As I sat last night at a Christmas service with mixed choirs including the children's choir, I had mixed emotions and was indiscriminately tossed between the joy of seeing young children enjoying a church Christmas celebration and the aching sorrow knowing that 20 families in Connecticut have been robbed of this joy.
Feeling sorrow and saying our prayers for the families, however, is not enough-- faith without works is dead. The most well-organized lobbyists in Washington, D.C. are those of the NRA. Their members are those who in the midst of a mass shooting chide anyone from using a tragedy involving guns to even consider regulations. They speak out against demeaning the memories of the victims by politicizing the tragedy. Of course, there is no right time to discuss the regulation of weapons. They criticize the media for exploitation for the gun lobbyists and owners of these types of weapons do not want the public to see what carnage semi-automatic weapons can do. It is exactly the time to talk about regulation of semi-automatics with large magazine capacities since they were not only used to murder 20 children and 6 of their teachers in a school but in nearly every mass shooting since the 1980s. For the first time, however, we are dealing with victims so very young.
While the Internet is not a safe place for gaining verifiable research, one can learn much from the responses that gun owners have given for the need to possess semi-automatic assault weapons such as those most recently in the Connecticut massacre.
The most prevalent answer is some variation on the fact that they can. Consider the following
"As a free man living in a so called free country, i am not going to justify my needs to anyone." "My response to 'Why do you have/want/need an assault rifle?' would be "I want one." "Same reason I have a 4 slice toaster instead of the more pedestrian 2 slicer: I want it." "Because I can." "Because they are a citizen and not a subject." "why do you need a ball point pen, a computer or TV, surely the founders hadn't thought those would ever exist."
"My usual reply is 'That is none of your business. Why do you have what you have? Do you want me nitpicking and asking you about why you own your posessions too?'" "Do we really need these things? Yes, I may not use mine for the same purposes as the next person but mine is a precise and efficient tool that I use on a weekly basis. I don't use it for mass shootings of human beings for the reason that I am a law abiding, level headed American citizen. That should give me the right to own whatever the hell I want." Then there are those who own guns because it is American.
"It's the people's last recourse against tyranny."
"It has less to do with the needs of the individual than it does with the needs of the Republic. The Republic of the United States of America needs citizens to keep and bear military grade weaponry in order to have a pool for a well trained militia and as a final line of defense against all of the enemies of the Republic and its Constitution, foreign and domestic."
"Owning a black rifle is a civic duty, not an individual want or need."
"because governments,...all governments, eventually seek total power over those they govern....and fuck you, thats why."
IN fact, if everyone were to do this civic duty and be armed in public, many believe we would all be safer: "In my opinion the only real deterrent is armed citizens who will react when they find themselves in those types of situations. It ain't much but it's a hell of a lot more than some "make me feel safe" ban on something that will only serve to disarm the ones that don't need disarming."
And then there are those who argue that since there are many more things than guns that may be used to kill, why not simply ban everything:
"Why not ban any vehicle that is faster than the speed limit? Why not ban long butcher knives? Why not ban the ability to "Supersize" your fast food order? These all make just as much sense as banning large capacity magazines."
"In the right hands, a hand full of spoons and butter knives can injure many people, just like a seriously foggy morning and a slippery road. Should we, then, ban spoons, butter knives, and bad weather?"
"Anything could be used as an assault weapon look at David and goliath one little rock is all it takes I have an ar15 I didn't buy it to harm any one just to have fun with and kill pigs and stuff"
"Might as well ask why someone needs a car that can go 160 mph when 70 is the speed limit. Or why do you need a compound bow when a traditional bow can do the same thing."
"Tobacco kills more people then guns so, why not ban tobacco. Just another example."
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, just like alcohol don't kill people, it's the people that are irresponsible and abuse it that kill and harm others due to alcohol. Ban guns, ban alcohol, ban drugs, ban whatever you want irresponsible people are still gonna find something&abuse it and it will get outta control and hurt others"
Sometimes, believe it or not, doing something simply because one can is not a good enough justification. It is rather unsettling to know there are people in our communities who may never take the time to consider why they do the things they do. What ever happened to "the unexamined life is not worth living." For these people, there is no direction. They are placed on the earth to do whatever they can get away with.
Civilization, however, is a process of collective self-examination and constantly refining our laws to a changing technological landscape and our moral absolutes to an ever-diversified human race. In the process, some things we held to be morally appropriate in the past, such as indentured servitude or slavery, we recognize to be unjust. And some things that we had no need to regulate-- such as highway speeds and air traffic-- justify the creation of new legal parameters.
And why do I feel particularly less safe knowing that a large group of those who own semi-automatic assault weapons are dong so to fulfill their civic duty?
I am also fairly confident that some of the weapons on hand in the U.S. Armed Forces might be able to take down a group of armed citizens fighting against tyranny. I do believe at one time the weapons available to the federal government were similar to those of the cobbler or cooper-- the Second Amendment made more sense then.
While our friends have certainly identified a variety of things that may be lethal if in the wrong hands, I think we would all agree that while we would never ban our favorite McDonald value meal, many of us might consider banning extremely foggy mornings. The truth, however, is that while many things can kill, guns are designed. And semi-automatics are designed to kill more quickly and with less effort. I have no doubt that anyone premeditating a mass murder will not choose butcher knives, spoons, butter knives, cigarettes (to force victims to smoke several packs a day until a large number contract heart disease or COPD and die?), drugs (to force a large group of people to ingest lethal amounts of drugs?), a slingshot, or for that matter perform an elaborate bad-weather dance to whip up a lethal storm. The weapon of choice is the semi-automatic weapon with large magazine capacity. When armed with semi-automatics, an individual is not only instantly more powerful than those he wishes to kill, but is able to kill many more victims. For these mass-murderers the semi-automatic is the coward's choice. Those who own these weapons must accept the fact that the potential for extreme carnage in the wrong hands outweighs their own right to possess them.
But for the fact that we are living through a nightmare in which the most innocent have been violently taken from us, their arguments would be part of a SNL routine. The fact that they will continue to make these assertions and in mass numbers demonstrate how little they value humanity and how they will continue to dismiss logic, reason, and morality in favor of their own selfish and unexamined rights.
But our entire society has been whittled down to the financiers who compound the largest profits of free enterprise and the consumers who feel entitled to have as much as they want. As a society, we are losing our sensitivity to how safe we and others are in having and using what we possess, and we are continuing our insensitivity to how our desire to own and the investor's desire for exorbitant profits affect the workers who produce what we possess.
This time, however, we must decide between a semi-automatic and a child. This should be an easy choice, right? Where your treasure is, there is your heart.
