From theGrio:
It is hard to believe that five years have passed since Hurricane Katrina swept over the Gulf Coast, devastating the region, killing over 1,800, displacing thousands and leaving $80 billion in property damage. But five years it has been nonetheless. And of course, we all remember the breaking of the levees in New Orleans, which led to the flooding of that great city and the deaths of hundreds, many of whom were poor and people of color with nowhere to hide.
Those levees--seemingly constructed of little more than lego, silly puddy and tape, not exactly a marvel of American engineering--stood and fell as a symbol of years of government neglect. The Bush administration's lack of a response to the plight of the mostly chocolate city of New Orleans following Katrina of was a potent example of America's callousness towards poverty and black and brown people.
Speaking of then-President Bush's bungling of the Katrina aftermath, Kanye West said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Well, now we have an African-American president named Barack Obama. And while much has changed in the Gulf Coast region since 2005, many things have remained the same as far as black people are concerned. And while the president has taken steps to improve the quality of life in the region, he has been criticized for not doing enough to help African-Americans who are being left out of the recovery efforts. Plus, the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf Coast hasn't exactly helped things. Now is a good time to ask the question, does President Obama really care about black people?
Despite a $10.5 billion relief aid package under the previous president, the Bush legacy in the Gulf is one of incompetence, with some racism and classism mixed in. Public perceptions combined with a healthy dose of reality made it appear that the fix was in for the disproportionately black victims of the region. It speaks to a conservative hatred of government and claims that government does not work. So, when politicians who subscribe to that ideology get into office, they find the worst people to run the agencies they don't like, in order to blow it all up and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
August 28, 2010
Capitalism Is Killing Us
The iPhone workers in China are jumping out of buildings on purpose, taking their own lives because they can't take it anymore. These are the deleterious effects of capitalism in the world's second largest economy.
Foxconn, the company that makes the ever-popular iPhone, apparently is a fascistic company that treats its employees like dogs. Hours are too long, management is too rigid, and the assembly line too fast. Capitalism is all about making money-- and for this company, profits have been made at the expense of labor rights. Foxconn has had twelve worker suicides this year, and they've installed safety nets--yes nets--on their buildings to catch those workers who just can't take it anymore. The company has even increased wages.
But the real eye-opener was the contrived, half-baked, forced pep rally that it held in Shenzen, where 300,000 people work and most of the suicides took place. It's as if the company is telling its employees, "You'll be happy or else." Oh, what a piece of work they are.
Now, anyone can look at China's rapid economic growth and react with wonderment and awe. They have surpassed Japan, and are outranked only by the U.S.--for now. Plus, they are the largest owner of American debt at the better part of a trillion dollars. China shows what you can do with a little industrial planning, policy and guidance from the government.
But then again, many things are possible when you don't have those annoyances, those minor nuisances like environmental regulations, workplace safety, worker's rights, and democratic government. Chinese-style capitalism seems to be a purer form than its U.S. counterpart, and therefore a Republican nirvana, minus the part about government planning. And for now, we wait for a nascent labor movement to kick into gear and transform a country that responds to massive public unrest with military crackdowns.
While Chinese workers jump out of windows, Americans are dying as well. In the U.S., workers die on exploding oil rigs and in deathtrap coalmines because their regulation-hating employers want to maximize profits. And besides, they say, regulations are dumb. Consumers die from unsafe food because food companies want to cut corners. Just like the Great Depression days when people lacked a safety net, the unemployed, foreclosed and student debtor-prisoners of today are turning to suicide at an alarming rate, with an increase of calls to suicide prevention hotlines.
The jobless take their own lives at a rate two to three times higher than the general population. That could be a scary proposition in a nation that sanctions the corporate-sponsored proliferation of firearms. Meanwhile, all of this happens in a country where the chronically unemployed number as many as they ever did, yet the jobless are characterized by conservatives as lazy drug abusers that would rather have a welfare check than go to work. Let them work at McDonald's, as Glenn Beck would say.
In the face of predatory capitalism, totalitarian and other repressive regimes do not have to justify their oppressive policies to their public, and all dissidents face the barrel of a gun. But in the U.S.--which touts itself as the land of opportunity, yet ranks at the bottom of advanced nations in upward economic mobility--years of corporation-friendly policies have gutted the American middle class. The economy was transformed into a casino with no holds barred, and compulsive gamblers threw away the lives of hardworking Americans.
In the past eight years, black and Latino homeowners lost up to $93 billion and $98 billion respectively, the largest loss of wealth for people of color in this nation's history. And as 17 percent of Latino borrowers, 11 percent of blacks and 7 percent of whites either have lost their homes or are about to, there is scant distinction between poor and middle class, as we are all po' folks now. These days, it seems, everyone is having a black experience, save a relatively few lucky souls.
But there is a threat that too many of us have noticed the crisis already. So, the oligarch puppeteers just have to come up with something, anything, in order to obfuscate, change the subject, and hope that not too many people begin to truly understand the contradictions of a "free" and unequal America. Republican-owned media subsidiaries will have you fixated on the four "M"'s of Muslims, mosques, Mexicans and gay marriage as the source of all your woes.
In order to safeguard their financial interests and retain their wealth, right-wing billionaires become purveyors of ersatz populism, setting up phony-baloney Tea Parties and other front groups because "this right-wing, redneck stuff works for them."
And as the low-information voters with short attention spans fight over the trivialities and distractions--poor shlubs that they are, devoted to an Islamophobic "news" network whose Saudi co-owner funded the very mosque they repudiate- business lobbyists fight to keep those same folks poor and dumb and make the wealthy even wealthier.
Capitalism is killing us, with the exception of the handful of capitalists who thrive because they successfully pimped the system and bought the corrupt politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike. They own the system now, but it is time for new ownership.
Foxconn, the company that makes the ever-popular iPhone, apparently is a fascistic company that treats its employees like dogs. Hours are too long, management is too rigid, and the assembly line too fast. Capitalism is all about making money-- and for this company, profits have been made at the expense of labor rights. Foxconn has had twelve worker suicides this year, and they've installed safety nets--yes nets--on their buildings to catch those workers who just can't take it anymore. The company has even increased wages.
But the real eye-opener was the contrived, half-baked, forced pep rally that it held in Shenzen, where 300,000 people work and most of the suicides took place. It's as if the company is telling its employees, "You'll be happy or else." Oh, what a piece of work they are.
Now, anyone can look at China's rapid economic growth and react with wonderment and awe. They have surpassed Japan, and are outranked only by the U.S.--for now. Plus, they are the largest owner of American debt at the better part of a trillion dollars. China shows what you can do with a little industrial planning, policy and guidance from the government.
But then again, many things are possible when you don't have those annoyances, those minor nuisances like environmental regulations, workplace safety, worker's rights, and democratic government. Chinese-style capitalism seems to be a purer form than its U.S. counterpart, and therefore a Republican nirvana, minus the part about government planning. And for now, we wait for a nascent labor movement to kick into gear and transform a country that responds to massive public unrest with military crackdowns.
While Chinese workers jump out of windows, Americans are dying as well. In the U.S., workers die on exploding oil rigs and in deathtrap coalmines because their regulation-hating employers want to maximize profits. And besides, they say, regulations are dumb. Consumers die from unsafe food because food companies want to cut corners. Just like the Great Depression days when people lacked a safety net, the unemployed, foreclosed and student debtor-prisoners of today are turning to suicide at an alarming rate, with an increase of calls to suicide prevention hotlines.
The jobless take their own lives at a rate two to three times higher than the general population. That could be a scary proposition in a nation that sanctions the corporate-sponsored proliferation of firearms. Meanwhile, all of this happens in a country where the chronically unemployed number as many as they ever did, yet the jobless are characterized by conservatives as lazy drug abusers that would rather have a welfare check than go to work. Let them work at McDonald's, as Glenn Beck would say.
