Chuck Colson calls himself an envious, soak-the-rich socialist

Chuck Colson’s latest column — “Killing Your Neighbor’s Cow — Income Inequality” is not the work of an honest man.

If it were, then the only way to make any sense of it would be as a confession — as Chuck Colson calling himself a soak-the-rich socialist firmly in the grasp of the deadly sin of envy.

That’s not what Colson says, at first glance. At first glance it seems he’s just accusing a bunch of other people of being a bunch of soak-the-rich socialists driven by the sin of envy. (It’s not entirely clear who — he seems to mean the 99-percent movement and President Obama, and probably the rest of Obama’s party.)

That’s kind of a mean thing to say about other people. And, generally speaking, it’s not considered kosher to attribute malicious motives like envy unless you have evidence for that claim. Colson offers no evidence. He just asserts it — he just presumes they’re envious and peasant-like. You’d think that kind of baseless nastiness might get him in trouble with his editors at Christianity Today, or at the Christian Post, or with any of the hundreds of Christian radio stations who carry his commentaries. But it won’t.

Now, pay attention, because I am about to work my way to the conclusion that Chuck Colson is operating from malicious motives. This will not be, like Colson’s slur, an unsupported assertion — a presumption of guilt. It will be, rather, a conclusion — the only logical conclusion we can draw — based on evidence.

What that evidence tells us is that Colson knows his nastiness isn’t true. He doesn’t believe what he’s saying about these vague others whom he’s accusing of dirty, nasty, peasant-ish envy.

We can know this. We do know this. We know that Colson doesn’t believe what he’s saying because we know his own history.

And we know that he knows his own history.

“Envy,” Colson’s column says, is what motivates calls for higher taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent. The top marginal income-tax rate in America, right now, is 35 percent. Anyone who thinks it ought to be even slightly higher, Colson argues, is calling for a “soak-the-rich” policy and can only be motivated by the ugly, ignoble sin of envy.

But here’s where Colson’s own history comes in.

The economy grew much faster with a top rate of 70 percent than it has with the very low current top rate.

Chuck Colson served as special counsel to President Richard M. Nixon from 1969 through March of 1973. He was an essential part of the innermost circles of the Nixon administration.

During all his years working in the White House, the top marginal income tax rate was never below 70 percent.

During every day that he worked in the White House as one of the most powerful men in the executive branch, the wealthiest Americans were charged double the rate of income tax that they pay today.

Again, the top marginal income-tax rate today is half of what it was during Colson’s service at the top levels of the Nixon administration. And the capital gains tax today — the tax that matters more to the wealthiest Americans who make money from money rather than from work — is even lower. The capital gains tax rate is just 15 percent, which is why Warren Buffett pays a lower rate than his secretary does.

When Chuck Colson was working alongside the president, revenue as share of GDP was 17.6 percent. Today it is 14.4 percent — historically low, the lowest it has been since 1950.

So according to the standard set by his column, Chuck Colson and the rest of the Nixon administration were a bunch of soak-the-rich radical redistributionists driven by socialist envy.

But, of course, Colson doesn’t really believe that standard. He doesn’t believe that he and President Nixon were “soaking the rich” by charging a top marginal income-tax rate of 70 percent. He didn’t believe that then and he doesn’t believe it now.

He can’t believe it. He knows better because he knows his own history. Colson knows what the top rate was when he worked in the White House and he knows what it is now. He knows it’s ludicrous for anyone to suggest that any rate higher than half the top rate during the Nixon administration  would constitute “soaking the rich.”

And he knows it’s beyond ludicrous for him, of all people, to say this because he was the Nixon administration. If 70 percent was not an envy-driven, soak-the-rich policy for him, then 38 percent cannot be called an envy-driven, soak-the-rich policy for anyone else.

He knows, in other words, that what he is saying in this column is not true. He knows this.

Chuck Colson knows that the witness he is bearing in this column is false.

Chuck Colson is bearing false witness against his neighbors. Explicitly, intentionally, knowingly, maliciously.

Sinfully.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I will freely admit that the sin I struggle against most is wrath.  When people make influential arguments based on false premises like this, I tend to think that it is a pity that the law protects such people from the physical assault their implications would otherwise buy them. 