You have been elected at a very singular moment in American history. You have been elected to begin the process of resuscitating an American middle-class that has been subject to the unfettered license of business leaders and financial moguls for the last thirty years. For decades now, the very rich have benefited from continuing income tax cuts from a one-time high of over 90 percent to an all-time low of 28 percent. Capital gains taxes and corporate taxes have also been so unconscionably low that CEOs and investment bankers have used their financial license to accumulate reckless amounts of capital for themselves and stockholders even as they cut jobs, reduce wages, eliminate benefits, and convert pensions to the 401 (k). At the same time as businesses were booming and a few were drowning in new wealth, the workers no longer reaped any of these rewards. In fact, the so-called entitlements weighing down the federal deficit are programs or agencies that are doing what the leaders of finance and industry have historically refused to do-- reigning in risky investments; working for an industry's long term health and not the short term pay-off; eliminating pollution; making products that are reasonably safe, food that is uncontaminated, and pharmaceuticals that are well-tested before being marketed; ensuring that workers have safe working conditions, monthly income upon retirement, adequate health care, unemployment income when they lose their jobs, and public assistance when they too often fall into poverty. It is time for the top two percent to pay a little more!
The federal government has had to spend trillions, while the top two percent have made their millions and billions relying like spoiled children on the federal government to spend whatever amount necessary to clean up their mess. If it weren't so ignominious, we would almost have to laugh at the way in which the same people whose behavior has compelled the federal government to spend itself into debt, continue to demand a reduction in spending. The Republicans preach that their upper class constituents require less and less financial regulation and taxes, but they do not believe that these same individuals have any other responsibility than making money for themselves and their stockholders. The very rich have forced the federal government into debt and then complain that he government is spending too much. The truth must be told that while government spending does not benefit the upper two percent of Americans, it is their reckless and avaricious business practices which are the proximate cause.
If supply side, trickle down, economics really works, then why does a middle class salary have less buying power today than it did thirty years ago? Why is America forced to have a greater number of two wage earner households than any European country? Why has the typical CEO's salary gone from 40 times the average worker's to 400? Why, over the last 40 years, has the compensation for American workers risen only 10 percent while the companies they work for have realized an 80 percent rise in productivity? Why have big business lobbyists, whose sole job is to entice elected officials into supporting corporate interests, grown from 175 in 1971 to a record 15,137 in 2007, nearly 2,000 of whom are former government officials? Why do Americans own only 40 percent of the nation's housing stock, when we owned 70 percent in 1985? Why do only 18 percent of workers receive employer paid health insurance when 80 percent received this benefit in 1980? Why do only 35 percent of workers receive life-time monthly pensions when 84 percent received them in 1980? Why do the richest one percent of Americans take home 23 percent of the income? Why does this same select group earn more money than the economies of Canada or France? Why, during the Bush II years, did corporate profits rise to their highest level since 1943 while money going toward employee wages fell to its lowest level since 1929? Why have the wages of a worker in Germany risen 30 percent since the 1980s while the wages of American workers have risen only 5 percent? Why, in the last ten years, have U.S. companies hired 2.4 million overseas workers while eliminating the jobs of 2.9 million American workers? Why can so few make so much money? And why can't such incredible corporate profit trickle down the way we were promised it would? The reason lies in the fact that this economic theory was designed and implemented for no other reason than to increase the profits of CEOs, stockholders, and financial institutions. Henry Ford did not have to attend an Ivy League School to understand that the best economic policy to garner profits for owners and investors is to keep workers healthy and happy, for as consumers, they will purchase and increase the demand for the excellent products they help to create. Unfortunately the worker is no longer even an after-thought in what has come to be an "increase profits at any cost" mentality. This is not only immoral, it is not only bad economics, it jeopardizes the freedom that all Americans are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution-- if the majority of Americans lacks the freedom to earn a decent wage because a select few are taking that right away, then the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on and America, at least in economic terms, is no longer a free country.
Mr. President, those of us who voted for you did so because we believed that you would right our ship, that you would begin the turn-around that will take back the economic power for the majority which, since the mid 1970s, was actively stripped away by the prevailed few. You won this election in spite of the high price paid to PACs to defeat you. And you will certainly continue to face the tyranny of the plutocrats in the form of their high-priced lobbyists who will promise elected officials anything to solidify the status quo. Let the inordinately wealthy understand that America is not an aristocracy but that it remains a democratic society where the majority rules. Keep your eye on the prize, steeled against the criticism and insult delivered from the right. We have your back because you have promised to have ours.
Why did the Republicans lose? Too many gifts to the 47 percenters? Too much "urban" vote?
This guy right here is "urban" enough for me!!
The sanest rationale comes from those who say that there is nothing wrong with the Republican message; it's just hitting the ears of Hispanics and Asians all wrong. According to this premise, a simple tweaking of the Republican platform-- maybe adding the words Hispanic and Asian along with Israel and God-- will find many minority voters banging down the Republican doors to get in.
A less sane one sounds like this: a majority of American voters are now takers for whom the Obama-Democratic message of big government resonates and for whom individual success is instantly maligned. According to this premise, there is no salvation for a country that is heading for political and moral destruction.
I think that there is a far simpler reason why the Republicans lost the Presidential election.
The answer lies in the answers to a few questions.
Evangelicals are
a) a cult that features a white Jesus
b) true white Christians
c) true white Americans
d) all of the above
A tea party is
a) a bunch of white people with white rage hating the federal government because that's easier than blaming themselves
b) a bunch of white people with white rage hating the federal government while accepting all the social advantages that derive from the federal government.
c) a bunch of white people period
d) all of the above
Abortion is
a) something white men should be fighting against
b) a procedure rare among white men
c) something white men are far better able to discuss than women
d) all of the above
Same sex marriage is
a) something that white men either dream about or fear
b) something that keeps white homophobes going to Chick-fil-A
c) something that white Jesus hates
d) all of the above
Paul Ryan was chosen as Mitt's VP because
a) he was a white conservative who would appeal to other white conservatives
b) a white guy whose sexy gym pic would increase the white male turn-out
c) he was really really really white (without a trace of "urban")
d) all of the above
Average white voters in the South
a) are 80 percent likely to vote for a white guy
b) have fantasies of living as overseers of large slave plantations where they can rape and abuse black people they way they were born to be treated
c) think the Confederate Flag is a symbol of all that's great about being white and American
d) all of he above
The correct answer: Republican = WHITE
The reason why Romney lost was because the largest part of the Republican constituency is not the ardent Catholic fighting against abortion or the really rich guy who loves the financial license Republicans grant him, but the white racist (most from the old Confederacy, a great deal from the very white states of the Midwest). Racism was simply not a huge draw for Hispanics or Asians or any other minority group. And it was not a draw for white women. And it was not even a draw to whites on the left and right coasts.
Let's face it! The Republicans are never going to be able to expand their base as long as their base is a group of white racists. And the Republicans are not gong to be about to change their message to a more universal or appealing one since their message is created by white racists.
There are two things equally true for this constituency
1) they live in hatred and fear of the black man
2) the Republican Party is a comfortable place for them to exist and procreate
88 percent of Romney's support came from white voters
In Southern states Romney overwhelmingly won the white vote (89 percent in Mississippi; 84 percent in Alabama; 68 percent in North Carolina; 62 percent in Arizona; 65 percent Missouri, 61 percent in Florida and Virginia)
These are the only states we have exit pols for, but you better believe that the whites in the states of the old Confederacy supported Romney from between 60 to 90 percent.
These people aren't going anywhere, although they talk a lot about secession.
