Is A Racial Slur OK If the Slur-er "Meant No Disrespect?"

Alaska Congressman Don Young yesterday referred to migrant farm workers as "wet backs." Today, in lieu of an actual apology, he has explained that the term was commonly used when he was growing up in California and he didn't mean any disrespect.

If he had referred to black people by invoking the N-word, his excuse that he used that word all the time when he was growing up would be fuel to the fire, not a mitigating factor. (I grew up in Alabama, and I go back to visit, and I can tell you that people still use that really offensive slur referring to African Americans. It's just they have the sense to not say it on the radio or while being a US Congressman. People say it in front of me and they think I'm OK with it because I'm white and from Alabama. I tell them NOT to use that word in my presence. Neither that term, nor any racial slur, has ever been "harmless.")

Don Young doesn't get it. The fact that he referred to an entire group of Hispanic people as "wet-backs" without realizing he was insulting them is not a mitigating factor. It is the sign of a much bigger problem. He doesn't even realize he's a racist. And it reminds me of the fellow at CPAC who snarkily suggested that Fredrick Douglas' letter to his former owners should have thanked them for providing him with food and shelter. 

It is equally offensive when men refer to women as objects to be worshiped. When people explain that women cannot have priestly positions in church, or get that big promotion at work, but have the "highest calling"  or "hardest job in the world" because they can can be mothers, it makes me grind my teeth. That's saying that a woman's value is her uterus and milk-producing ability. How demeaning. Women are not brood mares or cows.

And likewise, the current issue dominating the news: marriage equality. Many people have no ill will towards gay people, they just want to deprive them of the right to get married. It's another form of objectification and subjugation of someone who is not the white, male ideal. It's a way of keeping someone seen as being "less than" from acting like an equal.

As a practical matter, I'll take this ignorance over violence, but all of these indignities, to me, represent the most sinister form of racism: the idea that "they treat their Negroes/"wet-backs"/women/gays very well" so they don't mean any harm. It makes me nauseous. I had a hard time even typing it out. It is the sickest form of white, male supremacy clothed in benevolence. It is perhaps more insulting than outright hate. At least hatred would be a form of respect.

Congressman Young has not said he regrets using the words, or apologized, or done any kind of mea culpa. He seems to believe that the fact that he has referred to Hispanic people as wet-backs since he was a young man makes it OK. It doesn't.

Get Above Your Raisin', Congressman and acknowledge that you have a lot of wrong ideas to overcome from your youth. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

POSTSCRIPT: Since I posted this blog, Congressman Young has issued a statement that is more of an apology. It can be found here.

Freedom to Do the Right Thing

A Polygamist with his wives and progeny.

 This was previously written as a Note on my Facebook. I thought it would make an interesting blog.

The really nice thing about living in a free society? If there is some activity I find immoral, I can choose not to engage in it. We are not a lawless society. We prohibit some things we agree about in overwhelming numbers: murder, robbery, etc. But on the whole, if conduct is a matter of debate, or is between consenting adults, we are free (or should be free IMO) to act or abstain according to our own guidelines.

• If you think abortion is murder, that human life begins at conception, then you can choose not to have an abortion.
• If you think engaging in sex outside of marriage, or non-procreative sex, is immoral, you can choose to abstain.
• If you think drinking alcohol or eating pork is a sin, you can stick with iced tea and mutton.
• If you think homosexuality is "unnatural" you can choose not to engage in homosexual conduct.

BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE'S BELIEFS NECESSITATE PASSING LAWS - OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS - TO POLICE OTHER PEOPLE'S MORAL CONDUCT?

If everyone behaved like the Christian Fundamentalists, we would have Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists campaigning to outlaw blood transfusions and organ transplants. How many lives would be lost? Yet their belief is quite sincere.

If orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims joined together, they could mount a serious movement to outlaw pork. This might render me suicidal!

If the FLDS folks in Colorado City were larger in numbers, they could start a Polygamy Party that advocates plural marriage and the marriage of 16-year-olds to their uncles. They believe God has instructed them to do these things. (FYI this IS illegal since 16-year-olds are minors.)

My point is this: just because someone believe something with great fervor and conviction does not mean he/she have the right to impose that belief on everyone else. No one wants to be told what he/she can and cannot do!

In principle many Americans would agree with me. In practice, many of those seemingly reasonable Americans vote to impose their personal moral views on all Americans in every election. In recent months I've seen some support for laws that would declare a fertilized egg a person, thereby making the use of "The Pill" a homicide since it prevents pregnancy after fertilization.

My question is, "Why?"

According to philosopher John Locke, the natural state of man is to be free to act as each person sees fit within the bounds of Reason (Yes, with a capital R). Part of the failing in this philosophy in human society IMO is the conflict between Reason and Theology. There are religious people who are reasonable. There are also religious people who are not reasonable.

