Not even an indictment?

A grand jury decided yesterday that despite conflicting testimony in a case that involved a cop fatally shooting an unarmed citizen, a formal trial of the officer wasn’t necessary.

An ironically titled “Peace Officer” shot an unarmed black man to death, and no formal trial will occur.

When should a formal trial happen, then? What set of circumstances prompts a trial? A white corpse? A rich corpse?

How’s this idea: when dealing with a law enforcement system which has shown systemic bias against black people, when officers of that system shoot black people we should bring greater scrutiny rather than less.

Anger and activism

It’s nigh inevitable.

A woman mentions sexism and is accused of shrillness.

A person of color talks about the discrepancy between rates of crime and rates of arrest or punishment, and is told they need to calm down.

A lesbian or gay couple point out the inequities under the law having to do with hospital visits, financial arrangements, visas… and are told that they need to be patient.

After all, anger is a symptom of irrationality, right? The calm, impartial person is the one who can be counted on to judge things fairly.

Not so fast: Anger is useful. It is a motivating factor. Every bit of social progress we have ever made was because someone, somewhere declared that something was unfair and that it was worth getting angry about. The person who is angry is often the one paying

U MAD BRO?

attention.

And yet, our society persists in belittling anger. Why? I think it is because people in societies look up to and emulate people in power. And what have they to get angry about? Hell, even if they felt a touch of anger, the really powerful can pay proxies to express it on major media outlets, and keep their calm facade in the bargain.

The dismissal of anger- from troll memes to cries of “hysteria”- the ad hominem attack which claims that if a person is getting angry, it is because they are simply an irrational person, is merely a tool to silence dissent and to maintain the status quo.

Our anger is important, it is valuable, it is essential. No activist movement can do without it, no true democracy can do without it…

And that is why people in power- and those who support them- are so quick to dismiss it. It is a threat to the status quo.

Maybe one which should be wielded cautiously. But one which should be wielded.

So: U MAD BRO?

Hell yes.

Sokka Sunday : In his den

Sokka’s den

 

Voting Rights Act

A brief recap: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was put into place to stop voting practices which discriminated against African Americans including poll taxes, “literacy tests” (graded at the discretion of the local polling official) and having voting sites at inaccessible or hostile locations.

The VRA was a historic and amazing accomplishment in a society badly wounded by institutionalized racial inequality, a society which has mended somewhat over time, but is not yet healed.

Most of the Act deals generally with ensuring the equal right to vote of  citizens without regard to race or color. Section 4 and 5 dealt with the identification of and special requirements of places where discriminatory voting policies have previously been enacted. Among the requirements was that places designated in Section 4(b) had to ask for permission to change voting practices according to Section 5.

On Tuesday, June 25th, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that section 4(b) of the VRA is unconstitutional, until and unless Congress rewrites section 4(b) to be dependent on newer data, which is unlikely without serious pressure applied by constituents. The result is that Section 5 has become invalid and places which have historically created obstacles to minorities trying to vote will be able to do so again by changing voting practices- create tests or voting requirements, change polling places, etc- without asking for permission of  the Justice Department.

Local governments will be able to require  specific IDs which have to be purchased, and will be able to designate hard to get to or historically “whites only” country clubs as the polling places. And yes, some of these things may run afoul of other sections of the VRA, but without the need to get approval ahead of time, it may mean that large scale disenfranchisement will occur before an appeal is heard, and long before a ruling.

Despite proposed laws even in the last year which were rejected and “would have made it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of minority voters to cast ballots*” there are those who say that Section 5 is now unnecessary.

I disagree. Section 5 is necessary. The coverage map should be changed to make it respond to current conditions, which may have worsened in some unprotected areas, but perhaps a small change to Section 4(b) would suffice.

From this:

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1, 1964, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

To this:

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply in any State or in any political subdivision of a state which (1) the Attorney General determines maintained on November 1st of the second to last Presidential Election Year, any test or device, and with respect to which (2) the Director of the Census determines that less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein were registered on November 1st of the second to last Presidential Election Year, or that less than 50 percentum of such persons voted in the presidential election of November of the second to last Presidential Election Year.

