Rebel Yell

Orginal Design of the Confederate Flag

I haven't written anything original for this blog for quite some time. I had just come the conclusion that there was no topic that I hadn't written about already and I was just repeating myself. I also felt like I was banging my head against a wall to no effect. I don't expect this post to be any different in regards to effect, but I did look back and realize that somehow I never tackled the confederate flag issue. So here's my two cents: 

I won't go into the long and checkered history of this flag (whether it's the battle flag or the official flag or one of the designs of the official flag), because it's not really relevant to the argument. No person alive today fought for the flag, or fought under the flag or was there when the design was conceived or was there when it was first raised, so the point of what the flag actually is, is moot. The point of what the flag stands for therefore becomes the only issue worth discussing. 

The idea that the flag is a benign symbol of the bravery of the confederate soldiers and a nod to the cultural significance of the southern way of life is a perfectly acceptable interpretation. There are many people who look at that flag and do not see racism or slavery or treason. Those people (and indeed any person in America) have a perfectly defensible right to display, wear, honor and treasure the flag. However, what they cannot do is deny that the flag has been co-opted by many who wish to spread hate, fear and intimidation. That is an undeniable fact. 

I personally find the flag offensive. In my mind it does stand for treason, racism, slavery, hate, intimidation, murder, bigotry, violence, ignorance and all the worst characteristics of the human race. I believe that I can find more than enough evidence to support my view. The fact that hate groups all over the world have adopted the flag (including the skinheads in Germany who are not legally allowed to display the Nazi flag), is more than enough evidence for me that my understanding of what the flag represents is shared almost universally. 

The questions then becomes, whose understanding of what the flag represents is more valid? The answer is really simple. They are all valid. The current debate is not over the individual interpretation of the flag. The debate is over state sponsored approval and display of that flag. While individuals can and do have their own interpretation of what the flag stands for, the state of South Carolina made it very clear as to the reason for it's entry in to the Civil War. Quoting from the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession: 

"These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

It is very clear from this declaration that the State of South Carolina fought the Civil War because of states rights. It is also clear that the right they were fighting for was the right to own another human being. That fact is once again indisputable. The state of South Carolina engaged in treason for the purpose of being able to maintain a system in which they subjugated, terrorized, raped, abused, and enslaved an entire race of people under the protection of the law. 

History, and their own words, makes it very hard for the state of South Carolina and in fact any state who was part of the confederacy to deny the reason for their entry into the Civil War. However, most of the soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War were not slaveholders. They were mostly poor and uneducated men and boys who went into war with the thought that they were fighting for their state against a hostile attacker. The continuation of slavery was not foremost in their minds. While their lives would undoubtedly benefit from a economy based on the free labor of slaves, their day to day life would be mostly unaffected. As they saw it, they were fighting a war against tyranny. As in all wars, there was heroism and bravery on both sides. Those young men who left their homes, to fight in what they perceived as a just cause, deserve to be honored.  A few southern states do indeed honor those men with a confederate soldier day (including South Carolina). 

That fact that the state of South Carolina committed treason is without question. The fact that the state of South Carolina continues to celebrate that treason and has attempted to try and deny the core reasons for it is what is at question here. It is, in fact, indefensible for the state of South Carolina to defend flying a flag that represents treason and the subjugation of fellow human beings. There is no compelling argument that the State of South Carolina can make that could justify the continued presence of the flag on state grounds. They can twist the past and throw out words like, "history", "heritage" and "culture", but the truth about the reasons for secession are plain for all to see. 

The flag itself will always be with us and will always be a source of controversy. Our nation's history cannot be denied. My hope is that going forward that the states who took part in treason will not celebrate that history so proudly or publicly. There was honor and glory in that conflict, but that honor and glory should be reserved for the brave men who gave up their lives on the battlefield. Those men who in their moment of truths did not care about slavery or President Lincoln or President Jefferson or about maintaining the antebellum way of life, they only cared about getting back home to loved ones. Those men should have statues and monuments built to them. That is the history worth preserving.

