I'm not particularly fond of the daily fare of social networks like Facebook, but at last such tools have been used to advocate for a democratic society and urge protests aimed at the removal of an oligarchy that has been in place since for thirty years! Now, that's employing the Internet in a constructive manner, and I applaud the youth liberation movement in Egypt for its fervor and ingenuity.
As Frederick Douglass stated in the latter part of the nineteenth century, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." Certainly, the masses of people repeatedly demanded the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, and today their earnest met with success. Hallelujah! Alhamdulillah!
After Anwar Sadat was assassinated, Mohammed Hosni Mubarak seemed like a godsend. He appeared generous to the opposition, freeing many political prisoners, and interested in opening up the economy to the marginalized. But that soon changed. In trying to squash what he saw as radical fundamentalism, the trajectory of his rulership changed dramatically. Rather than becoming a paradigm for democratic leadership, he became increasingly repressive and oppressive, allowing for nearly half of the population to live at subsistence levels. Mubarak cracked down on free, fair, and open elections, and sought to orchestrate his eventual succession. He put a lot of his personal allies in high political positions, including his son Gamal. Egypt has been in a state of emergency for decades, which served as a vehicle to crush any political reform. The dream of democracy was transformed into a nightmare of exploitation.
Somehow, Egypt remained a strong ally of the United States, as administration after administration simply looked the other way in order to maintain American interests in the region. As we have become increasingly receptive to the alleviation of pain for the Palestinians, we have not stridently criticized Mubarak for closing off refuge for displaced Palestinians. Because we consider Egypt key to our national security interests, we have oftentimes suddenly become blind when Egypt offends--as we have been with Saudi Arabia as well as with Israel. Rather than support the burgeoning liberation movement in Egypt, we acted like immobile deer in approaching headlights. The Obama Administration did not have the foresight or insight to discern the unrest brewing at the surface; it was afraid that any words critical of the Mubarak regime would enervate our friendly relations and destabilize the region. Mubarak use this softness on the part of the United States and continued to horde money for himself and his henchmen for a couple decades.
What's in store for Egyptland now? I would never fully trust military personnel to rule a country. It would be optimistic, however, to expect the military to share power, for the instability of the country needs to end, and who else but the military can forge such a state of affairs? I think a civilian coalition should spring up to help organize a new democracy that believes in curtailing the plight of the disinherited. That's what ethical government is all about!
In a very real sense, Mubarak is a tragic figure. Despite his billions, he clinged to a position against the will of the people. He still needed to be bolstered by status and station, rather than ceding to the masses their own process of striving for ideal democracy. In essence, he had become corrupt to the bone: delighting in power and disdaining the people whom he, at one time, vowed to support, sustain, develop, and enhance. Lord Acton was right: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Mubarak had to be forced out; an it happened without the violence of most protesters. Now that's how to walk like an Egyptian!
Friday, February 11, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
PORTMAN & THE BIG O
I have never been a fan of Natalie Portman’s acting ability. Unlike critics who have been making comments about last year’s female performances, I do not believe she should be the odds-on favorite. I do not regard her acting in The Black Swan to be persuasive; she does not seem to emote very well and the way she talks appears to me to be one step removed from struggling both to remember her lines and to follow the director’s instructions. It seems to me she tries to rely on her appearance–which is far less than a lot of other talented actresses–to get her over. However, her outward countenance simply cannot compensate for a very shallow reservoir of talent.
Another aspect which is troubling is a condescending comportment on Portman’s part. I recall years ago when she was criticizing actresses who appear nude on screen, she insisted she would not deign to that. It was not long ago that she played a stripper in Closer scarcely removing any of her underwear. Her playing of this role was not only weak, but also mocking reality. Strippers remove their clothing and their relationship to the clientele goes much further than Portman’s portrayal. Perhaps, her statement was more a reflection of her age, rather than some precocity or moral compass. Clearly, age, romance, and pregnancy removed this sexual constipation, if you will, for she engages in hetero and same-sex activity in The Black Swan, albeit Mila Kunis is more knowledgeable and bare than Portman.
Of course, I am under no illusion that the buzz about Portman’s being a shoe-in for the Oscar will not mirror reality. The unfortunate thing is that her victory will slight the many other powerful performances over the past year. I liked her words at the Screen Actors Guild awards ceremony, when she supported labor. I glad she took advantage of the opportunity to say what she did. So, even though she did not, in my opinion, deserve to be standing there receiving the Actor for Best Actress, her real life show was par excellent!
