The St Louis Rams Displayed Community Spirit

Several of the St. Louis Rams football team players expressed solidarity with the protesters against police brutality and unlawful slaying of black youth triggered by the August 2014 death of Mike Brown by multiple shots from the weapon of police officer Darren Wilson.  They made the "hands up" gesture that should signify that a person has no weapon in hand, and is no threat. They also linked arms during the national anthem.

As messages go, this is gentle, but resonant. There was nothing violent in their display--what they were saying was that the surrendered body needs to be treated by law enforcement as just another citizen, maybe to be taken into custody, but not to be killed. They were saying, with bodies of color and bodies of no small athleticism or size, that this gesture is all people of color and size have to signal their acquiescence to the force of law. And maybe they were implying Big Mike made that very gesture when he was shot down.

I think the St Louis Police Officers Association is "out of bounds" in suggesting that this silent protest was a kind of disorderly conduct or incitement by the players. It will, at this point, always be open to argument whether there was any aggression on the part of the slain teen, or whether Officer Darren Wilson slew him with little to no provocation. There won't be a real trial, I fear. I'm not sure of the grounds a federal civil rights violation case would have, and a civil case may not even be truly in the offing. Darren Wilson, who recently decided to quit the force for the sake of the community (and with nearly a million dollars in donations and payola for his ABC interview) may breathe something like easy.

But people who look like Mike Brown, John Crawford, Ezell Ford,  Sean Bell, Tamir  Rice, Akai Gurley, Eric Garner, and on and on, still can't exhale. Why shouldn't someone speak for them?

I'm sorry, but skeptical as I am about some parts of the Ferguson extended protests--this part was legitimate, and felt right. It delivered a peaceful message to lots of people about the vulnerability of even strong bodies. And if criticizing the use of police force on anybody that was not found guilty in a court of law  (yes, even Mike Brown needs to be presumed innocent) is somehow a crime--let's put the constitution on trial. No. They didn't tell anyone to do anything with their demonstration--they just did their own thing. And it didn't even interrupt the game. I call "no foul".

Transgender Day of Remembrance-2013

The 15th Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance is observed because the lives of actual people are brutally taken away by violence because they dare to be who they are.

I observe this day because I remain appalled by any society that considers itself civilized, but can not or will not refrain from actions that are bullying and derogatory towards anyone on the basis of their gender identification, from the outrageous acts of violence including beatings, torture and murder--to the casual use of derogatory language to define those who must struggle to define themselves in world where a gendered perception is imposed on individuals without respects to human choice.

The right to live, work, marry (or refrain from marriage), be called by one's preferred name and pronouns, to come and go unmolested, to not be challenged over one's identity in public places--the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in other words, should not be abridged by bigotry and hatred. And yet everywhere, they are. It is necessary for injustice to be recognized so that it can be addressed, and this day serves as one reminder to speak out for those who can--because of those who were silenced.

Know Your Class War: Four out of Five Americans

Four out of five Americans will experience some kind of financial difficulty, from unemployment to relying on government assistance, at some time in their lives. That seems like an amazingly general experience--but because for many people, this is a transient experience (a visit to "broke", as opposed to a prolonged stay), I think people are able to convince themselves that they haven't, you know, been poor. Not like, you know. Them. The Poor. As in: "The poor are always with us"?

Truth be told, it's more like: "The possibility of being poor is always with you, and me." At the ThinkProgress link, blogger Bryce Covert breaks down some of the ways the US is failing to address poverty--part of a painful trend of so-called "fiscal conservatism" has basically shaken down to an almost personal viciousness towards people experiencing need. But that is four out of five of us. This isn't a country composed of 80% lazy bastards. This is a country of increasing income inequality, where people can work (longer and harder than some of the 1%-ers)  and are still too poor to afford rent, to keep the lights on, or even feed themselves.

That's why when I hear that smug fake-Christian sentiment springing from mouths like Michele Bachmann's, for example, saying "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat", I wonder if that person saying it ever considered whether "will not work" ever meant "will not work for a wage too low to feed themselves or their family". (But since she, like several other Republicans, has espoused the idea that there should be no minimum wage--no. Leaving possibility that some will work, and neither shall they eat, either.) And when I see that people who endorse such specifically insulting policies like drug-testing people who go on assistance get some support from people who are in that four out of five group--it strikes me that part of the on-going class war isn't just the elites shafting the broke. It's a war between people who know what limited resources are and have been conditioned to battle each other over the scraps. Which is why think tanks and major newspaper opinion pages are full of people who can, without flinching, suggest that, say, a political party might hold up a vote on unemployment benefits to gain a concession on taking money out of pensioners' pockets.

On some level, for the well-sinecured hams that dribble internecine class war gravy wherever they opine, suggesting that providing food programs for poor kids and giving some families health care too, only takes tax money! Away! From the job-creators! Must really be done, just a little bit, for sport. To raise up our fears that next time, maybe that "rich government entitlement" someone else gets, will take something from us.

It's a bum fight. Where 80% of us are bums. (And the honest truth is, no, it shouldn't be the government who provides for all our asses at all, at all. Why has this conversation so often excluded the very folks that should be, allegedly, creating the jobs and paying the people who fill them enough to live?)  We should be clever enough to realize it, proud enough to resent it, pissed enough to sort out how to end it.