In my opinion, contending that a fertilized egg is a "person" defies Reason. Many churches do not even contend this. It is as extreme and irrational as tying rocks to witches to see if they will float in the river. That is not to say that I think all people who find abortion immoral are silly or ignorant. I don't. Thinking abortion is immoral is not the same as thinking a fertilized egg is a "person."  I do think making your entire political life about policing other people's reproductive choices is creepy and self-righteous. I also think judging women who have abortions is directly in conflict with the lesson to cast stones only if we are without sin ourselves.

Finally, I want to share the epiphany I had recently. The debate over marriage equality is not about opponents protecting the "sanctity of marriage" as was made very clear this week when proponents of Prop H8 and DOMA could not articulate how same sex marriage has any impact on heterosexual relationships. Moreover, as individual couples, many marriages are very sacred, some not so much. The real issue, IMO. is this: legalizing marriage for same sex couples would make their relationships credible, acceptable, legitimate.

Whether you like "the gay" or not, it is credible, acceptable and legitimate. Some homophobe's (or mild-mannered conservative's) problems with gay people have no bearing on this, and in fact is just a demonstration of their own hang-ups. Opposition to marriage equality is just another expression of bigotry that will give rise to regret in the future.In addition, opposition to gay couples marrying is no different from the opposition in the 1960s to interracial marriage.

I would ask these folks - like the ones who rallied for their view of what marriage should be in Utah yesterday - what if you were the minority instead of the majority? What if Warren Jeffs FLDS polygamists were the majority, and you had to marry whomever Prophet Jeffs told you to? What if you had to marry 4 people he told you to? You would hate that, right? You want to be free to choose whom you marry and build a life with, don't you? Don't you think everyone else wants the right to do that too?

And no, "But it's just wrong," is not an acceptable response, nor is "God says it's wrong." YOU think it's wrong because of YOUR beliefs. Someone else thinks your use of birth control is wrong. Someone else thinks your eating bacon with breakfast is wrong. Someone else thinks your consumption of coffee is wrong. Someone else thinks the organ transplant you got to save your life was wrong.

Not everyone agrees with me or with you. But the best part for all of us? None of us has to do any of the things you think are "wrong"  and we can do all the other things. And everyone else gets to refrain from what they think is "wrong" and do all the "not wrong" things they want to as well. That's what it means to be free. When we can all get Above Our Raisin', we can all truly be free to live our lives doing the right things as we each see it.

It's a Sign!

There are churches of all varieties, denominations, and cultures in every corner of America. And a lot of them have lighted signs in front to speak to you as you drive by. What messages are they sending?

Some are intended to get you in the door on Sunday, even if their messages sometimes have double meanings.

Accidentally pornographic Baptists   ^

SEXY   ^

^   And SEXY Catholics, too!

I love sarcasm!

Some are shaking an angry fist at the world! (As if some righteous indignation on a sign is going to change people's behavior!)

^  Dude! These are the FUN people! Count me in! (Vegetarians?)

Shouldn't faith make you a kind person? ^^ Why all the FEAR MONGERING?!

^ I agree with the "HA HA HA" part. ^

 Some take a softer, more humorous approach.

^  AMEN!  ^

Is this the modern "opiate of the masses?" ^

Nice! Some Methodists get it! ^

G R A C E = 5 letters, Lutherans. ^

 And some have particular issues that MUST BE ADDRESSED IN A LIGHTED SIGN SO EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE WWWWRRRROOOOONNNNNGGGGG!

I now have to Google "surgically augmented genitals." ^

Tsk Tsk Tsk Church of Godders. Politics is a no-no. ^

Does this even make sense? ^^ It's like they changed half the sign.

So, kissing is a mortal sin now? ^^ I'm guessing this church has no children. Yikes!

Maybe they are dyslexic and don't believe in Dog? ^

Churches are congregations of people. Some are good and some are not so good. Some are educated and enlightened, and some are Pat Robertson-esque. Some will lift you up. And some will tear you down. This blog isn't particularly deep or meaningful. I just saw an internet post with a sign and thought, "What a weird thing to post in front of a church!" So I found some more and voila, blog post.

I was raised in the Assemblies of God denomination. You know, the one with the "WHY ARE YOU LEADING YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL?" sign. You can understand why I had to get Above My Raisin'.

Minnesota Man Decries Dangers of Butt Enzymes

I am all for freedom of speech. I genuinely believe we should let people talk and talk and talk until they have fully explained exactly whatever crazy-ass beliefs and misunderstandings of the real world to which they cling. This story is an illustration why we should allow everyone to have his or her say. It's how we know who the idiots are.

Remember Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" comments about how a woman's body can "shut down" to prevent pregnancy? A great example of letting the stupids talk to we can weed out the intolerables.

Here's another one. This Minnesota man, Mike Fry, "testified" before a legislative committee in Minnesota in opposition to the proposed same sex marriage bill.