Another aspect which is troubling is a condescending comportment on Portman’s part. I recall years ago when she was criticizing actresses who appear nude on screen, she insisted she would not deign to that. It was not long ago that she played a stripper in Closer scarcely removing any of her underwear. Her playing of this role was not only weak, but also mocking reality. Strippers remove their clothing and their relationship to the clientele goes much further than Portman’s portrayal. Perhaps, her statement was more a reflection of her age, rather than some precocity or moral compass. Clearly, age, romance, and pregnancy removed this sexual constipation, if you will, for she engages in hetero and same-sex activity in The Black Swan, albeit Mila Kunis is more knowledgeable and bare than Portman.
Of course, I am under no illusion that the buzz about Portman’s being a shoe-in for the Oscar will not mirror reality. The unfortunate thing is that her victory will slight the many other powerful performances over the past year. I liked her words at the Screen Actors Guild awards ceremony, when she supported labor. I glad she took advantage of the opportunity to say what she did. So, even though she did not, in my opinion, deserve to be standing there receiving the Actor for Best Actress, her real life show was par excellent!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
WHOSE WAR IS IT NOW?
During the Presidential Campaign of 2008, candidate Barack Obama repeatedly stated that in the Executive Office and as Commander in Chief, he would search in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and kill him. Those words, which I heard numerous times, not only sent chills up and down my spine, but also elicited anger. They still make me cringe! I did not see the point: after all, he had been criticized for saying he would converse with so-called enemies of the United States; however, I guess killing the enemy of all our enemies was alright.
When it was announced that President Obama would be the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, my horror and ire returned. Initially I felt it must be some weird or cruel joke, for how could a person who advocated violent retaliation against another be considered a paragon of peace? As a matter of fact, he was not only advocating murder, but also escalating warfare that had clearly failed heretofore and lost its erstwhile, ostensible purpose. Obama had spent much of the second term of President George W. Bush condemning the latter’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Now, here he was proverbially talking out of both sides of his mouth by extending and intensifying the war through a surge of military combatants.
I am not certain when a current U.S. president ought to stop blaming present circumstances on the past administration and take ownership of what is happening in the nation and the world under his own term. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were, indeed, inherited by Obama—bequeathed to him by Bush and his entourage. But now we are two years past that abomination, if you will, and the continued 50,000 troops in Iraq and the nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan clearly belong to Obama. He has lowered the number in Iraq, although some U.S. soldiers are still fighting there; and he has acceded to the necessity of a surge in Afghanistan that continued the debacle of the Bush administration. This concessionary behavior emphasizes the fact Obama has purchased certain policies and made them his own.
Although I hold to a pacifist faith, I do not expect or require that posture of my political leaders. However, the greatest advocates and articulators of international law promulgated some dimension of the just war theory. Warfare is something that should never be engaged in lightly; and it should always be the last resort. It is not even arguable that our entrance into Iraq was either justifiable or the final straw, so to speak. Weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, and Islamic feuding had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Pres. Obama seemed fully aware of this duping of the American people from the outset. Our foray into Afghanistan within a month after the horrible attacks seemed, on the surface, to be in hot pursuit of the alleged orchestrator of 9/11—this despite the fact that the base of operation for the terrorist themselves was our ally namely Saudi Arabia!
The U.S. military had been in Afghanistan before. Apparently, the Commander-in-Chief and the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have known the nearly insurmountable challenge of ferreting out terrorists in the cavernous, mountainous terrain would not achieve the goal of breaking up Al-quaeda and gaining the corporation of the Taliban. By perpetuating this folly, Obama must now own whatever course of action is taken under his watch. If withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan actually takes place in July without a concomitant redirection of foreign policy, then Obama is only engaging in cosmetic surgery without having made a precise diagnosis.
This October will mark the tenth anniversary of war against terror in Afghanistan. Better yet, it reveals some level of ineptitude over trying to find a culprit without a hint of warmness, if you will, for an entire decade! When should such a feckless pursuit end? I believe Obama’s wars—may, our wars—should come to an abrupt end!
