
Commentaries
Health Care Insurance Reform, Politics
and Prejudice
In the wake of last weeks summit on
health-care insurance reform President Obama is expected to
demonstrate his willingness to compromise by making some
incremental concessions to Republicans in a speech from the
White House on Wednesday. President Obama may propose
strengthening efforts to limit waste and abuse, expand efforts
to close the Medicare Part-D prescription drug “Donut Hole” for
seniors, and improve choice and portability of insurance
coverage for individuals. He may also consider a plan to rework
the way malpractice claims are adjudicated.
These efforts will not win over any new
Republican converts but should provide cover for some
conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats who have found it difficult to
support the Presidents health-care reform efforts.
Unfortunately, instead of working
towards a solution, both sides have remained firm in their
respective positions.
There are philosophical as well as
practical issues at play here. Philosophically, the key issue in
the health-care debate is the same issue that has divided this
country for 223 years. How much power should be given to the
national government? Should the national government play a role
in ensuring that all American’s have access to health-care and
if so to what degree. Practically, at the heart of this debate
are partisan politics, inept democratic leadership and to some
degree, racial prejudice.
In 1787 it became clear to the leaders in
this country that the Articles of Confederation were no longer
effective and a new form of government would have to be
developed. One of the first issues to be resolved was government
structure. Would there be a weak national government with strong
states or a strong national government with weak states? Patrick
Henry of Virginia feared that a
strong national government would result in monarchy taking the
American people back into the type of government they had fought
to overthrow. Alexander Hamilton of NY saw the need for a
strong national government.
What the framers of the Constitution
quickly came to understand was that in order to move forward in
the best interest of the nation (Africans in America excluded);
compromise would rule the day. As a result, a Constitution was
written and a stronger, enduring, and prosperous government was
formed.
Today the opponents of the
Obama administration’s plan for health care insurance reform are
using distortions and partisan politics to control the debate.
By injecting abortion, coverage for illegal immigrants and other
wedge issues into the debate, they are diverting attention away
from what’s best for the majority of the American people.
This is evidenced by the statements of
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who according to McClatchy newspapers,
has vowed to make health care Obama's "Waterloo." DeMint
has compared the United States under
Obama to 1930's Nazi Germany under Hitler; and cast the heated
health care fight as "a real showdown between socialism and
freedom...” Comparing President Obama to Hitler adds nothing to
the debate. Calling the effort to provide affordable health care
to more Americans a threat to our freedom and labeling
government involvement in the process “socialism” is a
deliberate distortion of reality intended to undermine the
process and frighten Americans.
At the Health Care Summit Congressman
Boehner (R-OH), Senators McConnell (R-KY), McCain (R-AZ) and
others failed to offer one viable recommendation to move the
dialogue forward. Instead they
continued to parrot prepared talking points and
urged the President to
"start over" with a "clean
sheet of paper" and take a "step-by-step approach."
The democratic leadership has been unable
or unwilling to take charge and champion the issues of this
debate that the American people elected them to accomplish. If
not correct on the facts, Senator McCain (R-AZ) was correct on
the perception of “unsavory deal making” with states and special
interests. These deals resulting in geography dictating the type
of health care Americans will receive and their inability to
purchase lower cost pharmaceuticals from Canada.
Finally, one can not ignore the impact that
racial prejudice has in this debate. As former President Carter
stated, “an overwhelming portion” of animosity towards President
Obama is “based on the fact that he is a black man.” Former
Republican congressman Tom Tancredo opened the Tea Party
convention by calling for a reinstatement of Jim Crow type
literacy tests for voters and saying,
"This
is our country,…Let's take it back."
Take it back from whom? Researchers from Stanford
University and the University of California at Irvine have found
that negative views of the president do correlate to racial bias
and this racial bias correlates to negative reactions to his
health-care reform efforts.
This is not politics; interested parties,
honestly debating the distribution of limited public resources.
This is ideology, ignorance, ineptitude, partisanship, and
bigotry getting in the way of best interest of the American
people.
© 2010 InfoWave Communications, LLC.
Running from Race Leaves You Mired in
its Middle
On August 10, 2008 The New York Times
published an article by Matt Bai entitled Is Obama the End of
Black Politics? The premise of the article was that as the
Democratic party was poised to deliver its nomination for the
nation’s highest office to an African-American, this some how
signaled the end of Black politics. As candidate Obama won
primary after primary,
NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr
saw these victories as an indication that America had moved into
a “post-racial era”. He defined it as an “era where civil
rights veterans of the past century are consigned to history and
Americans begin to make race-free judgments on who should lead
them.”
All too often writers, journalists,
reporters, and analysts, demonstrate their ignorance of African
American people and the African American experience by trying to
assign simplistic answers to very complex problems, events, and
circumstances. They also fail to connect the dots and discuss
racism in its current context making it more difficult to move
beyond it. By running from race, too many Americans remain
mired in the middle of it.
On Saturday, March 20 as Rep. John Lewis
(D-GA) was leaving the Cannon office building he encountered
members of the Tea Party protesting the health care reform
bill. As the protesters exchanged words with the Congressman,
some of them called him a “nigger”.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO),
who was a few yards behind Lewis was also called a “nigger” and
was spit on. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a “faggot”.
Forty-five years after civil rights
activist John Lewis was assaulted and battered to within an inch
of his life on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, Congressman Lewis is
verbally assaulted by protesters as he walks towards the capitol
to do “the peoples” work. Rep.’s Cleaver and Frank, both of
whom have been engaged in the battle for equality in America
were insulted as they attempted to engage in the democratic
process.
Both Lewis and Cleaver have chosen to
not make an issue of this and to not press charges against the
perpetrators. Cleaver’s spokesman Danny Robert said, “He didn’t
want to draw attention to the whole thing. We did not want to
make a big deal about it. The bigger issue that day was the
health-care debate.”
For as much as I admire the work and
sacrifices of these three men, I take issue with their decision
to “…not want to make a big deal about it…” It is not a big
deal; it’s a huge deal! Those bigoted, prejudice, and ignorant
protestors were doing more than assaulting and insulting three
individuals. They were attacking every African American and
homosexual in America. In terms of Lewis and Cleaver, this is
racism (white supremacy) at its core. For Frank, it’s out right
hatred and they and those in main stream media need to connect
the dots and expose it for what it is.
Today, too many of the opponents of
the Obama administration’s plans for health care insurance
reform are using code language, distortions, violence, and
partisan politics to control the debate and much of their ire is
racially motivated. Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo
opened the Tea Party convention by calling for a reinstatement
of Jim Crow type literacy tests for voters and saying, "This is
our country,…Let's take it back." During President
Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress on health care,
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted at the President “you lie”.
Wilson would have never thought to do that to any of the former
Presidents. Numerous cartoons have featured President Obama
and/or First Lady Michelle as monkeys, terrorists, or Muslim
suicide bombers.
Others have decided to remove themselves from the debate and
turn to violent direct action and/or the threat of such. A sense
of very dangerous “group think” is beginning to manifest itself
with people throwing bricks and rocks and talking more and more
about using guns to defend their “positions”.
According to the Washington Post the FBI and other law
enforcement authorities are investigating who smashed windows at
the headquarters of the Monroe County
Democratic Committee in Rochester, NY and the district office in
Niagara Falls of
Rep. Louise Slaughter's
(D-NY). Rep. Slaughter also received a message threatening to
assassinate the children of law makers who support health care
reform.
In
Wichita, Kansas a brick was thrown through a window at the
Sedgwick County Democratic headquarters. Attached
to that brick was a note
bearing
anti-health care and anti-President Obama messages.
Former GOP VP nominee and former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin
has posted a map on her Facebook page. This map uses gun sights
to indicate congressional seats that her PAC is “targeting” for
the mid-term elections. At the Tea Party “code red” rally
against health care reform this past weekend Reps. Steve King
(IA), Michele Bachmann (MN), and Mike Pence (IN) were featured
speakers. At this rally, signs stating “Warning: If Brown
can’t stop it, a Browning can,” referring to Sen. Scott
Brown (R-MA) and a Browning firearm were being carried. This is
very dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric for any one use,
especially a former VP nominee of a major political party and
rallies where Republican members of congress are featured
speakers. The Republican Party can not court, encourage, and
support such irrational, irresponsible, terrorist behavior on
the one hand and try to disassociate themselves from it on the
other.
Even though the
president wants to stay as far away from the race issue as
possible, Representatives Lewis and Cleaver should not give
those Tea Party racists a pass. They should be giving
interviews and engaging in dialogue to expose these people for
the dangers that they are. The members of main stream media
should be reporting on the Lewis, Cleaver, and Frank attack in
the larger context of the hatred being espoused by some of the
Tea Party movement and other conservatives. They should be
asking the likes of Reps. such as King, Bachman, and Pence to
explain their connections to such fringe elements of the
American electorate. By running from race, America
remains mired in the middle of it.
According to Rep. Pete King
(R-NY), President Barack Obama is "probably the most threatened
president ever …" Most of these threats are not because of
health care reform, the stimulus bill, or the problems with
Israel. There are still too many people in America that refuse
to allow him to govern as The President; they will oppose him at
every turn because he’s an African American who is The
President.
© 2010 InfoWave Communications, LLC.
Unemployment Statistics: A Tale of Two
Cities
The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released employment
data for April. According to the Labor Department U.S.
employers added more jobs in April that at any time in the past
four years. Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 290,000 but
the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.9 percent as 805,000
formerly long-term unemployed jumped back into the labor market
According to
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics,
“The U.S. economy has "turned the corner," but it will still
take up to five years to regain all the jobs lost since the
economic collapse…”
This is encouraging news on a number of
fronts. However, a closer look reveals some frightening
realities that lay behind the positive indicators. For African
Americans in many regions of this country the numbers reflect a
tale of two cites, "It was the best of
times, it was the worst of times; … it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair.” In March 2010 while the
unemployment rate for the country was 9.7 percent; the national
unemployment rate for African Americans was almost double at
16.6 percent. On the state level, according to the Economic
Policy Institute’s 4Q 2009 numbers, the unemployment rate in
Michigan for African Americans was 22.3 percent, California
15.5, and New York 14.6.
As disturbing as the unemployment numbers
are for African Americans, they don’t begin to tell the whole
story. When these numbers are viewed in the context of other
factors such as the disparity in median family income, wealth
accumulation, and poverty levels they indicate that an
entrenched systemic social policy problem exists for African
Americans that a jobs recovery will not address.
According to 2007 U.S. Census Data, White
families made 62% more than Black families. The median family
income for White families was $54,920 while the median income
for Black families was $33,916. Based on data from the 2002
Survey of Income and Program Participation, White median
household net worth was about $90,000, compared to a mere $6,000
for the median Black household. 8.2% of White families were
(this is data from 2007) living in poverty compared to 24.5% of
Black families. As Dr. Ronald Walters explains in White
Nationalism Black Interests,
these indicators of greater social instability loom large for a
substantial portion of the Black community that has not
benefitted from the economic system.
Some members of the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are expressing concern that
they are not receiving a significant level of support from
President Obama and his staff, claiming that the administration
has not done enough for African Americans. According to
POLITICO, House Judiciary
Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said that White House
officials are “not listening” to black lawmakers and Rep. Alcee
Hastings (D-FL) said “there’s not enough attention to poor
people.”
According to the Washington Post, other members of the
CBC such as Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO) and Donald Payne (D-NJ)
are expressing their frustration regarding how to address these
issues. “How can you express criticism of the administration
without eventually confronting the man at the top?” The article
continues, “Some (CBC members) say that any public airing of
their disagreements with Obama runs the risk of politically
damaging the president and ultimately slowing the advancement of
other African Americans.”
Why is
holding the president accountable a problem? What are members
of the CBC afraid of? With 24.5% of African American families
living in poverty, a median household net worth of $6,000, and
a national unemployment rate for African Americans almost
double the national average, how much slower can African
American’s advance? Are the same figures that were unacceptable
for a white president somehow acceptable under an African
American president?
Why should they be concerned
about political damage to a president who by their own admission
feels that key members of the Obama administration, “have
taken them for granted, in the belief that Black members of
Congress have no stomach for a fight with the country's first
Black president.” According to POLITICO, A CBC aide said that
senior aid Valerie Jarrett has “canceled lunch plans with the
caucus eight times and that her office is slow to return calls
and pays more attention to longtime supporters than to senior
CBC members.”