Part one of his premise is that same sex marriage should not be allowed because married people have sex, and allowing gay people to marry each other will mean that they will engage in sodomy. Well, color me shocked! I hadn't realized that gays in states that do not license same sex marriage are all celibate. Who'd a thunk it?! Apparently gays and lesbians are all getting by on heavy petting and "self gratification" waiting for the law-makers to give them the go-ahead to consummate their relationships. Poor souls.

Part two of his premise is that AIDS results from butt enzymes being transferred into the colon by ejaculation during anal sex. (Sorry to be so explicit, but I only wrote this in my blog for 8 people to read. Mike is on YouTube saying it!) OMG, all this time we thought AIDS was a disease resulting from HIV! Why didn't Mike say something sooner? If we had known that AIDS was caused by butt enzymes, think how many lives we could have saved!

End of sarcasm/beginning of  rant. I have several points. I think I'll number them.

(1) People who are not married have sex. And some people who are married have sex with people to whom they are not married. Mike lives in Puritanicalfantasyland.

(2) I do not want to call what this man said "testimony." He is a lying, bigoted, busybody, IMO. What he said is either utterly irrational or patently false. And what business is it of his who marries whom and what they do in bed, either before or after the ceremony?

(3) So, no problems with lesbians marrying, then, since no one is ejaculating into anyone's colon?

(4) If I never type the phrase "ejaculating into anyone's colon" again it will be too soon.

(5) AIDS is not caused by sperm or butt enzymes or gay sex, but by a virus we have identified. Women get it, children get it, straight people get it. Mike makes Jerry Falwell (wherever he is) seem rational.

(6) How does a literate, American adult in 2013 believe the stupidity spewed by Mike Fry?  It cannot be just FoxNews. To think as Mike does, you just have to choose to ignore information, science, news, and common sense. Or maybe he just like to say crap that makes gay people look dirty/evil/sinful/weird, like an internet troll.

(7) The committee he "testified" before voted in favor of the bill anyway.

(8) What about married heterosexuals who engage in sodomy? Shouldn't we ban all marriage to prevent them from spreading butt enzyme AIDS?


(9) On general principal, I'd say Mike shouldn't knock anything until he's tried it. Prudishness is not sexy.

(10) It really isn't funny (although I treated it like it is) that he defends and disseminates this bigoted misinformation. People have died of AIDS. People have died just for being gay. To have this sort of false witness in a legislative process is offensive. But it does tell us clearly who has yet to get Above Their Raisin'.

The Marijuana Boondoggle

If you pay attention at all, you know that Colorado and Washington (state) legalized recreational marijuana in the November, 2012 election. So, given all the scary, horrible things we hear about pot, I thought I'd write a wee blog highlighting the content of this article at Toke Signals. 

I've been hearing scary things about pot since Michelle Summers' mom (a cop) came to my class in school and showed us how to recognize drugs and explained why they are all dangerous. I was a kid. It would have been dangerous.  Anyway, she also told us how bad cigarettes and alcohol are, so YAY for Michelle's Mom! But there are things we've all been told about marijuana use that are not true (although I cannot recall if any of these untruths came from Michelle's Mom).

There are a lot of myths about grass. Despite the panic-mongering, it becomes more popular and more widely used every year. Here's a summary:

1  Smoking weed does not cause lung cancer. It's been studied. A lot. For a long time. It does not cause lung cancer.

2  Legalized medical marijuana has not been a huge logistical or administrative problem. In LA, it has, because LA didn't deal with their crap. Everywhere else, it's been pretty smooth (excluding federal enforcement efforts).

3  Legalizing marijuana is no more a "slippery slope" than any other law. The "slippery slope" argument is the last trench in a losing battle. Suggesting that legalizing pot will lead to legalizing heroin is like suggesting that allowing 16-year-olds to drive will lead to 10-year-olds driving. That would be stupid. We, as a society, know the difference between pot and heroin just like we know that a 16-year-old is different from a 10-year-old. FYI always reject the "slippery slope" argument. It's always lame.

4  Legalizing pot will not result is serious DUI problems and carnage on the roads. There is simply no evidence to suggest this. Given the pervasive use of pot NOW, do you ever wonder why we never (or rarely) see new articles about a stoner driving into oncoming traffic? Because it just is not happening all that often, if at all. Pot does not impair motor function the way alcohol does. But whatever the reason, we are not experiencing pervasive Driving While High accidents.

5  We are not all going to become potheads. There are HUGE numbers of people who refrain from smoking and/or drinking alcohol despite their being legal. We are not all lemmings.

I understand the change in law in Colorado will result in 10,000 fewer incarcerations in that state. Way to go, Colorado and Washington. Way to get Above Your Raisin' and make decisions based on fact and common sense. 'Ere's to you!