Sterling, Castile, Dallas, BLM

I've gone back and forth over the last few days on whether or not to write anything about the killing of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and the officers in Dallas. I've addressed Black Lives Matter before (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 if you're interested) and I still feel the same way: the movement is righteous and we need to continue to assert that black people matter. I don't have anything very eloquent to say, but I decided I'd jot down a few random thoughts, especially since my audience is largely white. And lately there seem to be a lot of Confused and Angry White People. 

The Dallas shooting was horrific and tragic. I am heartbroken for the officers (and protesters) who were shot and for their families. I have no reason to believe they weren't good people. 

If you think less of Black Lives Matter after the Dallas shooting, you're wrong. The movement has spoken against the violence, they did not sanction or plan it, and they value all life. And even if those things weren't true... 

Black lives would still matter. No matter what happened or happens, regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about tactics, you should still know and understand and state that "black lives matter." Because for the past 300 years and even today, the law does not value or protect black lives. The first step in rectifying this problem is to acknowledge it and address it. 

It is possible to grieve for the officers and still argue that we need to radically change how policing is done in this country. 

It is possible to dislike, to hate violence but to understand how it happens. I personally wouldn't want to engage in violent actions* (unless it's in self defense or to actively defend someone else), but I also don't know what it is like to be a target of state violence. I can choose to not be violent and also not denounce an entire movement because there are some folks who think violence is the best tactic. 

Pick a method of resistance that suits your strengths and find out how you can help the larger movement.

You can understand how a person(people) is angry without wanting to justify violence born of that anger. Part of being a semi-intelligent adult with complex emotions is understanding something even when you don't particularly like it. It is entirely possible (maybe necessary?) to wish those officers were alive and that the shooting in Dallas never happened but to also understand the rage behind it. Shooting unsuspecting police officers cannot be justified in my mind. But the rage? The rage is justifiable. 

If you are sad about Dallas but didn't mourn over the murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, check your priorities. 

If you think the use of war tactics and materials are necessary after the slaughtering of those officers, but didn't think protesting was necessary after the slaughtering of the 565th and 566th people killed by police this year, check your priorities.

If you were outraged at the killings of Cecil the Lion and Harambe the Gorilla but not at the killings of black men by people who were sworn to protect them, just unfriend/unfollow me. Find Jesus. (So, like, half the people I went to hs with.)

I'm angry at the killing of those police officers. I'm angry that black people continue to be unjustly targeted and killed by police. Get it through your head that you can be both. 

Get it through your head that racism is real. 

Get it through your head that not all cops are good. 

Get it through your head that change is hard but necessary. 

Stop saying "all lives matter." It's defensive, it's detracting, and it's bad logic. If I say "cheeseburgers are great" it in no way means "hamburgers are awful." A hamburger can be perfectly lovely with the right condiments.

And, the most important thing: listen to black people. LISTEN TO BLACK PEOPLE. Stop denying statistics and stop denying their very experience.    

(Also: It is not okay to kill suspects with robot bombs.)

I've been praying for Alton and Philando, and for Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarripa, Michael Krol, Lorne Ahrens, Michael Smith, and everyone else affected. But we need to do more than pray. If you're white and you've been silent so far, I'd urge you to get involved. I believe there will be a day when things like this no longer happen. 

*I don't support violence against people. Property, however? Fuck property. People>property. At this point I am all for breaking windows. Before you think I'm a loon, I'll ask you your thoughts on the men behind the Boston Tea Party. If you see them as heroes, then don't tell black people or white allies not to cause chaos. If ruining property is the way to make the state care about people, then that's what'll happen. Don't blame the protesters, blame the state which continues to undervalue human life. They/we are trying to make changes via peaceful protesting. If that doesn't work, then overboard with the tea, as it were.  

Charlotte 

Steinem and Albright on Young Women for Bernie: White Feminism in America

Many people, young women especially, are upset with Gloria Steinem. Rightfully so.

In an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem was asked why younger women favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. She responded, "When you're young you're thinking, 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.' "

To which I say:

Steinem is not the first white feminist icon to shame young women for supporting Bernie Sanders. Madeleine Albright has chimed in as well, suggesting that young women are misguided. Steinem and Albright are part of a growing group of older women invoking the idea of completion, of victory, of an end to the feminist revolution. As Alan Rappeport notes in the New York Times, Clinton herself has started "reminding voters that her election would signal the end of a long road for women." 

If you listen carefully, you can hear the echos of people in the days following Michael Brown's death: We have a black president, racism is over! 

Rather than flocking to Clinton, young women are rooting for Sanders not because we want to "find boys," but because we're not foolish or privileged enough to believe that a woman in the white house will finally mean equality. 

The problem is an old one: mainstream feminism in America is, like all things, whitewashed. In fact, it's not just "colorblind," but impervious to class struggle as well. It's easy to think that a woman in the white house would be the End. The end to a long and difficult struggle, the end to women being deemed less than. I wish it were the case. But's it's not. A black president didn't end racism in America and a female one won't end sexism and misogyny. 

I support Sanders for a multitude of reasons. And I believe that his policies will help more kinds of women. If capitalism falls, I have no doubt that we'll see every other racist and sexist institution in this country start to crumble.

