More black churches targeted after Charleston

Did you guys hear that 5 black churches had fires since the SC massacre? 3 are confirmed arson. So assuming it's not a one-in-a-billion coincidence, we as a nation clearly haven't put this behind us. Black people didn't do anything provocative to upset anyone since Charleston (no riots, revenge, etc.). There's no "reason" to burn churches except that racists were tired of seeing black faces and hearing about racism stuff on the media all the time. Intimidation, suppression, and fear - that is the terrorist's playbook.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/black-churches-fire_n_7681754.html

I read a black commentator write about healing after Charleston (sorry I can't find the link now). It's all well and good that whites and blacks hold hands to cry and sing together after such a tragedy. Then we return to the same society that spawned such a horrific event. America heals and achieves closure after tragedies on the white schedule. When the whites (majority) feel better and want to move on, that is what the nation does.

But what if blacks are still hurting and don't want to pretend that we're done with this? They know that they still have to live with all the same shit when the funerals are over. They know they are more likely to be murdered than whites. They know nothing has really changed after the news vans clear out. So why don't they have the right to say, "No - you don't get to have catharsis and feel normal again, because WE don't. You don't get to act like this tragedy has brought us closer together, when I am still upset with no relief in sight?" I am taking artistic license, but that is what I think he was getting at.

While the victims of SC have been exceedingly Christ-like though this tragedy, I actually wish they weren't. Don't be so nice and let the mainstream society sweep this under the rug. Keep feeling outrage and rub our face in the fact that we have a messed up country and it's unacceptable. Because as good as they are reacting and behaving now, it's not going to stop the next violent bigot (or even cop) from abusing them. Maybe a Malcolm X approach is needed (arm yourselves, or just leave America if they don't feel wanted here).

---

This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/30/bryan-stevenson-racial-tensions

GOP candidate cowardice after the SC shooting

This was pretty nauseating but expected from the pathetic field of 2016 GOP candidates: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/19/415747034/predictably-democrats-republicans-dont-agree-on-charleston-causes-solutions?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150619

In contrast to the president, not a single one of them called the SC shooting terrorism, nor mentioned race or guns, even though the alleged shooter himself cited hatred of blacks as a motive, and Roof's friend said that he was so concerned after hearing a racist rant that he hid his Glock for a while. And let's remember, the Columbine shooters were supposedly into Nazism, and used the n-word before killing one black student.

They collectively said, "let's not rush to blame and policy changes; gov't is not the solution." That's peculiar for several reasons:

• After OKC, USS Cole, and 9/11, the GOP sure was rushing to blame some Muslims (without any evidence) and use the strong arm of gov't to fight terrorism overseas.
• When it's whites killing blacks (esp. if the shooter is a cop), "let's wait till we get all the facts." When it's blacks behaving badly - or the media portraying as such (looting/riots after Katrina or Ferguson), then "look at how American values are crumbling, and it's the liberals' fault".

Just putting it out there: these mass shooters seem to have a similar profile - weird-looking skinny white male loners. If we are racially profiling people from the Mideast-South Asia as potential terrorists, and giving them more airport security attention, then why aren't we profiling weird white boys and making it harder for them to possess a gun? The data show that cops are obviously profiling blacks for drugs and other crimes, so why is that OK for minorities but not for whites?


And just to comment on the terrorism issue: the FBI lists heavily-armed right-wing anti-gov't groups as the #2 US terror threat behind Islamists. I think it's a safe bet that many of these groups may not hold minorities in great esteem either.

---

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/19/8811535/charleston-shooting-daily-show

ISIS executes an American journalist on video, and the western world launches a bombing campaign on 2 nations. A slow bleed of domestic gun-toting bigots/psychopaths killing innocent Americans every few months, and our gov't response is nil.

Race and America

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-downtown-charleston-south-carolina-031543897.html

We don't yet know the motives of the shooter (only that he is a 21-year-old white male who is still at large in SC). But authorities are labeling this as a hate crime. I know that one incident does not make a trend, but could this be a signal of growing white backlash against "Black Lives Matter" and other efforts to expose racial injustice?

I worry about white people (esp. men) who feel economically marginalized and dignity-attacked by national events since the recession. The worst thing would be a white-power militant backlash like some of the right-wing European parties that rapidly gained prominence during the Euro crisis.

Of course the hardships and insults that some whites feel in America may be real, but the culprits are obviously not minorities. But the true culprits are really good at concealment/propaganda and letting media deflect attention away from them. All you hear from FNC is that Christianity, white people (men), "US values", guns/cops, and conservatism are under attack. But the data show that evangelical Christianity is as strong as ever (despite declines in all other forms of Christianity), whites still have huge advantages in terms of incarceration rates, income, life expectancy, and most other socioeconomic metrics. Also, 3X more hate crimes are perpetrated against blacks than whites, even though blacks are only 12% of the US.

