Yet another embarrassment
I went to the Coretta Scott King funeral and all I got was this lousy liberal political rally:
Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said King spoke out, not just against racism, but against “the senselessness of war and the solutions for poverty.”
“She sang for liberation, she sang for those who had no earthly reason to sing a song,” with a voice that was heard “from the tintop roofs of Soweto to the bomb shelters of Baghdad,” Franklin said.
Angelou talked about King as her sister, and said “Those of us who have gathered here…we owe something from this minute on, so this gathering is not just another footnote on the pages of history.”
“I mean to say I want to see a better world. I mean to say I want to see some peace somewhere,” she said.
The Rev. Joseph Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., took a more direct jab at Bush’s foreign and domestic policies, drawing head shakes from Bush and his father as they sat behind the pulpit.
“For war, billions more, but no more for the poor,” Lowery said, in a take-off of a lyric from Stevie Wonder’s song “A Time to Love,” which drew a roaring standing ovation.
Sen. Edward Kennedy told the crowd that Coretta King was the force behind designating a national holiday to honor her late husband.
He described her as “the wind at our backs” for decades as the nation struggled to uphold civil rights laws.
Kennedy, of course, is not only one of the primary windbag sources of the hot air currently blowing up liberal skirts over the use of sigint to defend ourselves against al Qaeda, but also the brother of the Democrat who, as Attorney General, approved the wiretapping of Mrs. King’s husband.
Yeah, I know, I know. No, they really don’t seem to have any shame at all, do they?
- Entries
Politicians in general, Senators in particular, or Kennedys?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream was not just that one day his children would "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.""...
From that march on Washington speech (the "I have a dream speech"), MLK didn't just say that he wished that all men would not be judged by the color of their skin - he spoke against discrimination and unequal opportunity:
"One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned... But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation."
Towards the end of the speech, (in the "I have a dream portion") he also says:
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of the creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
and toward the end...
"I have a dream that one day "every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low; the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."
Four years later, in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, MLK spoke about both non-violence (in terms of his opposition to the Vietnam war) and it's affect on social programs (especially on young black men who were being drafted for the war). He spoke about multiple reasons he was against the war, but tied the spending to the war to reductions in social programs that were targeted to help the poor (he noted that the poor were disproportionally affected by the war: "It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We are taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia or East Harlem... I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.").
MLK gave another reason for protesting the Vietnam war - he would argue for non-violence when campaigning for civil rights / social change... "But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted...For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."
When Lowery and MLK formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, their motto was: "To save the soul of America".
MLK said that he felt that to ignore the war was to risk the soul of America.
MLK said that "I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies... A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth...The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just...A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just.""
MLK spoke about a call to a fellowship of man, our loving one's neighbor (and this was in the time of the Vietnam war): "This call for worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind...This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love on another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love...If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that his spirit will become the order of the day."
Issues about discrimination, opportunities for the poor or people of color, war and non-violent approaches to social change, etc. - these are the legacies of MLK AND Coretta Scott King. To mischaracterize them is unfortunate.
A true memorial is to remember their legacy.
It was a marvelous tapestry of art, full of nuance and richness. More important it was evocative of a time when we actually had decent people in the White House and Congress. In the succession of speeches there was poetry, there was soul-stirring song, there was historical context. There was spirituality, and humaneness, and love and hope.
Contrast all that with what these pathetic Republicans did immediately afterward. They seized upon tiny fractions of the event, the ones where allusions were made to Republican failures and criminal acts and lies. It shocked them. But what was more shocking was that these Republicans came away thinking the whole thing was about them.
It wasn't.
But the Republicans were not content to just leave those few TRUTHFUL fractions stand. No, fascist Karl Rove was compelled to immediately send his whores and pimps and slime merchants to try to tear it all down.
That's all they know how to do, they know nothing else. They got into power in Washington on slime and lies and misrepresentations and smear tactics, and they used their illegitimate power to sully everything good about America, most especially by lying us into an unnecessary war. And looking the other way when all those Black folks huddled in New Orleans and begged for help.
And like a poisonous leitmotiv or a lingering putrid smell, there was George Bush, sitting behind the speakers. As usual he was ill at ease and totally out of touch. He actually brought himself to believe he belonged there, sitting among honorable people.
He was so miscast. So out of place.
For example, see John's comment above this. He can't figure out why the president would think he should attend Mrs. King's funeral, being that he is a Republican. The thought that it would be fitting for the president to attend the funeral of a great American, as a show of respect, never crossed John's mind.
Sad, really. I wonder if the madness will ever pass?
And to reply to the comment above about the President coming to honor a great American. That is a bunch of crock. To tell you the truth Bush would not have come if he didn't that that he would be crusified for not attending.