Capitalism is a massive evil that thrives off of human suffering. When a country's economic system is focused entirely on making as much profit as possible, the following things are necessary:

a low minimum wage
few regulations (workplace and environmental)
a strong, large military
militarized police

All of those things lead to these things:

mass poverty
poor schools
dangerous workplaces
environmental disasters
environmental degradation
war
dead teenagers
high prison population
unfair imprisonment

...and much more. One of the questions I ask myself when deciding who to vote for (or whether or not I should vote) is, "What does this person's policies mean for women?" It's not my only concern, but it's a big one. To be honest, Bernie Sanders isn't radical enough. But he's a vocal critic of capitalism. And an end to capitalism would have an incredible impact on the lives of women everywhere:

More choice when it comes to education and work (because right now, a lot of us have to really wonder if it's worth it to get in debt knowing we might spend months or years out of work - less college debt would make that choice easier)

Ability to work (higher wages mean better ability to afford daycare)

Ability to stay at home (higher wages mean a family can survive on one income)

Better healthcare

Less violence (violence against women is a problem in every class and race, but I can't help but wonder if less dire economic struggle will lead to less violent crime in areas that are currently riddled with it)

Less grieving -

Women lose their kids every day under capitalism. Capitalism doesn't see war as a last resort, it sees it as a way to make money via weapons manufacturing and exploitation of weaker countries. If we no longer see through the lens of capitalism, I think we'll see less war. For women that means a. less dead or injured female soldiers and b. less grieving mothers and wives. I am not a pacifist; I believe war is necessary in some cases. However, America starts wars left and right for economic reasons and every time we do that we make more mothers of dead children. We make more widows. Sanders isn't going to magically end all wars, but a challenge to capitalism might strike a blow to the military industrial complex and I am all for that.

War isn't the only way capitalism robs mothers of their children. Our police force has been militarized and our prisons are made to create profit. Both of these issues are problems for all of us, but especially for people of color. I've listened to black women say they're scared to have children. They're scared to have children that will be shot by police. They're scared to have children that will be shipped off to jail for smoking pot - the same offense that leaves many white children with probation. When we cease to have a system that operates with the primary purpose of making money, maybe some of the problems with our justice system will end. I don't imagine for an instant that the election of Bernie Sanders - or even a complete end to capitalism - will make racism disappear. But I do think radical economic changes would eliminate some of the more egregious symptoms of racism in our country. Maybe there will be less dead black boys. If there's even the tiniest hope of that, then you're damn straight I'm going to vote for the person I think can make it happen.

Of course, there are a million more ways that all women can benefit from the changes Bernie Sanders hopes to make. These are just the ones that weigh most heavily on my heart.

And in case you don't ask yourself how a candidate's policies will help women, there are other reasons to vote for Sanders too:

he's better on the environment
his foreign policy (or what it could be if he articulated it better) is more in line with my beliefs
he's better on immigration
he's better on racial issues

My point is that there are a thousand valid reasons any young woman might be supporting Bernie Sanders. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright are betraying the very people they've claimed to fight for all these years. No, we won't go to hell for not supporting Hillary Clinton. No, we're not voting for Bernie Sanders in the hope to find our husbands. To suggest that young women are naive or that we're making decisions haphazardly is ageist and hypocritical. Bill Maher was right - if he had suggested women are voting for Sanders simply because "that's where the boys are," there'd be hell to pay. I wonder if it's almost worse, though, that women who are known the world over as feminist icons have made these comments. Don't patronize me, Gloria Steinem. I'm not supporting Sanders to impress my man crush; I'm supporting Bernie Sanders because he is, by far, the best candidate for the job.
__
Charlotte

The Right to Life and Family

This isn't a post on abortion, though I fall on the unpopular side of that debate. It's a post about how people want to have children, but can't. Or how people want to have children, but are too afraid. It's about how we, as a country, prioritize everything material and disposable over everything sacred and eternal. It's about a few of the ways we're tragically misguided. Specifically, it's about how gun violence, police brutality, and poverty are robbing people of their inherent right to life and family.
  

I've mentioned before that the idea of having kids in this country scares me because of the gun violence. I won't let the fear stop me from having kids, but it's infuriating. Parents have enough to worry about without mass shootings. I don't know if stripping everyone of their guns is the answer, but I do know that it's unacceptable to leave things as they are. People are more important than arsenals. It sickens me that there are people who refuse to just have a conversation about gun laws meanwhile lives are being taken every single day. It always hurts more when the victims are kids, but a 40 year old who is killed in a shooting is just as precious. He's someone's kid.

I guess I just have to wonder: to the people who refuse to talk about stricter gun laws, many of whom are parents - are you willing to let your kid be sacrificed? Because that's what it takes. Maybe it's not your kid today, but 10,000 kids are shot each year in the US, and many of them - about 8 a day - are killed. And that's just children. That doesn't count the 27 year old adult who is still someone's baby.

When I have kids I'm going to read stories to them, true and fictional. They'll read about Harry Potter and how he was Christlike by sacrificing his life for his friends. They'll read about Frodo and Sam accepting their seemingly inevitable death in a quest to end evil. They'll know the true stories of saints and martyrs across time who died for others, or who were killed for their beliefs. As a parent, I'll have to reconcile teaching my kids these virtues and hoping that a situation that puts them in such danger never arises.

I will not, however, willingly sacrifice my kids to the gun lobby, nor will I sacrifice other people's kids by refusing to talk about gun laws.

I believe we can all agree that we have a right to life. We also have a right to family - to create or foster life. Those are natural rights afforded to every single person. Natural! There is nothing "natural" about the right to tote a man-made weapon created solely for the purpose of inflicting harm on others. 