    Sometimes I think, “If you are making the announcement that you are going to try and screw me over to protect inequality, then I should have the right to hit you,” would encourage a lot of people to be less eager to screw other people over. 

    Unfortunately, they would probably find some way to twist that law around to protect them too. 

  • http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy

    The obvious counterargument (which I do not remotely endorse) is that the important thing is direction, not position. The important thing, in this view, is ensuring that the tax rate never increases — cuts are progress, hikes are regression.

  • Lori

    But Colson is a Conservative. Conservatives aren’t too keen on progress, but they love going back to the Old Days. In Colson’s old days the top marginal tax rate was double what it is now. 

  • P J Evans

    It’s not something they want to remember. If they did, they’d have to admit they’re wrong.

  • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

    Is violence your proposed solution to everything?

  • Julian

    What’s with the stereotyping of peasants as nasty and envious? No doubt some of them are, but are these traits associated with peasants in particular more than, say, blue-collar tradespeople, or Wall Street I-Bankers, or Chinese Communist Party cadres, or any other demograhic? (For what it’s worth, my impression from some rather light readings is that while every peasant is different, of course, on average they tend to be rather conservative and defensive of existing social structures.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    That’s kind of what “wrath” entails, right?

  • bad Jim

    This guy professes himself to be a Christian, and invokes the parable of the laborers in the vineyard to defend income inequality? Does he imagine Jesus to be the original vulture capitalist? Is his favorite verse “the poor you will have with you always, but I’m special”?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I almost thought Charles Colson had a change of heart.

    Silly me.

  • Anonymous

    James Dobson is probably the most evil man in America on almost all theoretical ways to measure evil. But if we narrow it down to just measuring in terms of hateful, spiteful  cynical, harmful politics, then Chuck Colson could certainly give him a run for his money.

  • runsinbackground

    I actually thought that the obvious counterargument (for Chuck Colson specifically, not for tax policy generally) was that just because he was a Special Councilor to President Nixon doesn’t mean that he was the be-all and end-all of tax policy for the Nixon Administration. He could then maintain that he was always against the 70% top bracket but that whoever was in charge of such things didn’t want to hear about it.

  • Matri

    I almost thought Charles Colson had a change of heart.

    Silly me.

    But he DID have a change of heart. That’s why he’s “now” saying Taxes bad, cuts good, rich only, screw poor. Heck, he’s just now starting to realize just how cruel he was to those poor persecuted rich people.

  • Anonymous

    Pardon my outright snarkitude but, quite frankly, I find it impossible to give any kind of credence to a guy who once planned to firebomb a think-tank in order to steal possible evidence from it *while in the employ of The President of The United States*.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/18/nation/na-tapes18

  • Anonymous

    And during the halcyon days of the 50′s, when Women Knew Their Place, it was even higher than that!  But the “go back to the 50′s” type conservatives don’t know or care about that–they just want life to look like the Jack Benny Show or Leave It to Beaver.

  • Matri

    Is violence your proposed solution to everything?

    Oh come on, even Castle Heterodyne would think it’s hilarious. :)

  • Anonymous

    To once again quote Dennis Miller from back when he was funny…

    “I mean, come on… Chuck Colson? How come these people never find
    Jesus when things are good. It’s only when they’ve f****d things up so
    horribly that then, and only then, do they turn to Christ. Nobody ever
    finds Jesus on prom night.”

    I wonder is Dennis still stands by those words, or would that effect his sinecure as BillO’s go to comedian?

  • Anonymous

    Tsk. Credit where it’s due. I found Mr. Colson’s take-down (“Loving your neighbor, or even working alongside him, is next to impossible when you regard his gains as a personal loss”) of Rick Santelli (“Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages”) right on target. Didn’t know he had it in him.

  • Amaryllis

    “many people insist on soaking the well-off because, like
    the Russian peasant, what they want is to see their better-off neighbors
    knocked down a peg.”
    - liar Chuck Colson

    “We’re angry. We’re angry at something we’re calling “imagined
    frustration.” By this we mean that, except for Congress, the White
    House, banks, major lobbyists, and the editorial boards of Fox News and
    the Wall Street Journal, no one is listening to us. …
    Do you know that feeling, upon waking at 4 A.M., heart
    racing, your mind looking twenty, thirty years down the road, wondering
    how you are going to make ends meet? Worrying about what would happen if
    you lost your job, asking yourself how you’re going to pay for your
    kids’ college or retire? Well, I don’t. But I read a story about it once
    and remember thinking, I’m so glad that’s not me.”
    - satirist John Kenney,
    We Are The One Per Cent

    (Which I hope the link stays good for awhile, the New Yorker being fussy about its copyright.)