Lest you think that it is absurd to think that so many years after the Civil War there are whites who still formulate their identity as members of the Confederacy, keep several things in mind. There has never been such animosity among Republicans to the results of an election as there has been this year. Whites are publicly talking about secession. There has never been such hatred of a candidate as there has been to Obama-- there are web images showing him lynched or depicted in simian terms or whites sites
hailing the merits of white dudes and despairing at how much has been given away to blacks. . There is a severe insecurity problem among many whites who simply cannot understand the world and heir won place in it when the highest elected office is held by a black man. Bereft of self-confidence, these people lash out against the same "other" that has always given them the greatest surrogate fro their missing self-assurance and has instilled within them the deepest level of fear-- the black man.
There is no good reason for any nonwhite group to vote for a Republican knowing that their greatest constituency believes that American is first and foremost a white nation. This transcends any possible connection that any nonwhite group might have with Republican policies. And let's make no mistake-- the Republicans were counting on this racist voting block to carry them to victory.
So all this talk is cheap. Republicans will win elections when the white racists prevail; they will lose when the white racists lose. Simple. Unless heavy duty statements arise from leaders of the Republican Party that they abhor any and all manner of racism, the Party of Lincoln will live and die by racism.
A sample letter regarding the freeing of the MOVE members from over 30 years in prison!
Michael C. Potteiger, Chairman
Pennsylvania State Board of Probation and Parole
Eastern
Region Office 2630 North 13th Street
Suite 100
Philadelphia, PA 19132
Dear Mr. Potteiger, Governor, and
Members of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
As a 49 year old life-long
citizen of our great state, I am writing to express my disappointment in your
decisions not to recommend the following for parole not once but on several occasions: Janine, Debbie, Janet, Delbert, Mike, Phil,
Eddie, and Chuck Africa. Unfortunately
it is too late for Merle. I myself
have never written any appeal letter before, but I decided to write this letter
out of the compassion to which I was moved when I read their stories and
researched their fates.
It is hard to find precedence
for not offering parole for those convicted of third degree murder. Each of the aforementioned individuals has
been incarcerated 34 years, far too long for the charges for which they were
found guilty. If they have acted as
model prisoners (which I believe to be the case), and the determination to deny
parole is based wholly on their refusal to confess to a crime for which they
believe they are innocent, then I am very much disheartened by your
rationale. No human being should be
expected to confess to any action for which he or she is convinced of his or
her innocence: this is not only a sin
against one’s own conscience, but it compels one to discard the one virtue that
has granted individual dignity and inner freedom, the truth. I am not writing to express my disagreement
with the verdict; indeed, that fight can wait, as it has these many long years,
for another day. Justice can be
accomplished right now, if you would recommend these individuals for parole in
order to give them a chance to live out the fractions of their lives that
remain to them. I believe that they will
become positive members of our free society, an opportunity that they now
deserve and for which they have already waited far too long.
There must be one of you whose
conscience must be moved toward compassion if not for justice. We are race of people who believe in second
chances when they are warranted.
There are individuals who have
been placed by God in positions of authority, individuals like you. I myself am a teacher and know what
responsibility comes with this position.
Each day we are presented with opportunities in which we have the
ability to impact another’s life positively or negatively. I believe that one day we will all be held
accountable for the decisions we make when presented with these sacred duties;
and at the very least, we too will find ourselves dependent on the good will of
others. I am asking you to choose to do
rightly by the eight remaining members of MOVE who are still incarcerated and
to recommend their freedom.
Thank you for your time and
consideration in this matter. I look
forward to hearing from you.
It's all over but the shouting, and the obese woman is practicing her scales one last time. My head is crammed with thoughts, and as cynical and distant as I have become, my heart aches at least a little.
First, I find it so ironic that the fate of the President essentially rests in the hands of white men-- if the President can garner sufficient votes from this constituency (Romney's constituency), maybe 30 percent instead of 28 percent, then he will be rewarded with another four years. Ironic and tragic that so many white men whose economic situations are so similar to most African Americans will identify themselves with the rich white guys based on color alone.
Be that as it may, I have better thoughts. The out of context President's quote that ignited a Romney adopted refrain of "We built our businesses, not the government," compelled me to assess my own journey. Obama is right-- none of our successes are attributable to ourselves alone, and those who make such a claim lack so much self-confidence that they cannot be expected to take a trip into their past to evaluate themselves with integrity. For to make that journey requires humility and gratitude, and some egos are just not wired that way.
For myself, I think of my parents and my neighborhood. My mother whose work ethic was simply a part of her faith in a God who wants what is best for his children. Bible readings over breakfast, church and adult Bible studies, healing services. How she befriended and cared for the radically different-- women whose looks and psychological illnesses reduced them to hermits whom she escorted on trips downtown and welcomed even to live for awhile with us; elderly and disabled women who resided at the neighborhood senior care facility for whom she would provide free haircare; the drifters who would stop by the house for a hand-out and for whom she would cook (I watched in shock at how ravenously a hungry stomach could put way food). I think of my father who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and who never could secure the American success story for himself, but whose ability to make the most of any situation was astounding. Pestered by me to reveal something of his war experience, he recounted only one memory to me. That of the day he was taken out of battle due to trench foot, being carried by two young German POWs. Nearing their destination, the one young German at my father's feet, let the stretcher down in exhaustion. Immediately an American officer rammed the butt of his rifle into the young man and screamed that no one treats Americans that way. My father admitted how sorry he felt for a young man who was so much like himself. And one month before he died, while coming out of anesthesia he said flatly, "War is Hell." Those who think that Christianity or Patriotism is some cheap neon sign flashing a cross and American flag are just those who jump on bandwagons without understanding how unfathomably deep and hidden lie the roots of real citizenship and faith.
I think of my neighborhood and those who I went to school with-- how many varieties of poor there are. I think of those of us who made it to college-- Don Featherstun, Eric Dixon, Steve Kendall, Wanda Northington. And those who I can only suspect were lost along the way. I remember the Kirby family at whose house I stayed and had dinner with until my mother returned from work-- they had so many kids, what was one more? I think of those teachers we had who actually cared and tried to make some form of educational Goshen in a land of drop-outs: high school teachers like Mrs. McLaughlin, Mr. Iezzi, Mr. Carpenter (RIP), Mrs. Brunger, Miss McKim, Mr. Steele. I think of my professors at Duquene Univeristy especially Dr. Clack who served as my mentor, my Tio, who gifted me with his old albums to introduce me to Ethel Merman and Gustav Mahler and everything in between.
When Barack Obama was elected, I felt vindicated in some strange way-- I praised his election on behalf of all of those in my past, black and white from the North Side of Pittsburgh. But yesterday when I read Maureen Dowd of the NY Times describe the President as uninspiring, I was filled with white rage (as Tracy Morgan would say). Uninspiring? To whom?
At a private all girls' school on the Main Line outside Philly that had committed itself to diversifying the student body and faculty, an area had been set apart for watching the broadcast of Obama's inauguration. I was overwhelmed; even I was on the point of tears, when I looked up to see the P.E. instructor, a black man nearly seven feet tall, with tears pouring down his cheek. This was his time, not mine. My time was 200 years ago when white men invented a country that outlawed diversity, treating women like second class humans, and blacks in property terms-- serviceable or worthless. What must he be feeling? Was he like me considering the possibility that racism and sexual discrimination were in the throes of destruction. How could he really? How could any African American? He was, I suspect, savoring down to his marrow the success of one black individual, one who had overcome, and not praising a country that would have done anything not to allow him to reach this precious moment.
