Samra Habib at The Guardian writes—Queer Muslims exist – and we are in mourning too:
There will be no shortage of voices in the media in the days and weeks ahead analyzing the links between Islam, terrorism and homophobia. Political candidates will likely use the incident to gain support for their platforms in the upcoming election.
We are now used to the fact that, every time a criminally misguided Muslim commits an act of violence, the entire religion and all its followers are questioned and placed under suspicion in a way that isn’t replicated with other faiths. We – and this of course includes queer Muslims – have to take extra care walking down the street at night and entering our mosques for fear of Islamophobic attacks. Muslim organizations and activist groups are tasked with the responsibility of releasing public statements, apologizing for the actions of terrorists and reminding the world that Islam promotes peace so innocent Muslims who are just trying to go about their daily lives don’t suffer repercussions. [...]
We’re all experiencing the same tragedy together. And I can tell you first-hand: being a peace-loving Muslim who is just as angered by homophobic attacks as everyone else isn’t out of the ordinary.
E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes—Will Orlando drive us from our corners?
Trump did not disappoint. At 12:43, he turned to his communications medium of choice and tweeted: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”
It is no day for partisanship, but how could Trump even think of using a moment of national trauma and mourning as an occasion to tout his own genius — or to reach sweeping conclusions on the fly?
But it’s entirely true that those of us who have long believed that our scandalously lax national gun laws make sickening slaughters inevitable had predictable reactions of our own.
I freely admit that I identified entirely with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) when he declared: “This phenomenon of near constant mass shootings happens only in America — nowhere else. Congress has become complicit in these murders by its total, unconscionable deafening silence.”
Gary Younge at The Guardian writes—Orlando shooting exposes so many of America’s faultlines:
The array of initial reactions illustrates just how confused the political response might become. Whatever else this is, it’s not about immigration. Omar Mateen, the suspected killer, was born in America. Whatever compelled him to commit such a terrible act cannot be laid at the border of a foreign nation. His hatred was home-grown. [...]
The truth is it is, most likely, about lots of things. And the bolder the claim that it is about any one thing, the more vulnerable it will be to contradiction and qualification. While the act of killing so many so quickly is crude, the underlying factors are complex.
But in moments of crisis such as this, complexity is all too easily mistaken for and derided as weakness. Trump’s poll lead in the Republican nomination rose after the terror attacks in France and San Bernardino, California, late last year.
Fear favours the demagogue. History sides with the cautious.
Jeet Heer at The New Republic writes—The Orlando Massacre Is an Act of Terror, Whatever the Tangle of Causes:
In the face of such mind-numbing violence, it’s natural that we search for an all-encompassing explanation, whether it take the form of lax gun control (or conversely, no “good guy with a gun” to stop the shooter), poor mental health care, or jihadi ideology. But events never have a single cause; rather, they emerge from the weave of various causes. Moreover, in terms of judging the horror in Orlando, it little matters which cause is dominant. This was unquestionably an act of terror, whether or not it fits the FBI’s precise definition: The shooter targeted gay people for being gay in a gay public space. Is is undeniably an act of political violence.
The explanations being proffered for the atrocity shouldn’t be seen as mutually exclusive, but rather as mutually reinforcing.
Joan Walsh at The Nation writes—Orlando Is a Hate Crime, No Matter What Donald Trump Says:
He’s a Muslim terrorist. He’s a homophobe, his father says. It’s a hate crime. He’s ISIS. He’s not ISIS. It’s a hate crime. He called 911 and declared his allegiance to ISIS. An ISIS media outlet has claimed his allegiance. It’s a hate crime.
It’s a hate crime.
So much chatter, so little truth: At least 50 people, enjoying their Saturday night at an Orlando gay bar, died at the hand of a homophobic gunman armed with more guns and ammunition than any American civilian should be allowed to own, and 53 more were wounded. Omar Sidiqqi Mateen apparently associated himself with ISIS in a 911 call during the crime, and had been identified by law enforcement for possible ISIS sympathies. Far more important, in our American context, he associated himself with assault weapons and violent homophobia, which ended as it had before.
Should this factor into the 2016 presidential campaign? Well, President Obama and Hillary Clinton acted like Democrats always do, they were cautious and respectful and sorrowful; they cancelled their joint rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which was scheduled for this Wednesday. But Donald Trump kept Tweeting out shards of his tiny, toxic brain all day, accepting “congrats” for proposing a ban on Muslims, and then proposing it again, though Mateen was born in New York. Then he issued a garbled statement that told President Obama to “step down” for his refusal to say the words “radical Islam,” and likewise ordered Clinton to “get out of this race for the Presidency.”
It’s a hate crime.
Richard Kim at The Nation writes—Please Don’t Stop the Music:
I’ve never been to Pulse, the Orlando gay nightclub where Omar Mateen killed 50 people and wounded another 53. But I know that for some queer people there it was their utopia. Or, as Daniel Leon-Davis movingly recollects, a “safe haven,” the place “where I learned to love myself as a gay man,” and the place “where I learned to love my community.” Or as President Obama put it, “a place of solidarity and empowerment.” Last night, this place was violated.