When it was announced that President Obama would be the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, my horror and ire returned. Initially I felt it must be some weird or cruel joke, for how could a person who advocated violent retaliation against another be considered a paragon of peace? As a matter of fact, he was not only advocating murder, but also escalating warfare that had clearly failed heretofore and lost its erstwhile, ostensible purpose. Obama had spent much of the second term of President George W. Bush condemning the latter’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Now, here he was proverbially talking out of both sides of his mouth by extending and intensifying the war through a surge of military combatants.
I am not certain when a current U.S. president ought to stop blaming present circumstances on the past administration and take ownership of what is happening in the nation and the world under his own term. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were, indeed, inherited by Obama—bequeathed to him by Bush and his entourage. But now we are two years past that abomination, if you will, and the continued 50,000 troops in Iraq and the nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan clearly belong to Obama. He has lowered the number in Iraq, although some U.S. soldiers are still fighting there; and he has acceded to the necessity of a surge in Afghanistan that continued the debacle of the Bush administration. This concessionary behavior emphasizes the fact Obama has purchased certain policies and made them his own.
Although I hold to a pacifist faith, I do not expect or require that posture of my political leaders. However, the greatest advocates and articulators of international law promulgated some dimension of the just war theory. Warfare is something that should never be engaged in lightly; and it should always be the last resort. It is not even arguable that our entrance into Iraq was either justifiable or the final straw, so to speak. Weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, and Islamic feuding had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Pres. Obama seemed fully aware of this duping of the American people from the outset. Our foray into Afghanistan within a month after the horrible attacks seemed, on the surface, to be in hot pursuit of the alleged orchestrator of 9/11—this despite the fact that the base of operation for the terrorist themselves was our ally namely Saudi Arabia!
The U.S. military had been in Afghanistan before. Apparently, the Commander-in-Chief and the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have known the nearly insurmountable challenge of ferreting out terrorists in the cavernous, mountainous terrain would not achieve the goal of breaking up Al-quaeda and gaining the corporation of the Taliban. By perpetuating this folly, Obama must now own whatever course of action is taken under his watch. If withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan actually takes place in July without a concomitant redirection of foreign policy, then Obama is only engaging in cosmetic surgery without having made a precise diagnosis.
This October will mark the tenth anniversary of war against terror in Afghanistan. Better yet, it reveals some level of ineptitude over trying to find a culprit without a hint of warmness, if you will, for an entire decade! When should such a feckless pursuit end? I believe Obama’s wars—may, our wars—should come to an abrupt end!
SORRY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
There is very little substantive discussion about affirmative action these days, because the opposition has successfully distorted the debate in a way that is fundamentally both racist and sexist. This opposition allows for the perpetuation of white-male dominance and the denial of white-female privilege, for the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action policies have been white women. Antagonists of affirmative action skew the discussion from how to address historical discrimination and oppression of categories of people—especially African Americans—to the horrible and countless rejection of white men under the specious rubric of reverse discrimination.
The inception of affirmative action related to the centuries of African slavery and the subsequent near-century of Jim Crow segregation, which existed prior to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, but became legal after the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Clearly, the purpose of affirmative action was to account for the long duration of suppression of black people in the United States by ensuring such discrimination and exploitation would not happen again. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower sought to address antidiscrimination in government contracts through executive orders, but it was President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 that pinpointed taking affirmative action to eliminate racial bias and President Johnson’s enforcement thereof with Executive Order 11246 to inject that phrase into the veins of our civilization.
The major, unfortunate problem with these renditions of antiracist hiring policy is the letter did not reflect the intent. For the mandates were not to ignore the history and refuse to make amends for egregious past wrongs; instead, they were to compensate for deliberate obstruction of employment opportunities for generations. By using language that indicated hiring should not occur with race in mind, the presidential orders created the possibility for white people to claim they were being discriminated against based on the very orders intended to improve and increase the chances of people of color to be gainfully employed! Those words, “without regard to race,” eventually became the precise impediment to redressing the historical lockout that plagued the African American population for centuries.
The arguments pleading reverse discrimination failed to appreciate past oppression. All of a sudden, opponents of affirmative action wanted to forgive the discrimination of categories of people over time by dismissing such categories in favor of individual or selfish concerns. Thus, from their vantage point, two candidates qualified for a job at a particular institution that practiced racially discriminative hiring could not now hire the black, rather than the white, applicant because of the former’s belonging to a racial category heretofore deemed unemployable by that institution. Supposedly, the white candidate would be treated unfairly by being denied employment as a member of the white race—a category nevertheless privileged over blacks for centuries! This type of thinking disrespects history and turns upside down the intent of affirmative action.