Little did I know that this was simply a way for a large number of white men and some white women in federal or state government do guarantee that this black man would not continue to inspire, to succeed, to remain the archetype of hope and change so that in the end, they could collectively wash their white hands with the claim-- we all gave him the chance, look at him now. I do see a worn and weary President, but I also see his struggle as emblematic of the struggle of the people with whom I grew up, every single African American who is condemned either because he or she doesn't succeed (they are just not smart enough) or because he or she does (they get all the breaks). A no-win situation. And African Americans continue to walk forward every single day of their lives (Hercules or Sisyphus) taking the insults and injuries. And we who are white think of it as water off a duck's back, and we put our faith in their patience and resolve.
So I will end this reflection not only with the hope that the President does gain four more years, but with the hope that a group of young black women whom I have had the pleasure of teaching and knowing will use the power they have claimed to turn this nation upside down-- Nadya, Tanisha, Maiki, Saidi, Rayven, Jazzlyn, Jocelyn, Ebony, Jennifer, Fay, Jasmine, Shannan, Neveen, and young women like them. I am hopeful that their patience has run out, and that armed with righteousness, beauty, and wisdom they will inspire. O how they will inspire!!
In these waning days before the 2012 Presidential Election, I cannot help but think that whatever happens, it has been so cathartic for so many white voters. When, for example, was the last time white men could openly disparage a black man without being rightly called racists? So let the insults fly! I am hopeful that even with a Romney victory some of us will not return to business as usual.
Some of us will grab that power that in our powerlessness we have all too briefly touched, not as a privilege, not as the exclusive property of the propertied class, not as a favor granted by the ruling class, but as a right to keep and maintain with a strong and firmer hand. We too can be confrontational. We too can be obstructive. We too can make the status quo uncomfortable. While they labor to go backward with nostalgia for the good old days of white men and obedient wives, while they play make believe, their own ears deadened by their own cacophonous cries of how the founders were Christians and filled with Christian virtue, while they desecrate words like "freedom" and "equality" hiding in the caves of their own ignorance stubbornly imagining that the shadows on the wall are real and that the fire behind them is the sun; we will walk into the light, no matter how our eyes ache upon seeing the truth. We will congregate and multiply. We will suck out every last drop of learning that we can. We will be sly foxes and gentle lambs. We will live as true Christians (in the world but not of the world) even as the Evangelicals demand otherwise, claiming a spiritual monopoly, throwing obstacles in the way of would-be believers. Let them construct their grand and shining temples. They build upon the sand-- upon ignorance, upon intolerance, upon injustice, upon bigotry, and upon oppressive legalism. Let then claim "We built this House!" while we know that unless the Lord builds it, their labor is in vain. We will commit ourselves to drawing lines between the political and the spiritual even as Christ refused a kingdom on earth when tempted by Satan and when questioned by Pilate.
We will fight for basic human rights and the dignity of the living. If the political landscape in the aftermath of this election becomes a democratic wasteland, we will begin to till the soil and plant the seeds, waiting for the oases to bloom. We will promulgate as many Gileads as we must to serve as sanctuary for victims of what may become a reactionary and oppressive country. We will not endorse laws that limit basic human freedom, that scour away human dignity as though it were a stain, that wreck with enterprising license those few structures of democratic success that we had believed were sacred landmarks. We will not go away! For we are the people! And our we will not shrink down in the face of their one percent
assemblies of ego. We are far bigger than they had ever imagined.
I must admit that I have been dispirited by the articles appearing in the NY Times in which the President's blackness is in question (most recently, "The Price of a Black President," by Dr. Frederick Harris, a Columbia University professor, NY Times 10/28). As a white man, I do not presume to identify my opinion with any direct experiences with the sinful history of the African American in the United States; I cannot, however, refrain from defending a President who has already suffered too many attacks against his character by whites that he doesn't need to start counting his black detractors as well.
First, I must disagree with the argument that the President has been weak on representing black interests and is responsible for causing too many members of the educated black elite to distance themselves from more direct engagement in civil rights issue in order to align more closely with him. To make such an assertion at this stage in the campaign is at best bad timing and at worst a complete disregard for the perilous position in which the President finds himself. Stated simply, Barack Obama was not elected to be the president of a black activist organization, a position at which I have no doubt he would succeed. As one who represents all Americans and who garnered a good deal of support from white voters, his mission was to make America a better place for all. I am not saying that this vision was even remotely possible or that it was not in some ways incredulous: but it remains his job description.
Second, doubts about the President's advocacy of policies that directly improve the lives of people of color is one of semantics, i.e. the policies aren't lacking, they have been promulgated in terms of ALL Americans. But Dr. Harris seems to be stuck on semantics. After rattling off the dismal statistics for African Americans (dismal educational statistics an interesting omission), he admits that the President cannot be blamed for any of these facts. He rightly acknowledges "Republican obstruction" as the culprit. Dr. Harris wants the black voice without regard for actions. To that end he quotes from Frederick Douglas that "power concedes nothing without a demand." Frederick Douglas, however, was saying this as one seeking to break into the power structure. This is hardly apropos for the President whose difficulty is not is not how to take but how to use power that he has gained. If he is to be chastised by black activists and the black elite, then the President is truly in a no win situation-- fighting for causes that improve the lives of citizens from the middle class down (including and perhaps particularly people of color) which, being so anathema to Republicans, he can barely get passed while fending off people of his own race who want him to be more evocative of the plight of blacks in America. Furthermore to compare Barack Obama with civil rights leaders who answer strictly to their limited black constituency is unfair. How far does any reasonable person think the President would have gotten if he had used rhetoric and policy to promote his agenda in racial terms. It is surprising that he got anything accomplished at all. For example, a populace that in advance of the 2007 election responded to polls that that health care was their most pressing concern, now seem to wonder why so much energy was expended on a matter that was simply not that significant. And for a black man (not a white man like LBJ advised by a black man like MLK) to have passed into law the very first piece of social legislation since the 1960s alone should confirm Obama as a successful president. And even then, the Republicans immediately denigrated the Affordable Healthcare Act as Obamacare: can anyone imagine that they would have been this insulting to a white Democratic President? They could not even afford him the dignity of the office of President.