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    Hmm, I am not convinced.  Chuck really does believe his tripe.  The rich work very hard  for all those dollars.  The poor just steal it in the form assistance and entitlements, because they are slug-a-beds.

    We can all see his self-deception, but that is the power of self-deception.  The self-deceived are blind to their own error.

  • Hawker40

    “If violence wasn’t your last resort, then you didn’t resort to enough.” – 7 Habits of Highly Effective Pirates.

  • Damanoid

    Man, if you can’t even trust the Nixon administration anymore…

  • Anonymous

    I had a similar philosophical struggle a few years back (i.e. why is it inappropriate to respond to ethically bankrupt behavior with violence?) The conclusion I eventually came to was that it endorsed a worldview I didn’t support: That it is right, and appropriate, to respond with violence in response to things you dislike. Physical power equals authority. He with the biggest stick is right.

    If you bring violence as an acceptable medium into discussion, it eventually becomes the only medium of discussion. Ideas cease to be considered on their own merits, and start to be considered on their originators ability to do harm.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    Nobody ever finds Jesus on prom night.”

    Not even when they can see paradise by the dashboard light?

  • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

    If you bring violence as an acceptable medium into discussion, it eventually becomes the only medium of discussion. Ideas cease to be considered on their own merits, and start to be considered on their originators ability to do harm.

    See also: compromise based not on dialogue, but on Certain People taking the country hostage and threatening to shut down the government over a health care provider.

  • Anonymous

    I am not envious of the rich.  I want justice for the poor.  The only reason I care about the billions of dollars the 1% has is because the poor does not have good food, healthcare, good schools, and a solid roof over their heads.  The only reason I speak to the fact that CEO’s make 450 times that of the average worker is because the average worker does not make enough to sleep at night without worry.  The worker produces the wealth, but the owner is the one that gets to keep it, even if they perform poorly.  This is not justice.  If I screw up at my half-job, I get fired.  If a CEO runs a company into the ground, they fire people who DIDN’T screw-up, and get to take millions of dollars away.  This isn’t ENVY I feel towards them. If it is any deadly sin, it is “wrath”. I don’t want to be the person who screws over people at my personal expense. 
     
    If everyone in this country had a safe place to live, enough decent food to eat every day, healthcare for when they were ill, school paid for up to college so everyone could better themselves to their ability and quality schools no matter where they lived, and jobs that paid living wages as opposed to non-wages, people who fleece their workers would probably not even get noticed.   It took me days of research to even figure out what the hell it was that Merrill Lynch and other investment companies even DID to need to be bailed-out, and how they got away with it (short answer: they treated other people’s money like they were gamblers at the casino, but unlike gambling they were less regulated and got a lot of money instead of broken legs).
     
     If those who worked in finance and insurance would keep their theft hidden, as long as we were getting by no one would even notice.  OWS, and the related protests, wouldn’t be from dozens to thousands of people at each places.  The only protest would be that one guy with the bullhorn and the poorly memiographed tracts on socialism that everyone ignores.  But we do not live in that world.  We live in the world where we let others take much more because of some vague idea that they actually earned it.  We live in a world where if you make 40,000 dollars, you resent the fact the person living on 20,000 dollar doesn’t pay federal income tax, even though you have much more in common with that person getting by on 20,000 dollars than you will EVER have in common with that person making more than a million a year.  And we live in the world where the most disempowered groups get blamed for things that are the fault of the most powerful groups.Wrath, not envy.  I don’t covet the ability to screw people over.   I want to see the world more equitable, and more just; and start with the fact that, yes, the poor are as valuable as the rich.  That if we live in the best, richest, most democratic country in the world, we better have some damn evidence for those superlatatives.  