As I stated before, I have no issue with people who choose to honor those soldiers by displaying a flag. For some it is a symbol of defiance. For some it's a symbol of pride. For some it's simply to honor their forefathers.Using the term 'state's rights" however is an argument without merit. My feelings about the flag are not really important in terms of whether someone should be able to put it on their clothing or fly it from their truck, car or house. It is the right of each individual to decide whether to display it and what that display means to them. When the flag is displayed, it should be with the understanding that it does offend many people and that those people have the right to be offended. It should be with the understanding that it has been co-opted by a multitude of hate groups here and around the world. It should be with the understanding that the flag will help divide us. It should be with the understanding that this is not as petty as arguing for USC or Clemson. It should be with the understanding that this flag was flown proudly while innocent black men were pulled from their lives and families and lynched while crowds smiled and cheered.  It should be with the understanding that this flag was flown while angry crowds of people and policemen tried to deny basic human rights to an entire race of people.

One More Time...And Thankfully For the Last Time!

Reposting something I wrote back in November of 2008. Our nation's long national nightmare is finally over!

The most disappointing moment of the 2008 campaign for me came when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama did not support the right of homosexuals to marry (it was even more disappointing than Obama's vote on the FISA bill). It can only be seen as ironic that in an election when the American people decided to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, the voters in four states decided to deny homosexuals the right to get married. In California, even more ironically, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for the ban. I am positive that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are opposed to homosexual marriage, but in order not to ruffle the feathers of the country, they took the more popular public stance.

This battle is very reminiscent of the bans against interracial marriage which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (Just as a side note, Alabama had retained their law against interracial marriage on the books until 2000)

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". However the bans against homosexuals marrying have been upheld in various court challenges. The highest court in New York basically said that the homosexuals cannot be given the same protection under the law because discrimination against them hasn't been recognized until the recent past.The New York Court of Appeals held in 2006:"[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries...This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s... It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

I do believe that in time this will become a non-issue. It's just a shame that the American people always seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving oppressed minorities equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has usually had to take the first step and I do have hopes that over the next 8 years, the Court will address this issue and lay it to rest once and for all.

Here is what Barack Obama said in his now famous Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic convention:"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work."

And I would add that if there is one person or group who are having their "fundamental" rights denied, then we are all oppressed, even if my rights are not being infringed upon. Denying the fundamental rights of citizens to marry is separate from the fight for Civil Rights of African-Americans (and clearly less violent), but the right to vote, the right to live where you want and the right to marry who you want are unalienable rights that are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that according to the Declaration of Independence, we were all endowed with by the Creator. Eventually we, as a country, realized that denying basic rights to an entire group of citizens based on something as arbitrary as skin color was wrong. I hope for the day when we as a country will realize that denying the fundamental rights of any minority group makes us smaller and uglier in the eyes of history. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was implemented to protect the rights of former slaves, but it should be applicable to every citizen regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Amen!

The World Keeps Spinning

There are many reasons why I don't post much anymore. One the main reasons is that regardless of the situation that arises, it seems I've already dealt with it in the past. Here's a couple of lines from a post I wrote back in August of 2008. I think it makes perfect sense in the light of the court decision over the weekend. 

There are those that will accuse me of being a whiner or playing the victim card or the race card (whatever the f&^K that means), but until you've had to walk a mile in the shoes of someone else, you shouldn't judge them. The question I would ask is how many indignities does someone have to suffer before they have a legitimate right to complain? How many times does a society have to show that it considers you a less valued member before you can cry foul? How many times do have to be made to feel almost sub human before you say enough? How many times do you have to passed by for less qualified people who just happen to be white before you have the right to make some noise? How many times have I have heard people say that the racial problem would go away if people would just stop bringing it up. That always amuses me because it reminds of the attitude of many Southerners during the civil rights era. There are many quotes from people saying that there was no racial problem in the South. It was those agitators from up North that were stirring up the blacks. It's amazingly easy not to question a system that works in your favor. I have lived in NYC for 30 years and you would be amazed at the number of times that a minority has been "accidentally" shot or otherwise abused by the police. The amazing thing is that during all of the time that I've been here, there has never been an "accidental" shooting or incident of brutal violence by NY's finest against anyone who wasn't "of color". I find that an amazing coincidence. And I might have chalked it up to coincidence if I hadn't been subjected to sub-human treatment at the hands of the NYCPD myself.