Old Atheism, or, Apologia Per Blogae Sua Revisited-

I have revisited my blog on different terms, and decided some of what I've posted, in opposition to religion, isn't really fair or appropriate when I consider that the position from which I am viewing other people's ethical deliberations is a position of relative privilege, generally. It's easy for me to point out "other fail". It's harder for me to figure out where people are coming from. I still think I need to point out "fails" where I see them, but I think my cultural criticism needs to undergo a social justice revamp, in terms of tone and the direction of my criticism. I haven't really blogged about atheism or against religion recently, except in a general anti-culture-warrior way, and this has been in part due to my recognition that faith genuinely is, if not integral to a person, in that it can be rejected, integral to the culture in which a given person has been acculturated.

I was not acculturated to religion, and used atheism as a kind of "rational privilege". I viewed myself in terms of having something innately better, and even if I do, it can't be my assumption in how I frame posts regarding faith. My current outlook isn't accomodation--per se, rather, I think I'm bowing to a kind of "tone argument" that has mostly been in my head--I just don't want to be "that atheist".  I want to not be insulting. I want to make arguments in good faith. I would rather be a little weak if it means not kicking someone in the slats. I think the way I want to go with my blog is going to be harder, but it's worth it to me to be kinder and more inclusive, and more readable for more people. It's all of a piece with the decision to do "trigger warnings" and use less gendered language. I want to write for a lot of people, and I don't want to exclude or "other" or wound anyone with what I say--well, except for sometimes discomfiting the comfortable.

I don't know how well I'll do at this, and I don't really have a readership, so I'm doing this in the dark--but at least, I read what I write--and I know I can do better. And part of this is ending my imaginary "religion-bashing rota". I never truly had one: I generally criticized religion based on stories of the day. But I think, instead of trying to put down all traditions equally, I will only address actual fails, and only as cultural or social justice fails, without the assunption that religion alone is responsible for a culture-fail, since things like mysogyny or homophobia, etc, don't occur in a void, but have both religious and other sources. I need to recognize things like that better.  I need to acknowledge I don't always understand all the intersections on class, education, etc. That being said, I can only try to be more considerate. So, that's an important thing I'm up to.

I don't think ritual humiliation is necessary, Mr. President.

In a recent press conference, President Obama was asked about the invasive procedures taking place in America's airports and deemed them necessary.

"I understand people’s frustrations, and what I’ve said to the TSA is that you have to constantly refine and measure whether what we’re doing is the only way to assure the American people’s safety. And you also have to think through are there other ways of doing it that are less intrusive," Obama said.

"But at this point, TSA in consultation with counterterrorism experts have indicated to me that the procedures that they have been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing."

I've been reading some of the horror stories about what humiliations people actually have undergone during these pat-downs, and then my imagination did the rest--this isn't about "frustration." For many people, this is practically injurious.

(TW) When I see stories like these:

TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthetic breast

TSA pat-down leaves cancer survivor covered in urine

TSA Pats-Down a Screaming Toddler

And there's dozens more stories out there--people who are going to be subjected to the pat-downs, are most likely the worst people who should be subjected to the pat-downs. Among them particularly are cancer survivors and disabled people. NJ Rep. Diane Allen makes a good point here:

Allen expressed reservations about passenger exposure to unnecessary radiation. “Certain Americans, including cancer patients and survivors who are being treated or have been treated with radiation therapy are told by their doctors to avoid unnecessary exposure to additional radiation. As a cancer survivor myself, the new imaging equipment used for full body scans concerns me greatly. The U.S. government has not provided adequate information on the potential health impacts of these machines- to say nothing of the invasive nature of the alternative presented to passengers. David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University has in fact said it is likely that at least some people who are exposed to the new scanners will develop cancer as a result, with frequent fliers and children among the most susceptible.”

So, naturally, people whose health might be at-risk because of the scanners might have no choice but to opt for the pat-down--but this can be a problem. If a body has already experienced a trauma like surgery, if prosthetics are involved, and if there is a lack of understanding on the part of the screener, the potential for harm or humiliation exists. With children, I think it's horrible because it's almost impossible to make them understand fully what is going on and why they are being subjected to this treatment. It's too easy for them to view it as a punishment when they haven't done anything wrong (and they haven't!), and no, they aren't going to take it well. And travelling, as a disruption from routine, is often stressful enough on kids as it is.

But that's not all--I think of any number of conditions where being touched might be actually painful--rheumatic or osteoarthritis and fibroneuralgia can sometimes make contact anxiety-producing. You just can't know that you will be handled gently. That may vary with the person "handling" you. And there's so many other people with valid reasons to protest. Trans-people, because it's another opportunity to have one's body and gender subjected to judgement. It could be triggering for victims of physical or sexual abuse to be touched by a stranger. I can see how this might be excruciating for a wide spectrum of people with anxiety, etc. whose very anticipation of what is going to happen might make it just a nightmare--and if you can't or won't go through with it, they detain you, which is so equally very bad.

There really are people who would rather face the (small, all things considered) odds of being caught up in some attack--than deal with near-certain discomfort, humiliation, even horror. That's not "frustration". A long line is frustration. This is something way more personal, being done to too many people. It can't be the only way, and I can't consider it "necessary".

EDIT: And, not surprisingly, the TSA agents doing this aren't really so keen on it, either.