In the face of predatory capitalism, totalitarian and other repressive regimes do not have to justify their oppressive policies to their public, and all dissidents face the barrel of a gun. But in the U.S.--which touts itself as the land of opportunity, yet ranks at the bottom of advanced nations in upward economic mobility--years of corporation-friendly policies have gutted the American middle class. The economy was transformed into a casino with no holds barred, and compulsive gamblers threw away the lives of hardworking Americans.
In the past eight years, black and Latino homeowners lost up to $93 billion and $98 billion respectively, the largest loss of wealth for people of color in this nation's history. And as 17 percent of Latino borrowers, 11 percent of blacks and 7 percent of whites either have lost their homes or are about to, there is scant distinction between poor and middle class, as we are all po' folks now. These days, it seems, everyone is having a black experience, save a relatively few lucky souls.
But there is a threat that too many of us have noticed the crisis already. So, the oligarch puppeteers just have to come up with something, anything, in order to obfuscate, change the subject, and hope that not too many people begin to truly understand the contradictions of a "free" and unequal America. Republican-owned media subsidiaries will have you fixated on the four "M"'s of Muslims, mosques, Mexicans and gay marriage as the source of all your woes.
In order to safeguard their financial interests and retain their wealth, right-wing billionaires become purveyors of ersatz populism, setting up phony-baloney Tea Parties and other front groups because "this right-wing, redneck stuff works for them."
And as the low-information voters with short attention spans fight over the trivialities and distractions--poor shlubs that they are, devoted to an Islamophobic "news" network whose Saudi co-owner funded the very mosque they repudiate- business lobbyists fight to keep those same folks poor and dumb and make the wealthy even wealthier.
Capitalism is killing us, with the exception of the handful of capitalists who thrive because they successfully pimped the system and bought the corrupt politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike. They own the system now, but it is time for new ownership.
August 26, 2010
David talks about lost son Ezra in the September issue of Glamour magazine
I am in the September issue of Glamour magazine (print edition only) discussing the death of my first son Ezra, and what fathers experience when they lose a child. The larger article focuses on a woman who lost a baby after a seven-month pregnancy, and they wanted to get the perspectives of fathers. Please check it out if you can.
August 24, 2010
Mama Grizzlies' claws come out on race
From theGrio:
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin passionately defends Dr. Laura's racist rant and use of the "n-word" on the radio. Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle thinks the color black is "thoroughly evil." And Orly Taitz hates President Obama so much that a federal judge fined her $20,000 for filing frivolous lawsuits challenging the president's citizenship.
What's going on here?
There appears to be a new women's political movement brewing in America these days, but not at all a healthy one for women, or politics, or for black people for that matter. I'm talking about the "mama grizzlies"-- including Sarah Palin and the women who admire her, the women in the Tea Party and the birther movements. And there are the women running for office from the far right wing of the Republican Party--the only wing that seems to remain of the party of Lincoln, not to mention Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Susan B. Anthony, and Mary McLeod Bethune. But that was another time and another place.
Whenever you look around, it seems that one of these "mama grizzlies" has something horribly tasteless and offensive to say about black people. The question that we must ask is: is there something inherently anti-black about these loony ladies of the right?
There's no question that Sarah Palin, in those days of the 2008 presidential election campaign, brought attention to these new women of the right and elevated them from obscurity. As the Vice Presidential running mate of John McCain who was able to see Russia from her house, Palin saw a black-socialist-Muslim radical in the form of Barack Hussein Obama, and she didn't like what she saw. She said Obama was "palling around with terrorists" and he did not see the U.S. like other Americans. Such talk stirred up the crowds at the McCain-Palin events, which often doubled as retro pro-segregation pep rallies, with twenty-first century upgrades (fear of a black president as opposed to fear of integrated schools). One woman in one of these crowds was so emboldened that she told McCain Obama is "an Arab", to which McCain responded in disagreement, angering the mob, or rather crowd.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin passionately defends Dr. Laura's racist rant and use of the "n-word" on the radio. Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle thinks the color black is "thoroughly evil." And Orly Taitz hates President Obama so much that a federal judge fined her $20,000 for filing frivolous lawsuits challenging the president's citizenship.
What's going on here?
There appears to be a new women's political movement brewing in America these days, but not at all a healthy one for women, or politics, or for black people for that matter. I'm talking about the "mama grizzlies"-- including Sarah Palin and the women who admire her, the women in the Tea Party and the birther movements. And there are the women running for office from the far right wing of the Republican Party--the only wing that seems to remain of the party of Lincoln, not to mention Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Susan B. Anthony, and Mary McLeod Bethune. But that was another time and another place.
Whenever you look around, it seems that one of these "mama grizzlies" has something horribly tasteless and offensive to say about black people. The question that we must ask is: is there something inherently anti-black about these loony ladies of the right?
There's no question that Sarah Palin, in those days of the 2008 presidential election campaign, brought attention to these new women of the right and elevated them from obscurity. As the Vice Presidential running mate of John McCain who was able to see Russia from her house, Palin saw a black-socialist-Muslim radical in the form of Barack Hussein Obama, and she didn't like what she saw. She said Obama was "palling around with terrorists" and he did not see the U.S. like other Americans. Such talk stirred up the crowds at the McCain-Palin events, which often doubled as retro pro-segregation pep rallies, with twenty-first century upgrades (fear of a black president as opposed to fear of integrated schools). One woman in one of these crowds was so emboldened that she told McCain Obama is "an Arab", to which McCain responded in disagreement, angering the mob, or rather crowd.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
August 20, 2010
Hate Groups and Prison Profiteers Wrote Arizona's Juan Crow Law
Originally in Huffington Post:
Now, I suppose it is conceivable that white supremacists and the private prison industry could join forces in support of a good piece of legislation. After all, anything is possible.
But it sure isn't likely.
This is the situation we are seeing in Arizona with the passage of S.B. 1070, the anti-immigrant law that allows police to stop and arrest suspected undocumented aliens. Essentially, this law makes it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. The law allows police to stop anyone with a "reasonable suspicion" of being undocumented, and demand proof of citizenship. Those who cannot produce the documentation face arrest, a $2,500 fine, and 6 months in jail.
One must ask, where do they find these laws? Better yet, where do they find the people to write such laws? In searching for an answer, I turn to a colleague, the late Al Lewis. Yes, Grandpa from the Munsters. I knew him as a political activist and a radio show host when I worked at Pacifica Radio station WBAI ten years ago as a producer for Democracy Now! Al defined a law as "that which is bought and paid for." It was one of the most simple, yet profound statements I had heard. And it definitely applies to Arizona's S.B. 1070.
It is now no secret that two top level staffers in Gov. Jan Brewer's administration -- Paul Senseman and Chuck Coughlin -- have financial ties to the private prison industry, and stand to benefit personally from S.B. 1070. After all, private prisons lock up the immigration detainees in that state -- and they would like to run all of the prisons in Arizona, including death row -- so the new law is good for business. Senseman, the governor's deputy chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA. And his wife presently is a lobbyist for the company. Meanwhile, Chuck Coughlin is one of the governor's policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlin's firm, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA. CCA and rival prison company Geo Group are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, where they ensured passage of the insidious bill.
But it gets better, or worse depending on your point of view. State Senator Russell Pearce, who introduced S.B. 1070, has extensive financial ties to the private prison industry. He also has friendships with neo-Nazis such as J.T. Ready of the National Alliance, who calls Jews parasites, and hunts and kidnaps people on the border with Mexico. Ready once said "The truth is that negroids screw monkeys and rape babies in afreaka [sic]. Then stupid white man who licks kosher jew rear lets negroids in." And he once told a neo-Nazi rally that "This is a white, European homeland. That's how it should be preserved if we want to keep it clean, safe, and pure."