Obviously many whites are having more struggles in America. If they are ignorant, it's fairly easy to persuade them to blame immigrants, gays, liberals, etc. Much of Rush, Fox, etc.'s airtime is devoted to this. So are they actually the race-baiters who motivate some angry whites to attack minorities? Blood could be on their hands (like the Gabby Giffords shooting, etc.).

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/12/01/fox-guest-we-will-see-more-white-americans-unde/201727
http://www.newshounds.us/to_bill_o_reilly_white_christians_are_under_attack_but_not_african_americans_actually_killed_by_the_police_041615
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/opinion/charles-blow-woe-of-white-men-again.html

---

Also, did you hear about this Supreme Court ruling (TX did not violate the 1st Amend. by prohibiting a Southern group from making a custom license plate with the Dixie flag) where Thomas was the difference maker, siding with the liberals for the first time? If I can assume that his decision was motivated by his race and his deeper understanding of US racial history, is this an indictment that the Court is biased by personal background? I know we are all biased by our backgrounds, but the Court is supposed to be fair and just and blind, right?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/confederate-flag-plates-lack-support-supreme-court

----

This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/finding-roots-dylann-roofs-radical-violence/

I wish the guests would have hit harder. Yes, white (men) feel under attack these days - but they should have said that those feelings are utterly baseless and not grounded in fact. Or if some whites are having a harder go these days, it is not due to gains by minorities (and there certainly isn't a minority conspiracy for "payback" against whites - even if it's quite deserved). If they don't outright dismiss these lies, then people will continue to believe them (like how the GOP injects doubt into the global warming issue). You can't give Holocaust deniers and Holocaust historians equal respect just to maintain a "fair debate". Bill Maher said that denying the existence of racism (and accusing others of race-baiting) is a form of racism in itself, and I think that's correct. Some on the right would rather attribute Roof's actions to "hatred of Christianity" instead of hatred of blacks. Speaking of that - to those who don't think the SC massacre (and our reaction to it) was racial, what if a synagogue or a meeting of (white) Wall St. execs was attacked by a black power extremist? If America's response would have been different (and it definitely would have), then that shows bias.

IMO, the debate about the Dixie flag is a red herring. I understand that its presence evokes powerful emotions on both sides, but it's a distraction from the core issue. Fighting over symbols is often a fruitless distraction. We can't change the past (nor its icons) and it's better if we accept it and move on. I suppose it's understandable for Southern folks to feel pride about their roots and the "War for Southern Independence." But they also have to acknowledge that some aspects of their society/regime were evil - and the consequences on blacks persist today. They can acknowledge and find a better path forward like Germany, or they can stick their heads in the sand like Japan and Turkey. I would also hope that African-Americans can see past the flag and not let it consume disproportionate attention. They have more important battles to fight.

"Israel's other war" by E Keret

"We are faced with the false, anti-democratic equation that argues that aggression, racism, and lack of empathy mean love of the homeland, while any other opinion—especially one that does not encourage the use of power and the loss of soldiers’ lives—is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Israel as we know it."

Another quality op-ed from Keret, questioning why some people expect others to show love for country with such extreme hatred for the "enemy", and intolerance for any other opinion besides total unwavering support for war. His article also reminded me of America after 9/11, and sadly Germany between the wars too: the terrible right-wing nationalist rhetoric that the country would prevail if it wasn't for "the enemy within" subverting their efforts. If Israel wants to level Gaza to the ground, nothing can stop them - not dissidents, liberals, traitors, or Arab-lovers. Same thing with America in Iraq - we can destroy the whole country if we wanted to. But the question is: will that make us safer? Will our unrestrained violent actions prevent the enemy from ever returning? Of course the answer to the second question is "no" (if the IDF could magically wipe out Hamas, another org would take its place), and the answer to the first question is still a source of debate.

And as Jon Stewart said, showing concern for the gratuitous murder of women and kids in Gaza is not the same as supporting Hamas and being anti-Semitic. I thought the person who killed kids (or condoned others doing it) was the asshole. Now in Israel (and sometime in the US), it seems that the real asshole is the person expressing regret over child killings. Sometime we have to step back, take a deep breath, and recognize the insanity of our prejudices.

Furthermore, the intolerance of dissent from ostensibly free societies is really troubling. Disasters occur when people don't speak up and allow biases people to make rash decisions. If the hawks are so certain of the righteousness of their cause and soundness of their strategy, then why squelch debate? If I know that 2+2=4, what do I have to fear from the person claiming that the answer is 5? Maybe the hawks are worried that the disloyal, subversive cowards will convince the gullible populace that the answer is actually 5, and support will turn against them. If that is the case, then that exposes the utter contempt that the hawks have for the intelligence of the citizenry that they claim to be protecting.