This would ensure that the areas thus covered would be those which recently had issues with no future need to revise to a specific date. Whether or not this solution appeals to you, Congress should act to protect the voting rights of all citizens.

Please remind them of this fact. (You can find your Senate and House Representatives here and here.)

*Brennan Center for Justice

Today is the first SF Pride post DOMA and Prop 8

I expect it will be fabulous. (I am writing this to auto post while I am at the SF Pride Parade.)

I will be bearing my sign saying “Leviticus says… Crazy Shit” in bisexual colors (minus the pink since it doesn’t show up on signs) and marching with the Atheist/Humanist Contingent.

This is my favorite activist event every year, and the one which I never miss if I’m in the area.

There are loads of people who are intersectionally aware activists, who are not just gay rights activists, but also feminists, secularists, fair wage, pro immigrant, pro education, and civil rights activists as well. People who are aware that helping groups gain equal rights helps all of us, not just the one group, and who are truly interested in human rights, not just whatever aspects most directly effect them.

Sleep the night before is made difficult by excitement, sleep the night after is effortless from exhaustion.

I hope everyone enjoys this as much as I will.

Activist Whiplash

Yesterday the Voting Rights Act was gutted, which will cause who knows how many people to be disenfranchised.

Yesterday Obama gave a speech about global warming where he appropriately likened global warming denialists to flat earthers.

From yesterday through this morning Wendy Davis- and her supporters in the crowd- filibustered a bill which would have closed most of the abortion clinics in Texas and (further) compromised bodily autonomy for women.

Today, DOMA was ruled unconstitutional and Prop 8 was deemed a state matter. Which means that marriage is no longer being “defended” from consenting adults who wish to be married, and that my state is belatedly on the right side of this issue.

To say I have strong feelings about these things would be an understatement.

I will attempt to blog about each of them over the next week or so, along with writing about the SF Pride Parade – I will be marching with the atheist contingent – but first I just feel the need to breathe. Maybe after petting Sokka or having a cup of tea I will be able to write about all of this.

Patriarchal Bingo, Wendy Davis and the Texas GOP

The Texas Senate Livestream stopped, to be replaced by a message about where to view Senate events.

I am still stunned.

I came late to the event: I arrive home from work about 15 minutes before 10. (California time) I found my twitter feed had gone mad about Texas, but that’s not a first time thing. The fact that the hashtags all mentioned a Wendy was a little odd.

So I tweet my confusion, and then pulled up everything I can on google  and blow through 5 articles on the matter before I find the live feed. I have become livid.

The monstrosity of a bill is bad enough, but by the time I am tuned in, the Senate has voted- after midnight– and apparently think they can get away with voting when they are out of session.

Wendy Davis’s filibuster was voted down by the GOP because apparently sonograms and Planned Parenthood budgets are “not germane” to the discussion and because she had help while putting on a back brace.

Let’s see…

Privileged men becoming very angry when it looks like they might not get their way: check.

Privileged men trying to shut up the woman challenging them: check.

Privileged men breaking laws in order to get their way: check.

Victim blaming (In the form of police force used against at least one protesting woman): check.

And the free middle square of this Patriarchal Bingo?

Bunch of privileged men deciding rules that apply only to women: check.

What the little deal is about Ron Lindsay’s apology

Ron Lindsay has apologized and my reaction is in one way much the same as Jason Thibeault’s: the timing of his and my previous posts demand follow up. Beyond that, we tend to diverge.

Here is Ron Lindsay’s apology:

It has been a few weeks since I have said anything in public about the controversy over my remarks at the Women in Secularism 2 conference. As CFI announced via Twitter, this pause was to enable the board to have time to consider the matter. The board has issued its statement. It is now an appropriate time for me to make some remarks.

I am sorry that I caused offense with my talk. I am also sorry I made some people feel unwelcome as a result of my talk. From the letters sent to me and the board, I have a better understanding of the objections to the talk.

