…according to this website I blog like the Da Vinci Code guy. :/
…according to this website I blog like the Da Vinci Code guy. :/
Did you know that people used to name their pets after ethnic groups?
I just picked up an old book (1924) about drawings for Sunday School, and there it is right on page 30: a lovely story about two kittens, Snowball and N—-r. You see, one of them has white fur, and the other, black. I leave it to you to figure out which is which. Then I recalled that large, black dog in Jack London’s Call of the Wild whose name was ‘Nig.’
So people used to name their pets N—-r. Wow! And that was once considered to be completely normal, even as today most people would regard it as blatantly wrong. By our liberated, contemporary standards, this crazy racism seems otherworldly, a totally alien thing that we clearly would never do now, right?
…And then I remembered all the mascots that are named after native folk, today, for the entertainment of the masses: the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Kansas City Chiefs, and many, many more.
So on the one hand, naming personal pets after ethnic groups is totally wrong.
Yet, naming public pets (mascots) after ethnic groups is totally fine.
WTF? No, it isn’t.
As a Chicagoan, I am truly proud of our hockey team, the Blackhawks. They’ve been kicking ass on ice like they were born to do it.
To illustrate the point, I propose the following name change: the Chicago Whitehonkies!
Sure, it’s more of a slur than “Blackhawks,” but at least white folks are in the majority. (And seriously – it’s not like we suffered genocide and displacement at the hands of Native Americans.) I say, we’re better off stereotyping ourselves than those whom we’ve wronged in the past.
In the meantime… GO WHITEHONKIES!!!
I’m coming to this late, but my friend and fellow CTS seminarian Adam Yates took Rev. Rick Warren to task for his silence on the Ugandan parliament’s proposed legislation to make homosexuality a capital offense. It’s a good read:
…So Rev. Warren, which will it be? Will you be either cold or hot and renounce your tepidity? A person cannot be a Christian and a coward; the conviction of our faith in Jesus Christ compels us to speak out and stand by our beliefs even when there are consequences for doing so. As Christians, we cannot stand by and keep silence while great evil is underfoot.
Rev. Warren, who has considerable influence with the backers of the “kill gay people” legislation, has finally felt compelled to break his silence, and to his credit, he unequivocally condemns the proposed legislation as “unchristian.” Whaddya say, Adam, did Rev. Warren end up hot or cold?
I get email from crazy right-wing organizations:
Here is the last call to stand with us and proclaim to our communities that Christmas is not just a winter holiday focused on materialism, but a “holy day” when we celebrate the birth of our Savior. We can do it in a gentle and effective way by wearing the “God’s Gift – Merry Christmas” button. Don’t wait! Place your order by December 1 to receive it before Christmas.
Get that? Christmas is NOT about materialism. So buy our crap!
I met Rod Blagojevich yesterday.
He was coming out of Medici, a Hyde Park restaurant, and me and my CTS buddies Shaun and Adam were heading into Edwardo’s, a pizzeria a couple doors down. The first thing I noticed was his hair.
As we were telling one another that yes, it really was Rod Blagojevich in the flesh, he caught us staring and came over with a grin, hand outstretched: “Hey guys, wanna meet an innocent ex-governor?” We shook hands, as he gave a mini-version of the same spiel he gives everywhere these days: it’s been difficult, but I can’t wait until everything gets cleared up, and yes, it’s definitely going to be all cleared up.
He asked if we attend the University (of Chicago). No, says Adam, we go to Chicago Theological Seminary. Now this seemed to strike a chord. Eyes widening, he prattled on for a moment about how this experience has really brought him closer to God, you know? He wants us to know that he’s not just saying that because we’re seminarians, but he really believes it’s true: this is all part of God’s plan. Maybe so, I think to myself.
