It’s, unsurprisingly, focused on raaaaacism, and, who knew that the current environmental movement was so racist?
‘We have a nation which has stunning injustices’: Senate Democrats start new environmental push
The U.S. Senate will soon have an Environmental Justice Caucus, to be chaired by three Democrats: Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Tom Carper of Delaware and Cory Booker of New Jersey, who is also competing for the 2020 presidential nomination.
In an interview with Yahoo News, Duckworth said that the aim of the caucus will be to approach environmental issues with attention to matters of race and class. “Oftentimes, black and brown communities are the ones that suffer the biggest consequences of pollution and a lack of enforcement on environmental issues.â€
Duckworth said she was motivated to start the caucus because of racial disparities in the way environmental hazards are addressed in Chicago. She pointed to the emissions of ethylene oxide, a likely carcinogen, in the wealthy suburb of Willowbrook. A largely white community, Willowbrook has managed to attract media attention to its plight. The federal Environmental Protection Agency is currently addressing the situation there.
But in another Chicago suburb, Waukegan, “they’re not getting the same type of attention,†Duckworth says, because that town’s residents are predominantly nonwhite. She also points to Chicago’s majority-Hispanic 10th Ward, which the Chicago Sun-Times has called a “dumping ground†for heavy industry. Manganese dust, which can be especially detrimental to children, has been known to blow through parts of the area.
So, wait, there’s a lot of racism in the Democratic Party run city of Chicago? And the Leftist run EPA is involved? Huh.
Duckworth says that such disparities are related to other expressions of systemic racism, including discriminatory policing. “As we talk about criminal justice reform, as we talk about economic injustice, environmental injustice is also part and parcel to what so many communities face, and what so many children of color face,†she says. As an example, she points to the prevalence of asthma rates in low-income communities of color, arguing that associated public health costs are then foisted upon the whole of society.
So, basically, they are going to make the environment all about putting people in boxes, like they do with everything else. Democrats do not see people as individuals, but as voting boxes. It is funny that all these “children of color” are having all these problems in areas run by Democrats, is it not?
They don’t need a separate caucus if all the democrats are already in it.
I quoted MLK the other day about ‘content of character’.
A Leftist called me, “Racially ignorant.”
I guess either MLK was “racially ignorant” too (/s), or much more likely, this Leftist is ‘Reality ignorant’.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. — Martin Luther King, Jr.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_115056
We suspect you misused the quote, as conservatives often do.
Elwood, do you have an example of a conservative misusing the King quote? I want to make sure I get it right and you must believe only leftists can understand English.
As always, context matters! Do you think Dr. King opposed government actions for Blacks?
Use this quote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community?
Why don’t Con Men toss that quote around? We know why.
But here ya go:
“Typically, conservatives rely on one line from one speech. Of course it’s only the most famous line delivered by King, one of the few most folks have probably heard: the one from the 1963 March on Washington, the “I Have a Dream†speech in which he expressed the hope that one day persons “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.†For conservatives, this is proof that King would oppose race-conscious policies such as affirmative action, since — after all — such efforts require an acknowledgment of race.
Conservatives of all colors and stripes have clung to this line as a rallying cry in their war against “reverse discrimination.†Shelby Steele, for example, in The Content of Our Character (the title obviously used in order to evoke the famous King line) is a harsh critique of affirmative action policies, claiming they have “done more harm than good†and implying that King would agree. Steele seeks to prove this not only with reference to the “Dream†speech, but also by recounting a 1964 presentation in which King implored black youth to get ahead: the implication being that King was an apostle of the myth of rugged individualism and hostile to special efforts to provide full opportunities for people of color.
Clint Bolick, a leading critic of affirmative action, wrote in 1996 that King did not seek “special treatment†for blacks, and cites the “content of their character†remark as justification for his position. Tamar Jacoby wrote in 1998 that King’s “dream†was color-blindness. The Thernstroms, in the social science bible, America in Black and White, make the same claim. Paul Sniderman wrote, “The civil rights movement… took as its ideal a truly colorblind society, where, as Martin Luther King Jr. prophesied, our children would be judged… †by, yup, you guessed it, you know what.