There is some notion in the press that this is some kind of transformative event, but even if the improbable happens and Obama were to win, the facts on the ground would remain the same. The richest of us will continue to maintain and grow those fortunes on the backs of the poorest of us. Racists and bigots would continue to be racists and bigots. Who you know is still going to be more important that what you know and the police will continue to "accidentally" shoot and abuse minorities.This piece is probably a little more rambling than I would have liked it to be, but I'm just God damned tired of people trying to tell me what me what my reality is. or why I shouldn't feel the way I do about the police. Or why we don't live in country where the color of your skin can give you an advantage. I don't live in that fantasy land. The real truth is that America can be deadly if you happen to be in the wrong place and are the wrong color. Do you think that we would have heard of either John McCain or George W. Bush if they were born into the same circumstances as Obama? Comedian Chris Rock tells a joke about the fact that there wasn't one white person in his audience who trade places with him in spite of the fact that he was rich. That may have been intended as a joke, but it is also the reality of America.

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Until next time. 

One More Time

Reposting something i wrote back in November of 2008. Seemed appropriate for today.

The most disappointing moment of the 2008 campaign for me came when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama did not support the right of homosexuals to marry (it was even more disappointing than Obama's vote on the FISA bill). It can only be seen as ironic that in an election when the American people decided to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, the voters in four states decided to deny homosexuals the right to get married. In California, even more ironically, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for the ban. I am positive that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are opposed to homosexual marriage, but in order not to ruffle the feathers of the country, they took the more popular public stance.

This battle is very reminiscent of the bans against interracial marriage which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (Just as a side note, Alabama had retained their law against interracial marriage on the books until 2000)

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". However the bans against homosexuals marrying have been upheld in various court challenges. The highest court in New York basically said that the homosexuals cannot be given the same protection under the law because discrimination against them hasn't been recognized until the recent past.The New York Court of Appeals held in 2006:"[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries...This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s... It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

"I do believe that in time this will become a non-issue. It's just a shame that the American people always seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving oppressed minorities equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has usually had to take the first step and I do have hopes that over the next 8 years, the Court will address this issue and lay it to rest once and for all.

Here is what Barack Obama said in his now famous Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic convention:"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work."

And I would add that if there is one person or group who are having their "fundamental" rights denied, then we are all oppressed, even if my rights are not being infringed upon. Denying the fundamental rights of citizens to marry is separate from the fight for Civil Rights of African-Americans (and clearly less violent), but the right to vote, the right to live where you want and the right to marry who you want are unalienable rights that are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that according to the Declaration of Independence, we were all endowed with by the Creator. Eventually we, as a country, realized that denying basic rights to an entire group of citizens based on something as arbitrary as skin color was wrong. I hope for the day when we as a country will realize that denying the fundamental rights of any minority group makes us smaller and uglier in the eyes of history. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was implemented to protect the rights of former slaves, but it should be applicable to every citizen regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A Lost Cause

Posted this on 6/19/08. I have no idea why anyone would now be shocked and outraged at the idea that the NSA is collecting data on all of us. We lost this fight years ago.

The Democratic led Congress has decided to bring a so called "compromise" bill on the FISA law. I have previously called the Democrats to task for their capitulation to the Bush administration's continuing attack on the Constitution, but by proposing this compromise (which is not really a compromise since it gives the administration everything they want), they have sent a clear signal that they have officially crossed over to the dark side.






The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees that American citizens are protected against illegal search and seizure. If the government wants to spy on a citizen, it is supposed to prove probable cause and get a warrant. In a nutshell, FISA(Foreign Intelligence Security Act) set up a separate court to review evidence and grant warrants for electronic surveillance. FISA expired in February with much gnashing of teeth from the administration, along with claims that if the act lapsed, we would be in imminent danger of terrorist attack. There are a couple of problems with that claim. First, the US Government doesn't need a warrant to bug any calls that originate outside of the United States. And secondly the Bush administration has been engaged in a program of warrantless surveillance headed by the NSA for years ( the interesting fact about that is the FISA court basically rubber stamped every request for surveillance. The NSA initiative was put in place to get around any oversight regardless of how perfunctory it may have been). An amendment to FISA made those warrentless searches "legal" in August of 2007, but as I said earlier, FISA expired in February of this year.