Since the CBC is so frustrated and
confused, here are a few suggestions for them to consider
proposing to President Obama:
1)
Work with the SBA and insurers such as AIG to back
African American owned business that are having difficulty
meeting bonding requirements as they pursue government contracts
(stimulus package projects) as prime and subcontrators.
2)
Resurrect the '98 Clinton Administration SBA plan to
enhance access to debt/equity capital via SBA guaranteed loans
for African
American owned
businesses.
3)
The Senate and House Small Business Committees should
mandate that the SBA enforce
federal agency subcontracting plans. Liquidated
damages have
rarely if ever been enforced against a non compliant government
contractor. CBC members probably have numerous African American
owned firms in their districts that would benefit from
enforcement efforts in federal contracting.
Members of the CBC chair
four
committees and 18 subcommittees. If they can not leverage their
power and effectively develop legislation and social policy that
address the systemic ills impacting African American progress,
an increasing number will continue to experience the worst of
times in a season of darkness.
© 2010 InfoWave Communications, LLC.
Now State Reaction to Illegal
Immigration Should Matter to African Americans
On April 23,
2101 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Arizona Senate
Bill 1070 (SB 1070) the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
Neighborhoods Act”. SB
1070’s stated intent is “…to discourage and deter the unlawful
entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons
unlawfully present in the United States.”
This will be accomplished by making it
a misdemeanor for a person to lack proper immigration
paperwork. It also
requires police officers; if they form a 'reasonable suspicion'
that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's
immigration status.
Individuals
unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in
the United States could be arrested, jailed for up to six months
and fined $2,500.
Organizations
such as
the National Coalition of Latino
Clergy and Christian Leaders, the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the
National Immigration Law Center are challenging SB 1070 on
constitutional grounds as well as fears that it will lead to the
racial profiling of Hispanics. In Mexico City, Mayor Marcelo
Ebrard announced he would try to join lawsuits seeking to
overturn the law, with a statement from his office calling the
measure "a planned Apartheid against Mexicans." It is not only
Hispanics but the historic victims of racial profiling, African
Americans, that should also be concerned.
Historically, immigration has fallen
under the jurisdiction of the national government, not the
states. Supreme Court precedent supports the position that the
role of controlling immigration and enforcing immigration law is
reserved for the national government.
State laws seeking to regulate
immigration status are always subject to preemption challenges
given the federal government's plenary power (full, absolute
authority as broad as is required in a given case) over
immigration and nationality.
Unfortunately, as the Supreme Court has become more
conservative, it has demonstrated an interest in ignoring
precedent in order to further the ideological objectives of its
majority. This new direction has become a source of concern to
those groups that have historically looked to the court and
government to protect their civil rights. The court's five
conservative members recently overruled two important precedents
about the First Amendment rights of corporations by allowing
corporations and unions to spend freely to influence elections. The
court also recently
intervened in a gay-marriage trial in San Francisco after
conservative lawyers complained of a judge's plan to permit a
limited public viewing of the courtroom testimony.
According to President Obama,
conservative judges are cloaking their activism in legal
theories like "original intent". What should be of
utmost concern to members of the African American community is
the question of how will conservative courts address the age old
questions of “states rights”? Will the state of Arizona be
allowed to enact laws usurping national government authority?
If so, will other states be allowed to enact laws that target
ethnic and/or religious groups that are perceived to be
disproportionately engaged in undesirable activities?
A courts ruling in favor of SB
1070 could bring the issue of “state rights” back into play at
the expense of African Americans and other groups.
If SB
1070 is found to be constitutional, what will happen in Chicago
as that city struggles to get a handle on the recent explosion
of murder and mayhem and the alarming levels of violence among
its schoolchildren? Will the state of Illinois be allowed to
“stop and frisk” and detain individuals simply because law
enforcement believes a particular individual fits a certain
profile? Will New York City be allowed to restrict citizen’s
access to public transportation and public spaces based on
appearance and profile as it struggles with a spate of high
school stabbings, deadly subway brawls and “wilding” in Times
Square?
As
President Obama considers his next Supreme Court nominee, it is
issues such as immigration law in Arizona and how the court will
decide issues such as “states rights” that should factor into
who he nominates. American’s can ill afford a president who
will yield to the threats of the conservative agenda such as
The National Review’s
assertion that “the question for conservatives will
be not whether but how to oppose Obama’s nominee,” and Senator
Lamar Alexander’s confirmation that he is
refusing to rule out a filibuster.
As a former constitutional law professor, Obama, the
“professor-in-chief” must take the lead in educating American’s
on judicial temperament, the importance of precedent, and
clearly define judicial activism. Conservatives do not have the
monopoly on American values and broader interpretations of
constitutional constructs do not necessarily equate to “judicial
activism”.
Americans can not allow conservative fear-mongering, fears of
terrorism, the loss of jobs and xenophobia to direct them
towards simplistic misguided remedies to very complex social
problems. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those
willing to give up essential liberty for temporary security
deserve neither and will lose both”.
African Americans need to stand up and take notice. A national
backlash against illegal immigrants could have a disastrous
ripple effect on everyone’s civil rights and liberties.
© 2010
InfoWave Communications, LLC.
In the President’s “Teachable Moment”
What Should We Learn?
This afternoon, President Obama, Sgt. James
Crowley, and Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. will sit down at the
White House to “clear the air.” The President’s objective is to
bring the parties together and through their personal
interaction move the national dialogue on race forward. In the
President’s “Teachable Moment” what should we learn? We should
learn how one’s perceptions can color their reality. We should
also learn the danger of trying to contort a non-race based
issue into a dialog or valuable lesson on race.
In all of the accounts of
Dr. Gates’ arrest there has never been any indication that Sgt.
Crowley used racial slurs, epithets, gestures or any other means
to inject “race” into the arrest. Even Dr. Gates’ attorney,
Charles Ogletree, when asked about racial profiling during a CNN
interview said, “I’ve never said anything about racial
profiling; you’ve never heard those words from me, it’s a case
of bad judgment…we won’t know about the race element until all
of the facts are in.”
How did the element of race enter into the
equation of Dr. Gates’ arrest? He injected it! In a July 21,
2009 interview in The Root, Dr. Gates said, “I
can’t believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge
police force would treat any African-American male this way…and
more importantly I’m astonished that it could happen to any
citizen of the United States…” Dr. Gates’ turned an
investigation of a breaking and entering and his subsequent
arrest for disorderly conduct into a case of racial profiling.
While Sgt. Crowley is
looking at Dr. Gates’ Harvard ID, Dr. says in The Root
interview, “Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head:
A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white
person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and
this black man was me.” How could Dr. Gates read Sgt. Crowley’s
mind? Dr. Gates perceptions were beginning to color his sense
of reality and turning an investigation of a breaking and
entering into a case of racial profiling.
In 2005 the ACLU provided a
definition of what racial is and is not. The definition reads
as follows, "Racial Profiling" refers to the
discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of
targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the
individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin…
Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement
agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of
the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other
identifying factors.” Dr. Gates was not targeted based upon his
race or any other characteristic. He was simply the individual
in the home where a breaking and entering had been reported.
Sgt. Crowley was not passing by Dr.
Gates’ home and upon seeing (profiling) a Black man in a White
neighborhood decided to investigate this seemingly strange
occurrence. Sgt. Crowley was responding to a reported breaking
and entering at Dr. Gate’s residence. Most police officers will
tell you, “safety first; better to be tried by twelve than
carried by six.”
What should we learn from the
President’s “Teachable Moment?” We should learn that contrary
to popular belief, President Obama’s election in no way signaled
a move into a “post-racial” America. Racial profiling is a
reality for African Americans, Latino’s, and Muslims and the
election of a Black President can not make that go away.
When Sgt. Crowley appeared on Dr.
Gates’ porch and asked Dr. Gates to step outside, Dr. Gates
said, “All
the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I
was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said,
‘No, I will not.’”
Dr. Gates’ instinct was real. His fear
was based on a history of lynching’s, cross-burnings, and black
men disappearing into the night at the hands of the Klan.
Dr. Gates’ instinct was a reaction to a
recent history of police perceptions of threat resulting in the
shooting deaths of people of color. On January 1, 2009 Oscar
Grant, an African American, was killed by a white BART police
officer while hand-cuffed and face down; May 28, 2009, NYPD
off-duty officer Omar Edwards, an African American, was killed
by a white fellow officer who mistook him for a perpetrator;
November 27, 2006, Sean Bell, an African American was mistakenly
killed by NYPD; January 12, 2001 plain clothes officer with the
Oakland, CA Police Department, Willie Wilkins, an African
American was killed by a fellow officer who mistook him for a
perpetrator; January 28, 2000 plainclothes police officer Cornel
Young was killed in Rhode Island by a white fellow officer and
academy classmate who mistook him for a perpetrator; March 15,
2000 Patrick Dorismond, a Haitian immigrant was mistakenly
killed by the NYPD; February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo, a Guinean
immigrant was mistakenly killed by the NYPD.
In spite of the reality of racial
profiling, lynchings, cross burnings, and the more recent
history of police shootings, Dr. Gates allowed his fear and
instincts to color his reality. By his own account, he injected
race into the circumstance.
What should we learn from the
President’s “Teachable Moment?” We should learn that contrary
to Matt Bai’s 2008 article in The New York Times,
President Obama is not the end of Black Politics. As long as
unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the
rate of White Americans (four times in New York) and as long as
studies show that a Black family's income is a little more than
half that of a similar White family's income, Black politics
will be alive and well.
There’s a lot that can be learned about
race and racial profiling in America from President Obama’s
“Teachable Moment”. When a person views a problem as a nail,
their solution will probably be a hammer, even if the problem is
a screw.
It’s good that Dr. Gates’ arrest has become the
catalyst for the dialog on race. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong
example to use.
© 2009 InfoWave
Communications, LLC.
So Much Progress and Yet So Far to Go
On February 12,
2009, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) marked its 100th anniversary. The NAACP is
America’s oldest,
largest and most widely recognized grassroots–based civil rights
organization.
The NAACP is an organization with a unique
vision and mission. As stated on their website, its
vision is to ensure a society in which all individuals have
equal rights and there is no racial hatred or racial
discrimination. Its mission is to ensure the political,
educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all
persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial
discrimination.
With the election
of an African American President there are those who are asking
if the NAACP is still relevant. In a “New America” a so-called
“post racial” America, is the NAACP still needed? Since the
founding of the NAACP on February 12, 1909, so much progress has
been made and yet, there is so far to go.
Their literature
states that in 1905, the NAACP's stated goal was to secure for
all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an
end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal
adult male suffrage, respectively.
Yes, slavery has
ended in America, people of color can secure equal protection of
the law, and vote, but there are miles to go before we sleep.
The main barrier for African Americans politically and
otherwise has always been and continues to be race and the
manner in which race is used to define and diffuse issues. Yes,
class is a factor as well but race is still the dominant
variable in the equation.
The most recent evidence of this played
itself out on June 29, at The Valley
Swim Club, a private swim club in Huntington Valley, PA.
Creative Steps Day Camp, a
Northeast Philadelphia children’s day
camp that services primarily the African American and Latino
communities signed a contract with and paid The Valley Swim Club
more than $1900 for one day of swimming a week for the summer
session.
When the children
arrived for their first day of swimming they were not well
received. According to news reports, camper Dymire Baylor
stated, "I heard one lady saying 'Why's there so many black kids
here' cause she said she was afraid that we might do something
to her child." NBC Philadelphia.com reported, "When the
minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children
immediately exited the pool,"
Horace Gibson,
parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool
attendants came and told the black children that they did not
allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave
immediately."
Another camper,
Jabriel Brown said the he felt the tension all afternoon. He
began to feel better when he recognized a familiar face – a
teacher from his middle school. His sense of security was
quickly dashed when he tried to say hello and the teacher just
ignored him. Brown said, “It made me feel bad…she used to be my
math teacher.”
After the first
day, Creative Steps money was quickly refunded and the campers
were told not to return. Several campers said they heard pool
members making racial remarks during their time inside the
club.
In response to
these events Club president John Duesler
told a Philadelphia television station that several club members
complained because the children fundamentally changed the
“complexion” and “atmosphere" at the pool but that the
complaints didn't involve race. If not race than what? Duesler
later claimed that the campers were removed for safety reasons.
It is also important to note that the representatives of the
swim club have not disputed the facts as stated, merely the
reasons for the actions.