Some have gone further and have advanced the notion that the modern civil rights movement’s support of affirmative action is a betrayal of King. Dinesh D’Souza (who has been convicted for his lack of impulse control) in End of Racism, states authoritatively that affirmative action is a “… repudiation of King’s vision, in that it involves a celebration and affirmation of group identity.†He makes the bold assertion that Black leaders are the antithesis of Martin Luther King’s principles, which he defines as the ideology that “race should be ignored and we should be judged on our merits as persons.†Strangely, D’Souza calls for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, arguably the greatest legislative achievement of the movement King led. Thanks to corporate-controlled, activist, conservative Supreme court, D’Souza, unlike King, has seen his dream come to fruition.”
https://thediamondmind.blogspot.com/2016/01/misquoting-dream.html
Some rant from a Lefty writer proves nothing but his own need to lie and your eagerness to repeat it.
In spite of its glowing talk about the welfare of the masses, Communism’s methods and philosophy strip man of his dignity and worth, leaving him as little more than a depersonalized cog in the ever-turning wheel of the state.
Funny, that’s what you want. You just use the climate scam to get it.
Not environment; not heredity; but personal response is the final determining factor in our lives. And herein lies our area of responsibility.
Now that’s Martin Luther King. Sounds awfully Conservative, don’t it?
No, your kind ignores it. You don ‘t want people judged on the content of their character, but on their color, sex, gender, income, nationality, political affiliation, anything to divide the country into as many petty bickering camps as possible.
And you do know Martin Luther King was a Republican.
Wiz/Kye,
Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a Republican. Just another Con Man falsehood.
Your kind want people judged by their religion and pigment.
Says the spokesman for the party of identity politics. You can’t really be that dense.
Do you really believe that equal rights for all is “identity politics”?
Cons practice identity politics, is just simpler, since it’s all about being white and Christian.
Why are there so few non-white, non-Christian people in the GOP?
Our kind? You mean Americans?
Your kind want people judged by how cheaply they give away their vote and how blindly they follow people like the mocha Messiah.
As usual as soon as you start to lose an argument you start calling us bigots and racists.
You really need some therapy.
Wiz/Kye,
Whatsamatter? You’re upset that “identity politics” works both ways? Tough. Facts are facts.
Why do Jews, Muslims, Blacks, immigrants, LBGT, college grads, the young all avoid the Trumpublican Party? Why is that?
You have older white men, white nationalist men, terrified white women, the wealthy… why is that?
Is “identity politics” the latest buzzword in right-wing circles?
Racist? It’s you guys that talk about President Loose Shoes, the shoeshine boy and The Mocha Messiah. You claim whites are superior to Blacks.
Remember the wonderful Earl Butz (R-IN), Nixon’s Sec of Ag?
Pat Boone asked, “It seems to me that the party of Abraham Lincoln should attract more black people. Why can’t that be done?â€
“I’ll tell you why you can’t attract coloreds,†Butz said. “Because coloreds only want three things, a tight pussy, loose shoes, and a warm place to shit.”
That’s why Lil calls President Obama, Loose Shoes.
“Black and brown communities are the ones that suffer the biggest consequences of pollution..â€. Black and brown and the poor in general will suffer bigger consequences if they’re not allowed access to cheap, reliable energy, which is what libs are trying to do to them every day.
Do you really believe that equal rights for all is “identity politics�
Cons practice identity politics, is just simpler, since it’s all about being white and Christian.
Why are there so few non-white, non-Christian people in the GOP?
You don’t believe in equal rights. You want a special pass for the party bigwigs. And you want anyone who opposes presumed guilty until proven guilty. For the little guys, you sdon’t care. They’re just cannon fodder to you.
As for identity, why are so many non-white, non-Christan people leaving the Democrats?
And King’s niece, Alveda, says he was a Republican. So where’s your proof, especially since Southern blacks of his generation generally were Republican; the Democrats were the segregationists, after all.
Wiz/Kye,
You’re so full of scheisse.
There is no reliable evidence that MLK Jr was a Republican.
His son, MLK III, said his dad was not a Republican. King’s daughter, Bernice, said her father was never a member of the Republican Party.
His niece, Alveda, retracted that he was a Republican, writing that she regrets “having said to a group of peers that my Uncle M. L. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) was a Republican. I said that without having all the facts.” Alveda King wrote that her uncle was “an independent, who in his own words tended to vote Democrat.” She wrote that she had assumed her uncle was a member of the GOP because his father – Martin Luther King, Sr. – was a Republican. Alveda King wrote that before the election of Democrat John F. Kennedy as president in 1960, most blacks were Republicans.
In fact, MLK Jr was not a member of either party and there are no voting records. He openly criticized Dems and Repubs. King said blacks “should remain independent voters, and they should not become unduly tied to any party, Democrat or Republican.
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jan/25/philip-van-cleave/van-cleave-wongly-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-r/