With every shooting, with every bogus NRA lobbying session, we're chipping away at someone's right to have a family. The world will never be completely safe, nor should it be. But there's a difference between natural danger and risk and a deathtrap. (Even I, while writing this, felt like "deathtrap" was an exaggeration, but there are bulletproof blankets and mats specifically made for schoolchildren to wear, so it's really not.)

The vast majority of my friends are still unmarried or without children. (Though some have started families.) Whenever the topic of kids comes up, someone at some point mentions the fear of it all. It's too much. Parenthood will always be scary, it will always be hard. But it shouldn't be scary for these reasons. No one should have reason to say, "I'd like to have kids but how can I? People are being killed every day and nowhere is safe. How can I have kids in a world like that?"

Bottom line: Even if we're just talking about child deaths, thousands are killed. Kids are killed in their homes because of lax storage laws. They're being shot at school. Just typing that sentence - children are being shot to death in their schools - feels wrong, and yet, we're doing nothing about it. In this country, toddlers are killed by guns more often than police officers are.

Maybe you're getting mad at me for politicizing the deaths of so many innocent people. But I'm angry at everyone who refuses to politicize it. It's a national problem and we need national solutions. It's not that I give a damn about politics, it's that I have seven little brothers and sisters; it's that one day I want to get married and have a bunch of kids and take them to football games without them getting shot.

It is about life and about families. 

Which brings us to the issue of police brutality. Because while gun violence is a threat against everyone with a pulse, black parents in this country are bearing a burden like no other. They have to worry about the same things white parents worry about and then they have to worry about things no person should have to worry about: will my child be hurt by police?

Yesterday a video went viral. It shows an officer violently throwing a black girl to the ground, hitting her, dragging her across the room. Her offense? She was being "verbally disruptive." Short of saying, "I have a weapon and am about to kill you," there was no justification for that kind of violence.

(I think I've done a good job being civil so far but I'm going to put that aside for a second. Why the fuck do we think it's okay to arrest a schoolchild for being verbally disruptive? How is that normal? Even if the cop never became brutal, there's no reason the girl should have been arrested. You misbehave in school, you go to the principal's office, not the penitentiary. But we'll talk about the school to prison pipeline, the profits of prisons, and all that jazz in another post.)

Now, I know that cops will abuse anyone, not just black people. Cops tased and strangled my handcuffed, barefoot brother (why was he getting arrested? for back-talking to a cop.). But I don't worry about them killing my brothers. Are white people ever killed by cops? Yes. But not the way black people are. (I've written about this before.) A police officer's job is dangerous, yes. Many of them are honorable, yes. But when so many of them are killing so many people (and a specific race of people, at that), we need to ask ourselves what's wrong with the institution as a whole. It's clear there's a problem, and if you deny it, you're either ignorant, defensive of your privilege, or complicit.

If you refuse to talk about police brutality in a completely honest way that acknowledges the systemic racism, you're ignoring the rights of others. Because again:

We all have a right to life. We also have a right to family - to create or foster life. Those are natural rights afforded to every single person. Natural! There is nothing "natural" about a state-created and state-sanctioned force of highly armed officers being allowed to kill whomever they feel doesn't deserve to live.

Black mothers are cradling their dead sons. Black parents are trying to teach their kids to be strong and independent, but to navigate a world that is against them. And don't try telling me this world - at least, this country - is not against them. If you saw a man throwing a teenage girl around at the mall, you'd intervene. If you saw a father slam his daughter to the ground and beat her, you'd intervene. If a teacher beat up his student for being disruptive, you'd be furious. (And I'm willing to bet that had this been a white girl, no one would be making excuses for the cop.) But we've given cops a free pass to torment black people. I say "we" because laws are largely written by and for white people. There are laws against teachers hitting their students, but we put cops in black schools and let them hit students.

I have black friends and black cousins who don't want kids for one reason only: they don't want to have kids just so they end up being killed by police or vigilantes. 

If you can't see how that's anti-life or anti-family, then you're not looking hard enough.

It's totally about politics and it's totally about racism and it's completely, totally about life and about families.

Which brings us to poverty. I'll keep this short, I just wanted to mention a few things: we've got an ungodly amount of children living in poverty. They're hungry, and we're not feeding them. Parents can't afford to send their kids to college, where even the public universities are increasing their tuition every year. And students who do go to school are met with such high debt that they can't gain independence after graduation. Social mobility is a myth. While the idea of a voluntary military sounds great, it's often poor kids joining because it's their only chance of getting a paycheck, health benefits, and even an education, if they don't die in one of our many wars.

And we try to solve these problems by cutting taxes on the rich.

And we demonize anyone who questions capitalism.

Really, we all have a moral obligation to question our economic policies. Maybe communism and socialism have failed elsewhere (though we could argue that it was because they were fascist, but hey, another post). Maybe capitalism is the "foundation of our economy" in America. But that's not reason enough to NOT resist it. Slavery was once the foundation of our economy in America, and if you support that, there's a 97% chance you're swine. I don't have all of the answers, but I know that there are people not getting married because they can't afford it. I know there are people working 80 hours a week so that they can survive. I know there are people putting off having a family (or never having kids at all!) because they can't afford it.

Is that an acceptable price to pay for capitalism? And for no reason other than capitalism is all we know? I don't think so. The kind of sick distribution of wealth we have is only achieved through the oppression of others. The only way one man can make billions of dollars a year is by the suffering of others - sweatshops, long hours for little pay, a minimum wage far below the living wage, and other unfair labor practices. I think it's alright to be rich. I just think there's a limit to how much money you can make while remaining moral.