The NAACP has requested the Human Relations
Commission to investigate. The Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission will immediately open an investigation into the
actions of The Valley Swim Club, chairman Stephen A. Glassman
has said, "The rule of law in Pennsylvania is equal opportunity
for all, regardless of race."
W.E.B. DuBois,
founder and general secretary of the
Niagara movement and was among the founders of
the NAACP wrote in 1952, "The problem of the twentieth century
is the problem of the colour line." He was right then and is
correct today. Who would have thought that in 2009, a swim club
in the City of Brotherly Love would revert to the Jim Crow
practices of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s simply because some White
parents are misguided and afraid of what some Black and Latino
swimmers might do to their children?
Do we need the
NAACP? Is the NAACP still relevant?
As long as African American men are
incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of White
men and the incarceration of Black women continues to grow at
record numbers the answer is yes! As long as unemployment among
African American’s is more than twice the rate of White
Americans (four times in NY) and as long as studies show that a
Black family's income is a little more than half that of a
similar White family's income, the answer is yes! As long as
African Americans continue to deal with Driving While Black,
excessive high school dropout rates, and imbalances in health
care, the answer is yes!
Have we made
racial progress in America? Yes, we have; but even with so
much progress we have yet so far to go. We still have miles to
go before we sleep. Dr. Dubois, the problem of the twenty-first
century is the problem of the color line.
© 2009 InfoWave
Communications, LLC.
Empathy vs. Ideology on the Court?
On Tuesday May 26th, President
Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace
retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Before the
President announced his selection he stated he was not just
looking for someone with just “ivory tower learning”; he wanted
“intellectual firepower” as well as a “common touch” and a
“practical sense of how the world works”. He also used the word
“empathy” several times. It did not take long for the critics
to weigh in and challenge the nomination.
What is troubling about the criticism is
that most of it is intentionally not directed at judge
Sotomayor’s record as a jurist and opinions that she has
rendered. Most of the criticism is deliberately based upon
select statements made in speeches or lectures, as was the case
with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They have been contextualized in the
most inflammatory way possible in order to scare white people.
In 2001 judge Sotomayor gave a lecture focusing on
Latino
and Latina Presence in the Judiciary entitled A
Latina Judge's Voice. The focus of her lecture was on the
tensions or conflicts between the cultural diversity that
America professes to appreciate vs. what American’s are willing
to tolerate. She states: “America has a deeply confused
image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation
that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its
importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its
existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must
function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore
these very differences that in other contexts we laud.”
Judge Sotomayor is absolutely correct. She is describing the
hypocrisy of America’s ideals visa vi American’s realities.
In this lecture judge Sotomayor goes on to describe her
background and life experiences and how those experiences have
shaped her existence and perceptions of reality. From there she
goes on to say, in the context of a discussion regarding how,
“…seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have
come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white male”
that “…I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the
richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
How can a court consisting of a majority of jurists who
have never been exposed to the realities of the people that come
before it, reach a better, more informed conclusion than someone
who has lived and understands those realities? Theoretical
constructs vs. practical realities.
She is not saying that she is better than
anyone else or that others are beneath her, as Senator Lindsey
Graham (R-SC) continues to say. She is merely recognizing that
we are all products of our environment and as human beings, “Personal
experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” This
is a reality that too many people, particularly men like Sen.
Graham refuse to appreciate.
Other conservative spokespeople are calling
judge Sotomayor a racist. Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo charged,
“I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things
that are racist in any other context.” Tancredo described
La Raza as a "Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses...”
Rush Limbaugh has said,
“Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and
you might want to say a reverse racist…Obama
is
the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's
appointed one,… she brings
a form of bigotry and racism to the court akin to that embraced
by former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.”
Inherent in the
arguments of Graham, Limbaugh, Tancredo, and others is the
misplaced assertion
that the Supreme Court has been a
bastion of unbiased, non-ideological, race neutral
jurisprudence. Nothing could be further from the truth. All
they and others like them are trying to do is retain the
protections and privilege that they have been able to enjoy for
centuries in America. Their arguments are specious at best.
It is
important to understand some things about the Supreme Court.
The first Justices were appointed in 1789. In the two hundred
and twenty year history of the Court there have been 110
Justices to serve. Of those 110, 98% of the justices have been
male and 98% of the justices have been white. If, as stated in
the Constitution, “judicial Power of the United States shall be
vested in one supreme Court…” can justice truly be served when
the Constitution has primarily been interpreted by white men for
the interests of white men?
It was Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote
in 1857 in the Dread Scott ruling:
"They (African’s in America) had for more
than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior
order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race,
either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that
they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
In 1896 the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation
in public accommodations under the doctrine of “separate but
equal.” Justice Henry B. Brown declared,
"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument
to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the
two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority.
If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act,
but solely because the colored race chooses to put that
construction upon it."
This decision
was handed down by a 7 to 1 vote and remained the standard
doctrine in U.S. law until it was repudiated in the1954 Brown
v. Board of Education decision.
These cases are
just two examples of how the Court has been used to support,
codify, and institutionalize the ideology of white supremacy in
America. The battle continues to
this day. If the Court is as
unbiased, non-ideological,
and race neutral as many would lead people to believe, why did
America need a 13th Amendment to the Constitution to
abolish slavery; a 14th Amendment to grant African’s
in America citizenship, and a 15th Amendment to
provide African American’s the right to vote?
Much ado is also
being made of judge Sotomayor’s
comment that the "court
of appeals is where policy is made." When you
take into account the court’s interpretive powers as well as
judicial review, the court can and does influence and make
policy. By interpreting the provisions of the Constitution,
laws, and policies, the court in effect can change them.
Beginning in the
1870s, intensifying in the 1890s, and through the 1900s, the
Court invalidated laws that regulated child labor, maximum hours
of work, and minimum wages for work. In 1935 and 1936 the Court
struck down 12 congressional laws, nearly nullifying Roosevelt’s
New Deal program. The Court has limited anti-trust laws and the
ability of workers to join unions. These are clear examples of
how the court can legislate through their decisions and not
violate the concept of separation of powers.
Wendy E. Long of the
conservative Judicial Confirmation Network described judge
Sotomayor as a "liberal judicial activist of the first order."
Many will agree that this term is a political assessment used to
inflame public sentiment not a legal one. It is often times
used by individuals and groups to describe a
jurist who renders decisions that they perceive to be against
their limited interests. For example, a judge who finds in favor
of a woman’s right to choose may be viewed by pro-life groups as
activist. This is why many of the groups in opposition to judge
Sotomayor are not opposing her based upon her judicial
decisions. In the one case that conservatives reference, the
Kyl case, judge Sotomayor was a part of three-judge appellate
panel that unanimously upheld established precedent. She was
not legislating from the bench, she was following established
law.
President Obama said he was looking
for an empathetic jurist. Conservatives are using this word to
demonstrate that judge Sotomayor can not be trusted to be
impartial and will interpret the circumstance to fit the law,
not the law to the circumstance.
Empathy is a quality that contributes
to our ability to be human. One’s
ability to use their own experiences
as a basis for understanding the similar experiences of others
assists a person in making fair, just, and rational decisions.
As part of the ruling class and a beneficiary of the ideology of
white supremacy in America it is easy for the Graham’s,
Limbaugh’s, and Tancredo’s
to scoff at a reference to empathy. Those in power, those with
the voice don’t need it.
Those who really
know the history of the Constitution understand that having been
subjected to the injustices of a brutal King, the framers of the
Constitution were empathetic to the concerns of those who
understood the need to protect the rights of the minority from
the tyranny of the majority. That’s why the Bill of Rights was
added to the Constitution. Empathy vs. ideology on the
Court? Give me empathy.
(c) 2009 InfoWave Communications LLC
Afghanistan/Pakistan Where Empires Go to
Die
Under the pretext of responding to the
September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and
Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 under the
banner of operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 41’
told the American people that the US strikes were,
“…designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a
terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military
capability of the Taliban regime…we will make it more difficult
for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate
their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper
into caves and other entrenched hiding places…At the same time,
the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of
America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will
also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and
suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… ”
During the 2008
presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to
immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the
forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al
Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to
win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by
the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in
the American electorate while not leaving himself vulnerable to
the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a
campaign tactic this approach proved to be successful. In
reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest
miscalculations President Obama could make.
After
the historic election of President Obama, many historians and
others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. Some mistakenly saw this election as the
fulfillment of “The Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate
Obama’s “race neutral” approach and stellar oratory with Dr.
King’s.
Today,
critics are asking the question “is the Obama administrations
approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be
their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic
challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s
Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Are the
same mistakes that were based on arrogance, hubris, and a
misplaced sense of empire being made again? Here’s what the Rev.
Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his
speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,
“There is at the
outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the
war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging
in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that
struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for
the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program.
There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the
buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and
eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a
society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never
invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its
poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men
and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.
So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of
the poor and to attack it as such.”
Today,
President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops
and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his
predecessor, President Obama says, "If the Afghanistan
government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go
unchallenged, that country will again be a base for
terrorists." The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total
US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.
President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity
in Pakistan.
In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to
the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as,
"the
most dangerous place in the world... This is not simply an
American problem - far from it. It is, instead, an international
security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in
London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in
Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East,
in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian,
European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to
al-Qaida's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around
the world is at stake."
President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some
ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is the region of
the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where
empires go to die.
The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians
have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.
According to historians, Alexander the Great in 330 B.C.
lost more
men and more animals crossing the Hindu Kush than all his
subsequent campaigns in central Asia. In 1839 the British
invaded Afghanistan; in 1841 after an Afghan revolt, 4,500
British troops withdrew. According to a description published
in the North American Review in 1842,
On the 6th of
January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through
the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day
they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a
fearful slaughter ensued…
In most
recent history, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The initial
deployment of the Soviet 40th Army began in
Afghanistan on August 7, 1978. After nine years of fighting a
US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani backed mujahideen resistance,
the Soviet troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988 and ended on
February 15, 1989.
Since
2001, in spite of President Bush and now President Obama’s noble
speeches and military tactics, the US and its allies have not
“disrupt(ed) the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of
operations”. The US has not been able to successfully “attack
the military capability of the Taliban regime”.
What
the US has done is lost 1147 coalition forces;
US Air Force data shows that
Munitions dropped in Afghanistan have risen 1,100 percent, from
2004 to 2007 tonnage figures jumped from 163 tons to 1,956
tons. According to the United Nations, bombs have killed over
2000 Afghan civilians in 2008, up 40% from 2007. The Associated
Press reports the direct correlation between the rise in Afghan
civilian deaths and anti-American sentiment.
In
terms of dollars, according to recently released pentagon
reports, the price tag for running the war in
Afghanistan/Pakistan will outstrip the cost of the conflict in
Iraq next year. America can not afford this folly. As the Rev.
Dr. King would say, then came the buildup in
Afghanistan/Pakistan and I watched the program broken and
eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a
society gone mad on war…
The US
and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a
terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability
of the Taliban regime…” if more of this effort and money were
spent on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan and
Pakistani people through real humanitarian assistance such as
water, food, medicine, blankets, and building supplies.
The problem with this solution is that
those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in
America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance.
They profit from war. This is why, if America is not smart,
Afghanistan/Pakistan will once again be where empires go to die.
(c) 2009 InfoWave Communications LLC
President Obama's New Approach to a New
World Order?
On September 11, 1990, President George H.W. Bush (Bush 41’)
addressed a joint session of Congress with a speech entitled
“Toward a New World Order”. In this speech he articulated
the United States' objectives for post Cold War
global governance in cooperation with
post-Soviet
states:
Until now, the world
we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire
and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new
world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real
prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston
Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice
and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A
world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate,
is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A
world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home
among all nations.
In the 20th and early 21st
centuries, a number of
world
leaders, such as
Woodrow Wilson,
Winston
Churchill,
Mikhail
Gorbachev,
Henry
Kissinger, and
Gordon Brown,
have used the term "new
world order" to refer to a new period of history
evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the
balance of
power. When President Bush 41’ used the term,
his phrasing sent shock waves through the Christian and secular
hard right world since for decades the phrase has been used to
represent a collectivist One World Government.
Some believe there exists
a powerful and
secretive
group of
globalists
such as the Trilateral Commission, Carlyle Group, International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank
conspiring
to eventually rule the world through a
autonomous
world government. This “New World Order” would replace
sovereign
states and other
checks and
balances in
international
power struggles. Recently, these fears have been
supported by many of the actions and policies implemented under
President George W. Bush (Bush 43’) and his administration.