The initial executive orders did not include sex and gender as protected classes so to speak. Gender was added in 1967. With this addition, affirmative action garnered some support, because it softened singularly advantaging persons of color. By the late 1970s, however, along with the coincident white backlash after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., affirmative action was being publically lambasted and attained status with the Bakke decision, which attacked the use of quotas.
Another turning point in the affirmative action debate came with the shifting of the burden of proof from defendants to plaintiffs. Many plaintiffs seeking legal redress for being discriminated against had, as a result, to research and present the evidence with the necessary help of a costly attorney. They simply did not have the means and wherewithal to challenge unfair practices. The continuous assault against affirmative action sullies and hides the fact that institutional racism still exists in this country and employers knowingly and unwittingly perpetuate it.
Affirmative action has never been about hiring unqualified persons. It has always been about alleviating structural racism and its myriad effects by ensuring certain categories of people land jobs and get promoted as they ought and in accordance with or greater than their numbers in the local and county populations. Despite the election of a U.S. president who is biracial and self-identifies as black, and in spite of the fact that his ascendancy has provoked and elicited fantasies about a colorblind society, the terrible fact remains that paucity of opportunities available to employable people of color reveals not only that we have not yet arrived at such a society, but also that we must call into question the validity of such dream in the first place.
The past is very important, and we cannot turn a blind eye to it. The attack on affirmative action is disingenuous, at best, for it continues to dismiss not only the history of racism in the United States, but also the ongoing institutionalized oppression and exploitation of peoples of color throughout all dimensions of life. Apologizing for racism, which is the pernicious categorizing of certain people as inferior, is not enough. It requires, using Christian references, repentance, redemption, and reconciliation: in other words, to make amends to the categories of people adversely affected, to leave and never return to the dehumanizing system, and to regard each member of each category as a complete human being.
Sorry is not good enough!
The inception of affirmative action related to the centuries of African slavery and the subsequent near-century of Jim Crow segregation, which existed prior to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, but became legal after the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Clearly, the purpose of affirmative action was to account for the long duration of suppression of black people in the United States by ensuring such discrimination and exploitation would not happen again. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower sought to address antidiscrimination in government contracts through executive orders, but it was President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 that pinpointed taking affirmative action to eliminate racial bias and President Johnson’s enforcement thereof with Executive Order 11246 to inject that phrase into the veins of our civilization.
The major, unfortunate problem with these renditions of antiracist hiring policy is the letter did not reflect the intent. For the mandates were not to ignore the history and refuse to make amends for egregious past wrongs; instead, they were to compensate for deliberate obstruction of employment opportunities for generations. By using language that indicated hiring should not occur with race in mind, the presidential orders created the possibility for white people to claim they were being discriminated against based on the very orders intended to improve and increase the chances of people of color to be gainfully employed! Those words, “without regard to race,” eventually became the precise impediment to redressing the historical lockout that plagued the African American population for centuries.
The arguments pleading reverse discrimination failed to appreciate past oppression. All of a sudden, opponents of affirmative action wanted to forgive the discrimination of categories of people over time by dismissing such categories in favor of individual or selfish concerns. Thus, from their vantage point, two candidates qualified for a job at a particular institution that practiced racially discriminative hiring could not now hire the black, rather than the white, applicant because of the former’s belonging to a racial category heretofore deemed unemployable by that institution. Supposedly, the white candidate would be treated unfairly by being denied employment as a member of the white race—a category nevertheless privileged over blacks for centuries! This type of thinking disrespects history and turns upside down the intent of affirmative action.
The initial executive orders did not include sex and gender as protected classes so to speak. Gender was added in 1967. With this addition, affirmative action garnered some support, because it softened singularly advantaging persons of color. By the late 1970s, however, along with the coincident white backlash after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., affirmative action was being publically lambasted and attained status with the Bakke decision, which attacked the use of quotas.
Another turning point in the affirmative action debate came with the shifting of the burden of proof from defendants to plaintiffs. Many plaintiffs seeking legal redress for being discriminated against had, as a result, to research and present the evidence with the necessary help of a costly attorney. They simply did not have the means and wherewithal to challenge unfair practices. The continuous assault against affirmative action sullies and hides the fact that institutional racism still exists in this country and employers knowingly and unwittingly perpetuate it.