Then one of his companions whisked him away to snap a picture with some coeds. We three seminarians walked into Edwardo’s, and I said, “I don’t think we did a very good job speaking truth to power just then. Then again, he’s doesn’t exactly have much power these days…”
As a post-script, it has since occurred to me that I need to have some quick theology ready for the next time I run into a famous, influential person, fallen or otherwise. No more getting caught speechless. What would you say? (Photo credit: Adam Yates)
This just in my inbox, courtesy of the far-right, anti-choice, anti-marriage, anti-family “American Family Association”:
According to several news agencies, President Barack Obama will rescind the “conscience rule” that protects health workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical procedures that go against their moral and religious beliefs. If the rule is rescinded, doctors, nurses and other health care workers could lose their jobs or be punished professionally for adhering to their sincerely held religious convictions. Obama’s proposal would take away their religious freedom…
No. It would take away their option to deny medical care to which their patients have a legal right, on the basis of their personal convictions.
Let me be the first to acknowledge that every job is not for everyone. I, for instance, would never want to work in a far-right, anti-choice, anti-marriage, anti-family organization like AFA. However, in the event hell freezes over and if I did apply for a job there, should I be allowed to opt out of whatever aspects of that job are objectionable to my religious beliefs? Or should I maybe find another job for which I’m better suited for the tasks? I think the latter.
Guess it’s easier to be a grandstanding Congressional Republican than a Republican governor who must balance actual budgets:
WASHINGTON — President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.
The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.
Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.
< — snip — >
Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.
Funny how the question of stimulus isn’t actually as partisan in real life as the Congressional Republicans would have us believe. Not sure why, but this reminds me of all those armchair warriors leading up to war in Iraq.
This, sir, is not what I had in mind when I asked you to resign:
“I intend to stay on the job and I will fight this thing every step of the way,” he said in an appearance at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. “I will fight, I will fight, I will fight, till I take my very last breath. I have done nothing wrong.”
The pastoral part of me feels sort of bad…like there’s something seriously wrong here, and he’s obviously not getting the help he needs. Still holding the governor, his family, and the rest of us Illinoisans in prayer.
Conservative author/commentator/blogger Michelle Malkin has a new post out as part of an ongoing series about persecuted straight people in the aftermath of Prop. 8. From what I can tell, her modus operandi is to blog about as many hyped-up, isolated instances of anti-Prop. 8 violence, vandalism or harassment as she can. She does this in order to sell the broader narrative that the good, normal, straight people who supported Prop. 8 are under threat of attack by a vicious mob of crazed queers, who evidently roam the streets looking for church-going grandmothers to kick (and/or sodomize, probably).
Let me be clear: I deplore individual and mob violence, and categorically condemn the few instances of vandalism to church and/or personal property that has occurred in the aftermath of Prop. 8’s passage. I have written here and here about our need to maintain respectful dialogue and avoid scapegoating the Mormon Church in particular as we move forward. But to those on the right who are shocked – shocked! by the huge groups of protesters who are inexplicably pissed that gay people have been relegated to second-class citizenship, get over yourselves. You made that bed, now we all must sleep in it.
At any rate, Michelle Malkin’s persecuted-majority complex can be ignored easily enough, but she is apparently influential enough to inspire actual violent rage amongst some of her readers. Check out these comments on just one recent thread of hers:
These comments, coming from just this one post (I’m not sure I have the stomach to comb through looking for more), belie a shocking anti-gay sentiment that is murderous at its core. It’s amazing what people will say under the guise of Internet anonymity.
Here’s a “note from Michelle” at the onset of the comments section (emphasis mine):
Well, lookit that – Malkin “usually” purges her blog of such sentiments. Okay, well, it’s been four six ten 549 days since the above comments have sat on her site. Let’s see how long they remain. [Update on 6/15/10: after eighteen months, I think we can safely assume that Malkin has no intention of removing the hate speech.]
Finally, a note to Michelle, from a fellow Oberlin grad: it seems to me that if your main thesis is about how out-of-control, violent and crazy those people are out there, then perhaps you should think take care that your words don’t engender out-of-control, violent, crazed people in your own backyard. And if that happens anyway, then perhaps you should use the means you have already given yourself to purge those sentiments from the website in your name.