Senator Pearce has built his career on the backs of the Latino immigrant communities he has so fervently scapegoated. He has supported Nuremberg-style legislation that would prohibit hospitals from issuing birth certificates to children born of undocumented immigrants, and a law that would not allow people to marry without providing proof of U.S. citizenship and social security numbers. That would make it illegal for citizens to marry non-citizens! Pearce wants to eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment. And he supported the bill that has eliminated ethnic studies in Arizona public schools and colleges and universities.
And Senator Pearce has ties to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). S.B. 1070 was written by Kris Kobach, a former Bush administration lawyer who now works for FAIR's legal arm. The organization has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. FAIR was founded by the nativist trailblazer John Tanton, who warned of the dangers of the "Latin onslaught" in America, and declared "for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that." And the group received $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist eugenics foundation that funds studies linking race, genetics and intelligence.
For all of you conspiracy theorists out there, this is raw meat to be sure. But there's nothing theoretical about this conspiratorial scenario. Klannish hate groups and prison companies worked together to pass an atrocious, twisted and unconstitutional law. The former hates Latinos and thinks they are inferior, and would love nothing more than to throw them all behind bars for good. Meanwhile, the latter wants to profit from locking up as many immigrant detainees as possible. Just to top it off, both groups collaborated with their tools in the Arizona legislature and that horrid governor's office to make it all happen. This is Juan Crow in action. And sadly, it smells all too much like American history.
In fact, this reminds me of the days of Jim Crow, after slavery, when segregationist state and local governments enacted laws to maintain blacks in a state of virtual bondage. Laws targeted African-Americans specifically by going after offenses for which freedmen were presumed more likely to be charged, such as petty theft, vagrancy, burglary and bigamy. Under the convict lease system, an overwhelmingly black prison population provided free labor to the plantations, railroads and mining companies. "These companies assume charge of the convicts, work them as cheap labor and pay the states a handsome revenue for their labor.... The details of vice, cruelty and death thus fostered by the states whose treasuries are enriched thereby, equals anything from Siberia," said Frederick Douglass. "Every Negro so sentenced not only means able-bodied men to swell the state's number of slaves, but every Negro so convicted is thereby disfranchised." Of course, the ideological justification for the Jim Crow legal regime was that black people were inferior, and posed a racial, sexual, criminal, political and economic threat to whites.
And today, there is profit in prisons, with whole industries that make their bread and butter over the warehousing of warm bodies -including some of the prisons themselves. Roughly 70 percent of America's prisoners are black and brown because laws target communities of color. Yet, America's legal profession is among the nation's least diverse: Over 90 percent of the judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys are white. And law enforcement wages a racially-motivated war on drugs in poor black and Latino neighborhoods, with a financial incentive to maximize the arrests and convictions they win.
When racial scapegoats are conjured up--whether the black "crack babies" and "welfare queens" of the 1980s, or the Mexican "illegal aliens" and "anchor babies" of today--laws are created to legitimize the crimes that the state is about to commit against these groups, ostensibly in the name of the public good, but really for private profit. Sadly, in the land of the jobless and the hopeless, boogeymen are in great demand these days. And in Arizona, a group of greedy, unscrupulous folks got together with professional racists to criminalize the Latino community and make a buck at the same time.
Now, I suppose it is conceivable that white supremacists and the private prison industry could join forces in support of a good piece of legislation. After all, anything is possible.
But it sure isn't likely.
This is the situation we are seeing in Arizona with the passage of S.B. 1070, the anti-immigrant law that allows police to stop and arrest suspected undocumented aliens. Essentially, this law makes it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. The law allows police to stop anyone with a "reasonable suspicion" of being undocumented, and demand proof of citizenship. Those who cannot produce the documentation face arrest, a $2,500 fine, and 6 months in jail.
One must ask, where do they find these laws? Better yet, where do they find the people to write such laws? In searching for an answer, I turn to a colleague, the late Al Lewis. Yes, Grandpa from the Munsters. I knew him as a political activist and a radio show host when I worked at Pacifica Radio station WBAI ten years ago as a producer for Democracy Now! Al defined a law as "that which is bought and paid for." It was one of the most simple, yet profound statements I had heard. And it definitely applies to Arizona's S.B. 1070.
It is now no secret that two top level staffers in Gov. Jan Brewer's administration -- Paul Senseman and Chuck Coughlin -- have financial ties to the private prison industry, and stand to benefit personally from S.B. 1070. After all, private prisons lock up the immigration detainees in that state -- and they would like to run all of the prisons in Arizona, including death row -- so the new law is good for business. Senseman, the governor's deputy chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA. And his wife presently is a lobbyist for the company. Meanwhile, Chuck Coughlin is one of the governor's policy advisers and her campaign chairman. Coughlin's firm, HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, currently lobbies for CCA. CCA and rival prison company Geo Group are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, where they ensured passage of the insidious bill.
But it gets better, or worse depending on your point of view. State Senator Russell Pearce, who introduced S.B. 1070, has extensive financial ties to the private prison industry. He also has friendships with neo-Nazis such as J.T. Ready of the National Alliance, who calls Jews parasites, and hunts and kidnaps people on the border with Mexico. Ready once said "The truth is that negroids screw monkeys and rape babies in afreaka [sic]. Then stupid white man who licks kosher jew rear lets negroids in." And he once told a neo-Nazi rally that "This is a white, European homeland. That's how it should be preserved if we want to keep it clean, safe, and pure."
Senator Pearce has built his career on the backs of the Latino immigrant communities he has so fervently scapegoated. He has supported Nuremberg-style legislation that would prohibit hospitals from issuing birth certificates to children born of undocumented immigrants, and a law that would not allow people to marry without providing proof of U.S. citizenship and social security numbers. That would make it illegal for citizens to marry non-citizens! Pearce wants to eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment. And he supported the bill that has eliminated ethnic studies in Arizona public schools and colleges and universities.
And Senator Pearce has ties to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). S.B. 1070 was written by Kris Kobach, a former Bush administration lawyer who now works for FAIR's legal arm. The organization has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. FAIR was founded by the nativist trailblazer John Tanton, who warned of the dangers of the "Latin onslaught" in America, and declared "for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that." And the group received $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist eugenics foundation that funds studies linking race, genetics and intelligence.
For all of you conspiracy theorists out there, this is raw meat to be sure. But there's nothing theoretical about this conspiratorial scenario. Klannish hate groups and prison companies worked together to pass an atrocious, twisted and unconstitutional law. The former hates Latinos and thinks they are inferior, and would love nothing more than to throw them all behind bars for good. Meanwhile, the latter wants to profit from locking up as many immigrant detainees as possible. Just to top it off, both groups collaborated with their tools in the Arizona legislature and that horrid governor's office to make it all happen. This is Juan Crow in action. And sadly, it smells all too much like American history.
In fact, this reminds me of the days of Jim Crow, after slavery, when segregationist state and local governments enacted laws to maintain blacks in a state of virtual bondage. Laws targeted African-Americans specifically by going after offenses for which freedmen were presumed more likely to be charged, such as petty theft, vagrancy, burglary and bigamy. Under the convict lease system, an overwhelmingly black prison population provided free labor to the plantations, railroads and mining companies. "These companies assume charge of the convicts, work them as cheap labor and pay the states a handsome revenue for their labor.... The details of vice, cruelty and death thus fostered by the states whose treasuries are enriched thereby, equals anything from Siberia," said Frederick Douglass. "Every Negro so sentenced not only means able-bodied men to swell the state's number of slaves, but every Negro so convicted is thereby disfranchised." Of course, the ideological justification for the Jim Crow legal regime was that black people were inferior, and posed a racial, sexual, criminal, political and economic threat to whites.