I am also sorry that my talk and my actions subjected my colleagues and the organization to which I am devoted to criticism.

Please accept my apologies.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

My reading of the apology is actually very similar to that of Jason’s, but my reactions are much less accepting, possibly because I am more suspicious of calculation. The fact that weeks were allowed to elapse between the WIS2 Conference and the Board statement and then five days between that and Ron’s apology look to me as though they hoped everything would just blow over if they kept their heads down and mouths shut.

It didn’t blow over, and the CFI Board released the blandest statement they could possibly write. That backfired and Ron apologized.

Perhaps I am – in contrast with Jason- being uncharitable, but I can’t imagine what the Board was doing other than stalling in the month between the speech and their statement. Was their statement really the best they could come up with in a month? I can’t imagine that to be the case and- speaking of which- there needs to be a separate apology by the Board for that corporate-speak-pablum.

While I don’t think that the CFI Board’s statement forced Ron’s hand, I think concern for the fact that CFI was getting bad press -as well as bleeding speakers and donors- might have. I don’t say that wholly as a criticism: I think his concern for his organization is admirable, but I think a feeling of needing to do something to staunch the flow would be a greater inducement to action than the CFI Board’s cardboard condolences.

As for his apology, there is nothing there. I mean: yes, he apologized, but what for?  I’m glad he realizes he was the source of the CFI Board’s unnamed controversy, but does he know how he caused offense? Does he know how he made (many) people feel unwelcome? What is this better understanding he has, and is it actually better? How on earth can anyone tell?

The last part I won’t question: He seems genuinely dismayed that his organization and colleagues have been criticized. If he can and does elaborate on the ‘What’s and ‘How’s of his apology, I am prepared to believe those too.

Until then, if you put it all together, it looks like it was scientifically determined to be the minimum acceptable apology.

It was the least he could do.

Sokka Caturday

I have returned to blogging, which means that Sokka will once again be on the intertubes.

You’re welcome.

CFI# take note of Kickstarter#

CFI Board, you know what you did. (Also addressed by a “fifth grader” here)

And now, with Kickstarter’s apology as an example, I hope you see what you could have said instead of your sad and pathetic excuse for an apology.

You could have:

• Admitted wrongdoing. Not spouted crap about “unhappiness with the controversy.” But you could have paraphrased the title of Kickstarter’s apology: “We were wrong”
• Explained how and why things went wrong, without considering that explanation to excuse all wrongdoing. For instance, listing the factors and then saying something similar to, I don’t know: “These factors don’t excuse our decision but we hope they add clarity to how we arrived at it.”
• Make clear what will be different in the future, learn from a mistake: in Ron Lindsay’s case, he could simply acknowledge that when giving the opening speech at a conference, sounding as though you question the purpose/necessity of that conference is not appropriate. In this case, Kickstarter is prohibiting the funding of seduction guides.
• Make a -not empty- gesture showing you mean what you say. You could create more/increase funding for Women in Secularism programs. “Kickstarter will donate $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization called RAINN.”

Are the circumstances different? Hells yes. Kickstarter enabled funding for a guide to sexually harassing/assaulting women. That is much worse than Ron Lindsay’s speech could ever have been.

Kickstarter should have pulled that manual of sexual harassment and assault once it was pointed out that the author, Hoinsky, gave such advice in PUA forums as:

“Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.”

“Sex: Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick.”

Even with only 2 hours to make a decision, if they felt they couldn’t make a sensible decision, they should have been able to tell they needed more time: putting that kickstarter fund in limbo would have been a good start while they gathered/verified information.

Despite the situation with Kickstarter being worse, their acknowledgement of their responsibility in the problem, their sincerity of apology- that $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization is 30 times what Kickstarter made off the guide- and their change of policy going forward makes me feel more kindly towards them, than to the CFI Board, the leaders of a nonprofit organization.

And favoring a corporation over a nonprofit is not my general tendency.