It's inappropriate behavior at any person's funeral to use it to bash another person. It should have been about her, not President Bush and what the speaker believes his weaknesses or failings are. It is rude and inconsiderate to use a funeral for that. It was rude to a guest. It shows a lack of class and common decency, something it appears the left in general and Democrats in particular have little respect for - the little politenesses and niceties of civilized behavior that make a civilized society possible.
President Bush acted graciously. The others acted like boors. Can you see where boorish behavior ought to be criticized or has politics deadened your sensibilities?
My highlight was the eloquent words of T.D. Jakes.
My point remains - it was rude and inappropriate to use a funeral service for political ends, to attack a political foe. There are plenty of opportunities to criticize this administration and plenty of venues to do it. This wasn't it. It was crass. It was classless. And it said a lot about the speakers.
Don't cling to the bitterness from the stupid. That way is the proverbial trail of tears.
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness.
Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.
Know who said those things, Stephanie? Look it up.
'The man' can only ride your back if its bent.
Change your attitude or you can always expect to be right where you are now. Listen to the words of a great man, the greatest of his generation; or wallow in your self pity. The choice is yours.
The thing is, I already know "what was on the minds" of people like Stephanie. Heard it all before, yanno. I just don't believe that Stephanie's perspective is a legitimate perspective. I believe that it's the perspective of a few kooks and rejects, and I hope that it's not the perspective of the majority. If Stephanie does represent the views of the majority of African Americans, then the majority of African Americans are as delusional as she is.
Also, if someone makes an argument and it is wrong, then repeating the point on top of a coffin doesn't make it any more worthy of a hearing. Beyond a certain point the argument becomes an annoyance. "Give me what I want or I will keep pestering you!" isn't an ethical strategy. It's extortion.
Kiefer Sutherland put it best in Stand By Me: "Okay. You've stated your position clearly. Now I'm gonna state mine. Get in the @#$% car, now."
Except for the bit about wanting to be cooped up in a moving vehicle with her yammering away.
And after all, if the federal gummint doesn't care, why, who does?
But the funniest bit of all is probably this: apparently, we're all participating in the "Swift-boating" of the King funeral by expressing our disdain for the lack of decorum and plain boorishness showed at her funeral.
Poor Stephanie. Better adjust your talking points. Here's a hint: You might want to do some actual research. No doubt you'll just call me a racist or some such.
Here's the full article.
Bu apparently, but Stephanie's logic, she would not have minded if Bush had gotten up and said this: (hat tip mightysamurai)
"Corretta Scott King worked her whole life to defeat racial discrimination written into law by the Democratic Party. Her tireless struggle to overcome the Democrat Jim Crow Laws will forever be remembered.
But what will we will all remember most is her endless perseverence. When Democrats bombed her home in Alabama, she persevered. When KKK members like Democratic Senator Robert Byrd marched in support of segregation and filibustered the Civil Rights Act, she persevered. When John and Robert Kennedy tapped her phoneline to spy on her husband, she persevered. When Jimmy Carter ran for Governor on a segregationist platform, she persevered."
All true, and consistent with the "message and life work" of the Kings. Presonally, I would have a major problem with Bush if he had said that. Stephanie, I guess, wouldn't have.
So don’t tell me that I am ignorant and I have no basis for what I am saying. I am out there trying to make a diffence. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
Only making a difference by purveying bullshit, Stephanie.
So answer the question, you didn't have a problem with what Lowery said, why would you have a problem with what I wrote?
If you don't need anyone to validate your feelings, why are you here?
Know nothing about you? Are you effing kidding me? I know everything about you.
Here's a short list:
You support abortion.
You think everyone who is a Republican comes from the "middle class" or higher
You think everyone that has succeeded more than you or makes more than you has had some advantage you didn't, instead of worked harder for it.
You think Samuel Alito is a racist.
You believe in Universal Health care
You think people who make more than you don't pay enough taxes.
You think the reasons that there are poor people are because of external forces as opposed to internal forces
You oppose school vouchers
If you voted at all, you voted for John Kerry.
You opposed the War in Iraq.
You have a problem with evangelical Christians of the variety of James Dobson and others like him.
You support homosexual marriages,
You think the reason that people in your community hasn't succeeded is because of racism
Please, pleeeease tell me I'm wrong. I need a good laugh today.
and lastly and most importantly, you have no familiarity whatsoever with the beliefs of Martin Luther King Jr., or you could not possibly keep making these astonishingly ignorant statements you keep making.
So I'll tell you again, Stephanie, its your choice. I don't personally give a shit whether you change your behavior. If you want to be a bitter old crone. that's not my problem. having been on the receiving end of racism my whole life, I know partly where you're coming from. But being bitter and pretending that its everybodys fault is a recipe for despair.