This "compromise" bill that the Congress is going to introduce not only revives FISA as amended, but would essentially protect the telecoms from prosecution for their role in any illegal wire tapping that took place under the NSA initiative before the passage of the amendment in August of last year. The Bush administration has been pushing hard for this immunity because along with shielding the telecoms from prosecution, they believe that it would also shield them from any prosecution over illegal wiretaps. So what Congress would be doing, in fact, is forgiving the Bush administration and any who aided them, for trampling all over the 4th amendment.







The Democrats in the House and Senate are not only willing to give the Bush administration practically unlimited power to eavesdrop on whoever the hell they please, but they are also willing to turn a blind eye to any wrong doing that may have occurred in the past. This is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that "impeachment is off the table". We have documented some of the failings of the Bush administration in this blog, but clearly we have let the now Democratic party controlled Congress off far too easily. I am literally amazed every day by the balls of this administration and it's utter lack of respect for the rule of law, but now the Congress is about to become more than just a silent partner in this disaster. Up until now, the Congress has just held it's nose at the multitude of Constitutional trangressions of this administration, but if they take this step, they will become a willing participant in the soiling of the Constitution.







I can only imagine what the founding fathers would think of the current state of politics. While they were no strangers to personal attacks and backstabing in politics, they would no doubt be appalled by the absolute disregard for the system of checks and balances that they worked so hard to perfect. The problem that we face is that most people in this country aren't aware that the rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution have been severely restricted. As with the Iraq War, most people are willing to view it as "someone else's problem". The "Low information voter" (a term which provided me and Sandy with a lot of laughs last night), has no idea what this administration has taken away from them. Hell, they don't have any idea what's even in the Bill of Rights.







Currently Congress is not acting in the best interest of the people (even low information voters deserve protection). They are acting on behalf of other politicians. I know that there won't be a great national outrage at what is about to happen, but I for one can't remain silent. I never thought that I would ever be a witness to the wholesale disregard and destruction of the most sacred document that this country has ever produced. Democrat and Republican politicians have very little that they can agree on, but in their mutual disregard of the Bill of Rights they seem to have found fertile ground for a new alliance.

C -O - O - L, What's that spell?

I don't really have anything new to say about our current political situation so I've decided to write about something really important. The coolest song ever. Now a cool song doesn't have to be a great song, but quality definitely helps. You know it's like how Steve McQueen is the coolest guy ever on film, but he couldn't hold a candle to Cary Grant in the looks department. So anyway, after years of research, I've decided that it comes down to two songs. Walk on the Wild Side by Lou Reed and Shaft by Issac Hayes. It's a real nail bitter between these two. They both have the attitude, the subject matter and the delivery of perfect coolness. The pedal work on the guitars on Shaft is spectacular, the sax solo at the end of Wild Side is sublime. 

I could go into a long analysis of each song, but suffice it to say that they work on every level of cool. Cool can't be too earnest (sorry Bono). Cool can't be too socially conscious (sorry everyone who ever wrote a song about suffering). Cool can't take itself too seriously (almost every musician). Anyway, in a photo finish, I think the winner is Wild Side by Lou Reed (although that cat Shaft is a bad mutha...). The crowd goes wild and the colored girls say,  do, do do, do do!

Timing is Everything

This week there was outrage about the Monsanto amendment to the funding bill. Apparently the amendment was added to the spending bill anonymously and approved by Congress and signed into law by the President without so much as a committee vote. I actually find the outrage to be outrageous. Since when do our elected officials do anything that isn't motivated by money or power? I'm sure that there was enough money passed around by Monsanto to feed a small country many times over. Our politicians are motivated by greed and by the need to be reelected. There has been a flood of politicians who have all of a sudden found their voice when it comes to gay marriage. Why? Because the polls now show that a majority of Americans now approve it. The President came out in favor of gay marriage after the polls tipped the 50% barrier. Now that the numbers are moving toward 60% , there's a tidal wave of politicians climbing over each other to join the growing chorus. Where were these politicians when state after state voted against gay marriage? Where were they when the polls showed the majority was against gay marriage? I'll tell you where they were; They were sitting on their hands because they didn't want to take a position that might have cost them votes. 