We may never know how much homophobia drove Mateen to do what he did, or what other springs of madness and extremism he drank from. But we can definitely say this: Just as Dylann Roof preyed upon the specific openness and hospitality of the Mother Emanuel Church, Omar Mateen exploited the specific things that make gay bars magic. He took the dark, the loudness, the density, the chaos of the dance floor—and he made them his accomplices in what is the largest mass shooting in this nation’s history.
But he does not own these things, and his desecration cannot defeat us. This next week is going to suck hard—but we must remember that our joy is its own purpose; it is a higher calling.
To all the bartenders and bar-backs and bouncers and gogo boys and drag queens and club kids and freaks who make the nightlife—I love you. Stay strong.
Paul Krugman at The New York Times writes—A Party Agrift:
This is not a column about Donald Trump.
It’s not about the fraudulent scheme that was Trump University. It’s not about his history of failing to pay contractors, leading to hundreds of legal actions. It’s not about how he personally profited while running his casinosinto the ground. It’s not even concerned with persistent questions about whether he is nearly as rich as he claims to be, and whether he’s ever done more than live off capital gains on his inheritance.
No, my question, as Democrats gleefully tear into the Trump business record, is why rival Republicans never did the same. How did someone who looks so much like a cheap con man bulldoze right through the G.O.P. nomination process?
I mean, it’s not as if any of this dirt was deeply hidden.
Micah Uetricht at In These Times writes—Debating the merits—and dangers—of instituting a universal basic income in the U.S.:
HERE’S A NOVEL IDEA FOR HOW TO END POVERTY: GIVE EVERYONE MORE MONEY. That might sound like a fantasy, but support for a universal basic income (UBI) is gaining steam. It’s been debated everywhere from policy journals to Vice and The New York Times, and it’s on the ballot or in pilot programs in several European countries.
The basic concept is simple: The government doles out a modest amount of cash that establishes an income floor for everyone, whether or not they’re working. The details beyond that can vary. A basic income can be distributed to everyone regardless of how much they make (the “universal” piece), or it can be given only to those whose income falls below a certain threshold.
One’s gut reaction to this proposal might be suspicion—if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is, right? Indeed, proposals for a UBI are sometimes proffered as part of an austerity agenda. Some on the libertarian Right see the measure as a convenient way to gut welfare and shrink the state, leaving UBI recipients with the “freedom” to spend their check how they like, but little else in the way of public assistance. In 1969, the idea was floated by none other than Richard Nixon as a replacement for Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
But the growing popularity of UBI also holds enormous potential for progressives. Many on the Left see it as a way to significantly reduce poverty and help free people from crappy, low-paying jobs—not to replace other social welfare spending, but to add to it.
Roger Bybee at The Progressive writes—Sanders' Success: Democratic Socialism Goes Mainstream:
Until now, democratic socialism as an electoral force had been condemned to the margins by America’s confining rules. America’s political system has, since its inception, systematically favored just two parties, both largely beholden to elites. With this structural bias, advocates of democratic socialism or Ralph Nader-style reform have been torn between a potentially risky vote for committed progressive advocates (think of Bush’s narrow 2000 win) or voting for conventional, complacent Democratic candidates.
But four long decades of economic decline for the majority, a mounting environmental crisis, and imperial misadventures have opened the door for Sanders’ openly democratic socialist candidacy. The appeal of living-wage jobs, tuition-free college, universal health care, and forceful environmental measures are only likely to grow more popular as economic conditions decline.
“All things considered, economic and social pain is likely to deepen and persist,” economist Gar Alperovitz argues in What Then Must We Do? A grim economic picture is intensifying the hunger for a radically different direction for America—manifested in support for both the Sanders and the Trump presidential campaigns.
Katie Herzog at Grist writes—777 days later, Congress hasn’t lifted a finger for Flint:
It’s been 777 days since Michigan switched Flint’s water supply from Detroit to Flint River and residents began complaining that it looked, tasted, and smelled wrong; 478 days since a Flint resident informed the Environmental Protection Agency that her water contained high levels of lead; and 157 days since Republican Governor Rick Snyder declared a state of emergency.
The U.S. Congress still hasn’t passed any aid to help Flint, or for any of the other communities that could use it.
Senate Republicans on Thursday abandoned an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allocate $1.9 billion for lead-free clean water infrastructure across the country and in Flint. Before this bill, the Senate didn’t add aid onto a comprehensive energy package because Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) blocked the amendment.
Melissa Batchelor Warnke at the Los Angeles Times writes—Rape survivors shouldn't have to be eloquent to get justice:
The Stanford survivor’s letter was incredibly powerful, but it shouldn’t have had to be in order to get our attention. The hard facts should have been enough to do that work. When we are moved to action only by language that seizes us, we tip the scales of justice in favor of the articulate and place an undue burden on survivors — the burden not only to communicate their trauma, but to do so exhaustively, lucidly, compellingly. Those who are at a different point in their recovery or less gifted with language deserve the same response. I hope that in the future all survivors who are denied justice will receive the very volume of indignation that has led nearly a million people to protest the light sentence handed down on the Stanford survivor’s assailant.
We owe every survivor the support they deserve in their pursuit of justice. But that support should be grounded in moral outrage — in a sense that rape is an act that has no place on our planet. We should not be animated solely by those cases in which the survivor is able to and chooses to communicate their experience in such striking language.