Racism is the single most determining factor in this election. The incredible coagulation of former enemies and strange bedfellows has emerged like some giant teratoma to defeat one black man. Think of the new Mormevangelicatholic monopoly on spirituality, morality, and decency. And theirs is a win-win situation. One has only to stand silently around while white men converse anywhere in suburbia to hear things like, "Anybody but HIM!" They no longer need to use the N word anyone. Why do the racists know how dangerous a force Obama can be, but certain intellectuals like Frederick Harris whittle his importance down to the "symbolic exceptionalism of his Presidency." The groundswell of condemnation for the President among whites can now be couched as simple political dissent. We know the birth certificate thing, the Muslim thing, his too amiable relationship with an activist preacher. These have never disappeared; they have simply been mixed with newer insults-- apologies to Muslims, questionable patriotism, underminer of Christian virtues, the movie 2016, and the like. Consider this: Barack Obama is well ahead in the polls before the so-called Denver debacle; overnight, the race becomes a dead heat. To one misdirected NY Times writer Frank Bruni ("Obama's Squandered Advantages," NY Times, 10/28) who dismisses racism and blames the President's apathy, his cool detachment, or whatever you want to call it, it was this debate that cost him. My question is how a two hour debate can make such an incredible and lasting difference and not simply a temporary bump in the numbers. The reason is clear: a majority of white voters 1) had no concern for the stark divergences in the policies and ideologies that separate the two candidates and their respective parties if those who supported the President pre-Denver could jump ship so easily; and 2) they were already intending to jump on the Romney wagon anyway, waiting only for Mitt to demonstrate that his whiteness could cancel out his Mormonism, his only black mark, pun intended. And the white prevailed. Was it any wonder that the running mate was someone whiter than Mitt? Is it coincidence that 90 percent of the Romney Ryan signs are placed on a stark white background. Even Romney's chief advisor is aptly named Mr. White.
Romney showed his hand early (he has since changed decks several hundred times) when at the RNC and immediately thereafter he made a specious claim that he and so many of his white friends had put so much faith in Barack Obama that it is so gut-wrenchingly difficult now to admit that the dream was not fulfilled. To make so blatant a lie trivializes the importance of Obama's election for African Americans some of whom may tragically have thought that such a milestone meant the beginning of the end to racism in America. Is there not racist motivations in trivializing a singular moment in black history? What Romney did was to slam the lid down on any residue of doubt or any remaining guilt in the national conscience about racial discrimination in politics and upheld the long-standing conviction that if given an opportunity to be President a black man or woman simply could not do the job. The "black experiment" failed. The white are ready to get along with their lives. Racism may now establish itself in the national DNA: it is coded, prodigiously replicated, and pronounced the new normal.
From a purely self-serving position, I confess that the Barack Obama's first term has re-opened my eyes to how racist a culture America really is. All whites should feel a sense of shame at how a great portion of the white race has bullied and abused this president, when we all had the chance to embrace this moment, and urge our white elected officials to work with the new President to accomplish so much. To ask this, however, is to deny reality. Pigs with wings cannot fly; one black President does not make America racism-free. I had forgotten where I came from, the public schools I attended, and the wasteland there to engage thoughts more favorable and comfortable. It still holds true that the unexamined life is not worth living: the prophet Daniel could well say to me, "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."
It is clear to me that our President is exhibiting signs and symptoms of battle fatigue. There are times when I wouldn't be surprised if he were thinking to himself about just walking away. FDR and LBJ gained entire Congressional and popular support for almost all of their grand social policies; Obama has been publicly demonized over the only one he has been able to get through Congressional obfuscation and obstructionism.
Worst of all is the possible legacy if the President does not (and maybe if he does) win a second term-- a confirmation that an African American's only means of betterment is in separatism. For me as a white man, I can only hope to be allowed in the back door-- African America's contribution to American culture is incredible, earned through obstacles, unknown by most whites. As the rapper Lupe Fiasco has recently written, They gave us scraps, some of it old. We cooked it up, and called it soul." For such creatively not to be advanced and integrated into American society is tragic. The African American has never had his story adequately told in public school system. Presently the good that comes from black culture is seized upon by white capitalists so that we end up, for example, with professional level college basketball and football teams comprised mostly of black students whose athleticism is exploited without them ever experiencing the opportunity to learn. Maybe Dr. Harris should be cleaning out his own house in the Ivy League Schools (and universities in general) rather than trying to redecorate the President's.
How desperately do these Republicans want to keep a black man from becoming too uppity? They figure that we all had our fun; the country engaged in its own prolonged four year Saturnalia, you know that old Roman holiday where, for a week, slaves got to be the masters and masters had to play the slaves. Four years was long enough, I guess. Now its time to get normal again. Don't want to give us too much hope. Don't want any of us to think that any real change can happen. They never expected that Obama might just win a second term. Time to crush that. So they even dragged out one of their sacred relics without even dusting him off and cleaning him up. Did anyone else think that Billy Graham had died years ago? He's back and with plenty of full page advertisements in some of the nation's newspapers to endorse a candidate who can pass on biblical values to the next generation. Like hypocrisy. Didn't anyone have the sense to delete all the references he made to Mormons as a cult on his website before letting him out of the home.
I volunteered for a few Billy Graham Crusades in the Pittsburgh area when I was younger. He was good at what he did: a man of average intelligence without real oratorical skills, a mediocre author, never prone to deep thinking, chosen by God to deliver a simple message-- Christ died for your sings; repent; accept him as your Lord and Savior; get eternal life. And thousands would wind their way to the front of the stage to the tune of "Just As I Am." We as volunteers would make sure to distribute information about one's new life in Christ that included the need to start attending a local Christian church. That was all good. But this 180 of his just proves that in the end the only biblical value that matters is to be a conservative white guy.
Although raised Presbyterian, I attended a variety of Evangelical and Charismatic conferences to which my mother dragged me from the time I was in elementary school. For example, we were told never to allow the travelling Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses into our homes because they were wickedly adept at sophistry and could shake our apparently unreasoned faith. While I no longer list Mormonism as a cult, it is certainly NOT Christianity, in spite of the fact that for obvious PR, their new name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Mormons may be a church, and Jesus may be involved in their creed, but Mormonism is not Christianity. Take for example the belief that God is a physical being who has a physical wife with whom he engendered two sons-- the bad one, Satan, and the good one, Jesus; or the fact that they have an entire additional sacred text describing the way in which the risen Christ visited the white natives of America, presumably at some unknown time before the actual native Americans arrived. Now all this is just water under Billy Graham Cracker's "Christian" bridge.
My disdain for Romney has to do with his policies not his religion. I wonder, however, whether any of the "right wing Jesus Christ was born in the U S of A and swaddled in the Confederate Flag" crowd are uncomfortable each time Romney ends a speech with God Bless America? I mean that God isn't the Christian God. We must presume that white Evangelicals just love to hear God and America mentioned together, assuming that the clean cut conservative white guy speaking must be referring to their own God, the anthropomorphic one that approves their message. What a country!
Above: the late George Whitmore. Jesus told his disciples, "Situations that cause people to lose their faith
are certain to arise. But how horrible it will be for the person who causes someone to lose his faith!
I have a vague recollection that my ninth grade history teacher, trying to making American government as painlessly simple as possible, said something to the effect that in a democratic country in which the majority rules through elections, the Supreme Court is there to protect the minority against the majority. Now that was not exactly right, but it has remained my gut feeling about our Supreme Court. When the laws enacted through the representatives of the majority interfere with the equality and freedom our Constitution purportedly promises those in the electoral minority, then the courts have a duty to act.
In the recent Vice Presidential debate when asked whether a Romney administration would seek to eliminate a woman's choice to have an abortion, Ryan answered that "we don't think that unelected judges should make this decision. People, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination." In other words, judges should not intervene so readily to overturn laws and promote freedoms-- to do so would create what the political right has condemned as judicial activism. It is through its laws that society is shaped.