Actions such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, the increase of
private military contractors, warrantless wiretapping,
extraordinary renditions, secret prisons, torture, and the
suspension of habeas corpus in Guantanamo are seen as evidence
supporting the NWO conspiracy in the new globalized economy.
Against the backdrop of this recent historical context and in
the wake of the dreaded foreign policy blunders of President
Bush 43’, President Barak Obama appeared on the world stage at
the G-20 Summit and held subsequent meetings with European
leaders. At the Summit and in these meetings President Obama
set a new tone for dialogue and diplomacy. He listened, engaged
in constructive dialogue, demonstrated an appreciation for and
understanding of cultural difference and nuance, and apologized
for American arrogance, thereby laying the groundwork for a new
diplomatic approach to a new world order.
A "world order" in which "the principles of
justice and fair play protect the weak against the strong. A
world where the U N is poised to fulfill the historic vision of
its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human
rights find a home among all nations. A world order based on a
truer sense of diplomacy not Bush 43’s unilateral and
destructive sense of “American Internationalism”.
While
in Europe President Obama said, “…Instead
of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with
you to meet common challenges, there have been times where
America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
In Turkey, he called President Bush 43’s
failure to sign the Kyoto global warming pact a "mistake." In
Germany, he admitted to being "jealous" of Europe's high-speed
rail networks and the brevity of its political campaigns.
This message
was well received by European leaders.
France’s President
Sarkozy spoke of a new White House occupant who
wanted to "change the world" and was not concerned only with
narrow American self interest.
In spite of the
positive reception that President Obama received throughout
Europe, many American neo-conservatives called him the
“apologizer-in-chief.” Apologists for President Bush 43’ such as
Charles Krauthammer questioned President Obama’s vision and his
understanding of international diplomacy by writing, “It is
passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own
country’s decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama
will have a lot more decline to celebrate.” According to
the Washington Times, Mary
Matlin, a long time political adviser to both President Bush’s
stated, "From my perspective as a conservative, feel-good
foreign policy is not leadership. It is arrogant and naive at
the same time...And from my perspective as an American citizen,
it is demoralizing. He is going to pound our sense of
exceptionalism out of us if it's the last thing he does."
It was
unreasonable if not foolish to attempt to measure the success of
this first trip by whether or not European leaders would agree
to increase stimulus spending, Russia would agree to help with
Iran, or China would agree to assist with North Korea. What
these critics fail to understand, appreciate, or admit is the
total failure of President Bush 43’s unilateral approach to
foreign policy. Diplomacy is based upon relationships and
relationships are based upon trust. Ignoring the UN, lying to
the world about WMD’s and invading sovereign countries was no
way to make friends and influence people. The benefits from
President Obamas European trip may not be realized for another
year to eighteen months. Rebuilding trust takes time, candor,
and humility.
This
past week Somali pirates seized an American cargo ship and later
took its captain, Richard Phillips hostage. As the Obama
administration worked quietly behind the scenes to solve the
problem, President Obama was criticized for appearing to be
distracted and unconcerned. Others questioned his ability or
seeming inability to handle international crisis.
Then out of the blue, U.S.
Navy Seals freed Captain Phillips. Instead of sending 28,000
soldiers into Mogadishu as President Bush 41’did in 1992 or
chasing warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed as President Clinton did in
1993, the Somali pirates were killed simultaneously by three
Navy snipers. This was a well thought out surgical strike, not
a heavy handed invasion. According to the New York Daily
News,
Vice Adm.
William Gortney, commander of the
Navy's Fifth
Fleet stated, “the standoff came to a head when talks
with the increasingly agitated buccaneers began to get "heated,"
sea conditions worsened and one pirate was seen leveling an
AK-47
at Phillips' back.” Contrary to the faulty assumptions of
President Obamas critics, Vice Adm. Gortney said President Obama
gave commanders "very clear guidance and authority" to take
action when the captain's life was deemed to be in imminent
danger. This sounds more like a President who was actively
engaged and involved, not someone who was, “…distracted…praying
that the crisis would resolve itself quickly…and who would
rather be busy remaking American society than dealing with
foreign problems…” as one of his critics wrote.
As a result of
this steady hand, level head, and measured approach, according
to the Associated Press, Somalia's prime minister Omar
Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke says, “his government has identified
many pirate leaders and would be willing to share that
information with other countries, including the United States,
to get the resources needed to go after them.” Somalia’s
response would have been quite different had President Bush 43’s
unilateral and destructive sense of
“American Internationalism” been employed.
Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez once described President Bush 43’ as
being, “as dangerous as a monkey with a razor blade”. If
international diplomacy is more akin to brain surgery than
rocket science, I prefer to have the surgeon with the
level head
and
steady hand
with the scalpel than the
monkey with the razor.
President Obamas measured, thoughtful, patient, and reasoned
approach in Europe and Somalia indicates a refreshing change in
tactic, possibly resulting in a new approach to a “New World
Order”.
(c) 2009 InfoWave Communications LLC
The RNC and the “Magic Negro”
This past December Republican National
chair candidate John “Chip” Saltsman distributed a CD to fellow
Republican Party officials entitled “We HATE the USA”. One of
the songs on the CD is entitled “Barack the Magic Negro”. It
was written by conservative satirist Paul Shanklin and aired on
Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.
The title of the song is based on a
March 19, 2007 LA Times article entitled Obama the “Magic Negro”
written by David Ehrenstein. In the article Ehrenstein makes
the argument that then Senator Obama lends himself to white
America’s idealized standards of a less-than-real black man.
According to Ehrenstein, “For as with all Magic Negroes, the
less real he seems; the more desirable he becomes.”
The song is a parody of Rev. Al Sharpton
lamenting the fact that much of the national spot light has
shifted away from him and now shines bright on President-elect
Obama. The song (sung to Puff the Magic Dragon) opens with:
Barack the Magic Negro lives in
D.C. The L.A. Times they called him that 'cause he's not
authentic like me... See, real black men like Snoop Dogg or me
or Farrakhan; have talked-the-talk and walked-the- walk, not
come in late and won.
This song is one of forty-one songs on
the CD entitled “We Hate America”. Other titles include Bank of
Amigo; The Stay-Spanglish Banner; Mister Tan Marine Man; and I
am Woman. At a time when the Republican Party is seeking to
re-invent itself and expand its base, America is not well served
by such futile attempts at humor.
What was it about this CD that Saltsman
found so appealing? What is the climate within the Republican
Party that made Saltsman feel comfortable enough as one of their
candidates for chair that he would openly send such a thing to
fellow Party officials? Finally, why do Shanklin and Saltsman
feel the groups being satirized hate America? Is this another
failed attempt, ala Sarah Palin, to define who is really
American?
Saltsman has tried to defend this
“satire”. He thinks that RNC members have the good humor and
good sense to recognize Shanklin’s songs are light-hearted
political parodies. I wonder if Saltsman sent this CD to Gen.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State Rice, or former Attorney
General Gonzalez. If so, did they find it as light-hearted as
Saltsman?
There is so much wrong with Saltsman’s
judgment, his thinking that this is acceptable satire, his cry
of double standard, and the Republican Party’s failure to
condemn this vile attempt at humor that I don’t have enough
space in this column to address them all. Let’s start with
Saltsman himself.
As a candidate to chair a major American
political party, Chip Saltsman should have better sense than to
promote bigoted, divisive, and juvenile attempts at humor. At a
time when America is facing the challenges of record
unemployment and home foreclosures, wars on two fronts, and
other crisis, Saltsman should be focused on welcoming all
Americans into the party and promoting unity, not division. To
mock Rev. Sharpton and insult President-elect Obama does nothing
to make me want to change my party affiliation.
For Saltsman to attempt to rationalize
his insensitivity by saying “Liberal Democrats and their allies
in the media didn’t utter a word about Ehrenstein’s
irresponsible column…” could be considered childish but I expect
better from most children. Ehrenstein’s column may have been a
shallow attempt at analysis and wrong but it was a serious
attempt to explain the “Obama phenomenon” and far from
irresponsible. Ehrenstein (who is black) was never attempting
to smear black men.
What is irresponsible is conservative
satirist Paul Shanklin hijacking Ehrenstein’s column to create a
parody that forwards the notion that Snoop Dogg, Minister
Farrakhan, and Rev. Sharpton are “real black men” while
President-elect Obama is less than black. What’s even more
irresponsible is Republican National chair candidate Chip
Saltsman distributing the CD to party officials and now calling
upon them to “stand up” and defend the indefensible.
The response from within the Republican
Party has been interesting. Saltsman ran Mike Huckabee’s
presidential campaign and his former boss has come to his
defense. Huckabee said, "Chip should have been more careful in
his selection of Christmas gifts, but no one who knows him would
ever suggest that he in any way would purposely disparage other
people,…Chip knows how sensitive such issues are. It shouldn’t
be the main factor in the RNC race." If this was not purposeful
disparagement I don’t know what is. If bigoted attempts at
humor should not be a main factor in the RNC race, what should
be?
Current Republican National Committee
Chairman Mike Duncan who is running against Saltsman and others
for his seat issued the following statement, "The 2008 election
was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more
people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone
would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us
in the right direction." For this response, Duncan has been
accused by some party loyalists as “pandering to the media” and
“throwing a good Republican under the bus.” If Mike Duncan is
pandering to the media, good for him. He’s smart enough to know
crap when he smells it and stay as far away from it as possible.
One of the things that is very
interesting is the response or lack thereof from many African
American members of the Republican Party. Republican apologist
Armstrong Williams’ silence on this issue has been deafening.
Former Maryland Lt. Gov. and current candidate for chair of the
RNC Michael Steele gave a very weak and safe response by stating
the obvious, "Chip knows better," Steele said. "You've got to be
cautious, you've got to be smart, you've got to be appropriate.
And unfortunately in this instance Chip was none of those
things." Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell believes
that Saltsman is a fine individual and qualified for the RNC
leadership position. He is on record as saying, "Unfortunately,
there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of
race. This is in large measure due to President-elect Obama
being the first African-American elected president."
Most people are “hypersensitive” to
being insulted and demeaned. As it relates to African Americans
and the Republican Party one only has to reflect upon recent
history to understand their sensitivity. The Republican Party
has a history of using race to create fear and galvanize their
base. Examples include, the Southern Strategy, Willie Horton,
the attack on affirmative action, tying Harold Ford in Tennessee
to relationships with white women, and the constant quoting of
President-elect Obama’s middle name in a veiled attempt to make
him appear a threat and un-American. With this history one must
ask, can the Republican Party ever become a party of inclusion?
As the Republican Party tries to
reinvent itself and appeal to a broader cross-section of the
electorate, they must come to grips with the reality, words
without deeds ring hollow. The Republican Party lost control of
the House, Senate, and Executive Branch for a number of
reasons. One of which is that over time, reality caught up with
their rhetoric and the two were not consistent. For a party
that claims to be reaching out, Republican National chair
candidate John “Chip” Saltsman’s actions and the party faithful
attempts to excuse them only show us more of the same, and the
American people have already rejected that.
(c) 2009 InfoWave communications, LLC
President-elect Barack Obama -When
Wisdom, Honesty, and Judiciousness No Longer Seem to Matter
It has not taken long for the criticism,
skepticism, and second guessing to begin. Barack Obama has not
even been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States
and his critics on the so-called progressive left are angry that
his cabinet selections suggest a shift to the center or to the
right. Meanwhile, critics on the right claim that his actions in
response to disgraced Illinois Gov. Blagojevich are politically
motivated.
There are few political realities that
Obama’s detractors need to appreciate and respect. There is a
difference between campaigning and governing. During the
primaries both candidates, McCain and Obama played to their
bases in order to win their parties nominations. In the general
election both candidates had to move closer to the center than
their bases preferred in order to have any chance of winning.
Many would argue that McCain’s failure to move closer to the
center, i.e. selecting Gov. Palin as his running mate to placate
the conservative base, cost him dearly.
Now that Senator Obama is
president-elect Obama, he has to focus on governing. He can’t
effectively govern from the progressive left. America is not as
liberal or progressive as the left would like nor as
conservative as the right would claim. These political
realities are compounded by the practical realities of the
housing crisis, banking crisis, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
auto company crisis, etc., etc., etc.
For the most part, president-elect
Obama has chosen to fill his cabinet with competent
administrators and not ideologues. He seems to be focused on
real solutions not theory, conjecture, or philosophy. He is
selecting individuals who understand how Washington works and
will be able to help structure legislation, pass legislation,
and implement effective policy. Obama decided to retain the
services of Robert Gates as defense secretary in order to ensure
continuity in defense strategy in these very perilous times.