Affirmative action has never been about hiring unqualified persons. It has always been about alleviating structural racism and its myriad effects by ensuring certain categories of people land jobs and get promoted as they ought and in accordance with or greater than their numbers in the local and county populations. Despite the election of a U.S. president who is biracial and self-identifies as black, and in spite of the fact that his ascendancy has provoked and elicited fantasies about a colorblind society, the terrible fact remains that paucity of opportunities available to employable people of color reveals not only that we have not yet arrived at such a society, but also that we must call into question the validity of such dream in the first place.
The past is very important, and we cannot turn a blind eye to it. The attack on affirmative action is disingenuous, at best, for it continues to dismiss not only the history of racism in the United States, but also the ongoing institutionalized oppression and exploitation of peoples of color throughout all dimensions of life. Apologizing for racism, which is the pernicious categorizing of certain people as inferior, is not enough. It requires, using Christian references, repentance, redemption, and reconciliation: in other words, to make amends to the categories of people adversely affected, to leave and never return to the dehumanizing system, and to regard each member of each category as a complete human being.
Sorry is not good enough!
Friday, January 21, 2011
OBAMA'S SELECTION OF NEW CHIEF OF STAFF
The fact that President Obama selected as his new chief of staff a person with banking interests goes against the perception that he has strong socialist leanings. William Daley used to be commerce secretary, which also suggests that Obama is a good ole capitalist after all.
Part and parcel of his choice anticipates not only the creation of new jobs to undergird and grow our economy, but also to increase our competitive advantage in the world market. What this divulges is his support for the hackneyed system of rivalry, rather than anything really new: like the forging of international enterprise collaboration or the effort to stabilize floundering economies in the Second and Third Worlds.
Obama has consistently backpedaled from his “redistribution of wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber on the 2008 presidential campaign trail. One cannot help but get the feeling that he never actually held the view à la Martin Luther King, Jr. that what we need in America is a revolution of values and a radical redistribution of wealth in this country. Instead Obama has, by his selection, kowtowed once again to corporate interests, which inevitably lead to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This increasing chasm also will result in the strangulation of the middle class, an effect that contradicts his purported goal of buttressing and bolstering that shrinking social class.
The banking industry was the culprit that took the American economy over the cliff in the first place. So why is Obama inviting one of its leaders and a Chicago associate to play John to his Jesus, so to speak? What is needed in this country is a concerted effort to bring about full employment, not further steeping ourselves amid the mire of laissez-faire capitalism. At this juncture, the mere appearance of camaraderie with the banking establishment is ill-advised. Hence, Obama’s boldness in this regard reflects a disturbing comfort with business as usual. The palsy-walsy nature of his selection processes resembles the customary good ole boys’ network.
The economic situation in this country is still dire, and very little is being said about the devastating effects it is having upon the middle and lower classes. People’s lifestyles are drastically changing: those living from paycheck to paycheck are forced to live desperately, while solutions to the crisis are not being attended to in recognition of that fact. How can we expect folks who are under the iron feet of foreclosure, family dislocation, and homelessness to remain upstanding citizens with a zeal for or trust in our allegedly empathetic democratic republic, while a minority of people have their jobs saved, get hefty bonuses, and make more money in a year than most make in a lifetime? It is grossly unfair, hypocritical, immoral, and unethical!
Bailing out, subsidizing, and stimulating big business has certainly not trickled down to reinvigorate the economy, put people back to work, and help people to earn a sustainable and livable income. Attending to the least of these should be the president’s and government’s number one priority. But what kind of lobbying power do the poor or the indigent have compared with the ubiquity of lobbyists paid by big business? Paying lip service to job creation without putting forth a feasible and effective process to accomplish it is what many low-income people have been experiencing from time immemorial. Obama’s promise of a new day in Washington, D.C., Is now falling even more so upon deaf ears.
Obama needs to hear the words of that great socialist and pacifist of yesteryear, Eugene V. Debs, echoing down through the twentieth into the twenty-first century: “While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is one man in prison, I am not free.” If the members of the current administration who are responsible for fostering the long-awaited economic recovery can similarly place their feet in the shoes of the disadvantaged and otherwise oppressed, then, perhaps, we could begin to usher in the beloved community at last!