If, as is unfortunately seeming more and more likely, the Romney ticket wins, there will be a groundswell of public opinion that will emerge as a bevy of more state laws to restrict or outlaw a woman's right to choose an abortion. If so, there may not be a sufficient number of activist justices to declare the laws unconstitutional. The reason why justices who intercede to preserve individual rights are deemed activists is that to limit oneself to a strict interpretation of the Constitution is ipso facto to begin from a discriminatory stance from which is is very difficult to argue out. The majority of ideological conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will be prone to rendering decisions that restrict human freedom in favor of laws that reflect the majority sentiments, i.e. they will not advance judicial activism and they will keep all crazy opinions to themselves. No doubt Ryan would prefer if there were no Supreme Court involvement at all. The good news for conservatives is that judicial activism is the exception to the rule that justices should not travel too far from the prevailing world view of white males in determining the constitutionality of laws written and passed by a majority of white males in which they seek to protect the rights of white males-- the same select group by whom and for whom the U.S. Constitution was written. Even with the number of minorities and women who have gained access to the political system, it will take more than that to alter entrenched social mores and prevent the codification of these into laws.
The challenge in arguing from constitutionality was always the antithesis between the language of the document evocative of universal human freedom and equality and the reality of the framer's intent who either owned slaves or did nothing to encourage or demand their emancipation unlike England from whose fetters they declared their own freedom. Take as example the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sanford in which the plaintiff, a slave, declared his emancipation the moment he was taken by his master to a free state. In a 7 to 2 ruling, the Supreme Court denied his claim in words that seem better suited to a propaganda piece for white supremacy that from the hallowed chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court. Here are some of the more shocking bits from Taney's majority opinion
We think they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . . [T]he legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
African slaves were not among those for whom the Constitution was written-- state laws were upheld because to say otherwise would be to recognize non-white ethnicities as human. At the very least, we have to say that not only was Taney highly eloquent in his endorsement of racism, but he was right-- judged by the actions of the founding fathers, the Constitution could not have granted any degree of humanity to Africans. He forcefully illustrated his point by imagining a county in which blacks could go unmolested in public, speak in public, and enjoy the same level of public protection as the true white recipients of the Constitution's benefits. What kind of horror movie would that be? In fact, the only way Dred Scott would have won his case is through judicial activism, a total disregard for the Constitution.
When the question of states rights was nullified by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and after a civil war had to be fought in order to confirm this Proclamation, the old Confederacy simply turned to it's rights to ratify new racist laws believing as Ryan does today that unelected judges should not make this decision...[but that] people, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination." This determination at that time was to quarantine all African Americans through the specious argument of "separate but equal." When Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court, the majority of justices upheld the racist laws that codified the discriminatory custom of prohibiting any "commingling" of ethnicities that would infect the white race. So the response to having their property taken away from them and declared human was to find more creative ways to legalize discrimination. The justices claimed that laws per se have no social ramifications, but they affirmed a racist law that codified social norms. Once again in avoiding judicial activism and allowing the laws created by majorities to stand, they reinforced the kind of racism that was an integral part of the founders' nation-building documents.
When Warren in 1954 overturned the separate but equal argument as set forth in Plessy, he did so with what one might depict as reckless disregard of judicial precedent, i.e. he was one of those activist judges Paul Ryan et al. despise so much. This was one of those singular moments in American History in which someone stands as the exception not the rule, audaciously choosing not to take the wide and well worn path set before him or her in order to protect the unprotected. It only took 178 years! Now at last Americans were compelled by law to begin the hard work of repairing and rebuilding the nation into a more just and equal one.
When colleges, however, began to implement procedures designed to increase the number of black students in colleges and universities, they were confronted with students whose history had given them anything but desirable educational opportunities. In order to accept one black student, one "deserving" white student would be rejected. And so The Civil Rights Act of 1964-- legislation that was miraculously promoted by Lyndon Johnson one whose personal history was stamped with the mark of ancestral racism, a step toward a lofty ideal, the creation of a Great Society-- was prostituted by whites for their own ends, who as a race had never been characterized or treated by law as property. Thus we heard whites actually claim that they were the victims of discrimination. Specifically, when Bakke claimed discrimination under Title VI of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment because he did not gain admission to a medical school that had shown preferential treatment to minorities, the Supreme Court agreed. Just think of this evolution-- the language of the Constitution that contained no hint of inherent human freedom to Africans and flatly rejected as a basis for claiming any such such freedom was now being used by whites, the only group for whom freedom was actually granted, to claim that by showing any preference to blacks, their own freedom as whites was being undermined. Only in America!
In the real world of college admissions at that time, there was no equality. If, for example, Mr. Bakke had attempted to gain admittance into another medical school, he would have had little trouble. There is little doubt that the black student would never find another medical school except one that also implemented a similar program of affirmative action. No undue burden would be placed on the white students rejected. Where the educational stakes are all in their favor, a plurality of colleges would be happy to admit more white students. Compare this to the possibility of a black applicant's only choice, and any philosophical discussion should be a no brainer. The bottom line is that if Bakke was not admitted because his spot was taken by a black individual, he would still be a doctor today, but we will never know the black individuals who lost out for every white admitted.
While the 2003 Grunder case did uphold the compelling interest of a university to achieve diversity as an educational element, 4 of 9 Justice dissented-- three of whom are current members of the court (Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas). These three at the time determined that "the Law School has managed its admissions program, not to achieve a “critical mass,” but to extend offers of admission to members of selected minority groups in proportion to their statistical representation in the applicant pool. But this is precisely the type of racial balancing that the Court itself calls “patently unconstitutional.” Sandra Day O'Conner in writing the majority opinion, however, affirmed that to achieve racial diversity is a compelling enough interest in the educational duty of institution of higher learning. Her argument was tenuous, and I suspect she was doing the unthinkable: she was being a pesky activist. Why? Because she knew what was right!
And now enter Miss Fisher whose claim to racial discrimination from the University of Texas was upheld by a lower court. The University is now trying to win a case it has as much of a chance winning as a black girl the Miss Arizona pageant. Miss Fisher has graduated from college. I wonder whether or not she would now regret her decision and still mumble cliches about hoping that this makes a level playing field for all who come after her, if in her four years she would have taken a U.S. History course that actually taught the truth about U.S. History. Is she really proud of what she is dong? Does she really understand the destruction she is causing. If she does, she is just another one of the many racists in a country that may forever be a racist one.
In a recent NY Times article, blame was laid at the feet of the attorneys for the University who are arguing on racial grounds alone. The author suggests that using an argument based on socio-economics and now race would allow many blacks to enter universities because they are poor, and justices would be more inclined to accept this argument. First, isn't it terrible that in order for universities to increase the number of black students, they should be forced to these sneak tactics. "We can't get you in as a black individual (that would be unfair to whites), but if you call yourself poor, we can get most of you in!" Maybe the ends justify the means, but the truth is that the poorest of the poor white student was never enslaved in America because of his or her race, or was actively declared not good enough for white society even after he or she was emancipated. Only blacks can claim this travesty. That should be the de facto argument from which all others flow. The deleterious effects on American society, particularly in the South, of legally, socially, and religiously endorsed slavery cannot be overcome without time, hard work, and a certain degree of white discomfort.