While this does not sit well with the progressive left, no one
has greater first hand knowledge of the complex issues that face
America today.
Granted, not all of the individuals
selected have unblemished records. For example, Senator Clinton
or “Billary” voted for the war and brings Bill with her. Much to
the dismay of progressives, during the Clinton administration
Congressman Rahm Emanuel helped to get NAFTA, the Crime Bill,
and welfare reform passed. In private practice Eric Holder has
represented some questionable corporate clients. In spite of
these issues, if president-elect Obama is as strong willed as a
president as he was a candidate, these appointees and others
will be implementing his policies and not allowing the interests
of others to control him.
During the primaries and general
election, Barack Obama was criticized by Senator’s Clinton,
Biden, McCain and pilloried in the media for not having the
requisite experience to “answer the 3:00 AM call” or respond to
a real crisis. Gov. Palin questioned his experience as a
“community organizer” by saying, "I guess a small-town mayor is
sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have
actual responsibilities…" Now that he is selecting experienced
and qualified people to serve in his cabinet, including some of
his former detractors the criticism has changed from a lack of
experience to whether he has abandoned the progressive left.
Some progressives are even calling into question his commitment
to their issues and his honesty.
As if the attacks from the left are not
enough, the right has launched their attack as well. As a
result of Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, being
charged with conspiring to sell president-elect Obama’s
now-vacant Senate seat, political vultures are circling overhead
trying to tie him to the scandal.
In spite of the fact that U.S. Attorney
Patrick Fitzgerald has said prosecutors were making no
allegations that Obama was aware of any scheming; Rep. Eric
Cantor of Virginia is on record as saying, "The serious nature
of the crimes listed by federal prosecutors raises questions
about the interaction with Gov. Blagojevich, President-elect
Obama and other high ranking officials who will be working for
the future president,…" Why does this raise questions when no
connection, direct or indirect has been made? Just as in a time
of war, America is in such dire straights that now is not the
time for partisan “gotcha” politics of past.
In spite of the fact that Blagojevich
himself, is on record having said, "they're (the Obama team) not
willing to give me anything except appreciation," Robert M.
"Mike" Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC),
states "President-elect Barack Obama's comments on the matter
are insufficient at best." President-elect Obama has stated, "I
had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not
aware of what was happening" and the U.S. Attorney has made no
allegations to the contrary. What else is Obama to say? The
truth is its own defense.
Instead of contributing to the media
feeding frenzy, president-elect Obama and his team are being
measured, judicious, and practical in their approach to this
issue. Obama said on Friday, December 12th that he would
release the results of an internal investigation into what
conversations his aides and advisers may have had with
Blagojevich in a matter of days. "What I want to do is to gather
all the facts about any staff contacts that may have taken place
between the transition office and the governor's office," Obama
said. Instead of allowing Obama time to determine the facts,
Duncan levies criticism by saying, “Americans expect the highest
degree of transparency from their elected leaders, rather than
promises of openness on the campaign trail." As chairman of the
RNC Duncan is the spokesperson of the party and speaks for every
Republican who does not say otherwise.
According to the Wall Street Journal,
“President-elect Barack Obama's transition team said it had
completed an internal review of contacts with Illinois Gov. Rod
Blagojevich -- but wouldn't release its findings until Christmas
week, at the request of federal investigators.” In a written
statement released by his office late Monday, U.S. Attorney
Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed that he asked for the delay, saying
he wanted more time to conduct interviews. Conservative
journalist Britt Hume says, “It is curious that Obama has been
so cautious about it. He is a cautious man, but you do wonder,
don't you? Wonder about what? Even though the Obama team does
not have to comply with the request, why would they not?
The one thing that president-elect
Obama and his team can not do is get caught up in the
conservatives questions or the media’s frenzy and start to put
out statements that later prove to be inaccurate. They must
remain disciplined and not allow the desire for short-term
responses to cause long-term problems.
I am in no way trying to insinuate that
president-elect Obama and/or his team are above reproach or
should not be questioned. Democracy demands that our
representatives be held accountable for what they say and what
they do. For the progressive left to question cabinet
appointments and claim that they’ve been abandoned or betrayed
before the first executive order has been signed or the first
piece of legislation proposed is premature, reactionary, and
some what naïve.
For the conservative right to try and
create a story where there is none is just republican politics
as usual. This just demonstrates that they have not learned a
lesson from the recent election; the American electorate is
tired of their politics as usual.
It is important to understand that many
of the causes of the countries problems are grounded in flawed
ideology designed to consolidate power and wealth into the hands
of a few while the majority in this country are left to suffer.
The solutions to these problems will not be grounded in
ideology; they will require vision, wisdom, honesty,
judiciousness, collaboration, and cooperation. All of these are
qualities that president-elect Obama has demonstrated through
out his life and career. If they were good enough to get him
elected president why can’t people be patient enough to see if
they will also help him govern?
Ask not what a President Barack Obama
will do for you; ask what you can do to help a President Barack
Obama address the tremendous issues that this country is facing.
© 2008 InfoWave Communications, LLC.
President-elect Obama – America’s
Struggle in Context
With the election of Illinois Senator
Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States,
American’s have taken a giant leap forward. It has taken this
country 219 years to elect its first African American President
(George Washington was elected in 1789). It is imperative that
this historic moment always be viewed within its proper historic
context.
Since the United States of America was
established with the signing of the Declaration of Independence
on July 4, 1776, America has been a country in conflict.
American’s have struggled to live up to the fundamental
precepts, upon which America was founded,
“We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
People of color have struggled for
their self-evident equality and unalienable rights since the
first “20 & Odd” Blacks arrived on the shores of Jamestown, VA
in August of 1619. Those individuals were traded and or sold
into servitude for food and other supplies.
As I think about President-Elect Obama
and this historic event, my thoughts go to Mt. Vernon, Virginia,
the home of the first President of the United States of America,
George Washington. I wonder what it must have been like to live
at Mt. Vernon in the 18th century. Not in Mt. Vernon as George
or Martha, but at Mt. Vernon as one of their slaves. I don’t
think about the owner of Mt. Vernon; I think about the owned.
While the Washington’s lived there they
extracted from those enslaved people, those human beings, every
ounce of effort and energy that they could. This allowed the
Washington’s and those who looked like them to eat a little
more, stay a little warmer, and enjoy themselves just a little
bit more. Can the tortured souls of those slaves now rest a
little easier with the success of a President-Elect Obama?
As I think about President-Elect Obama
and this historic event, my thoughts go to the Constitution of
this country and three specific provisions, first, Article 1,
Section 2 which read:
"Representatives and direct Taxes
shall be apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective
Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number
of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
other Persons."
This was better known as the Three
Fifths Compromise and was the law of the land until it was
removed by the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
Second, Article 1, Section 9 which
reads,
The Migration or Importation of such
Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year
one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be
imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
Person.
This provision was included in the
Constitution as a compromise to the slave holding states. The
logic being that after 21 years the slave population would be
sustainable by natural birth rates and the importation of slaves
would no longer be necessary.
Third, Article 4, Section 2 which read,
No Person held to Service or Labour in
one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall,
in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged
from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim
of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)
This was better known as the Fugitive
Slave Clause and was the law of the land until it was removed by
the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.
These Constitutional provisions come to
mind since they were the legal and conceptual foundations of the
oppression that Africans in America and later African Americans
have been subjected to since the founding of this nation.
As I think about President-Elect Obama’s
defeat of Senator John McCain and bask in the comfort of this
historic event, I must also fear its backlash. History tells us
that white supremacy dies hard in America and its proponents
will not take America’s victory lying down.
I think back to 1908 and Jack Johnson’s
defeat of Tommy Burns to become the first African American
boxing Heavy Weight Champion of the world. This led to the
search for the “Great White Hope” James Jackson Jeffries.
Before Johnson fought Jefferies on July 4, 1910, the crowd
chanted “Kill the nigger.” Johnson’s defeat of Jefferies
ignited numerous incidents of white violence against African
American’s. It set off some of the worst racial violence in
American history.
As I think about President-Elect
Obama’s victory in these depressed economic times I reflect upon
the Red Summer of 1919. There were there were 26 separate riots
in communities and cities across the United States where African
Americans were the victims of physical attacks. The riots were
sparked by postwar tensions of racism, unemployment, inflation,
and violence by radical political groups. I think about the
Tulsa, Oklahoma Race Riot of 1921, the burning of the Rosewood,
FL community in 1923, and so much of the racial violence that
was unleashed upon African Americans from 1917 to 1923. America
finds itself today in similar circumstances with wars on two
fronts, historic housing foreclosures, and record job loss.
As I think about President-Elect Obama
and this historic event I remember Dr. King, Medgar Evers,
President Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, and Malcolm X. I reflect upon
Emmett Till, Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney; and Carol
Robertson, Cynthia Wesler, Addie Mae Collins, and Denise McNair,
the four little girls who were killed September 15, 1963 when
the Ku Klux Klan bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in
Birmingham, Alabama. All martyrs who gave their lives as
America struggled to live up to the fundamental precepts, upon
which America was founded. All martyrs who gave their lives as
America struggled to finally elect its first African American
president.
As America celebrates a crowning
achievement, the election of its first African American
President in 219 years, it is important to recognize that this
did not take place in a vacuum. History is very important. It
is a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events.
We can not loose site of the history as we celebrate this
historic event.
On August 10, 2008 The New York Times
published an article by Matt Bai entitled Is Obama the End of
Black Politics? What a ridiculous question. The popular vote
was almost too close to call. In spite of all of the success
that America has made in the context of race, Senator Obama ran
a deracialized campaign for a reason. There are still miles to
go before we sleep.
© 2008 InfoWave Communications, LLC.
Is Obama the End of Black
Politics? A Ridiculous Question
On August 10, 2008 The New York Times
published an article by Matt Bai entitled Is Obama the End of
Black Politics? The premise of the article is that in 2008, 60
years after Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party over the
issue of integrating the armed forces and 45 years after Dr.
King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” the Democratic party is poised to
deliver its nomination for the nation’s highest office to an
African-American, and this some how signals the end of Black
politics.
To equate Senator Obama’s historic
campaign for the highest office in the land and presumed
nomination by the Democratic Party with the end of Black
politics demonstrates that the author does not understand either
issue. The fact that The New York Times would publish such
rubbish begs the same questions that were recently asked about
The New Yorker magazine, “…are these editors serious….are they
paying any attention to what they are publishing?”
All too often writers, journalists,
reporters, and analysts, demonstrate their ignorance of African
American people and the African American experience by trying to
assign simplistic answers to very complex problems, events, and
circumstances. This usually results in African Americans and
their politics being viewed as devoid of substance, myopic,
shallow, and emotional; when in fact, Black politics is policy
focused and born out of a people’s historical experience. It’s
based upon slavery, oppression, exploitation and the life-long
quest for human and civil rights. To think that a major
political party nomination or the election of an African
American as president can bring an end to Black politics as
opposed to being part of its continuum is utterly ridiculous.
Bai writes, “…however, a lot of the old
activists stood in the path of an African-American’s advancement
rather than blazing it…While Democratic black voters embraced
Obama by ratios of 8 or 9 to 1 in a lot of districts, the 42
House members in the Congressional Black Caucus, for a time,
split more or less down the middle between Obama and Clinton…”
In these perilous times, American’s, particularly African
American’s can ill afford to engage in sentimental politics,
there’s too much at stake.
“Old activists” have not stood in
Senator Obama’s path; they’ve questioned his politics, his
position on critical issues and his viability as a candidate.
That’s what an intelligent and engaged electorate does.
Contrary to Mr. Bai’s data, African American voters did not
initially embrace Obama by the margins he referenced. Many
African American voters did not know who he was and had no idea
of where he stood on their issues. They were not just going to
emotionally “vote for the Black guy”. Only over time and by
developing a sense of viability did more of the African American
community embrace his candidacy. Again, that’s practical
politics.
Bai continued, “It is hard for any
outsider to fully understand the thinking that led many older
black leaders to spurn the candidacy of a man who is now
routinely pictured with ‘60s-era revolutionaries like Angela
Davis and Malcom-X, on T-shirts sold at the street-corner kiosks
of black America.” It’s only hard to understand if one confuses
marketing with politics and change with revolution. Just
because vendors put Obama’s image on T-shirts does not mean that
“old black leaders” or African American voters are confusing
Obama’s de-racialized campaign with the true revolutionary
politics of Angela Davis and Malcolm-X. Senator Obama has
called for change not revolution. He is working within the
established structure, not working to overthrow it. African
American’s clearly understand the pit-falls of allowing main
steam media to select its leaders.