  • vsm

    I wouldn’t categorically rule out political violence, since it is the way the US of A was born and without it, we wouldn’t have had The Ramones or George Cukor. However, before you engage in it, you’d best have explored all other avenues and be prepared to deal with the fallout for decades. Also make sure your side has the bigger stick, because losing will not be fun. Just ask my great grandfather, who fought in a failed revolution, escaped from a concentration camp and spent the next two decades avoiding the security police. After the state lost interest in him, he still carried a pistol on him for the rest of his life in case of private enforcers of proper political thought.

  • http://joshbarkey.blogspot.com/ josh barkey

    Good old, wishy-washy, Charlie Colson. What a BLOCKHEAD!

  • http://scyllacat.livejournal.com Scylla Kat

    I’m of two minds about violence, as always.  For example, I think the OWS group has done a terrific job on staying focused and using nonviolence.  “We’re not here to fight with you.” So they aren’t fighting.  On the other hand, if things keep going the way they are, a lot more people are going to get hurt and die.  There’s some point where you have to defend yourself and those who can’t defend themselves.  

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    I’m not quite sure that Colson is being willfully dishonest.  I think it’s more a case of simply having  no concept or concern of what  specific tax rate is ideal for what specific class at all.  Opinions for his sort, not just right-wingers but ideologues in general, exist primarily as markers of a preferred identity, and only secondarilly if at all as ideas for solving practical problems.  So the correct answer in regards to taxes has nothing to do with what the current tax rate is or was or what fiscal policy would most benefit the private economy or the treasury.  You can be either a peasant or part of the rightous producer class that the peasants envy.  Opposing tax hikes on the rich means you’re not a peasant. 

  • Don Gisselbeck

    Plus the predator class has the biggst sticks.

  • Don Gisselbeck

    If the predator class work as hard as the peasants, they should make as much.

  • Anonymous

    Conservatives aren’t too keen on progress, but they love going back to
    the Old Days. In Colson’s old days the top marginal tax rate was double
    what it is now.

    In this one instance, I’d be thrilled to go back to Colson’s old days. Why do I have the strange feeling he wouldn’t be?

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Is violence your proposed solution to everything?

    Not everything, but I find it an important idea to keep in mind when contemplating something.  Before I do something, I like to think to myself, “Is this going to make people want to punch me in the face?”  If the answer to that hypothetical is “probably,” then I should consider other options.  It serves as a benchmark of a sort, a threshold to measure ideas against.  On the other hand,  there are some rare circumstances in which I might want someone to take a swing at me, to force a conflict into the open, and push it past the threshold where it could be ignored if other options are not making progress.  

    I suppose I engage in a bit of projection, where I assume that if someone is saying something that will make me want to punch them in the face, then either they are deliberately encouraging other people to punch them in the face, or they are completely ignorant that anyone would want to punch them over the face for such things.  In the former case, I assume that they want to have it out.  In the later case, they need to be shown how serious what they are doing is.  In either case, not communicating that they are being pricks who are tempting a beating would just allow them to continue being pricks.  

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who believe that protection from getting physically beaten gives them all the license they need to act like colossal douches.  You need only visit the comments on YouTube videos or any online newspaper article to see the evidence of that.  I would go one further and say that such disinhibition effects extend to the 1%, who can get away with a hell of a lot of screwing people over and not get called out on it.  

    Never the less, I feel justified in referencing the possibility of violence.  It turned out some quality comments from other people in this thread, and it is something that those in power need to recognize.  How much longer can you step on the face of an entire class of people before they get fed up and start stepping back?  If you are getting close to that point, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your policy to keep it from happening.  

    As J.F.K. said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

  • Anonymous

    And, generally speaking, it’s not considered kosher to attribute malicious motives like envy unless you have evidence for that claim.

    Oh, that’s rich.  I needed a good laugh.  Don’t attribute malicious motives without evidence.  Pot, kettle, and all that.

  • Annoyed Lurker

    You are truly an awful person.