Politicians only respond to a couple of things and doing what is right isn't one of them. It's terrible that a bill that allows genetically altered food to remain on the shelves regardless of pending legal action, was passed by the Congress and then approved by the President. And it's nice that Senators are finally coming on board to support gay rights. In the end it doesn't matter at all. Courage and common sense are severely lacking in Washington. Every decision is made with an eye toward the next election and in gathering the required cash to win that election. So thanks Mr. President, thank you Hillary Clinton and thanks to all the senators who were so "brave" in expressing their support for gay marriage. You guys really went out on a limb. Courage abounds! And as far as the Monsanto amendment goes, the old adage still applies, money talks and bullshit walks.  

Dream A Little Dream

I'm reposting this for the third time. As the President takes his last oath of office, I still don't think I've come up with anything better to say.

"...in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope". Those are the words that Barack Obama used in his now famous speech after the New Hampshire primary and it illustrates perfectly his connection with the man whose birthday we celebrate as a nation today. Hope is the tie that binds Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama. The hope and the belief that America can do and must do better. Obama's speech not only made the point that the destinies of all Americans are intertwined, but that people must have hope in order to make a better world. MLK's most famous speech was all about hope. It spoke of a nation that didn't exist. It spoke of the dreams of an America where someone like Barack Obama can reach the highest position in the land. They share the dream of a better America. Whether it is an America where people are judged by the "content of their character", or an America where we strive to build "a more perfect union", their goals were the same.

There has been a lot of talk about whether Obama's election is the culmination of MLK's dream. It is clearly a part of what he hoped for, but it is not the end of what he hoped for. Before his death, he was working on organizing another march on Washington. This one was going to be a poverty march. He looked across the country and realized that the underclass had no one to speak for them. He realized that the poor had no voice and no power to change their situation. His dream had expanded to include the poor of all colors. Whites in Appalachia, Hispanics in California, Native Americans in Oklahoma, they all became part of the dream. Injustice will always exist, that is why the dream will never be fulfilled. It is a moving target, as is Barack Obama's dream to build a more perfect union. Obama's words imply that the union can never be perfected, but we must always strive to make it better.

MLK led the greatest moral campaign that this country has ever known. He led a generation of people who were willing to put their lives on the line to make this country a better place. Tom Brokaw wrote a book about the WWII generation entitled "The Greatest Generation", however I think that designation should go to those who worked and fought and died so that the dream of America could be shared by all Americans. It is somewhat easier to make those sacrifices when the entire country agrees with you, but when you are faced with the opposition of the majority of the citizens of this country, it takes an extraordinary type of intestinal fortitude to persevere. Barack Obama is not the successor to MLK. As President, his moral compass will not be as consistent as MLK's was. His goals will not be as single minded as MLK's were. They can't be. The job of President is much more complicated and Obama is not just the representative of some of us, he is the representative of all of us. Those who have expectations that Obama will lead a moral revolution on the scale of MLK will be disappointed.

MLK was the leader of a movement that changed this nation forever. Barack Obama is about to become the leader of the country and his election has changed this nation forever. They will always be inexorably linked. The fact that Obama will be inaugurated on the day after this nation celebrates the birthday of MLK would lead many to invoke the term, poetic justice. MLK's dream is alive in Barack Obama as it is in every person who strives to make this world a better place. The Dream and the Perfect Union remain out of reach, but it is in the striving for those things that we tap into the better angels of our nature. It is our willingness to try, regardless of the obstacles in our way, that keeps the Dream alive. MLK would most likely be very proud of Barack Obama, not only because of what he represents, but because Obama is still challenging the nation to be better. Indeed that is ultimately what links them. We can be better, we just need someone to show us the way.