He continues, “On a surface level,
those who backed Clinton did so largely out of a combination of
familiarity and fatalism.” Again, this is equating Black
politics as myopic and emotional and that is incorrect. Some
backed Clinton because they respected her politics. Other’s
backed her out of loyalty and their long standing relationships
with the Clinton’s and the positions that many of them were able
to acquire or retain during the Clinton administration. That’s
not “familiarity” that’s realpolitik. In these difficult times
winning, not sentiment is key. Early in this process Senator
Obama was battling the history of racism in America (and still
is) and the media created perception that Senator Clinton’s lead
was insurmountable. Early in this process practical politics
said vote for Clinton.
Bai talks about a “generational
transition that is reordering black politics” and how members of
the civil rights generation are failing to “embrace the idea
that black politics might now be disappearing into American
politics in the same way that the Irish and Italian machines
long ago joined the political mainstream.” There’s no failure
to embrace anything. It is true that some African American
politicians from multi-cultural districts have to change or de-racialize
their politics in order to appeal to a broader cross- section of
the political spectrum. That’s a political reality for African
American politicians in a country that is still blinded by
color. Obama can not appear to be “too Black” for fear of
alienating European American voters who will be threatened by a
candidate that champions “Black issues.” Just as the
Democratic Party decided in the 90’s that it could no longer be
identified with the “historical or traditional issues of the
party” (code language for Black issues) and moved its politics
to the right for fear of alienating White voters. The fact that
Iowa will vote for an African American shows us how far America
has come. The fact that Obama has to deracialize his politics
in order to stand any chance of being elected shows us how far
America has to go.
Don’t get confused. The Irish and
Italian machines of long ago were able to integrate into the
“political mainstream” for one reason and one reason only, they
are White! Race, (even though it’s an artificial construct) was
never their problem, labor was. As new immigrants in America
who were willing to work for lower wages in order to acquire a
piece of the American dream they threatened the labor pool and
dominant wage structure.
The main barrier for African Americans
politically and otherwise has always been and continues to be
race and the manner in which race is used to define and diffuse
issues. Yes, class is a factor as well but race is still the
dominant variable in the equation.
Historically, issues not individuals or
personalities have been the driving force behind Black politics
and this will continue in the future. During the 1930s and
1940s a majority of African Americans registered Republican but
were beginning to vote Democratic (Roosevelt Republicans) not
out of love or loyalty to Roosevelt but due to his New Deal
policies. In fact, during his first two terms, Roosevelt did
very little if anything for the African American community. The
shift from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party was
based on a conscious evaluation of policy benefits and gains.
What brought African Americans into the
Democratic Party and has kept them there to this day was the
enactment of civil rights legislation during the Kennedy-Johnson
administrations. According to Katherine Tate in From Protest to
Politics, in the summer of 1963 Kennedy announced on national
television that he would introduce sweeping civil rights
legislation to Congress. During the Johnson administrations the
1964 and 1968 Civil rights Acts were passed and1965 voting
rights bill. “He would also initiate the War on Poverty, a set
of federal programs aimed at creating new social service
structures that would greatly benefit poor Blacks.” It was
substantive legislation that brought Blacks into the Democratic
Party not empty promises, rhetoric, and symbolism.
During different times in history the
focus has shifted. Charles V. Hamilton discusses the shift from
the “politics of rights” to the “politics of resources” that has
occurred over the past few decades. As the economic and social
conditions for African Americans have worsened, the political
agenda has had to shift in order to address the immediate
reality. This is a natural part of the social and political
landscape not race based or personality driven politics.
As long as African American men are
incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of White
men and the incarceration of Black women continues to grow at
record numbers Black politics will be alive and well. As long
as unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the
rate of White Americans and as long as studies show that a Black
family's income is a little more than half that of a similar
White family's income, Black politics will be alive and well.
As long as African Americans continue to deal with Driving While
Black, excessive high school dropout rates, and imbalances in
health care, Black politics will be alive and well. The
election of Senator Obama can’t change that.
© 2008 InfoWave Communications, LLC.
Reality Is No Rehearsal
Governor Sarah Palin did very well in the
vice-presidential debate. She was well handled, well rehearsed
and well prepared. For a 90 minute, tightly structured
quasi-debate she was able to hold her own. She demonstrated a
cursory understanding of some very general issues affecting
America today. The problem is the real world is unrehearsed;
life is live. This was not as her handlers have stated, Sarah
Palin "unplugged" or "unfiltered." It was just the opposite. In
the few instances where Governor Palin has been "unplugged" and
allowed to respond in an unrehearsed fashion, she has failed
miserably.
Many conservative Americans fell in love
with Governor Palin after she delivered a well-written and
well-rehearsed speech at the Republican National Convention.
Based upon that performance, a floundering McCain campaign
became buoyant and gained the support from the Republican
conservative base that it had been seeking since he clinched his
party's nomination.
Eight days after her speech at the
Republican Convention, Governor Palin sat down for an unscripted
and unrehearsed television interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson.
She demonstrated to America she has very little if any insight
into, or understanding of, the salient issues that are impacting
America today. When asked about the Bush Doctrine, Governor
Palin had absolutely no clue what Charlie Gibson was
referencing. This doctrine is a standing six-year-old policy of
military intervention. One would expect the person seeking the
second highest office in the land would understand a failed
doctrine that totally disrupted the world order and nearly
bankrupted this nation.
She believes the war in Iraq is a part of
God's plan. Her religious justifications for the invasion in
Iraq sound very similar to the Muslim fundamentalists that
attacked America; according to them, they were carrying out the
will of Allah. This is why religious fundamentalism has no place
in foreign or domestic policy.
When asked if America has the right to make
cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or
without the approval of the Pakistani government, Governor
Palin's answer was so incoherent that Charlie Gibson had to
restate the question by saying, "And let me finish with this. I
got lost in a blizzard of words there."
From ABC and Charlie Gibson, Governor Palin
went to CBS with Katie Couric. Again, this was an unscripted and
unrehearsed television interview. This time, she demonstrated
she did not really understand the voting record of her own
running mate. When asked to give examples of Senator McCain
leading the charge for increased oversight of the financial
industry, Governor Palin went into the standard "maverick" line,
and then said, "I'll try to find ya some and I'll bring 'em to
ya." When asked by Katie Couric in another interview about the
newspapers and magazines she reads that impact her worldview,
Governor Palin responded, "I've read most of them, again with a
great appreciation for the press, for the media." When pressed
for specifics, she responded, "Um, all of them, any of them that
have been in front of me all these years." She never named one
newspaper or magazine. Not even a paper from Alaska like the
Anchorage Daily News or the Wasilla Frontiersman.
When asked a question about partisanship in
an interview with Sean Hannity, Governor Palin said, "Well,
there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get
into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's
something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that
he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the
partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like
this." What? "... surpass the partisanship that must be
surpassed ..." Can you imagine a Vice President Palin on the
world stage representing America with mindless drivel such as
this? Has not President George W. Bush been embarrassing enough?
After these interviews, Charlie Gibson and
Katie Couric were attacked for being too tough on Governor Palin
and engaging in "gotcha" journalism. As responsible journalists,
it was not their fault for asking direct and relevant questions.
It was Governor Palin's fault for not being able to answer them.
As an informed electorate, we should want to
hear from and clearly understand the candidate's views on the
economy, health care, international trade etc. What's the basis
of Governor Palin's world view? Effective foreign policy is
based upon a clear understanding of culture, history, economics,
and other geopolitical dynamics that motivate people to act and
interact. It is difficult to develop a clear worldview when you
have not traveled the world. It is troubling to learn that
Governor Palin received her first passport in 2007, and has only
taken one trip outside of North America in her entire adult
life.
As American voters assess and analyze
Governor Palin's performance during the quasi-debate, it is
important to understand what they were watching. They were
watching a person who was well handled and rehearsed. This was
not Sarah Palin "unplugged." She was able to manage fairly
simple issues for a 90-minute period in front of a live
audience. She did that well. The problem is the real world is
unrehearsed; life is live.
Where she fails America terribly is in her
obvious lack of command of the subject matter. Where's the
gravitas? What is evidenced through her unrehearsed exchanges
with the Gibsons, Courics and Hannitys of the world, is a person
who has not thought much about world events, their causes and
effects. When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really
focused much on the war in Iraq." Really? Where have you been
since March 20, 2003?
Kathleen Parker, conservative writer for the
National Review, wrote after the interviews referenced above,
"... circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as
just a hockey mom with lipstick - what a difference a financial
crisis makes - and a more complicated picture has emerged ... As
we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is
increasingly clear that Palin is a problem ... Palin's recent
interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie
Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident
candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."
If, as President Reagan said, "America is a
shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides
freedom-loving people everywhere," we must raise the bar, not
lower it. After almost eight years of George W. Bush, we can see
very clearly the problems that a less-than-knowledgeable leader
can cause. If America is going to be a beacon, the lights must
at least be on. Unfortunately, with what I've seen from Governor
Palin, that light keeps getting dimmer, and dimmer and dimmer...
© 2008 InfoWave
Communications, LLC.
Senator McCain’s Decision is Pandering
with Palin
Senator McCain’s decision to tap Alaska
Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate is
being hailed by Republicans as visionary, independent, and a
break from the politics of the past. Actually, Senator McCain
is simply pandering to the Conservative Right, tying to siphon
off some of the disgruntled Senator Clinton supporters, and
giving America more of the same ole’ politics.
This selection
is not the master stroke of a deft politician seeking to build
bridges and move the country forward. It is the act of a
desperate campaign trying to cater to the politically simplistic
desires of its base as Senator McCain attempts to become
America’s 44th President.
Governor Palin seems to be a beautiful
person and a wonderful American. This country is full of
beautiful people and wonderful Americans but very few of them
are capable of serving in the second most important position
this country has to offer. This is not about her as a person;
it’s about the prima facie contradictions that her selection
highlights.
According to
Time magazine in May, “McCain wants a thorough process to
ensure a running mate who is well prepared.” He has stated on
numerous occasions that he was looking for a nationally
known political heavyweight with no significant drawbacks who
could instantly replace the president if necessary.
The decision to select Gov. Palin was made
very late and some parts of the normal vetting process were
dispensed with in order to preserve the element of surprise. The
Washington Post wrote, “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not
subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the
head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until
last Wednesday.” According to the Telegraph UK, “Mr.
McCain did not find out about the pregnancy of Mrs. Palin's
daughter Bristol, 17, until last Wednesday, two days before he
announced she was his running mate.” So much for the through
selection process, the elements of surprise were more important
than the crucial elements that lead to sound judgment.
Gov. Palin, is known for her strong pro-life position on both
abortion and bioethics issues and this is very appealing to the
pro-life advocates in the Republican Party. The difficult
decisions that she and her husband Todd have made to support
their young pregnant daughter are commendable. Their
circumstance does rekindle the abstinence vs. safe sex debate
and demonstrates why children need to be fully informed about
the realities of life. Adolescents and young adults need to be
armed with as much accurate information about abstinence and
safe sex options as possible so that when they fail to abstain
they can still be protected.
Senator McCain was supposed to be looking for someone who
could instantly replace the president if necessary. Gov. Palin
said during an interview on CNBC that she could not speak to the
rumors of her being considered for the position, “I still can’t
answer that question, until someone answers for me, what is it
exactly that the VP does every day?” Well, I hope Senator
McCain gave her a job description before she agreed to be his
running mate.
One of Senator McCain’s crusades has been against pork-barrel
spending projects called “earmarks.” He has said “earmarking
deprives federal agencies of scarce resources, at the whim of
individual members of Congress…they are wasteful and are often
inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single
powerful member of Congress.” He has also said that
he would offset his proposed tax
cuts by eliminating earmark spending.
According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune,
Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27
million in federal earmarks for the town of Wasilla with a
population of 6,700 residents. According to the Washington
Post, “there was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9
million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs,
and $15 million for a rail project.” Senator McCain has
introduced Gov. Palin as a compatriot in his battle against
wasteful federal spending. This is a clear contradiction between
the statements of Senator McCain and the actions of his running
mate. The old adage is true, “politics makes strange
bedfellows.”