  • http://profiles.google.com/schzac Zach Schmidt

    This is not a defense of the status quo, and while I do not by any means agree wholeheartedly with everything in Colson’s article, that Chuck Colson was dishonest is not the only conclusion that can be drawn. A fairer conclusion, and one that tries to hold Mr. Colson in the best possible light (as we are called to do for everyone), could acknowledge that Colson’s article probably did not have marginal tax rates in its purview. It could acknowledge that different times in our history may call for (or at least validate) different measures and policies, including fiscal policies. I don’t think it works to simply compare the top marginal tax rate of four decades ago to the top marginal rate today, as if it’s an apples-to-apples comparison. And finally (and in my mind, most importantly), a fairer response could acknowledge that Mr. Colson’s article might have been intended to be (and can still be taken as) a caution for many of us, certainly myself included, to be aware of and on guard against the sin of envy, as we strive to address our nation’s problems. 

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    That if we live in the best, richest, most democratic country in the
    world, we better have some damn evidence for those superlatatives

    Eh, one out of three ain’t bad, right?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I suppose I engage in a bit of projection, where I assume that if
    someone is saying something that will make me want to punch them in the
    face, then either they are deliberately encouraging other people to
    punch them in the face, or they are completely ignorant that anyone
    would want to punch them in the face over such things.  In the former
    case, I assume that they want to have it out.  In the later case, they
    need to be shown how serious what they are doing is.  In either case,
    not communicating that they are being pricks who are tempting a beating
    would just allow them to continue being pricks.

    I have been in situations where a man has wanted to punch me in the face. On one occasion it was someone in the throes of a nervous breakdown who was lashing out at the person closest to him. In another it was a sexist arsehole who was enraged that a woman contradicted his debating point in front of his friends.

    You say that I was asking for a beating by being a prick? WTF?

    Violence is never ever fucking never OK, and justifying your violent tendencies as the reaction of the white knight coming to fight for injustice does not put you on high ground. Beating the shit out of the oppressor doesn’t make you a moral agent, it makes you a different kind of oppressor.

    You’ve said a couple of times that you wish to be treated like a robot that can be reprogrammed. Program this: violence is not OK.

  • Anonymous

    “If the predator class work as hard as the peasants, they should make as much.”

    Then why can a member of the “predator class” make more from pushing paper than a farmer pushing dirt, or a construction worker pushing concrete and steel, or a teacher pushing kids to succeed?

  • Tonio

    Implicit in this type of OWS-bashing is the belief that individuals deserve all the credit or blame for their level of wealth, as if life were a competition. Since we can deduce from observation that the vast majority of the things that affect our lives are beyond our individual control, why do you think the Just World Fallacy persists? Female jurors are more likely to suspect that a rape victim provoked her attacker, and it’s been theorized that this is denial of the fact that they’re just as vulnerable to being raped. Is the Just World Fallacy a similar denial of a broader vulnerability?

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I have been in situations where a man has wanted to punch me in the face. On one occasion it was someone in the throes of a nervous breakdown who was lashing out at the person closest to him. In another it was a sexist arsehole who was enraged that a woman contradicted his debating point in front of his friends. 

    I cannot say that I follow.  You can do something that might make someone want to punch you in the face, but that does not mean that all punches to the face are your fault.  As Tonio mentioned, a lot of what happens to us is outside our realm of control.  Maybe we brought a punching on ourselves, and maybe we happened to be a convenient target for someone who really wanted something, anything, to punch.  The circumstances you describe seem more of the later than the former.  

    For the nervous breakdown, I recommend a hooked leg to knock him over and restrain him on the ground until he calms down.  The the sexist arsehole, hell, let him take a swing, then take one right back and double-down on the beating.  Make sure he is further humbled in front of his friends.  

    I never claimed that I was not an oppressor.  Indeed, as has been discussed, I have no moral obligation to tolerate intolerance.  A refusal to resort to violence will only lead to oppression by those who do not have such compunctions.  It is ugly, but I have been pushed around too much and tried to ignore them and wish them to go away for too long to think otherwise.  

    If society wanted me to be programmed otherwise, then I would have been isolated and tortured until I had broken in another manner.  

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    The the sexist arsehole, hell, let him take a swing, then take one right
    back and double-down on the beating.  Make sure he is further humbled
    in front of his friends.

    So I use violence as a means to humiliate someone? I become what I hate? No. Violence is not OK.

    If society wanted me to be programmed otherwise, then I would have been
    isolated and tortured until I had broken in another manner

    “Violence is the only solution” thinking again.

    Maybe instead society would attempt the reprogramming via a number of its members repeatedly insisting in discussions with you that violence is not OK.