And now as the court is ready to reject any preferential treatment of minorities in higher education, should anyone really be surprised? After all, this is a country that never dreamed that Africans would ever be a free, equal,and participating member of American society. The Supreme Court is set to re-establish what most of us already knew-- that America is now and will always be a white nation who will accept blacks and other people of color only in small doses. White earlier justices at least promulgated their racism without dissimulation, shortly the current Supreme Court justices will eliminate affirmative action not to preserve racism in this country but in the name of freedom and equality for all exactly as the Constitution never intended.
As the public schools in which a majority of African American students are forced to attend continue to provide lackluster education and offer minimal educational opportunities, a lack of colleges and universities that maintain an affirmative action mission will devastate an already unequal system. Justice Brennan in writing for the majority in Brown v. Board of Education declared education to be the sine qua non of human development. It will now in 2013 be returned as a monopoly for those applicants who have had a more rewarding, challenging, and more expensive education. By refusing to allow young black men and women from realizing this crucial aspect of their humanity, this country finds itself in a familiar historical position-- the devaluation of the African in America. And we will have stepped backward once again, while groups of conservatives will congratulate themselves as upholders of the law and of the values that made this nation the greatest on earth and so on and so forth...
A sadder reality is that if the granting of so-called preferential treatment to African Americans who apply to colleges involved the kind of gargantuan profits that college football and basket ball elicit, a way would be found to justify, elevate, and laud the process. The fact is that thousands of African American high school students who are incredible athletes are being admitted into colleges and universities with scholarships without any concern over their educational past or their educational future. Easy courses with ridiculous majors are created and even then GPAs are fudged, all so that in putting a winning product on the courts and fields, the money comes pouring in. Less than one percent
make it to the professional level where they make millions so that owners may make every more; the majority, however, 80 percent, never graduate, and those who do are often left with having spent four years in the halls of education without ever having been shown its tremendous life altering power. There is no groundswell of litigation citing the number of football or basketball scholarships granted African American student-athletes as a peculiar source of reverse discrimination. To come away from such experiences without a true education is just another failure on the part of a country that is directed by profits and the freedom to use anyone and anything in order to make more money.
On October 8, 2012, George Whitmore passed away, another black American nobody, victimized and forgotten as all bad history is. He was a young black man who after being coerced by white police detectives into confession for crimes against white that he did not commit, found himself in and out of the criminal justice system until the last of the illegal charges was dropped. His entire life was overturned from the age of 19. The only good that came of his victimization was a Supreme Court ruling that rights have to be read including the right to remain silent. Just think, it was only after extreme examples of police brutality and a discriminatory criminal justice system that police were forced to do something as simple as telling an individual his or her rights. That speaks volumes for what blind trust anyone of us should have in legislation. We need the courts, especially their so-called "activism;" but we need them to think in a way that puts human freedom and rights first, having at least a clue to the reality of the society in which many of these litigants live, those well outside the comfort and sterility of their chambers.
Today is the first International Day of the Girl. This is the story of three girls.
Samantha Pawlucy with Romney shirt
The first is 16 year old Samantha Pawlucy who resides in Philadelphia Pa. She gained notoriety because she was singled out and humiliated by her teacher for wearing a Romney shirt to school. My daughter,who attends a private Catholic school in suburban Philadelphia, has not been harassed, but her history teacher makes it a point each class to remind his students that he is a Republican and that Republicans are the best choice for the country. He does so because he has a pretty good idea that the student body comes from a mostly Republican stock. My daughter and I have talked about what she and I believe politically, and we try to determine in what ways our views differ from what this teacher says in class and why. I have no problem with a history teacher talking about elections, but no teacher has the right to impose his or her views on students-- at the very least this is an easily avoidable distraction and at worst an easy way to make a student who does not agree feel inferior or less likely to learn from that teacher. The single most important connection between a teacher and student is trust-- the action make by this teacher forever disables this trust.
I do have an issue with this girl's (and her family's) decision to wear this shirt to a school which is overwhelmingly African American? Did the parents know? Did they think there would be no ramifications? My son loves the Pittsburgh Penguins, but we do not wear any Penguin paraphernalia to Philadelphia Flyer's games-- we are free to, but why would we? If I were to enter certain towns in the deep South, I might avoid wearing anything Obamaesque. Even while my wife was attending law school in Virginia, I cannot tell you how many times my PA license plate provoked comments from the natives such as "We are still fighting the war!" I shrugged my shoulders and drove quietly away. Just because we are free to do something doesn't mean we must do it. There are actually times when exercising our right not to express ourselves is best. What possible good could come of wearing a Romney shirt into a place where it would not be respected. While I agree that the teacher must be punished (one should never humiliate children, especially one whose job it is to nurture them), I cannot agree with all those supporters who came to cheer her on and into school as a kind of hero. Heroes do not provoke for the sake of provoking. Not all things are right for all situations. Picking spots, learning when to make assertions and when to let things slide, these are part of the maturation process. These parents should never have allowed this girl to walk out of the house with an advertisement likely to cause their discomfort for absolutely no good reason.
Abigail Fisher, plaintiff suing the University of Texas
Abigail Noel Fisher, a young women of college age, is right now in the middle of a law suit before the United States Supreme Court which is likely to end affirmative action in colleges. Conservative talk shows are lauding this girl as a heroine. I just cannot see how.
First of all, the University of Texas automatically admits all applicants who have graduated in the top 10 percent of their classes. So if this girl had only studied a little more, she would have had no problem getting into the University of Texas. The fact that she has to resort to using the success of others as a rationale for her own lack of success is the classic example of sour grapes. As a teacher, I understand that colleges always look at several factors in determining admittance-- SAT, ACT, and other standardized test scores; grades and the difficultly of classes from transcripts; personal interviews; and involvement in extra-curriculars-- anything from having worked in a recording studio to making regular service visits to the local veterans hospital. In fact, these extra-curriculars are often the reason why a student who does not have the absolute best grades and test scores is admitted while the one who does is not. I see this all the time. Purely in terms of creating a diversified student body, preference given to African American students achieves the same end as accepting students who have unique characteristics but may not be the stereotypical "smart" student.
But there is something else wrong with the decision made by this girl and her family and attorneys to pursue this matter. They all missed what I would call a extraordinary teachable moment. When Abigail first complained that "this is so unfair," someone should have explained the rationale behind affirmative action. One would start by saying, "So, you think this is unfair..." This young woman's eyes might have been opened to certain facts about her country's history: founding documents like the Declaration of Independence and Constitution that proclaimed all people to be free while considering a whole race to be less than human but that for purposes of reckoning the number of states' federal representatives counted each piece of their black property as 3/5 of a person; that a group of states continued o demand their states' rights to maintain human beings as property until they forced the country into a devastating civil war; that once these slaves were emancipated, they were treated as lower than second -rate people, particularly in southern states where they were segregated to protect the purity of the white race through Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. So many men, women, and children lacked basic human rights in America from its birth in 1776 until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But changes in law did not suddenly and miraculously alter the entrenched social and cultural status of blacks in America-- they still suffer the highest rate of poverty, the highest rate of unemployment, the greatest number of students attending the nation's worst public schools. And I would conclude my history lesson by telling this girl that it is more than fair for her to experience a little rejection when the entire history of blacks in America has been one of legalized discrimination followed by the a still present and deep-seeded racism. Why is it so hard to view the matter from an objective historical perspective? There is not a level playing field between whites and blacks.