A More Perfect Union

I am just as proud of my vote this year as I was 4 years ago. Thank you Maine, Maryland and Minnesota for affirming the rights of those who should have always had them. Thank you Wisconsin for showing the way. Thank you Missouri and Indiana for standing up against ignorance. Thank you to everyone who voted. It is an imperfect system, but it's the best one in the world. And thank you Mr. President for giving us 4 more years of your life. I may not always agree with what you do, but I know that without a doubt, you are the best person for the job.

Rest in Peace Champ

In honor of the great Joe Frazier, who passed away yesterday, I'm reprinting something I wrote back in 2006.

Ali-Frazier III. The Thrilla in Manila. The final meeting of boxing titans. Ali had christened the fight in his then famous "poetry". He said, "It's gonna be a killer, and a chiller and a thrilla when I get the gorilla in Manila." As if the fight needed any more buildup, Ali decided to dub Frazier the gorilla, which did nothing to lessen the already substantial animosity from the Frazier camp. On October 30, 1975 Ali and Frazier would wage the greatest heavyweight fight of all time. The battle was so monumental that neither man would ever be the same again. They left not only their blood and guts in the ring that night, they left whatever was left of their youth as well.

 Ali and Frazier fought for the first time on March 8, 1971. The fight that was billed as the fight of the century and lived up to that billing. It was quite possibly the greatest sports spectacle of the century. It featured the first meeting of undefeated heavyweight champions. Ali was coming back from a three year layoff after having his title stripped and being prohibited from boxing due to his refusal to enter the armed services. Frazier had stepped into the void created by Ali's absence and had won the title in the heavyweight championship tournament. Ali had a couple of tune up fights and declared himself ready to reclaim his rightful place atop the heavyweight division. Ali and Frazier were friendly during Ali's boxing exile, with Frazier even giving Ali money during a particularly rough stretch. Once the contracts were signed however, Ali began to taunt Frazier in public. He called him ugly and an Uncle Tom. He painted Frazier as the "white man's champion". He claimed to be the people's champion. He turned the fight into a battle between the status quo and the voices for change, between the old and young, between black and white, between rich and poor. Frazier didn't want any of it and he grew to hate Ali because of the taunting. The fight itself was an epic battle. Ali dominated the early rounds with his speed and his jab. Frazier, a notoriously slow starter came back in the middle rounds. The fight was fairly even as they entered the last five rounds of the fight. The years away from boxing had robbed Ali of his ability to dance around the ring for 15 rounds. As the latter rounds became more of a flat footed slugfest, the fight swung in Frazier's direction. Frazier knocked Ali to the canvas in the 15th and final round with a thunderous trademark left hook. Ali somehow managed to pull himself up at that count of 4, but the decision was never in doubt. Frazier had defeated him and could now lay rightful claim to the true undisputed heavyweight championship of the world.

The second fight in the trilogy took place in January of 1974. Neither man was champion at that point. Frazier had been knocked senseless by George Foreman in Jamaica a year earlier and Ali had lost to a previously unknown boxer named Ken Norton. Both were at the crossroads of their careers. The fight was held at Madison Square Garden in New York, which was the same venue as their first fight, it had none of the majesty of that fight however. Ali continued to taunt Frazier and Frazier continued to build animosity toward Ali. They even tussled on Wide World of Sports while doing an interview with Howard Cosell. Ali was probably just acting, but Frazier was dead serious. The fight in the ring was neither as interesting nor as close as their first fight had been. Ali won easily, although Frazier did score with a number of punches. The fight was really the beginning of the end for Frazier. He would fight only four more times before retiring. Ali went on to fight 15 more times after the second Frazier fight.