  • Anonymous

    Which one?  I’d say “rich” would have to mean “for everyone” so we shouldn’t have so much a income skew.  Most democratic…maybe?  Depends on how you look at it?  And considering we haven’t hit even 3/4ths of the population voting, I’m not sure that even counts.  “Best” is the most subjective- I’d say we have the best vision, we just haven’t lived up to it yet.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I was going for richest, as a gross measure. Definitely not anywhere near the most equitable, but I think common understanding views equity as a separate factor to richness.

    No way in hell most democratic – which is about a lot more than voting participation rate (and even then, the electoral system is based on a terrible counting method).

    Best is definitely the most subjective, but as I consider outcomes more important than aspirations, and the US falls flat compared to many developed countries on a whole raft of outcomes, I don’t think you’re in the running there either.

    But you do have the most cash.

  • Anonymous

    Did Chuck Colson ever run over his grandmother with his car? He said he would under the right circumstances. I’m hoping she died of natural causes if she’s not alive today. Chuck Colson was a real gem, but not everyone’s dream grandchild.

    Don’t rule out violence. I’m a Jew, and I’m alive today because a lot of people on our side did nasty things to the Nazis rather than “doing business” with them and seeing  where that would lead. If you are black in this country, you are not a slave because of violence. One doesn’t trample out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored without violence. The U.S. and the Commonwealth nations are republican democracies because of violence, though only the U.S. had to mount a violent revolution. Even Gandhi was in favor of violence in his expressed desire for the Japanese to kick the British out of India. He just didn’t want to sully his hands with it.

    I don’t think violence should be one’s first recourse, but it has a place, and it works.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    What are the “right circumstances” to run over your grandmother with a car?!?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    So I use violence as a means to humiliate someone? I become what I hate? No. Violence is not OK.

    Also, how is that not “might makes right”? What if the sexist asshole guy won the fight? Wouldn’t that validate what he’s saying, in his mind? Even if you accept that violence is a good response in this situation, there’s no guarantee that the “good guys” are going to win. This isn’t the Middle Ages where you can pretend to believe that God will make sure that the innocent party wins. Sometimes people are strong and evil.

  • Anonymous

    If I remember correctly, Colson was the Watergate conspirator who said he would run over his grandmother with his car if it would help get Nixon reelected. Art Buchwald, the satirist had a field day with this:
    “Who’s there?”
    “It’s me, your grandson Chuck”
    “Go away, and take your car with you.”

    It was an interesting era for following politics.

    - Seth

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Also, how is that not “might makes right”? What if the sexist asshole guy won the fight? Wouldn’t that validate what he’s saying, in his mind? Even if you accept that violence is a good response in this situation, there’s no guarantee that the “good guys” are going to win. This isn’t the Middle Ages where you can pretend to believe that God will make sure that the innocent party wins. Sometimes people are strong and evil.

    You say that as if the act is contingent on defeating the opponent.  If someone is evil and strong, does that make it morally wrong to oppose them because they might defeat you?  Win or lose, the act of opposing evil is ennobling in itself.  If I die fighting that good fight, then I have died well.  Some things are worth fighting for, regardless of whether one wins or loses.  For example, opposing sexism is a cause worth fighting for, and I will use whatever weapons are at my disposal to wage that fight.  Usually those weapons are education, and inspirational figures in media.  And sometimes, yes, those weapons might be my own two fists if I have to use them.  

    Oh sure, I will pick my battles.  I am not so pugnacious that I will jump into every chance I see to pick a fight, but the idea that I will stop fighting, or give up just because I cannot be assured total victory, is not an idea that I am inclined to entertain.  On a global level, I do not expect to eradicate sexism in my lifetime, it is not a war that I can expect to “win”, but that is no reason not to fight it.  I do not need to defeat my opponent, I just need to hurt them.  Even if I parish, just being able to do that will give them pause, remind them that they are not invulnerable, and force them to exercise more restraint in the future.  

    In the end, I call that a win, even if I “lose”.  

  • Anonymous

    “What are the ‘right circumstances’ to run over your grandmother with a car?!?”

    If you’re a Republican/Teabagger and she isn’t. (And that applies to all other non-Republican/Teabaggers as well.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X