And today, there is profit in prisons, with whole industries that make their bread and butter over the warehousing of warm bodies -including some of the prisons themselves. Roughly 70 percent of America's prisoners are black and brown because laws target communities of color. Yet, America's legal profession is among the nation's least diverse: Over 90 percent of the judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys are white. And law enforcement wages a racially-motivated war on drugs in poor black and Latino neighborhoods, with a financial incentive to maximize the arrests and convictions they win.
When racial scapegoats are conjured up--whether the black "crack babies" and "welfare queens" of the 1980s, or the Mexican "illegal aliens" and "anchor babies" of today--laws are created to legitimize the crimes that the state is about to commit against these groups, ostensibly in the name of the public good, but really for private profit. Sadly, in the land of the jobless and the hopeless, boogeymen are in great demand these days. And in Arizona, a group of greedy, unscrupulous folks got together with professional racists to criminalize the Latino community and make a buck at the same time.
August 15, 2010
Repeal of 14th Amendment is un-American
From The Progressive:
The call by some conservative lawmakers to repeal the 14th Amendment represents the worst of America.At a time of economic hardship when we should be uniting people and making them whole, such an idea will only serve to sow the seeds of hate and division.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., — who does not think that the children of undocumented immigrants should automatically become citizens — has proposed a piece of legislation to begin repealing the amendment. And Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has called for hearings into the matter.
Adopted on July 9, 1868, and championed by the so-called “Radical Republicans” in Congress, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants citizenship as a birthright. The citizenship clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This clause was important because it thwarted attempts by Southern states to deny citizenships to former slaves.
But little of these details on the history or the importance of the 14th Amendment mean much to those who would repeal it. Rather, they only seem to care about scoring political points.
And while they could develop positive solutions in the area of immigration reform, they choose to divide people along lines of color, race, ethnicity, class, language and national origin.
In the current economic recession, people are in despair and are looking for scapegoats. People blame immigrants — particularly Latinos and undocumented workers — for losing their jobs and livelihoods. Patriot and militia groups patrol the border and harass and threaten Latinos. And while hate groups and the tea party movement exploit these insecurities, some unscrupulous lawmakers are trying to codify this hatred.
This is such a bad idea that even Lou Dobbs disagrees with it.
“I part ways with the senators on that because I believe the 14th Amendment, particularly in its due process and equal protection clauses, is so important,” Dobbs said. “It lays the foundation for the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states.”
Giving away the 14th Amendment is giving up on America. Citizenship should remain a birthright in this nation of immigrants. But that right was a secured only by fighting a bloody Civil War and overcoming a brutal legacy of slavery.
Sadly, some people want us to turn the clock back to the antebellum days.
The call by some conservative lawmakers to repeal the 14th Amendment represents the worst of America.At a time of economic hardship when we should be uniting people and making them whole, such an idea will only serve to sow the seeds of hate and division.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., — who does not think that the children of undocumented immigrants should automatically become citizens — has proposed a piece of legislation to begin repealing the amendment. And Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has called for hearings into the matter.
Adopted on July 9, 1868, and championed by the so-called “Radical Republicans” in Congress, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants citizenship as a birthright. The citizenship clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This clause was important because it thwarted attempts by Southern states to deny citizenships to former slaves.
But little of these details on the history or the importance of the 14th Amendment mean much to those who would repeal it. Rather, they only seem to care about scoring political points.
And while they could develop positive solutions in the area of immigration reform, they choose to divide people along lines of color, race, ethnicity, class, language and national origin.
In the current economic recession, people are in despair and are looking for scapegoats. People blame immigrants — particularly Latinos and undocumented workers — for losing their jobs and livelihoods. Patriot and militia groups patrol the border and harass and threaten Latinos. And while hate groups and the tea party movement exploit these insecurities, some unscrupulous lawmakers are trying to codify this hatred.
This is such a bad idea that even Lou Dobbs disagrees with it.
“I part ways with the senators on that because I believe the 14th Amendment, particularly in its due process and equal protection clauses, is so important,” Dobbs said. “It lays the foundation for the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states.”
Giving away the 14th Amendment is giving up on America. Citizenship should remain a birthright in this nation of immigrants. But that right was a secured only by fighting a bloody Civil War and overcoming a brutal legacy of slavery.
Sadly, some people want us to turn the clock back to the antebellum days.
August 13, 2010
The Professional Left Wants Its F.D.R. Now
From Huffington Post and Daily Kos:
Although inadvertently perhaps, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs performed a great public service when he complained about the "professional left" that will not give this administration proper credit for its legislative accomplishments. And he insulted a wide swath of the Democratic base in the process. He apologized and later stood by his statement, but it's the type of thing you just can't take back. Not unlike that proverbial tube of toothpaste, you just can't put it back in.
This was a showdown in the making, and should be welcomed. On the one hand there's the base that worked hard to get Obama into office, and now pushes this president to do more. On the other hand, there's a White House that is simply dumbfounded. The Obama administration apparently cannot understand why its supporters are not in awe over its ability to politick, compromise, and water down great legislation into mediocre laws, without getting anything for it in return. There seems to be a sense of arrogance emanating from the White House, this attitude that the base should just be happy and stop complaining. After all, Obama is much better than Bush, and look at what he has achieved in only a little over a year and a half -- health care reform, student loan reform, a recovery act that prevented the nation from sliding into a depression, and so on.
To be sure, the accomplishments to date are considerable, and we should not ignore them. But at the same time, the base always expected, even demanded great things from this president who campaigned as a change agent. And the dire problems America is facing require some urgent, forceful, audacious leadership.
But far too often this administration appears to want to play it safe, hedge its bets. For example, the economic stimulus, however well intentioned, should have been much larger. Other times the Obama White House negotiates with itself and gives away far too much, as was the case with the public option. Or the White House will try to bargain with rabid conservatives who have no intention of working together, and would like nothing more than to bring down this presidency. And one gets the impression some of these Republicans would bring down the entire nation just to win an election.
This leads us to the issue of jobs. Part of the problem is the White House is entertaining the foolish proposition of cutting the deficit during a time of recession. At this rate, we might as well put another nail in the coffin that contains what is left of the U.S. middle class.
You know how bad it's getting here in Third World America because the mobs are coming out with the pitchforks. Now, don't get me wrong, people right now have every right to be angry. This recession is unlike any other in recent memory, certainly since the Great Depression. There is no rebound this time, no jobs magically coming back with an upturn of the business cycle, much as the tides faithfully ebb and flow each day. There is no relationship between the fortunes of Wall Street and the plight of the common folk, so it seems. And those who are at the top don't need the rest of us, except when it comes to gaining at our expense.
The handiwork of Democrats and Republicans alike, years of regressive policies have amounted to highway robbery of working people. Deregulation wrecked and plundered the economy, and eviscerated Americans' life savings and home equity. Unemployment is the highest it has been in years, and long-term employment is at disturbing levels, with nearly half of the unemployed out of work for at least six months. College graduates begin their careers in a mountain of debt but with no jobs. Moreover, a trickle-down policy has resulted in the greatest gap between rich and poor in modern history, and a nation that ranks among the least upwardly mobile of the advanced nations.
So now, what is supposedly the world's greatest nation cannot afford to keep its schools open. State and local governments are out of cash, and some localities are grounding up the streets into gravel because they can no longer afford to maintain the roads. State austerity measures--including layoffs of government workers and cutting of important programs--will only exacerbate this economic death spiral.
These are the times when hate groups and unscrupulous politicians suit up for the ugly days ahead, preying on the fears of low information Americans. Bereft of solutions, the ultra-right is doing what the ultra-right does, which is to tear apart the country with an "M-G-M." strategy: blame the Mexicans, Gays and Muslims for all your problems, with the actual or perceived threat of violence thrown in. Of course, blaming that poor undocumented worker for your plight will not help you, but isn't that what scapegoats are for? And the Fourteenth Amendment be damned, they say.