Part and parcel of his choice anticipates not only the creation of new jobs to undergird and grow our economy, but also to increase our competitive advantage in the world market. What this divulges is his support for the hackneyed system of rivalry, rather than anything really new: like the forging of international enterprise collaboration or the effort to stabilize floundering economies in the Second and Third Worlds.
Obama has consistently backpedaled from his “redistribution of wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber on the 2008 presidential campaign trail. One cannot help but get the feeling that he never actually held the view à la Martin Luther King, Jr. that what we need in America is a revolution of values and a radical redistribution of wealth in this country. Instead Obama has, by his selection, kowtowed once again to corporate interests, which inevitably lead to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This increasing chasm also will result in the strangulation of the middle class, an effect that contradicts his purported goal of buttressing and bolstering that shrinking social class.
The banking industry was the culprit that took the American economy over the cliff in the first place. So why is Obama inviting one of its leaders and a Chicago associate to play John to his Jesus, so to speak? What is needed in this country is a concerted effort to bring about full employment, not further steeping ourselves amid the mire of laissez-faire capitalism. At this juncture, the mere appearance of camaraderie with the banking establishment is ill-advised. Hence, Obama’s boldness in this regard reflects a disturbing comfort with business as usual. The palsy-walsy nature of his selection processes resembles the customary good ole boys’ network.
The economic situation in this country is still dire, and very little is being said about the devastating effects it is having upon the middle and lower classes. People’s lifestyles are drastically changing: those living from paycheck to paycheck are forced to live desperately, while solutions to the crisis are not being attended to in recognition of that fact. How can we expect folks who are under the iron feet of foreclosure, family dislocation, and homelessness to remain upstanding citizens with a zeal for or trust in our allegedly empathetic democratic republic, while a minority of people have their jobs saved, get hefty bonuses, and make more money in a year than most make in a lifetime? It is grossly unfair, hypocritical, immoral, and unethical!
Bailing out, subsidizing, and stimulating big business has certainly not trickled down to reinvigorate the economy, put people back to work, and help people to earn a sustainable and livable income. Attending to the least of these should be the president’s and government’s number one priority. But what kind of lobbying power do the poor or the indigent have compared with the ubiquity of lobbyists paid by big business? Paying lip service to job creation without putting forth a feasible and effective process to accomplish it is what many low-income people have been experiencing from time immemorial. Obama’s promise of a new day in Washington, D.C., Is now falling even more so upon deaf ears.
Obama needs to hear the words of that great socialist and pacifist of yesteryear, Eugene V. Debs, echoing down through the twentieth into the twenty-first century: “While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is one man in prison, I am not free.” If the members of the current administration who are responsible for fostering the long-awaited economic recovery can similarly place their feet in the shoes of the disadvantaged and otherwise oppressed, then, perhaps, we could begin to usher in the beloved community at last!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT
The celerity or alacrity with which Governor Terry Branstad rescinded former Governor Chet Culver’s restoration of voting rights for felons on his inaugural day, demonstrates both fear and animus on the part of the new Governor and his henchmen, namely Secretary of State Albrecht, that defy levelheaded rationality. The adverse racial impact of this rescission is unconscionable—given that Iowa is the top state that disproportionately incarcerates African-Americans and that a quarter of the felons in the state are African-American! Based on these facts alone, the action by Branstad is racist and, thereby, unconstitutional.