And so one last time:

We all have a right to life. We also have a right to family - to create or foster life. Those are natural rights afforded to every single person. Natural! There is nothing "natural" about an economic system that doesn't pay people fairly for work. 

We need to rethink a system that leaves people tired and sick. It sounds corny, but really, in this kind of economic environment (and oh my God don't get me started on the gross degeneration we allow our environment to suffer in the name of profits), it's not easy to find love, nonetheless to nurture relationships. A system that leaves people unable or afraid of having kids isn't a good system. And this isn't just about politics or economics, it's about life and about families.

I guess my point is that I'm sick and tired of people putting kids on the line. You're a gun owner and love your automatic weapons, so it's okay that someone's kid might be shot. That's the price you're willing to pay just so that you don't need to have a conversation about gun laws. You're a white person and your kids go to private school, so you're okay with armed police officers being stationed in poor public schools even if it means someone else's kid might be brutalized. You're middle class, so you're okay with anti-poor policies even if it means some other man's kid goes to bed hungry or can't go to college or joins the army out of desperation.

I've known for a while now that power lies in the hands of a few. But this is never clearer to me than when I'm with my other friends, many of whom are women, talking about starting families. Our kids - the ones we're often scared to even dream of, are the ones that get sacrificed to America's unholy gods: guns, false traditions, and money. Not every rich person is bad, not every gun owner is dangerous, not every cop is corrupt. But the ones that refuse to change? The ones that refuse to even entertain the notion of progress or of debate - they are treading on the rights of others.  

Being a Catholic and a Progressive

is FUN.

I'm by no means an expert on Catholicism, and I've only recently jumped back into it.  What I write here is what I believe to be true based on everything I've read and researched, but if you're a better Catholic than I and you see that I've gotten something wrong (or right!) feel free to let me know!   

In all honesty, I think being Catholic is really compatible with being progressive.  Many of my positions on social and political issues are heavily influenced by my faith and my belief in the authority of the Church.  There are two issues that make it difficult, but more on that in a minute.  First I want to talk real quick about why it makes sense.  

The Role of Money/Economics

Every true progressive I know adheres to a sort of Keynesian economics, at least.  They believe the government ought to invest in people.  Many progressives - including myself - would go so far as to support a sort of socialism.  This sounds ridiculous in this context because historically, religion has been attacked by socialists.  Of course I don't support that.  Everyone should be free to worship, and I think religion plays an invaluable role in society.  I do believe, however, that people should be paid fairly for the work they do.  That workers should have more control over what they produce.  Do I think people should have private property? Yep!  Should people with specific training and education be paid higher wages?  Yep.  But...   

Can someone make billions of dollars a year and remain morally intact?  

Probably not.  In order to make that much money, someone else is suffering.  A worker isn't being paid fairly, a child is in a sweatshop, a woman is working for thirty cents less than a man per hour.

Progressives - true progressives - resist this economic model.   

Look:   

"Money has to serve, not rule." 

"We don't want this globalized economic system which does us so much harm. Men and women have to be at the center (of an economic system) as God wants, not money."

-Papa Francisco 

Jesus called Saint Peter the rock upon which the Church would be built.  Pope Francis is a successor to Saint Peter.  As Catholics, we believe the Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ.  

The Vicar of Christ is telling us that people, not money, should be the center of our economic system. 

Best believe I'm gonna fight for that.  

(The argument that people matter more than money makes sense outside of faith, too, but that's another post.)

So we have a couple of options (I'm generalizing): 

1. Fiscal conservatism, which says poor people should be taxed the same as rich people (or more, for that matter) and that the government has no place spending money on social services; or 

2. Progressivism, which says the government should tax on a scale and that money should be invested into social services.  

(I want to add real quick - you cannot be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  Many people claim these titles together, but they are contradictory.)

For a hot minute let's keep in mind Pope Francis' words, but also look at the Corporal Works of Mercy: 

To feed the hungry.

To give drink to the thirsty.

To clothe the naked.

To shelter the homeless.

To visit the sick.

To visit the imprisoned.

To bury the dead.

In government and politics, it might look like this: 

Supporting food stamps. 

Supporting food stamps.

Supporting EBT cash/public assistance.

Supporting section 8/public housing. 

Supporting medicaid/medicare.

Supporting prison reform. 

Supporting veteran affairs. 

And so on.  Or, better yet, it might look like *a fight for a living wage, so that no one needs social services.*  

Either way, as a Catholic (and as a person with a moral compass that doesn't point straight to hell), I won't campaign or vote for politicians that threaten to cut social programs or who don't support better wages.  Historically, austerity has never worked, and I believe the path to a society where people are fed and clothed involves a fair tax system, a high minimum wage, and support for social services.  

All progressive stances.

Work - Unions, Hours, Leave, etc

Every single person is unique and has dignity and worth.

Employers should treat them as such.

When conservatives argue for keeping the minimum wage low, or for minimizing the power of unions, for stripping collective bargaining rights, or for less vacation time, for longer hours, etc, they are arguing against a culture of life and of goodness.  People can't thrive when their entire lives are spent at work.  They can't share their gifts with the world.  They can't offer themselves to others.  They can't spend time with their families.  I think God meant for us to do those things, and I keep that in mind when I vote, I keep it in mind when I sign petitions calling for higher wages, I keep it in mind when I decide which rallies to attend.