Surely, we can and should assign much blame for our woes on George W. Bush, who bankrupted the nation with two wars and a massive tax cut for the wealthy. However, Bush is no longer running for office. President Obama must realize that he will be judged if he cannot deliver on jobs, and rightly so. Progressives are trying to do him a favor by ensuring that he is not a one-term president, but he refuses to take the hint. A fighting spirit is lacking. At this rate, President Obama is well on his way down that road, despite the phalanx of incompetent empty suits found in abundance on the other side. To this extent, the base is doing what a good base should do.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into power after a failing Herbert Hoover who meant well, but either had the wrong ideas, or his good ideas were too little, too late. Roosevelt enacted a massive New Deal program based on relief to the unemployed, economic reform, and recovery through federal spending. The measures were sweeping, and helped cement a Democratic coalition for decades.
But as F.D.R. once told labor and civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph during a discussion on the future of the country and the plight of African-Americans,
Once again, the base is making a president "do it," so to speak, for his own good and ours. The party faithful did not vote for good speeches alone, or milquetoast policies and lukewarm, half-hearted solutions to a crisis situation. Nor did they vote for "drill baby drill," or the escalation of a senseless war in Afghanistan, or Wall Street lackeys controlling the till. Certainly, they did not vote for a U.S. that spends as much on military as the rest of the world combined, as other nations beat us in expenditures for science, technology and infrastructure. But they did vote for the active role of government in making things right, as only government can do.
The "professional left" simply wants its F.D.R. in the form of Barack Obama, because that's what 2008 was all about, after all.
Although inadvertently perhaps, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs performed a great public service when he complained about the "professional left" that will not give this administration proper credit for its legislative accomplishments. And he insulted a wide swath of the Democratic base in the process. He apologized and later stood by his statement, but it's the type of thing you just can't take back. Not unlike that proverbial tube of toothpaste, you just can't put it back in.
This was a showdown in the making, and should be welcomed. On the one hand there's the base that worked hard to get Obama into office, and now pushes this president to do more. On the other hand, there's a White House that is simply dumbfounded. The Obama administration apparently cannot understand why its supporters are not in awe over its ability to politick, compromise, and water down great legislation into mediocre laws, without getting anything for it in return. There seems to be a sense of arrogance emanating from the White House, this attitude that the base should just be happy and stop complaining. After all, Obama is much better than Bush, and look at what he has achieved in only a little over a year and a half -- health care reform, student loan reform, a recovery act that prevented the nation from sliding into a depression, and so on.
To be sure, the accomplishments to date are considerable, and we should not ignore them. But at the same time, the base always expected, even demanded great things from this president who campaigned as a change agent. And the dire problems America is facing require some urgent, forceful, audacious leadership.
But far too often this administration appears to want to play it safe, hedge its bets. For example, the economic stimulus, however well intentioned, should have been much larger. Other times the Obama White House negotiates with itself and gives away far too much, as was the case with the public option. Or the White House will try to bargain with rabid conservatives who have no intention of working together, and would like nothing more than to bring down this presidency. And one gets the impression some of these Republicans would bring down the entire nation just to win an election.
This leads us to the issue of jobs. Part of the problem is the White House is entertaining the foolish proposition of cutting the deficit during a time of recession. At this rate, we might as well put another nail in the coffin that contains what is left of the U.S. middle class.
You know how bad it's getting here in Third World America because the mobs are coming out with the pitchforks. Now, don't get me wrong, people right now have every right to be angry. This recession is unlike any other in recent memory, certainly since the Great Depression. There is no rebound this time, no jobs magically coming back with an upturn of the business cycle, much as the tides faithfully ebb and flow each day. There is no relationship between the fortunes of Wall Street and the plight of the common folk, so it seems. And those who are at the top don't need the rest of us, except when it comes to gaining at our expense.
The handiwork of Democrats and Republicans alike, years of regressive policies have amounted to highway robbery of working people. Deregulation wrecked and plundered the economy, and eviscerated Americans' life savings and home equity. Unemployment is the highest it has been in years, and long-term employment is at disturbing levels, with nearly half of the unemployed out of work for at least six months. College graduates begin their careers in a mountain of debt but with no jobs. Moreover, a trickle-down policy has resulted in the greatest gap between rich and poor in modern history, and a nation that ranks among the least upwardly mobile of the advanced nations.
So now, what is supposedly the world's greatest nation cannot afford to keep its schools open. State and local governments are out of cash, and some localities are grounding up the streets into gravel because they can no longer afford to maintain the roads. State austerity measures--including layoffs of government workers and cutting of important programs--will only exacerbate this economic death spiral.
These are the times when hate groups and unscrupulous politicians suit up for the ugly days ahead, preying on the fears of low information Americans. Bereft of solutions, the ultra-right is doing what the ultra-right does, which is to tear apart the country with an "M-G-M." strategy: blame the Mexicans, Gays and Muslims for all your problems, with the actual or perceived threat of violence thrown in. Of course, blaming that poor undocumented worker for your plight will not help you, but isn't that what scapegoats are for? And the Fourteenth Amendment be damned, they say.
Surely, we can and should assign much blame for our woes on George W. Bush, who bankrupted the nation with two wars and a massive tax cut for the wealthy. However, Bush is no longer running for office. President Obama must realize that he will be judged if he cannot deliver on jobs, and rightly so. Progressives are trying to do him a favor by ensuring that he is not a one-term president, but he refuses to take the hint. A fighting spirit is lacking. At this rate, President Obama is well on his way down that road, despite the phalanx of incompetent empty suits found in abundance on the other side. To this extent, the base is doing what a good base should do.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into power after a failing Herbert Hoover who meant well, but either had the wrong ideas, or his good ideas were too little, too late. Roosevelt enacted a massive New Deal program based on relief to the unemployed, economic reform, and recovery through federal spending. The measures were sweeping, and helped cement a Democratic coalition for decades.
But as F.D.R. once told labor and civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph during a discussion on the future of the country and the plight of African-Americans,
"You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit. ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it."
Once again, the base is making a president "do it," so to speak, for his own good and ours. The party faithful did not vote for good speeches alone, or milquetoast policies and lukewarm, half-hearted solutions to a crisis situation. Nor did they vote for "drill baby drill," or the escalation of a senseless war in Afghanistan, or Wall Street lackeys controlling the till. Certainly, they did not vote for a U.S. that spends as much on military as the rest of the world combined, as other nations beat us in expenditures for science, technology and infrastructure. But they did vote for the active role of government in making things right, as only government can do.
The "professional left" simply wants its F.D.R. in the form of Barack Obama, because that's what 2008 was all about, after all.
August 11, 2010
Why Fox News' 'Southern Strategy' could sink the network
From theGrio.com:
Fox News host Glenn Beck recently compared America under the Obama administration to the Planet of the Apes. Fox News doesn't like black people, so is it any surprise that blacks don't tune in?
Recently, Think Progress reported that according to the Nielsen ratings, only 29,000 black viewers have watched FOX News Channel this television season, out of 2.102 million total viewers. This means that African-Americans make up a mere 1.38 percent of FOX's total audience.
That's a pathetically low number of black folks, but we shouldn't be surprised in the least. After all, given that network's recent treatment of the Shirley Sherrod story, its long history of race-baiting, and the racially-offensive statements of FOX on-air hosts such as Glenn Beck, it only makes sense that black people would not tune into a TV network that disrespects and scapegoats them, and calls them out of their name, so to speak.
But does it matter? With a diversifying U.S. population, does it matter that Fox News, a major news outlet, only seems to cater to a white audience? Could a lack of diversity come back to bite Fox News?
The Fox News coverage of the Shirley Sherrod affair revealed once again that the network not only has a problem with the truth, it has a black people problem. Fox aired a heavily edited video of a speech given by the former U.S. Department of Agriculture official, via conservative blogger and media hitman Andrew Breitbart. The video of Sherrod, who was speaking before an NAACP function, gave the impression that she was a racist who had refused to assist a white farmer in need in 1986. In reality, Sherrod--who became a civil rights activist after her father, a black farmer, was murdered by a white farmer--understood the need to help this poor white man who was in the same boat as poor blacks. But that narrative of reconciliation did not fit with the conservative mantra of "black racism" echoing from Fox News, a reaction to the NAACP's charges of racism in the Tea Party movement.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.