Malala Yousafzai, gunned down by the Taliban
Finally there is a 14 year old girl in Pakistan named Malala Yousafzai who nearly paid the ultimate price for wanting to be free, in particular the freedom to learn. My allergist is a woman who was born in Pakistan and whose mother practiced medicine in Pakistan her entire life. This young girl has done far more to show the international community just how wicked organizations like the Taliban are than any world leader ever could. This girl spoke out for the right reason. She spoke for women all over the world who are still humiliated and abused because they are not considered equal members of human society. In order to experience the totality of human life, this girl was willing to risk her own life. This is the hero of today. Not going out of one's way to be provocative, not selfishly complaining about a situation for which one lacks historical perspective, but staring violence and death in the face in order to claim the right to be a human being worthy of education.
One of the best ways to express our appreciation for the learning we all have had is to continue to learn. If we do so, we may find that some of those misperceptions of ours, which fear seems to have rooted like weeds so deeply in our souls, will disintegrate and be replaced by the fresh blooms of an American spring.
It was only minutes ago that Barack Obama was far enough ahead in the polls to take some time off during the first debate. The latest polls post-debate reveal that the same people who were not only planning to vote for the President but who considered him such things as more in touch, more likable, more human, etc., have now all swung Romney's way. I understand the race is not over by any means, and I have not begun to check out the polling numbers for individual states (although I see that Romney is leading the President 49& to 48% in Ohio). Tomorrow, the VP debate could have some impact on the polls. And who knows what will transpire after the next two presidential debates. This only suggests that the American public is as fickle as we would expect any group of people to be. I always like to give as example the monumental switch in Jesus' favorability rating from Palm Sunday to Good Friday six days later. There was less than a week between Hosanna and Crucify. Jesus' mission was a heavenly one. The President, unfortunately, needs the public to go fickle again. This is not so easy, although if I were Romney, I would not get too overjoyed-- the public giveth and the public taketh away. How can this turn be explained?
Not a whole lot of room for information or thinking about it
The main reason is that the American public is now a well-seasoned group of consumers. Every time a purchase is made or an Internet site is searched, info is collected to assess that person's wants and desires, i.e. the product that would satisfy his or her wants and desires. And the public has bought in. We want to be pleased. We want toys. We want fast. We want things that elicit a "Wow!" from friends and an envious grimace from enemies. We have had Barack Obama for four years; in consumerville that is an unbelievably long time. We upgrade computers after around four or five years; we get the latest phone ever year or less; we change out conventional Starbucks morning beverage every month. Because of the unlimited variety of products to switch to, we will never be lacking in the ability to buy something new and different. Obama knew as much when his entire first campaign was run under the heading of CHANGE. McCain was old, and not the good antique old that you would love to display in a position of prominence in your home. He was the second hand yard sale kind for which you pay next to nothing out of sympathy for the seller.
Mommy, do we have to get the black one again?
And perhaps even I could feel that the public wanted to get on the Romney band wagon, straining at the proverbial bits. When the product was first introduced, however, it did not have that something human or at least humanoid that consumers wanted. At the debate, they got two hours of human behavior out of Romney, plenty to discard any negative opinions they had held before. This time the Romney company was out to demonstrate just how human and normal human their product could be-- they were not worried about what the product had said or done in the past. They knew that consumers do not care about the past; it's now they want. The fact that the product that appeared on the debate stage looked like Romney, but did not think or speak like Romney was inconsequential. It was that moment that mattered. Here was a product available for just one free vote that would not give a tax break to the wealthy, had no idea of any tax incentive for moving businesses overseas, was so in favor of federal regulation of business that he would crack down on anyone who opened up a bank in his or her garage; someone who told us we were all created by the same God and that without the government we were adult enough to eliminate the plight of those were were less fortunate; and that since we were no longer children but adults, we should not be embarrassed to give the smack down to Big Bird.
I don't care if you do win; I'm gonna stick this sunflower so far up your...
The rest of us were left scratching our heads that someone had the ability to lie so comprehensively and without mitigation in so public a forum. We were shouting to our televisions, "What about what you said before..." And even as we are thinking that his words might come back to haunt him, we are now shaking our heads today at the new polling numbers. It should also be noted that many of our white consumers (men and women) really wanted to exchange this black product for a whiter one. Contrary to what they thought, it just didn't go with their typical lifestyle. Of course, many of these feel good about themselves for giving the black product a chance to begin with. The results were good but nowhere near the kind of miraculous that would have been necessary not to trade him in. Of course these consumers experienced some initial hesitancy because the white product only came in Mormon and they wanted the Christian version they were used to. But now that the debates have given them reason to believe that the Mormon white will work just as well as the Christian white, they are ready to vote. Just give us the white-- and if you don't have Mormon, give us the Catholic instead...same difference.
Mitt looks so much better to us now!
Of interest is of course what we will all of us get with this white product. No matter what the labels currently say, there is one thing you can count on-- no new ideas. We will have four years in which supply side economics will fail once again to get the country out of a deficit and back to work, not to mention ever getting buying power up or anywhere close to where our take home wages can buy us more goods than they did decades ago.
Get it now! Get it often!
Democracy has been influenced so much by the innovations in technology and the emergence of the quickly gratified consumer that it probably does not work as well as it did when real information had to be obtained with effort-- getting a newspaper, buying a journal, going to hear a candidate speak in public, getting involved in campaigns, reading a newspaper or a journal. Too much comes in too easily. And so I find myself thinking-- regardless of who ends up being the product of choice-- that the only thing that saves us from real revolutionary change is the mollification of the masses with enough gimmicks that leave most people so mentally soporific that they could care less about the details and with those instant tests of a product's morality (moral if the tester turns red; red if pro choice and anti gay marriage) that allow people to feel good and confident about their choices.
One of the greatest thinkers and writers of all time is also one who is barely read anymore-- Thomas Carlyle. Although he was good friends with John Stuart Mill, he was adamantly against Mill's philosophy of rule by the people. Carlyle pronounced that democracy was despair. I was so upset with Mr. Carlyle when I first read him as an undergraduate: he was so right it seemed about everything else. But is he really wrong? Even now voters are voting not to retain judges in Iowa and Florida not because of incompetence (for which the election process was designed) but because they are activist, i.e. not willing to uphold conservative standards of behavior. Do people really have the ability to choose something as important as political leaders-- probably not. Not only that, the choices we end up having to make are probably far worse than ever. I still believe in democracy: it's better than the alternatives.
In the end, no one should put many eggs in their political basket. Save most of them for those things that nourish your spirit and your mind, and you will find that you will not have to depend on the ignorance and uncertainly of anyone else. You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Even if you are the only one.
The most prevalent answer is some variation on the fact that they can. Consider the following