In all honesty, when it comes to the economy and to workers, democratic politicians, for the most part, are only a little better than republican politicians.  Bernie Sanders is an exception, but President Obama is a capitalist.  Hillary Clinton is a capitalist.  Joe Biden is a capitalist.  I think their policies are fairer and more aligned with my faith than the policies of republicans, but they're not great.  That said, I think most ordinary people (the non-politicians) who consider themselves progressives have ideals that match Catholic values.

But money isn't the only thing.
__________________________

For God so loved America, that He gave His only begotten Son..

Oh wait, that's not how it goes.

Here it is: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son"

Immigration.

Countries are a thing, and I love America and apple pie and rooting for our soccer team but God made the world and I'm pretty sure He loves all of its humans equally, so let's go ahead and treat immigrants, illegal or not, like they're our own (because, uh, they are).

The Catholic Church is pro-life in every sense of the word, and that means that every single person on earth is important and has value and dignity, and the conservative view on immigration is quite the opposite of that.

Now, progressives aren't all terrific on the issue, either.  But as a whole, they're better than conservatives on immigration.  I feel confident that many Catholic priests would advise against calling children of immigrants "anchor babies."  Also I doubt they'd be supportive of detaining entire families.  Catholics have been some of the leaders in the fight to create more just, humane immigration policies.

As far as I can tell, if you're Catholic, you can't think that Americans are the best/most important people in the world.

source

__________________________

The Environment

There's been talk about this a lot lately thanks to Pope Francis' Laudato Si.

Again, the Pope (THE POPE) is telling us that we cannot remain apathetic to environmental degradation, that we cannot continue the habits of consumerism that we currently do, and that the changes brought by humans will adversely affect the poor.  Conservatives on a national scale aren't even in agreement that climate change and global warming are real.  To me, living my faith (and taking care to follow Pope Francis' lead) means acknowledging this serious problem, and working to fix it.  And voting for politicians who will take action.

Laudato Si is not just about science and global warming.  It's about rampant consumerism and the destruction of God's creation.  When I look to see which side of the spectrum will take more care to conserve and preserve earth's wonders, it's the left.  Are they doing it because they feel called to by God?  Maybe some of them, but no, not all of them.  But whether for secular or nonsecular reasons, the motives are right and the goals are admirable.  It happens to align with my faith.
__________________________

Education Policy 

I wrote a post with my thoughts on education here, if you want to check it out.  But basically (and probably due to the fact that schooling has been so badly corrupted by the drive for profits), I think most politicians have got poor education policies.  One of the main reasons I prefer *most* progressives on education is that they tend to offer less support to charter schools.  I just can't get behind charters, man.  I think that the teachers who work at them are good people, the students are great, the parents are terrific... but the concept?  No.  I'm not all about using public funding on privately-run schools that have little oversight.

But, staying on topic with how Catholicism influences my stance on education...

I think God gave us intellect and curiosity for a reason.  I think we are meant to explore everything around us, that we are meant to learn about art and music and great literature.  I firmly believe God purposely gives everyone different talents and interests.

Which means I think we should spend much more money on education, that public schools should be in beautiful buildings that inspire teachers and students alike, and that love for learning should be the goal rather than good test scores.  I believe that teaching for standardized tests means educators can't spend enough time on books, on helping students pursue their passions, on instilling curiosity instead of great memorization skills.

There aren't many politicians on the national scale calling for these things, but this kind of education system would require more money and a separation from corporations like Pearson - two things that most progressives support.
__________________________

Black Lives Matter/Policing in America

In general, it seems pretty clear that most conservatives are hesitant to support the Black Lives Matter movement.  Many of them, in fact, feel the urge to silence black people by shouting, "all lives matter!"  Not okay, man.  Similar to the capitalism/education problems, national liberal politicians are not much better.  They may not show outright opposition, but many of them fall into the category of conveniently colorblind.  (Which might be why Black Lives Matter hasn't yet endorsed anyone for president?  Makes sense.)

I do, think, however, that most progressives have better policies when it comes to the police.

Why does this matter to me as a Catholic?

I'm pro-life.  Police keep killing black people.  Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Dontay Ivy, Michael Brown, and too many more.  These men, women, and children are just the first to pop into my head.  It's easy for most people to just spit out numbers, be horrified for a minute, and move on.  (I sometimes do this.)  But really - each of those people were made in the image of God.  Each was a brand new person who has never existed on Earth before and will never exist here again.  There literally is no one like them.  They were priceless and their lives were priceless and they were murdered by police.

So I try and vote for the politician who wants to do something about it.
__________________________

And if those were the straight-forward, Catholic-very-compatible-with-progressive positions, here are the NOT so easy issues to deal with: 

Gay marriage 

I think this might make me a not-great Catholic, but I find it really, really difficult to accept the Church's position on this.  ("But, you said you accept the Church's authority?!"  Yes.  So imagine how crappy this dilemma feels.)

I've heard all of the reasoning behind it, and it still feels wrong.  And it's like.. sometimes you rely on the Holy Spirit to help you out and give you the grace to understand... and, well, it's like I feel the opposite.  No part of me begins to feel right about banning gay marriage.  I know the Church's position and I want to always follow Church teaching, but........ ah, it just doesn't seem right.  

(Also, I 100% support the idea of government not making laws based just on religion, so I'm not comfortable voting for politicians who are against gay marriage.) 

And while I find it hard to accept the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage... 