Fox News host Glenn Beck recently compared America under the Obama administration to the Planet of the Apes. Fox News doesn't like black people, so is it any surprise that blacks don't tune in?
Recently, Think Progress reported that according to the Nielsen ratings, only 29,000 black viewers have watched FOX News Channel this television season, out of 2.102 million total viewers. This means that African-Americans make up a mere 1.38 percent of FOX's total audience.
That's a pathetically low number of black folks, but we shouldn't be surprised in the least. After all, given that network's recent treatment of the Shirley Sherrod story, its long history of race-baiting, and the racially-offensive statements of FOX on-air hosts such as Glenn Beck, it only makes sense that black people would not tune into a TV network that disrespects and scapegoats them, and calls them out of their name, so to speak.
But does it matter? With a diversifying U.S. population, does it matter that Fox News, a major news outlet, only seems to cater to a white audience? Could a lack of diversity come back to bite Fox News?
The Fox News coverage of the Shirley Sherrod affair revealed once again that the network not only has a problem with the truth, it has a black people problem. Fox aired a heavily edited video of a speech given by the former U.S. Department of Agriculture official, via conservative blogger and media hitman Andrew Breitbart. The video of Sherrod, who was speaking before an NAACP function, gave the impression that she was a racist who had refused to assist a white farmer in need in 1986. In reality, Sherrod--who became a civil rights activist after her father, a black farmer, was murdered by a white farmer--understood the need to help this poor white man who was in the same boat as poor blacks. But that narrative of reconciliation did not fit with the conservative mantra of "black racism" echoing from Fox News, a reaction to the NAACP's charges of racism in the Tea Party movement.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.
August 7, 2010
Why Kagan could be a crucial vote on key cases
From theGrio.com:
On Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, with several Republican votes and no attempts to filibuster. Now that Solicitor General Kagan is about to become Associate Justice Kagan, Americans will have the opportunity to see how she comes out on the issues.
Up to this point, Kagan's paper trail has been scant at best, and as a person with "real-world" experience and no time serving on the bench, she has no judicial record whatsoever. However, her work experience as a law clerk for the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, a Clinton adviser, a law school dean, and a lawyer representing the U.S. government before the high court could provide some clues. Further, she has been called a liberal and a pragmatist, an analytical person who seeks common ground, and someone with a strong personality whose presence could begin to gradually change the court.
The conventional wisdom is that Kagan replacing Justice John Paul Stevens will be a wash from an ideological standpoint. And as the third woman presently on the high court--and only the fourth woman ever to sit on the nation's most important judicial body--a critical mass of female justices will likely have a positive influence on cases involving discrimination and other issues. She pledged "even-handedness" and "impartiality" on the court.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.
On Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, with several Republican votes and no attempts to filibuster. Now that Solicitor General Kagan is about to become Associate Justice Kagan, Americans will have the opportunity to see how she comes out on the issues.
Up to this point, Kagan's paper trail has been scant at best, and as a person with "real-world" experience and no time serving on the bench, she has no judicial record whatsoever. However, her work experience as a law clerk for the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, a Clinton adviser, a law school dean, and a lawyer representing the U.S. government before the high court could provide some clues. Further, she has been called a liberal and a pragmatist, an analytical person who seeks common ground, and someone with a strong personality whose presence could begin to gradually change the court.
The conventional wisdom is that Kagan replacing Justice John Paul Stevens will be a wash from an ideological standpoint. And as the third woman presently on the high court--and only the fourth woman ever to sit on the nation's most important judicial body--a critical mass of female justices will likely have a positive influence on cases involving discrimination and other issues. She pledged "even-handedness" and "impartiality" on the court.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.
Has the Commission on Civil Rights been compromised?
From theGrio.com:
What does the United States Commission on Civil Rights do? Apparently not much in the area of civil rights anymore, unless you believe that black racism and anti-white discrimination are a big problem in America.
Stacked with ideologues by George W. Bush, the commission's conservative majority decided recently to investigate the New Black Panthers and whether racial bias played a role in the Obama Justice Department's decision to shut down the case against them. In its final days before Obama moved in, the Bush administration decided to go after the New Black Panthers for allegedly intimidating white voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day in 2008-- although the neighborhood is African-American, and the incident was minor and of little consequence. And the Bush administration's decision not to seek criminal charges shoots down claims by conservatives that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was motivated by race in dropping most of the charges against them.
The Panthers' case provides a perfect opportunity to take a look at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to understand its purpose, what it has accomplished in the past, what it is doing now and what we can expect from it in the future.
Formed in 1957 by Congress and signed into law by President Eisenhower, the Commission is an independent body designed to investigate, report and recommendations regarding the protection of the civil rights of citizens. It says on its website that "In furtherance of its fact-finding duties, the commission may hold hearings and issue subpoenas...for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses at such hearings. It maintains state advisory committees, and consults with representatives of federal, state, and local governments, and private organizations." Further, since the Commission does not have enforcement powers to fix specific civil rights problems it discovers, it refers many complaints to federal, local or state governments or private agencies.
In its early years, the commission played a key role in ushering in a civil rights agenda. It first investigated discrimination in housing and voting rights, and worked on the implementation of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. And the commission helped to pave the way for important legislation such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibited discrimination by state and local governments receiving federal funds); and Title VII (which prohibits job discrimination and established the Equal Employment opportunity Commission, or EEOC) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.
What does the United States Commission on Civil Rights do? Apparently not much in the area of civil rights anymore, unless you believe that black racism and anti-white discrimination are a big problem in America.
Stacked with ideologues by George W. Bush, the commission's conservative majority decided recently to investigate the New Black Panthers and whether racial bias played a role in the Obama Justice Department's decision to shut down the case against them. In its final days before Obama moved in, the Bush administration decided to go after the New Black Panthers for allegedly intimidating white voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day in 2008-- although the neighborhood is African-American, and the incident was minor and of little consequence. And the Bush administration's decision not to seek criminal charges shoots down claims by conservatives that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was motivated by race in dropping most of the charges against them.
The Panthers' case provides a perfect opportunity to take a look at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to understand its purpose, what it has accomplished in the past, what it is doing now and what we can expect from it in the future.
Formed in 1957 by Congress and signed into law by President Eisenhower, the Commission is an independent body designed to investigate, report and recommendations regarding the protection of the civil rights of citizens. It says on its website that "In furtherance of its fact-finding duties, the commission may hold hearings and issue subpoenas...for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses at such hearings. It maintains state advisory committees, and consults with representatives of federal, state, and local governments, and private organizations." Further, since the Commission does not have enforcement powers to fix specific civil rights problems it discovers, it refers many complaints to federal, local or state governments or private agencies.
In its early years, the commission played a key role in ushering in a civil rights agenda. It first investigated discrimination in housing and voting rights, and worked on the implementation of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. And the commission helped to pave the way for important legislation such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibited discrimination by state and local governments receiving federal funds); and Title VII (which prohibits job discrimination and established the Equal Employment opportunity Commission, or EEOC) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.
August 4, 2010
The ADL's Troubling Alliance With the Christian Right
From Huffington Post:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the nation's foremost Jewish civil rights organization, took a troubling position recently that screams out for further examination. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a Manhattan community board approved the construction of Cordoba House, an Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero, the location of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Sadly, the ADL has come out against the construction of this center, calling for it to be built on a different location. On its website, the organization says that freedom of religion includes the right of Americans of all religions to build houses of worship. The ADL also states that they "categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry. However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site." Mindful of the pain felt by the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, the organization has concluded that "the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process."