Learn to take constructive criticism. Or not. It only hurts you. Feel free to have the last word. I've got better things to do than listen to your self destructibve whining.
Fix that, and get back to us.
Must I disabuse you of yet another lie? Here you go:
Blacks were about 12.5% of the casualties. That's proportional to their representation in American society. Whites on the other hand were 86% of casualties, which is greater than their proportion of the population. Sheesh, at least put forth a little effort to be honest.
You're willing to debate someone as long as they just sit back and let you lie about the President, but once they actually have the temerity to say out loud that you're a liar, you don't want to talk about it anymore. And this is what you liars on the Left call a "debate"? How typical of you.
Why is it, Stephanie, that the President owes black people anything at all more than he owes anybody else? Why is it up to the United States Government to save citizens of Chicago from whatever imaginary handicap they may think they have? What does that have to do with a bunch of hack politicians trying to score cheap political points by climbing up on someone's casket and preening like banty roosters crowing for attention?
To your specific points, few though they are: when, exactly, did Bush "lie" us into war? Can you tell me specifically of a single lie he uttered, even one? No, you can't, because the idea that he "lied" is purely YOUR OPINION, or more likely not even that -- it is an opinion I suspect you've been spoonfed by the same political hacks who tell you that blacks are feeble and helpless without loads of assistance from Big Brother Government which they want to control and dole out to you, thereby buying your votes and helping them maintain their hold on power; the same political hacks who were turning firehoses on your parents and siblings in Selma in the 60s; the same political hacks who voted against the Civil Rights Act in '64; the same political hacks who refer to a former Klansman (Robert Byrd) as "the conscious of the Senate" -- and the same hacks who were pissing all over the President from atop King's coffin. They're laughing at you when they're not telling you how much you need them, Stephanie, and they're counting on you being too dumb to even notice. And so far, they haven't underestimated you at all, because you play right along and don't question them on anything, ever.
Jordan already apprised you of the truth behind the Hurricane Katrina lies, so I won't even bother. Truth to tell, I don't know why I bother anyway, because like so many others, you refuse to hear anything but the same lying bullshit you've been fed your whole life.
None so blind as he who will not see. Or, y'know, she. Whatever. I don't care how many African-Americans (which is it, anyway?) are saying it: a lie is a lie, and stupidity is stupidity, and helpless dependence is helpless dependence. Black people have sold their votes to the Democrats for pretty damned cheap, and if they want to continue living on the plantation the Democrats have built for them, then they'll continue to get left out, left behind, and left looking blind and foolish when the whole illusion fails to deliver what it promised.
http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#race
It's the National Archives.
And hey presto, another liberal disappears into the ether, lacking the courage or strength to confront the falsehoods that underpin her cherished but erroneous core beliefs. Scuttling crab-wise back to the safety of the hive mind, where she'll wrap herself in the warm embrace of intellectual conformity, she'll congratulate herself on her brave victory over the forces of darkness and bask in the approval of her peers. She isn't the first liberal to have her sharp enthusiasm for the thrust and parry of debate blunted by a frustrating encounter with unyielding Truth, and she won't be the last.
Or, in fairness, maybe she's out Saving the Children™ or something.
White Population was as follows
Total 171,204,758
Male 84,417,662
Female 86,787,096
Black Population
Total 21,063,732
Male 10,152,077
Female 10,911,655
This is a trend that has carried us all the way to the year of 2006.
Can you see the portions
Now once you calculate the number of white men that died. You say the number is 50,120
the percentage of whites that were lost comes out to be 0.0297% but if you just count the men it come out to be 0.05937
Now when you do the same thing for blacks the percentage come out to be 0.03448% then if you only count the men the percentage is 0.0715
So look again at the meaning of disporportion again then do your own math. You can find the information with national cenus
How is it that blacks are the minority but when it come down to percentage we were disporportionatly killed in the war.
(rolls eyes)
Stephanie,
90% of the people who work in the lab in my building are Asian. However, they only constitute 1% of the people who work in the buliding. But, they also constitute 95% of the Asians who work in the building.
So, if an explosion occurs in the lab and wipes it out, 95% of the Asians in my building will be killed, as opposed to less than one percent of other ethnic groups. Is that racism? Or does it just mean that there is a disproportionate number of Asians working in the fucking lab in relation to other ethnic groups?
Do you ever have an independent thought?
Ever?
I warned you to fix that before you got back to us, didn't I? You didn't fix it, did you? You're still getting your ass handed to you with every comment you make. Well? What did you think was going to happen?!
Thanks
Steph
As for your assumption of my guilt, forget about it. I refuse to accept the unearned, good or bad, your silly little guilt trip definitely included.