__________________________  

I find it harder to accept the democratic position on abortion.  Don't get me wrong, I find the republican dialogue on the issue horrific.  The women-shaming, welfare-cutting positions are wrong and probably don't help to actually stop abortions from occurring.  

But I'm also kind of flummoxed that so many people support abortion.  (Though I understand why many women feel like they need them.) 

I think there's a real inconsistency on the left (many of my friends were furious about the killing of Cecil the Lion - but are fine with "ending a pregnancy" which is literally ending a human life).  Progressives are "pro-life" in so many other ways: acknowledging the moral worth of immigrants and POC, supporting labor policies that make it possible for people and families to thrive, wanting to save the earth.  Of course, many people don't believe a fetus is a human yet.  But I'm not going to throw science in the face of conservatives when we're talking about global warming and then completely ignore it when we talk about abortion.  A fetus is a human.  It is one of the earliest stages of development in a human, yes, but it's still a human.  Sure, it's how I feel as a Catholic, but it's also just science.  The dna is already there, the sex is already determined - it is already a unique human.  (Do I feel like a little bit of an asshole for writing this?  Yes - I don't want to make any of my friends who have gotten abortions feel bad.  But I think they know I love them and don't think poorly of them - I just think that we're getting this topic wrong and it's an important discussion to have.) 

I think this topic deserves its own post in light of recent events, so maybe that's something I'll hash out later this week or next.  But for now I'll say it's the one progressive stance that gives me pause.  

__________________________  

When it comes to deciding how to vote, it seems pretty clear to me.  I vote for the people I believe will fight for the right values - the dignity of every person and every worker, the preservation of the earth, the right of immigrants to build a life here, the right of black people to live.  I take gay marriage and abortion into consideration, of course.  Usually the candidate who shares my position on the economy and the environment also shares my position on gay marriage.  Almost always, we disagree on abortion.  But when I vote, my hope is that there will be less women seeking abortion (because of better wages, better maternity leave policies, better hours, etc.).  I don't like the democratic position on abortion, but I do like voting for the people who don't want to take food stamps away from the poor families (including their babies, planned or unplanned).  I do like voting for the people who want to keep everyone fed and clothed.  And in the meantime I guess the best thing to do about abortion is to keep having the conversation.  

Overall, I feel pretty comfortable being a Catholic and a progressive.

***I just realized I forgot to include war.  I think war should be a last resort, not something we idolize.  Which means I won't be supporting anyone like Mike Huckabee, who in the GOP debate said the point of the military is "to kill people and break things."

Yeah, nope.

__

Charlotte 

Baltimore Riots: White Contradictions

Alternate title: Little White Lies
heh.

Listen, I'm white.  And it was, admittedly, very uncomfortable to accept that white privilege is a thing in America.  A few years ago I would have been one of the people telling rioters in Baltimore to stop ruining things.  But I read probably my #1 most recommended book - A People's History by Howard Zinn.  And more importantly, I met great people in college who were down to have conversations about topics that were challenging.  And so I started to open my mind a little bit. 

Over the last year we've seen an escalation in clashes with police.  Black people are killed every 28 hours in America by security, vigilantes, or police.  (According to FBI reports, a white police officer kills a black man twice a week.)  

Unfortunately, media and large segments of the population harbor more anger at the clashes and protests and riots than they do at the systemic killing of black people.  And they've offered up all sorts of "advice," "solutions," and criticisms.  I thought I'd point a few of them out because really, we need to stop thinking like this. 

(This shouldn't need to be said but I know people are sensitive so... obviously there are exceptions to every rule.  This isn't an attack against other white people, it's a criticism of the way we, as a group, tend to interpret the events that are taking place.)

1. "Peaceful protests are the only way to change things!  MLK said so." 

Not quite.

In a little over two months, middle class America is going to be out in troves at the grocery stores, stocking up on beer and hot dogs for the 4th of July celebratory barbecues.  That's fine.  I too will be consuming hot dogs and soda.  

But on that day, we'll be rejoicing in the Declaration, celebrating the day that the colonists finally said, "enough," and proclaimed to the world that we were a free nation.  

We'll be celebrating a day that led to a bloodbath.  

Yes, the war had already started and yes, July 2 was the day when independence was voted on.  But the declaration was read aloud to patriots and loyalists/Tories alike, and it incited celebration on the one hand and anger on the other.  It lead to destruction of statues and buildings in cities, and it meant more war.  The colonists weren't backing down.  

Celebrating the declaration is celebrating violent resistance.  

My point is, while I hope and pray that the revolution that is coming is a peaceful one, I hardly think it's right for white people to tell black people that peaceful protests are the only way to win change.  This country was founded in a violent war.  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" wasn't achieved just by holding hands.  It cost us dearly.  It was bloody.  It was destructive.  

Discourage and condemn the looting, fine.  But don't say that peaceful protest is the only way to make change.  Or if you do say that, you better pass on the hamburgers and potato salad this 4th of July.

And please, stop softening MLK's image to use him against black people.

I don't think burning buildings is the best plan, but MLK understood why riots happened.  He understood why people become violent.  He acknowledged that there are valid reasons people act in non-peaceful ways.  He said, "riot is the language of the unheard." 

You want an end to riots?  Then maybe try listening to the experiences of black folks before another man is slain by police.  (At this rate, you have a few days.) 

(Another related thing to think about: it was a riot that helped begin the larger fight for LGBTQ rights in America.)

2.  The Boston Tea Party was heroic.

I remember learning about the Boston Tea Party in a positive light.  I remember being told Samuel Adams and the other men who boarded the ships were American heroes.  

Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty destroyed someone else's property.  

White men do it and it is heroism.  Black men do it and it's disgusting.  

Look, I don't think burning CVS down to the ground is a good idea.  But don't call the rioters animals and don't dare suggest that they don't understand what they're protesting.  These are kids, sure, but they're kids living in impoverished areas with underfunded schools and streets patrolled by police officers who racially profile.  Their grievances are valid. 

I consider Samuel Adams a hero.  One day I'll teach my own children that he was a radical, someone who was fed up with injustice, someone that stood up.  

Most of white America does the same, making the idea that "rioting isn't okay" a contradiction.  Do I think the people looting CVS will be seen as heroes one day?  I don't know.  But probably not, because it's a CVS.  But I think this young man will be seen as a valiant fighter for justice, even if he resorted to violence: 

Sometimes, when people are shooting at you and tear gas is being used, and rubber bullets are flying, you need to fight back. 

It's possible to question the need for violence without calling protesters "animals" and "thugs."  If you're going to use those names, I fully expect you to teach your own kids that Samuel Adams was a hellbent criminal. 

3.  I understand the anger, but change needs to come from within the black community.

Side eye.  

Can the black community stand to change?  Maybe, it's not really for me (or white masses) to say.

I grew up in poverty, and I know that there's a lot of internal crime and despair.  There tends to be a lot of overlap between poor people and black people (ahem, institutionalized racism), so while I will never fully understand the experience of poor black people, I understand some of the problems that come with poverty.  The people I grew up around, including some of my family, should try to change their behavior.  

Here's the thing though.  The vast majority of problems that exist within the black community are a direct result of oppression, white supremacy, and institutionalized racism.  Gang violence doesn't exist because everyone really likes dressing in nice colors.  It exists because we've created a system where it is damn near impossible for people to escape poverty, especially if they're people of color.  I was born into less than stellar circumstances, but I happened to be white and to move into a good area right before high school, meaning I had resources that other kids don't.  Even still, I find it extremely hard to hold my temper, to not start doing drugs, and to not go back to a place where the environment is toxic but at least I'd have a little camaraderie.  Because the middle class doesn't want anything to do with you until and unless you've made it (another contradiction - pull yourself up, work hard - but they hate you as you try to do those things).  There are so many physical, financial, and yes, psychological roadblocks to changing a bad environment.  

So yes, I'd say white people tend to contradict themselves when they suggest black people change while encouraging cuts in social security, cuts in food stamps, cuts in education.  Don't suggest changing from within while simultaneously withholding the resources to make that happen. 

**Also, this isn't a contradiction so much as something that should just be taken as fact, but: 

It is not the responsibility of black people to change their behavior in order to stop racism against them.  It is solely the responsibility of the perpetrators of racism to stop it.  

4. The rioters are ruining their own neighborhoods.

Similarly to the argument that change needs to come from within, I want to point out the hypocrisy of suddenly caring about black neighborhoods.  Before Freddie Gray was killed, were the people making this claim sharing scathing statuses on the injustice of urban poverty?  After his death but before his funeral, were you fuming about the rate of homicide committed by police officers? 

Look, if you felt the need to speak out about the murder of Freddie Gray and about your dislike of rioting and looting, I could respect that.  

But if, like most people, you said nothing about Gray (or Brown, or Rice, or Garner, or Scott...) but felt the need to speak out about the rioting, your priorities are off.  You're contradicting yourself by scolding black people for "ruining their own neighborhoods" while standing idly by as police, capitalism, and racism ruin black neighborhoods every day. 

Also, I want to copy and paste from someone smarter than me: 

Excuse me? Now it's "their own" city. Like suddenly they own it? It's not theirs! Nothing in this country belongs to poor black folks. Those aren't "their shops." Those aren't "their houses." You think they have the deed to the projects? You think they own stock in CVS? You think they are employed by that nursing home, or could even afford to send their grandparents there to retire if they wanted to? If Black people were really destroying "their own" things nobody would care. If a man ran in his own house, grabbed his own TV and threw it out the window, would America give a fuck?

5.  Instead of rioting they should be going to college or

     While all this rioting is happening, not one of these people are in school

This kills me.  

There is something sick and twisted about telling black kids to fix their problems by going to college when a good number of those kids won't be alive to go to college because they're being killed by the people sworn to protect them.

Also, I'd just like to reiterate - it is not up to these kids to do things to prevent being killed.  It is up to the people who are killing them to stop. 

It's important to add that college is not a possibility for everyone.  There are many, many reasons for this, but educated white people often refuse to see them. 

"Okay, but how is any of this contradictory to other actions?" 

Over the last day or two, it's been the same people who ignore economic problems that have made this suggestion.  It's been the people who were able to go to college without worrying about money.  It's been the people who say things like, "Student debt shouldn't be forgiven - they knew they were taking out loans when they signed!" 

If you're going to have the audacity to suggest going to college will end police killings, then at least fight to make college accessible for everyone. 

**Another point: When we're specifically talking about being followed, pursued, or killed by police, evidence suggests level of education makes no difference. 

**Just can't stop so... I don't think it's prudent to say, "these kids should be in school."  The schools are underfunded, the basic needs aren't met, and teachers are forced (thanks to standardization and the influence of companies like Pearson) to use textbooks that give a white-washed account of history.

6.  Get jobs and make the community better instead of burning it down. 

On April 15th, fast food workers went on strike demanding $15/hr and a union.  

