, SC, where I said:

"Perhaps I am just old and tired, but my first thought was to wonder how Fox News and other reactionaries will find the root cause of this to be
a) The Black community,
b) White liberals,
c) Muslims."

Adding later: "Oh, I left out d) LGBT people "

I mention this because I was too small minded in my prediction.

There is whole panoply of spn that can be used, some of which I hadn't thought of, for example that it the attack was part of hostility to Christianity (primarily) and this is an example of why we have got to be armed (see Fox's Steve Doocy: It's Extraordinary That Charleston Church Shooting Is Being Called A Hate Crime).

You have to admire the speed, creativity, and choice of messengers there

But still, I will make a prediction, the big reactionary attack will be on Obama's comment (See Obama Reacts To Shooting):

At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence doesn’t happen in other countries." 

That's going to be red meat to them.

Teacher resigns after reading students book about gay couple

My daughter, and future Goddess/Empress of the World, has a finely developed sense of reality.

The other day, she channeled her grandmother*, and noted, with disgust that there was a fair chance that that once gay marriage is legal everywhere that people can just say, 'Well that's all fixed,' which will be an excuse for doing nothing.

Well, read on about what the future will still contain
Teacher resigns after reading students book about gay couple



* My mother, back in the 1970's, used to remark that she wasn't sure that an MLK birthday holiday would be a good thing.  She thought it would just let white folk think they were off the hook. 

Small victory for liberty?

To the right, you see not an Society for Creative Anachronism, but a the image that Turkish president Recep Erdogan chooses to project.


There is small hope at the moment, as his party lost its majority in parliament: Turkey’s election is a blow to Erdogan and a victory for Kurds.

Erdogan was hoping for a super majority, so as to amend the Turkish constitution for an executive presidency. 

Erdogan, started out making some real meaningful changes in the Turkish state, including breaking the power of the military, and providing social services.

He has more recently, moved in a predictably dictatorial way -- suppressing press (last I looked Turkey was the had the most journalists in jail), blaming outside forces for internal protests, preventing independent judiciary actions, you know the drill. 

I find it gratifying that this appears to have backfired -- a bit.  I hope this is Turkey's democratic process asserting itself, and that Erdogan's party, Justice and Development Party (AKP), may reign him in.

On the other hand, the AKP may argue that they still got the most votes (they did) and screw their constitution. They have initially addressed this as a minor set back.

It makes me think of the black knight in the Monty Python's Holy Grail. I am just trying to figure out who has the flesh wound.

Murder through misuse of legal process

I have heard of this story before.  Rarely have I felt as angry and ashamed, see: Kalief Browder, 1993–2015 - The New Yorker



There is a reason a right to a speedy trial is required by the constitution. 

Have fun, add to the list....

H/T to my borther, and his blog 40 Years in the Desert

The Lord works in marvelous ways, his wonders to behold

 

And God has also sent earthquakes to fracking Oklahoma

I seemed to have missed something

According to one Bettany Hughes (Mary Renault's hardcore classicism - Telegraph), I missed all the good parts of Mary Renault's novels, "hardcore, drug-saturated sensuality of the ancient world."



Pity, perhaps I was blinded by the over indulgence in her writing in human
drama, interesting ideas and valid emotional content.



Silly me.