Spread the Word, Help the Roma

Racism can be delightfully self defeating.

Devious Diva, a British blogger living in Greece, has been writing about the plight of the Roma.

She was outed by a “nationalist blogger”, who has surprised everyone by removing the personal info upon request:

The nationalist blogger who posted my full name and details of what I do in real life, has removed the post following my request. I was surprised that he did. The person who sent the information to him was (of course) Anonymous although I have a very good idea who it was. My “friend” Doogie Howzer said that information has been circulating for a long time.

That these people are cowards is obvious. What is less obvious is the effect their hatred has had. Lindsay really sums it up beautifully:

So, thanks, racists, for calling attention to the plight of the Roma in Athens–something you were so scared the world would find out about that you tried to silence the young mother who blew the whistle.

In the end, both by supporting Devious Diva and bringing more attention to her cause, we can help make the nationalist’s mistake a costly one politically.

As Nezua notes, we may see this stunt pulled “over and over again”. However (emphasis mine):

I, for one, think that it is very important for us all to stand with these people, especially since this type of threat and intimidation invariably comes when a person (usually a woman) dares to expose truth or speak truth that threatens a cadre of lies or socially-entrenched blindness or abuse. Also because bullies are cowards on many levels, social included. If our solidarity and numbers is what is needed to put the fear in them, I’m down.

Those cowards who would consciously and maliciously expose a blogger’s identity do not do so to glorify or celebrate or better know that blogger. They do so to shut them up. They sense the cutting edge of awareness, perhaps they feel the structures that support their own habituated comfort are in danger. And so they lash back, but not with truth. With violence, with implied violence, with the only tool left those with nothing to say. And when they do this, they threaten not one of us, but our collective drive to be truthful and help this evolving conversation reach the fruition that it must.

This is why together we must fight any who resort to these strongarm tactics of repression or those who directly threaten our wellbeing and ability to continue speaking out.

It is an act of essential weakness to engage in violence, to repress. It is also an act of strength to stand together and fight back. Sheezlebub:

We can’t let this slide. Any attempt to silence one of us is an attempt to silence us all.

And a great way to start is by spreading the word on the Roma in Greece (Via Chris Clarke):

As oppressed as any people in Europe, the Roma live in shantytowns in the center of Athens, their communities ignored until the real estate becomes valuable for some important project

So read up on what is happening to the Roma. Then add your voice to the din ironically started by the very people who would silence it.

UPDATE: The last line of Nezua’s post changed, and I updated to reflect that (and properly quote him).  (It says the same thing, it just reads much better).


Late Term Abortion: Fun with Fallacies!

I saw this charming post over at the Chatanoogan:

I found the comments concerning yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the partial birth abortion ban by the three leading Democrat candidates for president to be disgraceful.

Huzzah! Well friends, let’s get out the philosophical and rhetorical looking glasses, and have us a look see (emphasis mine):

Below is the Wikpedia definition of partial birth abortion and the candidate’s comments. How can anyone disagree with stopping this barbaric procedure?

I am not a raving lunatic on the subject of abortion. For the record, I personally think that life begins at conception, but my belief is admittedly religious in nature and not based on scientific evidence.

First the language. The poster (Chris) seems to have a pretty clear picture he wants to paint of pro-choicers against the Supreme Court’s recent decision. Its only lightly indirect here. Paint the procedure itself in the same color as the opposition, then use that same brush to outline yourself with your opponent’s desired trait. Pro-choicers, you see, are these barbarian raving lunatics who just want to kill babies.

Next, the justification: “Religious in nature”. So you can argue all you want, but in the end Chris is not changing his mind. His religion tells him what is right, and that is set in stone thank you very much.

Ok, now for the best part of the post. Ready? Here we go (I’d bold this, but the whole thing is gold):

Since I don’t think religion should be forced upon “the people”, I believe abortion to be a state’s rights and individual issue. I am opposed to the Roe vs. Wade decision because it forces abortion on everyone. While I respect the opinion of those who disagree with me on the abortion procedure, I do not understand how anyone – especially those who want to lead this country – can oppose the ending of this procedure.

Let’s go sentence by sentence. First he brings up state’s rights. This is a weak attempt to mute criticism of the issue itself and put the focus on a general opinion on where power should lie in our federated states. As August noted:

So really, why should abortion be a “state’s right” to determine? Either you think abortion should be illegal or you don’t. Is there a particular reason you think it’s a crime in Wyoming but but in New Jersey?

Next, his patently ridiculous claim that it “forces abortion on everyone”. Watch out pregnant women! Feminists and liberals are going to forcibly abort your babies! What does he even mean by that?

Lastly, he doesn’t understand our opposition to the recent court ruling. The reasoning is quite simple. The ruling provided no exception for the health of the woman. No exception.

That is the reason for opposing the Supreme Court’s ruling. It utterly disregards the worth of a woman’s life, and puts lawyers in between doctors and their patient’s welfare.

It is inconceivable that the three leading democrat candidates for president could sell out these innocent lives for political reasons – that is to coddle the far left wing of their party. Have they no souls?

Again, note the appeal to religion. “Have they no souls”. Pushing opposition to the ruling to the “far left”. The Democratic party’s leaders can hardly be described as anything left of pragmatic.

The question is how the hell will Republicans sell this as part of a “culture of life”, when the ruling blatantly threatens the health of women. No exception for the health of the woman. No amount of cover can hide the implications there. They are as clear as day.