Of course, racial discrimination’s burden of proof is made so deliberately insurmountable, that it is ostensibly ridiculous even to make the effort. Perhaps, something can be said about the speed of his action that calls into question his intentions; however, racial discrimination does not singularly point to a person, but, rather, to structures, processes, and policies that have racially disparate effects. In other words, whether or not Branstad is a racist is beside the point; what matters is whether the disproportionate number of ex-felons who will not be able to vote is against the state’s compelling interests with regard to race. The racial impact of his rescissory action is clearly egregious and the style likewise malevolent, but in the final analysis, opponents will have to hang their hat, so to speak, on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
When a citizen is unable to vote, especially one who is a member of an underrepresented category of people, that person is denied equal protection, fairness, and equity under the law—which breaches the Fourteenth Amendment. Because one has committed a felony should not mean that person should lose any citizenship rights. A criminal act has little to do with civil liberties and even less to do with suffrage. The withdrawal of the franchise is a deliberate attempt to wield more power by allowing persons characterized as evil to be further humiliated and treated as less than human beings. No one should be allowed to forfeit the right to vote regardless of the heinousness of the crime committed, for it removes another protection from a full-fledged citizen of the United States. It flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the vote from anyone who is a citizen, with special reference to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Clearly, the denial to ex-felons in Iowa violates this law, for a disproportion of ex-felons is African American! In addition, the stricture that one can only petition for the return of the franchise after all fines and penalties are paid amounts to levying a kind of poll tax upon those who are financially strapped already. Certainly, anything like a poll tax is verboten according to this amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In terms of its racial dimensions, the forfeiture of the ballot for felons and ex-felons disallows them a very significant ally in the battle against further dehumanization. Felons can hardly obtain gainful employment and a decent place to live because they are permanently stigmatized. Denying the right to vote adds insult to injury and relegates them to second class citizenship reminiscent of the early three-fifths rule and the infamous Dred Scott decision. Fortunately, well-meaning people over the past century and a half have recognized the folly of such policies and procedures. Notwithstanding this realization, we find ourselves still battling against the unspeakable elephant in the room, namely racism.
I call upon all people of good will who enjoy representative democracy openly and in unison to demand Branstad reverse his racially tendentious rescission with all deliberate speed!
Of course, racial discrimination’s burden of proof is made so deliberately insurmountable, that it is ostensibly ridiculous even to make the effort. Perhaps, something can be said about the speed of his action that calls into question his intentions; however, racial discrimination does not singularly point to a person, but, rather, to structures, processes, and policies that have racially disparate effects. In other words, whether or not Branstad is a racist is beside the point; what matters is whether the disproportionate number of ex-felons who will not be able to vote is against the state’s compelling interests with regard to race. The racial impact of his rescissory action is clearly egregious and the style likewise malevolent, but in the final analysis, opponents will have to hang their hat, so to speak, on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
When a citizen is unable to vote, especially one who is a member of an underrepresented category of people, that person is denied equal protection, fairness, and equity under the law—which breaches the Fourteenth Amendment. Because one has committed a felony should not mean that person should lose any citizenship rights. A criminal act has little to do with civil liberties and even less to do with suffrage. The withdrawal of the franchise is a deliberate attempt to wield more power by allowing persons characterized as evil to be further humiliated and treated as less than human beings. No one should be allowed to forfeit the right to vote regardless of the heinousness of the crime committed, for it removes another protection from a full-fledged citizen of the United States. It flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the vote from anyone who is a citizen, with special reference to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Clearly, the denial to ex-felons in Iowa violates this law, for a disproportion of ex-felons is African American! In addition, the stricture that one can only petition for the return of the franchise after all fines and penalties are paid amounts to levying a kind of poll tax upon those who are financially strapped already. Certainly, anything like a poll tax is verboten according to this amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In terms of its racial dimensions, the forfeiture of the ballot for felons and ex-felons disallows them a very significant ally in the battle against further dehumanization. Felons can hardly obtain gainful employment and a decent place to live because they are permanently stigmatized. Denying the right to vote adds insult to injury and relegates them to second class citizenship reminiscent of the early three-fifths rule and the infamous Dred Scott decision. Fortunately, well-meaning people over the past century and a half have recognized the folly of such policies and procedures. Notwithstanding this realization, we find ourselves still battling against the unspeakable elephant in the room, namely racism.
I call upon all people of good will who enjoy representative democracy openly and in unison to demand Branstad reverse his racially tendentious rescission with all deliberate speed!
Friday, January 14, 2011
MALCOM X & MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Since my adolescent years, I have undergone persistent criticism over my obvious stronger affinity towards Dr. King than towards Minister Malcolm. Those intermittent attacks upon my intelligence and character, I deemed to derive from impassioned ignorance more than anything else. Sadly, the supporters of Malcolm were most often completely bereft of knowledge about King, save for the ubiquitous “I Have a Dream” mantra that media brokers, political pundits, civic leaders, and the hoi polloi could barely stomach. No one seemed to want to hear about the nonviolent warrior who fought against avariciousness and rugged individualism, jumboism, ghettoization, unsafe working conditions, underemployment, the military draft, escalation of the war in Vietnam, and poverty, in addition to racism. King was no pipe dreamer, as many would claim made the Nobel Peace Prize recondite; rather, King was an enlightened patriot and internationalist who ardently sought after the beloved community.