We have yet to hear about Gov. Palin’s
perspectives on foreign policy. Effective foreign policy is
based upon a clear world view. It is difficult to develop a
clear world view when you have not traveled the world. It is
troubling to learn that Gov. Palin received her first passport
in 2007 and has only taken 1 trip outside of the United States.
This does not concern Mrs. Cindy McCain, she said on
ABC-TV’s This Week that Sarah Palin understands what's at
stake in national security issues in part because she is
governor of Alaska, whose borders nearly touch Russia's. A
close border with a foreign country does not equate to
understanding the complex geopolitical landscape.
Well traveled she is not.
Her perspective on the Iraq war is quite
troubling. The LA Times writes, “When
asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on
the war in Iraq."” This is her response but Senator McCain
touts her experience as “Commander In Chief” of the Alaska
National Guard? According to the Associated Press
Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry
students at her former church that the United States sent troops
to fight in the Iraq war on a
"task that is from God… there is a plan and that plan is God's
plan." She’s ignoring the fact that there were no weapons of
mass destruction and the invasion of Iraq was baseless, immoral,
and illegal. Her religious justifications for the invasion
sound very similar to the Muslim fundamentalists that attacked
America; they were carrying out the will of God.” This is why
religious fundamentalism has no place in foreign or domestic
policy.
After all of this, what is really troubling
is the manner in which Gov. Palin’s supporters are trying to
stifle any questioning of her as sexist. In watching the media
coverage over the past few days, conservatives such as Senator
John Bainer, Bay Buchanan, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson are
aghast at questions about Gov. Palin’s experience and
qualifications. One problem with their responses is that in
their attempts to deflect questions about Gov. Palin’s
qualifications with answers that focus on her management skills,
they call into question Senator McCain’s lack of executive and
management skill. They can’t have it both ways.
This selection
was not bold. Senator McCain was not looking for an independent
reformer. If Senator McCain really wanted an independent,
reform oriented, female, Republican, he could have selected
former New Jersey Governor and
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency in the administration of
President
George W. Bush
Christine Todd Whitman.
She
was the second woman and first Republican woman to defeat an
incumbent governor in a general election in the United States.
She was removed from her position as Administrator of the EPA
for being truly independent and reform minded. That’s why she
was not considered.
In July Senator McCain
said, “This is a clear choice that the American people have. I
had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a
political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama
would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”
It seems to me that Senator McCain is willing to compromise his
principles and pander to those whom he referred to in 2000 as
purveyors of hatred in order to win an election.
© 2008 InfoWave
Communications, LLC.
Senator Barack Obama and the Paradox of
Dr. King
On August 28,
1963 the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered one of the
greatest speeches ever, what has now become known as the I
Have a Dream speech. Forty-five years later to the
very day, Senator Barack Hussein Obama became the first African
American to accept the presidential nomination of a major
political party in America.
On this day, many see Senator Obama’s historic accomplishment
as evidence of the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream.
“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. I have a
dream
today!” According to the New York Times,
Dr. King’s daughter, Bernice King
declared that Senator Obama’s nomination is part of her father’s
dream, citing Obama’s
nomination as, “the
acceptance of a Democratic presidential nominee, decided not by
the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.”
This is in fact evidence that America has made progress on the
long and difficult road towards racial tolerance and
acceptance. However, there
are still many miles left to travel.
The interesting
paradox of Senator Obama’s historic nomination and Dr. King’s
speech is that while Democratic
candidate Obama is the beneficiary and living evidence of
the realization of the “dream,”
President Obama will have to
address the current realities of systemic racism and personal
prejudice that have resulted in
continued disparity between African Americans and Euro-Americans
in much the same way as they did in 1963.
The
"dream" reference actually comes towards the end of the speech.
As Dr. King was close to ending his nine-minute delivery, the
great gospel singer Ms. Mahalia Jackson was standing behind him
and said, “…tell them about the dream Martin…tell them about the
dream…” With that prompting Dr. King left the prepared text and
began, “…so even though we face the
difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.” It’s
important to understand that he spoke of the dream in the
context of a horrific reality for “Negro’s” and the poor. What
makes the “dream” significant is its juxtaposition against
America’s reality, failures, and systemic oppression of its own
citizens.
Dr. King
opened the speech with scathing indictments of America.
"…we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still
languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself
an exile in his own land." That was no dream; that was the
reality for Negros in 1963 and a clear indictment of the social
conditions in America at that time. Unfortunately, in 2008 those
social conditions continue to exist for too many Americans.
Systemic
racism manifests itself today as a reality for children who
languish in inner-city schools resulting in excessive high
school drop out rates, parents who lose their jobs and their
homes, and those unjustly incarcerated in American jails and
prisons. In 2008, African American men are incarcerated at a
rate of more than six times the rate of Euro-American men and
the incarceration of African American women continues to grow at
record numbers, as well. Unemployment among African
American’s is more than twice the rate of Euro-Americans; an
African American family's income is little more than half that
of a similar Euro-American family's income, and African
Americans continue to deal with “Driving While Black” and
imbalances in health care.
Personal prejudice and hatred are
also still alive and well and living in America. As many
marveled and wept during Senator Obama’s historic acceptance
speech; three men had been arrested two
days before in an alleged plot to kill Senator Obama. According
to investigators, they had expressed plans to shoot him from a
high sniper position at Invesco Field at Mile High stadium using
a “rifle … sighted at 750 yards” simply because they felt that a
“Black” man should not hold elected office. Various guns and
equipment were seized by the police in the arrest of Tharin
Robert Gartrell, 28, Nathan Johnson, 32, and Shawn Robert Adolf,
33. Also, investigators state, the men may have ties to
Sons of Silence, an outlaw biker group, and are believed to have
connections with white supremacists.
Fortunately, prosecutors insist that Senator
Obama was not in any real danger from the three individuals.
Senator Obama has been under
heightened Secret Service protection since May of last year
after a series of credible death threats were received by
authorities. These arrests and threats are evidence of
the personal hatred that still exists in the hearts and minds of
more Americans than we care to count.
In his acceptance speech
Senator Obama told America that the time for change is now and,
“What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this
election has never been about me. It's been about you.” He went
on to say, “Change happens because the American people demand it
- because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new
leadership, a new politics for a new time.”
Senator Obama is correct. The time for change is now and
change is not easy. It can make people very uncomfortable,
especially when the agent of change is an African American man.
Senator Obama is also correct when he says that this election is
not about him, it’s about what he represents and unfortunately,
that continues to make some people in America very
uncomfortable.
According to July’s CBS/New York Times
poll, 26 percent of
Euro-Americans said they have been victims of discrimination.
Twenty-seven percent said too much has been made of the problems
facing African American people. Twenty-four percent said the
country isn't ready to elect an African American president. Five
percent of Euro-American voters acknowledged that they,
personally, would not vote for an African American candidate.
These sentiments were reflected in the exit polls in the
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey Democratic primaries as
well. According to Slate, “In the Pennsylvania primary,
one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in
his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted
for Clinton. …12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate
acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part
because he is African-American.”
As America moves forward from its historic night, forty-five
years after Dr. King told us about his “dream” we have much to
celebrate. Senator Barack Obama is evidence of the fact that
progress has been made. He is a powerful symbol of what America
can be. However, America must not get lost in the symbolism;
the reality is still to stark.
As he closed his speech, Senator Obama said, “America, our
work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough
choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast
off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” He’s correct,
the work will not be easy and the toughest choice for too many
Americans will be a choice based on prejudice, bigotry, and
hatred instead of policy, competence, and vision. Can
American’s look into the depths of their hearts, search their
souls, and come to grips with the worn-out ideas and politics of
the past? Can we live up to the very founding principals of
this great nation?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
If so, Senator Barack Hussein Obama has the same chance as
Senator John Sidney McCain III to become the 44th
President of the United States.
© 2008 InfoWave
Communications, LLC.
Satire at Its Worse
The July 21 cover of The New Yorker magazine has an
incredibly insensitive and irresponsible caricature of Senator
Obama and his wife Michelle. Spokes people for the magazine
have stated that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the
caricature Senator Obama's
right-wing critics have tried to create. In a statement Monday,
the magazine said the cover "combines a number of fantastical
images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious
distortions they are."
"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits,
the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one
attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant
to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to
prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of
this cover," the New Yorker statement said.
The spokesperson also points to the two articles on Senator
Obama contained inside the magazine, calling them "very
serious." I read both of the articles. They were very serious
articles and well written. I was expecting to find some
explanation and/or correlation between the cover and the
magazine content. Not having found either I am left to draw the
conclusion that this cover in no way shape of form addresses the
stereotypes in any positive manner. It only seems to perpetuate
if not validate them.
Usually in satire, human or individual vices or shortcomings are
held up to censure by means of ridicule, irony, or other
methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.
Also, what usually makes satire funny and/or valuable is its
basis in reality.
In the case of The New Yorker, the Obama’s appear to be
the object of the ridicule not those “right-wing critics” who
are responsible for the ridiculous and oft times culturally
based attacks on them. The Obama’s are not Muslim, they are
Christian. They are not radicals who burn the flag; they are
honorable American’s who love their country. In fact, in spite
of the voluminous death threats they have received, they love
their country to the point of being willing to sacrifice their
lives for it. In this instance The New Yorker appears to
be punishing the victim of the ridicule not the perpetrator, if
not perpetuating distortions of their own.
As a person with a very good sense of humor, I have at times
stepped over the line. I have come to learn (at times painfully
and at the expense of the feelings of the butt of my joke) that
just because I think it’s funny does not make it so. A joke, or
in this instance satire is only funny or valuable if the
audience gets it. In this case, the only ones who got it
were the Obama’s, and their not laughing.
The “Willie Hortonization”
of Senator Barack Obama and the Audacity of Truth
Over the past few weeks main stream media has turned much of its
attention to the fiery sermons of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright.
Rev. Dr. Wright is pastor to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and his
family. He was also, until recently, the pastor of the Trinity
United Church of Christ of Chicago.
Most
of the discussion and commentary about Rev. Wright’s sermons
have come from a predominantly white media. The points of
discussion have centered on what they consider to be the “vial,
racist, and un-American things” said by Rev. Wright. Very few,
if any of the discussions have focused on the historical basis
and accuracy of what Dr. Wright actually said.
The major problem with the discussions is they have been largely
one-sided. The media has used the imagery of Dr. Wright, clad in
African garb, shouting in the cadence of an old-time fire and
brimstone minister and playing to the camera as a scare tactic.
Has this
become the “Willie Hortonization” of Senator Barack Obama? The
reporting and commentary on Rev. Wright’s words have been
presented from the perspective of people who either have no
appreciation for the African American historical experience or a
personal agenda when it comes to presenting these issues.
Rev. Dr. Wright is under attack for saying such things as “…the
government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a
three strikes law, and then wants us (African Americans) to sing
God Bless America, no, no, no; not God Bless America, God damn
America, …for killing innocent people, God damn America for
treating its citizens as less than human…” These are very
strong words, delivered at what many are calling a possible
turning point in American history with regards to America’s
willingness to elect an African-American candidate. While the
main stream media has found no merit in any of Rev. Wright’s
statements, let’s examine their merit from an historical basis.
When people read the Constitution, the supreme law of the United
States, they see the oldest governing constitution in the world.
They see a great document that has articulated the precepts of
life, liberty, and happiness that all in this country try to
follow. What is often overlooked are the parts of the
Constitution that laid the foundation for hundreds of years of
slavery and oppression for African Americans; the constitutional
frame work for human beings to be treated as less than human.
It’s these sections of the Constitution that America has never
truly atoned for and still refuses to make right.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution stated, “Representatives
and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states
which may be included within this union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service
for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three fifths of all other Persons.” This was
known as the Three-Fifths Compromise and laid the ground work
for African slaves brought into America as forced labor to be
defined as non-persons.
Article I, Section 9
allowed for the importation of slaves to continue in America for
twenty-one years after ratification of the Constitution by
allowing for, “The
Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight
hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such
Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This
section only outlawed the importation of slaves once the
domestic stock of slaves could be replenished by natural birth
rates and importation would no longer be needed; again,
treating its citizens as less than human.
Article IV, Section 2
stated,
“No Person held to Service or
Labour
in one
State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from
such Service or
Labour,
But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
Service or
Labour
may be due.” This was enforced by Congress on September 18,
1850 when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, allowing Southern
states to reclaim slaves that had escaped to the North.