On April 15th, many many educated, middle class white people condemned fast food workers for going on strike and demanding $15/hr and a union.  

You need to choose.  You can either tell black people to get jobs and fix the community (though you'll sound like a patronizing if you do) OR you can be against giving all workers a living wage (though you'll sound like a patronizing if you do).  

Many of those fast food workers were people of color.  Intersectionality is a thing.  You can't tell protesters to get jobs but then refuse to support living wages for those jobs.  

And so 

My suggestion is to try and understand where the rioters are coming from and to stand in solidarity with the peaceful protesters.  Lives are on the line.  

__

Charlotte 

Black Lives Matter

A few years ago a family member of mine, who is white, was chased by police.  He was a felon, he had been in a stolen car, and cops were aware of him.  When he saw them approaching, he ran.  He also had a gun on him.  He entered a nearby business building, pointed the gun (which I'm told wasn't loaded) at a man, and demanded that they trade clothes, presumably so he could get away without the police recognizing him.  His plan didn't work, and the police apprehended him.  The did so without any use of violence.  

Here's a question - how come 12 year old Tamir Rice was shot on spot for holding a bb gun, without any attempt from the police to solve the situation first, but police make every possible effort to stop a grown white man from using the hand gun he is pointing at another person?  If the police wanted to, they could have found a way to get Rice to put the bb gun down and a family wouldn't be grieving the loss of their 12 year old boy.  

After Michael Brown was shot and the country erupted into protests, we saw the rise of #blacklivesmatter.  Sadly, too many white people insist on changing this to "#ALLlivesmatter."  I guess it's a panicked impulse that goes along with colorblindness.  Here's the thing though.  Fellow white people, please stop trying to be included in this.  Society already values white lives.  When a white felon can run into an office building wielding a gun and not be shot, it's because society knows his life matters.  When James Holmes can walk into a movie theater with a gun and kill 12 people while wounding upwards of 70 more and then be arrested - not shot - it's because society values white lives.  

17 year old Trayvon Martin was stalked and killed because he was black, and his killer didn't face jail time.  The boy was unarmed and on his way home.  

Michael Brown was stopped for walking.  He was shot numerous times.  His killer isn't even facing a trial.  He was unarmed.  

Eric Garner was selling cigarettes* when a police officer decided to put him in a chokehold.  There is video footage showing the officer strangling Garner while Garner gasps, "I can't breathe," and his killer is not going to face trial.  

Yes, white people.  Our lives are important.  But no one is questioning that.  We don't get followed in stores because anyone suspects we're going to steal.  We don't get stopped on the street for no reason whatsoever.  And if we're committing a crime, there is a very, very good chance that we get arrested instead of killed.  

Every life has the same moral worth, regardless of race.  But society does not treat people of color as such.  Moreover, we are not all equal by a long shot.  Not economically, politically, or socially.  We say "black lives matter" because the police already know white lives matter.  The government already knows white lives matter.  And everyone who fights for justice already knows all lives matter.  But until black people can walk down the street without getting shot by the very people meant to protect them, yes, we need to make it clear that specifically, black people are important and their lives matter.  

This is circulating around Facebook and Twitter.

This does not happen when suspects are white.  And sometimes's it's overt racism.  Other times, and this is horrible, it's totally internal.  According to his testimony, Darren Wilson felt threatened by Michael Brown.  At some point, white people need to get over our discomfort with talking about race and truly look at ourselves.  How come a cop standing over six feet tall looks at a black man roughly the same height and thinks, "Hulk Hogan?"  How come a man sees a black teenage boy and feels the need to call the police, follow him, and interrogate him, before murdering him?  

The system is built on institutionalized racism, I know that.  That's part of why police officers can kill unarmed black men and not even face trial.  It's why so many black people live in poverty, why minorities face more jail time more often than white people.  

But there's more to it.  I honestly do not think the majority of white people think of black people as equal to them.  It's why we say things like, "you act white!" to our black friends who speak like we do.  We're effectively saying, "You're smart!  You speak the right way!  You're normal!"  

I used to say things like that, and I am so, so grateful that God sent me a professor who assigned The New Jim Crow, two black roommates, and a slew of new friends who were much smarter than me to really open my eyes.  Because four years ago, I would have been using #ALLlivesmatter.  Now I know better.  And I think it's another reason why it's so important to continue the narrative of "black lives matter."  Because we need to understand that not only do black lives need to matter when it comes to the "justice" system, but they need to matter every day.  Because let me ask you (especially any of my white middle class friends) - how many black teachers did you have in elementary school?  How many black friends?  Black doctors?  Jim Crow ended, but segregation is still very much alive.  And it is damn near impossible to understand that black lives matter just as much as white lives if all you've known is white people, if the only time you see black people is when you're locking your doors driving in their neighborhoods.  So yeah, #blacklivesmatter should be here to stay.  White people should be listening to black folks when they tell their stories.  White people should constantly remind themselves that it doesn't matter if a black kid stole a few cigars, his life was still precious.  There is no doubt in my mind that there would be uproar from white communities if a 12 year old named Adam Johnson was shot dead by police for any reason.  

So use #blacklivesmatter when you're on Twitter.  Use it when you're commenting on the legal system and say it to yourself when you're about to comment on how a black man wears his pants.  Use it all the time.  

*It's not even certain that Eric Garner was doing anything wrong.  Apparently, he might have actually been breaking up a fight.  Either way, his murder is unacceptable. 

__
Charlotte