The above notwithstanding, I want to clear up a few things that have been in discussions of Malcolm and Martin since the mid-1960s. The point of contention centers around what would have happened if they ever met. This question is not a moot point, for it is and should be a matter of the historical record. Herein, I make it plain.
King and X met publicly in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 1964. The occasion was to listen in on a congressional debate over the Civil Rights Bill. Many claim that this encounter was the only time the two have set eyes upon each other and physically shook hands. This point of view is highly suspect, for many go on to say that this meeting was the only time they communicated with each other in their entire lives. Such is simply not the case!
Malcolm and Martin communicated with each other as early as the late 1950’s. In this regard, many scholars attest that they never spoke on the phone or wrote a letter and sent it to each other ever. Clearly, assertions like these are completely untrue. Malcolm and Martin did speak on the phone more than once, and correspondence between the two took place with and without an intervening person. A number of these interactions occurred prior to the beginning of extensive wire tapping of both parties. Consequently, there are no records of how they interfaced prior to the middle of the Kennedy administration.
Both men were warm and personable individuals. Although Malcolm was wolnt openly to criticize King during public addresses, whereas King always refused to do so, they clearly had immense respect for each other. After Malcolm left the nation of Islam, he was ever more amenable to reaching out to his non violent brother. As a matter of fact, Malcolm himself was primarily non violent in private, while in the political arena he shouted invective about self defense and confrontation that kept the media spinning scary tales of proposed violence against whites and against law enforcement officers. And the beat of lies drums on!
During the early stages of the Selma campaign Malcolm chatted with Coretta more than once, and left messages for Martin with her. The ease with which Malcolm and Coretta spoke reveals an intimacy between her husband and Malcolm that could only have been developed through direct contact. It is in shame that we cannot fully recover dates, times, and locations of these exchanges!
What must be stated herein is the stark reality of their lives. They were both assassinated during the very prime of their lives. We will never know nor should we ever speculate, what would have happened had they lived. However, it is clear that the divide that separated their rhetoric was appreciably closing as the battle for full human rights continued to be waged.
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to continue that struggle until victory is won!
The above notwithstanding, I want to clear up a few things that have been in discussions of Malcolm and Martin since the mid-1960s. The point of contention centers around what would have happened if they ever met. This question is not a moot point, for it is and should be a matter of the historical record. Herein, I make it plain.
King and X met publicly in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 1964. The occasion was to listen in on a congressional debate over the Civil Rights Bill. Many claim that this encounter was the only time the two have set eyes upon each other and physically shook hands. This point of view is highly suspect, for many go on to say that this meeting was the only time they communicated with each other in their entire lives. Such is simply not the case!
Malcolm and Martin communicated with each other as early as the late 1950’s. In this regard, many scholars attest that they never spoke on the phone or wrote a letter and sent it to each other ever. Clearly, assertions like these are completely untrue. Malcolm and Martin did speak on the phone more than once, and correspondence between the two took place with and without an intervening person. A number of these interactions occurred prior to the beginning of extensive wire tapping of both parties. Consequently, there are no records of how they interfaced prior to the middle of the Kennedy administration.
Both men were warm and personable individuals. Although Malcolm was wolnt openly to criticize King during public addresses, whereas King always refused to do so, they clearly had immense respect for each other. After Malcolm left the nation of Islam, he was ever more amenable to reaching out to his non violent brother. As a matter of fact, Malcolm himself was primarily non violent in private, while in the political arena he shouted invective about self defense and confrontation that kept the media spinning scary tales of proposed violence against whites and against law enforcement officers. And the beat of lies drums on!
During the early stages of the Selma campaign Malcolm chatted with Coretta more than once, and left messages for Martin with her. The ease with which Malcolm and Coretta spoke reveals an intimacy between her husband and Malcolm that could only have been developed through direct contact. It is in shame that we cannot fully recover dates, times, and locations of these exchanges!
What must be stated herein is the stark reality of their lives. They were both assassinated during the very prime of their lives. We will never know nor should we ever speculate, what would have happened had they lived. However, it is clear that the divide that separated their rhetoric was appreciably closing as the battle for full human rights continued to be waged.
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to continue that struggle until victory is won!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)