The mission of the ADL, nearly a century old now, is "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." A noble goal, to be sure, but one of which the ADL has fallen short. The organization has taken many proper stands against racism and hate groups, but like most organizations, has had an imperfect past. But for a civil rights organization to sanction intolerance is, well, intolerable.
J Street, a progressive pro-Israel, pro-peace organization, released a statement calling on the Jewish community to stand up for a religious minority trying to exercise its legal rights. Regarding the Islamic center--noting that a synagogue or church would not be subject to such scrutiny-- J Street decries those "fear-mongerers and pandering politicians urging it to relocate." Joe Klein of Time Magazine said in rather harsh words that the ADL has gone "from beacon of tolerance to slightly potty geyser of toxic foolishness."
Just imagine if the NAACP announced its support for the Arizona anti-immigrant law, which discriminates against Latinos. Now, imagine the NAACP maintained they reject the racists who support the law because they hate Latinos, not to mention the hate group that helped write the legislation. And this is the quandary in which the ADL finds itself. You can't have it both ways. If people share your position, but for the wrong reasons, perhaps your position is wrong and needs to change.
In this case, the Anti-Defamation League is providing cover to Neocons and the Christian Right, who are known for their hatred of Muslims and the Arab world just because. Further, the ultra-Right claims to support Israel far more than that so-called socialist-fascist-Kenyan Obama. After all, House Republicans just gave the green light for a resolution supporting an Israeli campaign to bomb Iran, which would be catastrophic for the U.S. and the entire Mideast region.
The neocons love war, because military domination is part of their playbook. Remember the Project for the New American Century and their pet project called the war on terror? Meanwhile, the Christian Right is even more insidious and diabolical in their motives for supposedly standing by Israel. Their feigned support for Israel and opposition to Mideast peace is nothing more than pure anti-Semitism, based on their interpretation of a concept called the Rapture. They want all Jews in the same place, namely the Holy Land, so that when Jesus returns, all Jews who do not accept Christ will perish.
But there is an even bigger picture here. Right-wing voices in Israel and the U.S. have tried to monopolize the debate regarding Mideast policy and discussions on Israel. American neocons have been at the forefront of the dangerous politicization surrounding accusations of anti-Semitism. Ultra-rightwing hawks run Israel's coalition government, expand the Jewish settlements on Palestinian land and maintain the prison called Gaza. Meanwhile, a small group of ultra-Orthodox rabbis would decide in talibanic fashion who is not a Jew--including anyone who is not ultra-Orthodox. This happens as women are arrested and called Nazis for carrying the Torah at the Waling Wall. Any discussion on the Cordoba House controversy in New York must take all of this into account.
And certainly, the Anti-Defamation League is well aware of the dangers of singling out a religious or racial minority group as scapegoats, an object of society's contempt. This only paves the way for laws that remove those groups from civic life, if not from life itself. It happened with Jews under the Nuremberg laws, Japanese-Americans in World War Two, and African-Americans under Jim Crow. Today, it's Latinos, Muslims and people of Arab descent.
The Anti-Defamation League tarnishes its image when it provides cover to those who have a disdain for civil and human rights. You have to be careful when you call yourself a civil rights organization, yet stand with Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. You lose credibility that way.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the nation's foremost Jewish civil rights organization, took a troubling position recently that screams out for further examination. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a Manhattan community board approved the construction of Cordoba House, an Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero, the location of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Sadly, the ADL has come out against the construction of this center, calling for it to be built on a different location. On its website, the organization says that freedom of religion includes the right of Americans of all religions to build houses of worship. The ADL also states that they "categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry. However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site." Mindful of the pain felt by the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, the organization has concluded that "the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process."
The mission of the ADL, nearly a century old now, is "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." A noble goal, to be sure, but one of which the ADL has fallen short. The organization has taken many proper stands against racism and hate groups, but like most organizations, has had an imperfect past. But for a civil rights organization to sanction intolerance is, well, intolerable.
J Street, a progressive pro-Israel, pro-peace organization, released a statement calling on the Jewish community to stand up for a religious minority trying to exercise its legal rights. Regarding the Islamic center--noting that a synagogue or church would not be subject to such scrutiny-- J Street decries those "fear-mongerers and pandering politicians urging it to relocate." Joe Klein of Time Magazine said in rather harsh words that the ADL has gone "from beacon of tolerance to slightly potty geyser of toxic foolishness."
Just imagine if the NAACP announced its support for the Arizona anti-immigrant law, which discriminates against Latinos. Now, imagine the NAACP maintained they reject the racists who support the law because they hate Latinos, not to mention the hate group that helped write the legislation. And this is the quandary in which the ADL finds itself. You can't have it both ways. If people share your position, but for the wrong reasons, perhaps your position is wrong and needs to change.
In this case, the Anti-Defamation League is providing cover to Neocons and the Christian Right, who are known for their hatred of Muslims and the Arab world just because. Further, the ultra-Right claims to support Israel far more than that so-called socialist-fascist-Kenyan Obama. After all, House Republicans just gave the green light for a resolution supporting an Israeli campaign to bomb Iran, which would be catastrophic for the U.S. and the entire Mideast region.
The neocons love war, because military domination is part of their playbook. Remember the Project for the New American Century and their pet project called the war on terror? Meanwhile, the Christian Right is even more insidious and diabolical in their motives for supposedly standing by Israel. Their feigned support for Israel and opposition to Mideast peace is nothing more than pure anti-Semitism, based on their interpretation of a concept called the Rapture. They want all Jews in the same place, namely the Holy Land, so that when Jesus returns, all Jews who do not accept Christ will perish.
But there is an even bigger picture here. Right-wing voices in Israel and the U.S. have tried to monopolize the debate regarding Mideast policy and discussions on Israel. American neocons have been at the forefront of the dangerous politicization surrounding accusations of anti-Semitism. Ultra-rightwing hawks run Israel's coalition government, expand the Jewish settlements on Palestinian land and maintain the prison called Gaza. Meanwhile, a small group of ultra-Orthodox rabbis would decide in talibanic fashion who is not a Jew--including anyone who is not ultra-Orthodox. This happens as women are arrested and called Nazis for carrying the Torah at the Waling Wall. Any discussion on the Cordoba House controversy in New York must take all of this into account.
And certainly, the Anti-Defamation League is well aware of the dangers of singling out a religious or racial minority group as scapegoats, an object of society's contempt. This only paves the way for laws that remove those groups from civic life, if not from life itself. It happened with Jews under the Nuremberg laws, Japanese-Americans in World War Two, and African-Americans under Jim Crow. Today, it's Latinos, Muslims and people of Arab descent.
The Anti-Defamation League tarnishes its image when it provides cover to those who have a disdain for civil and human rights. You have to be careful when you call yourself a civil rights organization, yet stand with Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. You lose credibility that way.
August 2, 2010
Fox News Is The Lynchmob's Ticket Agent
The media manufactured spectacle that is and was the Shirley Sherrod incident tells us all we need to know about Andrew Brietbart, Fox "News" and the dangers of extremist hack media-- unregulated, irresponsible and unethical-- run amok.
Of course, I speak of the firing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture official based on a heavily edited video of a speech she gave at an NAACP event in Georgia. Ms. Sherrod is the wife of a SNCC cofounder, and she became a civil rights activist after her father, a black farmer, was lynched by a white farmer. Ms. Sherrod described how she overcame her reluctance to give her all in helping a white farmer who acted superior towards her. In the end, she helped him. She realized that the issue was not as much about race as it was about poor whites and poor blacks finding themselves in the same situation. And good for her.
But the doctored up video, brought to us by conservative blogger and hatchet man Andrew Breitbart, made Sherrod appear as if she denied assistance to the white farmer, end of story. And Breitbart has lots of practice at this sort of thing, fraud, that is, as the "person" who introduced to us via Fox News the fabricated ACORN pimp video that brought down the nonprofit organization.