The Three Fifths Compromise and the Fugitive
Slave provisions were superseded by Constitutional amendments
only after their damage to African Americans had been done and
the benefit to America had been served.
It is very easy to wrap oneself in the history
and glory that is America and forget that from 1619 – 1868 (249
years) African Americans suffered under the brutality and
oppression of government supported chattel slavery. In 1857 as
Dred Scott, a slave, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his
freedom, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote, “beings
of an inferior order (African Americans), and altogether unfit
to associate with the white race, either in social or political
relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the
white man was bound to respect."
Even after the 13th Amendment
abolished slavery in 1865, the 14th Amendment granted
their citizenship, and the 15th Amendment grated them
the right to vote, from 1876 – 1965 (89 years) African Americans
continued to suffer under state supported Jim Crow oppression in
America. This was codified in 1896 by another Supreme Court
decision,
Plessy v. Ferguson
which upheld the constitutionality of racial
segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal. These
vestiges of slavery and oppression still plague many sectors of
the African community and the sense of white privilege this
created continues to foster as false sense of white entitlement.
This is just the historical background for Rev.
Dr. Wright’s comments. During his lifetime he has dealt with
segregated schools, separate and unequal education,
discrimination in housing, employment, and lending. Rev. Dr.
Wright has witnessed civil rights protesters beaten by the
police, ravaged by dogs, brutalized by fire hoses, and
COINTELPRO. Since his birth in 1941, an estimated 40 African
Americans have been lynched in this country. He was 14 years
old when Emmett Till was brutally murdered and 23 years old when
Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were killed. Americans continue
to deal with racial profiling, driving while Black, the
disproportionate rate of incarceration of African American’s,
the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and
other Constitutional violations.
Regarding Dr. Wright’s comments about drugs and
AIDS, let’s not forget the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments. From
1932
to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an
experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis.
These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one
of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease
they were suffering from or of its seriousness. In his May 16,
1997 apology, President Bill Clinton said,
“The United States
government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly,
morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity
and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.”
With this historical understanding, it is not too
far fetched to think that the U.S. Government could be involved
in similar activity as it relates to AIDS.
What has been conspicuously absent from the
discussions about Rev. Dr. Wright’s comments in main stream
media is any analysis of the validity of his comments based upon
his personal history and life experiences. It is very easy for
white commentators such as Bill O’Reilly to dismiss his sermons
as racist diatribes since O’Reilly has no interest in trying to
understand the plight of people of color in America.
Rev. Dr. Wright has also said, “We have supported
state terrorism against the Palestinian’s and Black South
African’s and now we are indignant because the stuff we have
done over seas is brought right back into our own front yard,
America’s chickens are coming home to roost...” Well, let’s
examine the record.
The Arms Exports Control Act prohibits the
president from furnishing military aid to any country which
engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights. In spite of all of the
evidence supporting claims of the Israeli government’s human
rights abuses of the Palestinian people,
for FY2005 the United States
provided $2.22 billion in military aid. This aid to Israel has a
dramatic effect on Israel's policies towards the Palestinians.
It is the U.S. funding that pays for the guns and ammunition,
F-16 bombers, and Apache helicopters that are used to carry out
Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and people.
According to the Boston
Globe, in 1984 just after Reagan’s re-election
Bishop Desmond Tutu,
referred to the Reagan Administrations support for the South
African government as "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian."
Reagan ignored the rising number of Americans who were calling
for American companies to stop doing business there.” The
president of so-called sunny optimism attempted to blind
Americans with his policy of "constructive engagement" with the
white minority regime in Pretoria. All constructive engagement
did was gave the white minority more time to mow down the black
majority in the streets and keep dreamers of democracy, such as
Nelson Mandela, behind bars.”
American history is replete
with examples of the United States arranging to depose foreign
leaders. In 1909 President Taft ordered the overthrow of
Nicaraguan president Zelaya. According to Stephen Kinzer, “In
Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, diplomats and
intelligence agents replaced generals as the instruments of
American intervention.” More recent examples of US intervention
would be the invasion of Panama and the illegal invasion of
Iraq.
Some may take issue with the
earlier statement,
“…the government gives them the drugs, builds
bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law,…” by asking, “is
Rev. Wright accusing the U.S. Government of supplying drugs to
the Black community?” This story has been well documented in
the 1996 San Jose Mercury News expose entitled “Dark
Alliance: The CIA Complicity in the Crack Epidemic.”
I can understand people
being uncomfortable with the comments made by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah
Wright. White Americans have also been
lied to, mis-educated and desensitized about the plight of
African Americans. With the help of the social conservative
agenda, many have developed a “deaf ear” when it comes to issues
regarding race. The truth, especially an ugly truth that
forces Americans to examine the precepts of America, “with
liberty and justice for all” and compare them with the hypocrisy
of the American reality can be troubling. For far too long,
American’s have been lulled into a false sense of security.
American’s have believed the history as told by the oppressor
and failed to understand the reality of the oppressed.
Rev. Dr. Wright is not
un-American. He embodies what American was founded upon, the
free exchange of ideas in the public space, speaking truth to
power, challenging America to be the best that it can be. Rev.
Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s views might not reconcile with many Americans
perceptions of America, but they must not be discarded as the
ranting of an angry man. His statements were founded in the
historical truths that African Americans have and continue to
live through.
(c) 2008 InfoWave
Communications, LLC
We Have Met The Enemy and The Enemy Is Us
When read in the context of
the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United
States of America (The Constitution) is truly one of the most
impressive documents of governance ever written. It contains
approximately 4,300 words, was completed in 1787, and 220 years
later is the oldest operating constitution in the world.
Compare this with the proposed Constitution of the European
Union, which is approximately 60,000 words and not yet
ratified.
The Constitution in its
original form was far from perfect. Written into the document
were justifications for oppression and slavery such as Article
I, Section 2, known as the three-fifths compromise, Article I,
Section 9 allowed the slave trade to exist until 1808, and
Article IV, Section 2 allowed the rendition or capture and
return of escaped slaves to the “…Party to whom such Service or
Labor may be due.” In spite of these flaws, at its core are the
revolutionary principles of natural law and social contract
theory as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. These
concepts forever changed how people view themselves in relation
to their government. It is not the words that make these
documents great; it is America’s reverence for these concepts
that make the Constitution what it is.
Natural law states that
people possess the God given, or natural right to govern
themselves as opposed to the earlier concept of divine
justification of a king or monarch. Social contract theory is
the idea that people in a civilized society consent to be
governed by a set of standards and elect representatives in
order to protect these natural rights. Most importantly, as
stated in the Declaration of Independence, “…That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government…” In other words, the People must always hold
their elected representatives accountable for their actions.
Since its inception, the
Constitution has been the world standard for liberty, equality,
and justice under the law. For example, in 1945 the Vietnamese
based their documents of freedom upon our own. The European
Union in 2003 and the Iraqi Constitution in 2005 were also based
upon our Constitution. According to a June 25, 1996 Wall Street
Journal report, only 39 countries (25% of the world's
independent nations) were democratic in 1974. By 1996, 66% of
the world’s independent nations were implementing democratic
processes to choose their top leaders. Those numbers have
continued to grow, again, based upon the U.S. model.
Outside of the political
realm, as multinational corporations have expanded their reach
and influence through globalization, American concepts of
fairness and equality as articulated in The Constitution, have
been used internationally to address sweat shops, child labor,
women’s rights, illegal detention, and ecological racism in many
foreign countries. For so many decades, in spite of its
imperfections, America, because of The Constitution, has been
the stalwart of democracy and the beacon of hope for so many
people throughout the world.
Have the actions of the current Bush
administration forever tarnished America’s reputation in the
minds of those abroad? According to a PEW Research Center
survey, an independent research company “…anti-Americanism is
deeper and broader now than at any time in modern history… On
matters of international security, the rest of the world has
become deeply suspicious of U.S. motives and openly skeptical of
its word.”
On the domestic front, laws
that cut at the core of American democracy have been implemented
without public debate. According to the New York Times, “The
president can now use military troops as a domestic police force
in response to a natural disaster, … terrorist attack or to any
“other condition.”” In October of 2006, at the very last minute,
the administration slipped into the defense budget bill
provisions to undercut posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act
of 1807. These two actions now make it easier for the president
to declare martial law. It is the undefined “other condition”
that should be of greatest concern to the American public. The
fact that this was added to the defense bill by the
administration and the Democrats did nothing to bring it to the
public’s attention is reprehensible.
Also, habeas corpus,
a persons right to object to his or another's
detention or imprisonment has been weakened.
According to the Associated Press, a federal
appeals court has held that foreign-born prisoners seized as
terrorists by the U.S. government and held off shore may not
challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. It is now
left up to military tribunals to police themselves and make this
determination according to the Military Commissions Act. Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated, this is a dangerous and misguided
law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by
removing vital checks and balances that would restore detainees’
legal rights. This could gravely impact approximately 12
million lawful permanent residents who currently reside in the
U.S.
The Bush administration
constantly admonishes those who question their motives and
challenge the constitutionality of their actions. Members of
the administration accuse critics of emboldening the
“insurgents” and sending the wrong message to our troops and our
enemies. With it now being easier for
the president to declare martial law as well as chipping away at
the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus, the U.S.
is looking more and more like the dictatorships it went to war
to overthrow. What message is that sending? The U.S. will
impose democracy upon others at the barrel of a gun but usurp
and violate its own constitution when following its precepts
proves to be inconvenient. Benjamin Franklin said “Those
who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
The U.S. invaded Iraq in order to overthrow an
evil dictator who, among other things, imprisoned and tortured
his critics in order to silence them. According to the
Guardian Unlimited “… at the US detention camp at Guantánamo
Bay in Cuba ...According to the Red Cross, the regime at
Guantánamo causes psychological suffering that has driven
inmates mad, with scores of suicide attempts and three inmates
killing themselves last year. Even US officials are
shocked...FBI documents revealed that an inmate's head had been
wrapped in tape for quoting from the Qur'an. Another was
humiliated for his religious beliefs and "baptized" by a soldier
posing as a Catholic priest. The documents show FBI agents saw
26 instances of abuse in their time at Guantánamo. The FBI is
highly skeptical about alleged confessions gained by its
military colleagues.”
The interrogation techniques
that were originally employed at Guantánamo were later
implemented in Iraq itself at Abu Ghraib. According to The
New Yorker, “In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, … was
one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly
executions, and vile living conditions.” We are all too
familiar with the now infamous Abu Ghraib photographs that
document the human rights abuses perpetrated on Iraqi’s by the
U.S. Army, and other American agencies and operatives. All the
U.S. did was replace Saddam’s torturers with U.S. torturers, all
in the name of American democracy. But torture by any entity is
still torture. As a rose by any other name…
In a
Time magazine interview on January 27, 2005, President
Bush stated,
“torture is never acceptable, nor do
we hand over people to countries that do torture.” I guess no
one told him about Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was
kidnapped by U.S. officials at Kennedy Airport in New York on
September 26, 2002, sent to Syria for months and tortured.
Eventually, he was released on October 5, 2003 without being
charged of any crimes. Again, all of this is done in the name
of American democracy.
How
does kidnapping and torturing people in the name of democracy
make us more democratic? How does violating people’s most
sacred beliefs, their religion, in the name of “The War on
Terror” endear them to you and your cause? How does this make us
safe?
Vice President Cheney has said repeatedly “ To
prevail in this fight, we must understand the nature of the
enemy...This enemy has no regard for the rules of warfare, and
is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality...They
seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man,
woman, and child lives in total obedience to a narrow, hateful
ideology. This ideology rejects tolerance, denies freedom of
conscience…Such beliefs can be imposed only through force and
intimidation, so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants will be
brutalized or killed --- and no person or group is exempt.” This
sounds more like self-criticism than the condemnation of others.
This administration has violated its own
constitution and the Geneva Convention. It has invaded a
sovereign country, overseen the beheading of its president,
instilled fear in the hearts and minds of its own people through
lies and misinformation, and demonized an entire ethnic group of
people and their religion. How do we ever expect to win in the
court of international public opinion and win over the hearts
and minds of those who disagree with U.S. action? Are we not
engaged in the very actions and activities, both nationally and
internationally that will result in our demise? Based upon the
illegal and immoral actions of the current Bush administration,
I think Pogo the possum was correct in 1971 when he said, “we
have met the enemy, and he is us.”
(c)
2007 InfoWave Communications, LLC
|