Topple his statue...

Bernie is in good company...

She asked...

...that ALL activists (to include gay activists and black activists) add the fight for women's rights to their activism dockets. (You don't have to be gay or black to be involved in the fight for equality and basic human rights.)

If someone hearing Patricia Arquette's comment is already fighting for women's equality then her backstage comment doesn't apply to them. Her request for solidarity only applies to those people who are not already on board with equality for women, and activists with a narrow purview of which causes are important enough to fight for.

Black women are already included in Patricia Arquette's "us" and "we" category of "all women" by virtue of their gender. Unless there are black women who've been actively campaigning against equality for women, the call for solidarity by Patricia Arquette does not apply to them, since they are already "us." "That we've all fought for"… "that we've" includes black feminists. "…to fight for us now"… "us" includes ALL women of every stripe and hue.

Her initial call for equal wages for women, while onstage, sets the parameters for deciphering additional comments on the same topic backstage. If she hadn't already established intent with her first comment, then her backstage comment might be open to interpretation…but she did, and it isn't.

Without the first comment, I can see how the second comment might be misconstrued, but we DO have the first comment which sets the rules by which the second comment is to be judged. Anyone not understanding the thrust of the backstage comment need look no further than the onstage comment to correctly decipher and parse intent.

She didn't demand anything. She merely requested solidarity from those who are already inclined toward activism. She requested support in the fight for women's rights. She didn't qualify that statement by saying "white women's rights," she said, "all women's rights" regardless of straight, gay, black or white. Her fight is for wage equality for ALL women, period.

She's asking that ALL people join in the fight for women's equality. If you're already on board, then her words were not directed at you. But, if you are female, her goal for women's equality is meant to benefit YOU, regardless of color or sexual propensity.

She didn't imply that other oppressed groups have "won their victories." She didn't say "you owe us." That's you projecting.

She's fighting for equality for ALL women, including you, while you're doing nothing but tear her down for her efforts.

You might be the one that needs to take a step back and reevaluate.

TYY

Patricia Arquette said "women." She didn't say "white women."

Why is the internet re-framing Patricia Arquette's plea for equality for ALL women by suggesting that she somehow excluded LGBTQ women and women of color?

She didn't do that. She didn't marginalize gay women and women of color to the exclusion of straight white women. She spoke on behalf of ALL women. She asked that other oppressed groups join in the fight for women's equality.

She's not a racist. She isn't a homophobe. She didn't say "white women only" when referring to wage disparity between men and women.

I am sincerely at a loss as to why Patricia Arquette's words have been twisted and skewed into a huge morass of cognitive dissonance and challenged perception.

TYY

I can't breathe...

Finally...

The 'for profit' prison system...

...is disproportionately affecting young black men and people of color in general.

Americans who live in a vacuum are averting their eyes to avoid facing the harsh reality that corporate America is grooming certain segments of society for a life behind bars. It begins at the grade school level and it's wreaking havoc on minority families and entire segregated communities in general.

I wish Obama would use his last two years in office to take a definitive stand against the disparity of racial injustice and police brutality in America; and the mushrooming war on poor people and minorities.

Endless respect and gratitude goes to the people of #Ferguson for daring to stand up and make their voices heard in the face of violent, militarized police retaliation.

TYY

Here's my revolutionary costume for today...

Amnesty International: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson

On the Streets of America: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson

Report - October 24, 2014

"Every day that Michael Brown doesn't receive justice, we are reminded that it's open season on black lives in Ferguson. How are we supposed to live everyday knowing that and not go crazy?" - Anonymous protester

<snip>

This briefing document outlines some of the human rights concerns witnessed by Amnesty International and a series of recommendations that need to be implemented with regards to the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers and the policing of protests.

<snip>

Irrespective of whether there was some sort of physical confrontation between Michael Brown and the police officer, Michael Brown was unarmed and thus unlikely to have presented a serious threat to the life of the police officer. As such, this calls into question whether the use of lethal force was justified, and the circumstances of the killing must be urgently clarified.

Also troubling is Missouri's broad statute on the use of deadly force. Amnesty International is very concerned that the statute may be unconstitutional and is clearly out of line with international standards on the intentional use of lethal force as it goes well beyond the doctrine that lethal force only be used to protect life.

Racial discrimination and excessive use of police force nationwide
The shooting of Michael Brown highlighted on a national level the persistent and widespread pattern of racially discriminatory treatment by law enforcement officers across the United States, including unjustified stops and searches, ill treatment and excessive, and sometimes lethal, use of force.

Much much more: http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/on-the-streets-of-america-human-rights-abuses-in-ferguson?page=show