It's not as if we should have been surprised this time around, yet some people were. Many reporters were snookered. The NAACP was hoodwinked. And most of all, the seemingly invertebrate Obama administration was so fooled, or scared, or both, that they fired the woman without due process. I'm sorry, even worse, they forced Ms. Sherrod to pull over the car and type her resignation on her blackberry. And as a wise man once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
To watch the lambasting of Shirley Sherrod on Fox News before the facts were known was unbearable. At the same time, one should not depend on Fox for actual news. You could conceivably drink a tall glass of soy sauce with dinner and pretend it is a beverage, but it wasn't intended for that purpose.
It is safe to say that Fox News, like its movie and television divisions, is pure entertainment, that is, if you get your entertainment from a lynchmob.
And lynchings in this country once were considered a form of entertainment by some, believe it or not. Often the victim-- typically a black man accused of insulting a white woman, or perhaps a black man having the nerve to wear his army uniform, or just any black man walking--was beaten, burned, stabbed or hanged. Often, torture and castration was involved, and various unspeakable body parts were cut off as souvenirs. White women and young children were on hand with picnic baskets to observe in the family-like atmosphere. Railroad agents even sold tickets to the events. And frequently among the instigators and participants were not only lowlife good ol' boys, but the community's business and political leadership.
In today's polarizing political climate with declining journalistic standards, sloppy fact checking and faltering government oversight, Fox News serves as the ticket agent to the lynching. They even handle the promotion and advertising. They participate in a high-tech media lynching of sorts, somewhat akin to what Justice Clarence Thomas described at his confirmation hearings, except that he was (and still is) full of it.
Like the politicized Bush Justice Department under the guidance of Karl Rove, Fox News and other conservative media decide on a narrative beforehand, and lie and fabricate to fit that narrative. The Bush DOJ, stacked with an army of televangelist law school graduates, pursued imaginary cases of voter fraud, anti-white voter intimidation and discrimination against Christians. Those prosecutors who did not comply were fired.
Similarly, Fox is filled with vacuous news models who dutifully read the scripts prepared for them. The hot topic these days among the conservative movement is the myth of rampant black racism against whites, and the truth be damned. This narrative serves an important purpose for Republicans, which is to energize the Tea Party base, and kick out the Democrats in the midterms and in 2012. Then once they impeach Obama, they'll finish off the job of ruining the country through a supply-side nightmare that Bush came close to fulfilling. It's that deep, and yet that simple.
Don't get me wrong, freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. As a writer, I appreciate the ability to speak and write freely about this or any other issue. But inciting a lynchmob is quite another matter. What we're witnessing is the use of the media specifically to spread lies, defame, and hurt groups of people, in this case based on race, solely for political gain. And that's downright dangerous and antidemocratic. Why, that's the type of thing you would expect from one of those fascist and communist governments that the ultra-conservatives so vocally decry, guilty as they are of psychological projection.
Propagandists without shame, the folks at Fox and others of their ilk would have done well for themselves under the employ of a repressive regime. Surely they would have used their media manipulation skills to publicly dehumanize unpopular groups. Certainly they would have shaped public opinion by scapegoating defenseless minorities, thereby paving the way for laws to make them disappear. And I can't help but think that someone such as Glenn Beck, or the troubled, attention-craving, perpetually angry Breitbart, would have felt at home in a Rwandan radio station in 1994, inciting violence by encouraging Hutus to exterminate the Tutsi "cockroaches".
Harsh words? No, harsh people. There's no telling what they'd do if given half the chance.
Of course, I speak of the firing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture official based on a heavily edited video of a speech she gave at an NAACP event in Georgia. Ms. Sherrod is the wife of a SNCC cofounder, and she became a civil rights activist after her father, a black farmer, was lynched by a white farmer. Ms. Sherrod described how she overcame her reluctance to give her all in helping a white farmer who acted superior towards her. In the end, she helped him. She realized that the issue was not as much about race as it was about poor whites and poor blacks finding themselves in the same situation. And good for her.
But the doctored up video, brought to us by conservative blogger and hatchet man Andrew Breitbart, made Sherrod appear as if she denied assistance to the white farmer, end of story. And Breitbart has lots of practice at this sort of thing, fraud, that is, as the "person" who introduced to us via Fox News the fabricated ACORN pimp video that brought down the nonprofit organization.
It's not as if we should have been surprised this time around, yet some people were. Many reporters were snookered. The NAACP was hoodwinked. And most of all, the seemingly invertebrate Obama administration was so fooled, or scared, or both, that they fired the woman without due process. I'm sorry, even worse, they forced Ms. Sherrod to pull over the car and type her resignation on her blackberry. And as a wise man once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
To watch the lambasting of Shirley Sherrod on Fox News before the facts were known was unbearable. At the same time, one should not depend on Fox for actual news. You could conceivably drink a tall glass of soy sauce with dinner and pretend it is a beverage, but it wasn't intended for that purpose.
It is safe to say that Fox News, like its movie and television divisions, is pure entertainment, that is, if you get your entertainment from a lynchmob.
And lynchings in this country once were considered a form of entertainment by some, believe it or not. Often the victim-- typically a black man accused of insulting a white woman, or perhaps a black man having the nerve to wear his army uniform, or just any black man walking--was beaten, burned, stabbed or hanged. Often, torture and castration was involved, and various unspeakable body parts were cut off as souvenirs. White women and young children were on hand with picnic baskets to observe in the family-like atmosphere. Railroad agents even sold tickets to the events. And frequently among the instigators and participants were not only lowlife good ol' boys, but the community's business and political leadership.
In today's polarizing political climate with declining journalistic standards, sloppy fact checking and faltering government oversight, Fox News serves as the ticket agent to the lynching. They even handle the promotion and advertising. They participate in a high-tech media lynching of sorts, somewhat akin to what Justice Clarence Thomas described at his confirmation hearings, except that he was (and still is) full of it.
Like the politicized Bush Justice Department under the guidance of Karl Rove, Fox News and other conservative media decide on a narrative beforehand, and lie and fabricate to fit that narrative. The Bush DOJ, stacked with an army of televangelist law school graduates, pursued imaginary cases of voter fraud, anti-white voter intimidation and discrimination against Christians. Those prosecutors who did not comply were fired.
Similarly, Fox is filled with vacuous news models who dutifully read the scripts prepared for them. The hot topic these days among the conservative movement is the myth of rampant black racism against whites, and the truth be damned. This narrative serves an important purpose for Republicans, which is to energize the Tea Party base, and kick out the Democrats in the midterms and in 2012. Then once they impeach Obama, they'll finish off the job of ruining the country through a supply-side nightmare that Bush came close to fulfilling. It's that deep, and yet that simple.
Don't get me wrong, freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. As a writer, I appreciate the ability to speak and write freely about this or any other issue. But inciting a lynchmob is quite another matter. What we're witnessing is the use of the media specifically to spread lies, defame, and hurt groups of people, in this case based on race, solely for political gain. And that's downright dangerous and antidemocratic. Why, that's the type of thing you would expect from one of those fascist and communist governments that the ultra-conservatives so vocally decry, guilty as they are of psychological projection.
Propagandists without shame, the folks at Fox and others of their ilk would have done well for themselves under the employ of a repressive regime. Surely they would have used their media manipulation skills to publicly dehumanize unpopular groups. Certainly they would have shaped public opinion by scapegoating defenseless minorities, thereby paving the way for laws to make them disappear. And I can't help but think that someone such as Glenn Beck, or the troubled, attention-craving, perpetually angry Breitbart, would have felt at home in a Rwandan radio station in 1994, inciting violence by encouraging Hutus to exterminate the Tutsi "cockroaches".
Harsh words? No, harsh people. There's no telling what they'd do if given half the chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)