The third fight was supposed to be easy for Ali. He had just recently regained the heavyweight title from George Foreman in Zaire and Frazier was perceived to be at the end of the line. Ali didn't train heavily for the fight but Frazier threw everything he had into preparation. He wanted to shut Ali up once and for all. The fight took place at an indoor arena that had no air conditioning. Under the TV lights the temperature soared well above 100 degrees in the ring. The humidity was stifling. The only ventilation in the building was in the form of fans that were ineffective in battling the heat and only served to circulate the already searing air. Ali was confident as he entered the ring. He felt that he would be able to take Joe out in the early rounds. Joe had another thought in mind. The fight started in the familiar pattern of Ali - Frazier fights. Ali dominated the early rounds. He peppered Frazier with jabs and power punches that Frazier seemed unable to stop or dodge. The fight began to turn once again in the middle rounds. Frazier pinned Ali to the ropes and began to pound at Ali's midsection and score left hooks to the head. Ali tried his rope-a-dope technique which had been so successful against Foreman, but Frazier proved too smart an opponent to simply punch himself out. He was much more economical and precise in his attack than the outclassed Foreman had been. As the fight wore on Ali knew that he was in for a battle. In one of the clinches he said, "Joe, they said you were done", "They lied to you champ" was Joe's only response.

The later rounds saw Ali's punches begin to take a toll on Frazier's face. His head became a misshapen lump of bruises. His eye were swollen and his vision became compromised. Ali seized the advantage. He produced pinpoint power shots to Frazier's head and started to build a lead. Frazier did not stop punching however. He hurt Ali on numerous occasions as the fight wore on. Ali was later quoted as saying that those later rounds were as close to death as he as ever felt. The heat and Frazier's relentless attack pushed him to the brink of quitting. His corner pushed him out for each round and he continued his attack on Frazier's face. A series of shots in the 13th round sent Frazier's mouthpiece flying into the crowd, but he never stopped coming forward, absorbing punishment, but also dishing it out. Frazier's corner wanted to stop the fight after the 13th round but he convinced them to give him one more round. In the 14th round a nearly blinded Frazier absorbed a vicious beating from Ali and his corner did indeed call it quits before the start of the 15th. In the tape from the fight, you can see Frazier arguing with his corner about stopping the fight, but in the end his trainer, Eddie Futch, had the final say. Frazier was so upset by that decision that he never spoke to Futch again. Ali, upon seeing that the fight was being stopped, got off his stool, raised his hand and then collapsed onto the canvas.

Both men had absorbed a tremendous amount of damage in the fight. And while Frazier's face looked the worse for wear, it was Ali's body that had suffered the most in the fight. Ali always gave up his body in order to protect his face and Frazier exacted an enormous toll during the fight. Ali was under a doctors care for several days after the fight, while Frazier was able to walk away in generally good condition. Joe Frazier would once again lose by knockout to George Foreman in his next fight after which he retired. Frazier had a short lived comeback a few years later in which he fought only once, but basically his career ended that night in Manila. Ali said after the fight that he was going to quit and most people believe that he should have. Of course he wouldn't. He would go on to lose and then win the title one more time and he would suffer ignominious defeat at the hands of Larry Holmes in an ill advised comeback. Ali is now afflicted with Parkinson's Syndrome, which means that although he doesn't have Parkinson's he has all the symptoms of a sufferer of the disease. It's a more scientific term for what used to labeled "punch drunk". His speech has been affected to the point that he doesn't speak in public anymore. His limbs shake uncontrollably and his movement is limited. His continued boxing activity after that night in Manila is probably the main reason for his condition today.

The thrilla in Manila was an epic struggle between two extraordinary fighters. Both men were past their primes, both had already secured their places in boxing history, both had nothing left to prove, but on that night they showed the world something more than just a championship bout. They were no longer fighting for the heavyweight championship, they were fighting for the championship of each other. They had split the first two fights and the winner of this fight could forever claim victory over the other. Neither of them was willing to give up that fight. They both fought to the edge of death to prove something, not to the world, but to each other. Ali won that night, but paid a heavy cost by continuing his boxing career. The effects of his decision to continue to fight have made him a shadow of the person he used to be. Frazier is still relatively healthy today and while he says that he harbors no ill will toward Ali today, there has to be a lingering thought in his head that perhaps by losing, he was the ultimate victor that October night in Manila. +

USA! USA!

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced that the US government has decided to recognize the rebel council of Libya as the official government body of that country. This will, in theory, lead to that body being able to get access to some of the funds of the Libyan government assets that have been frozen in foreign banks. I can't tell you how thrilled I am that our government is finally taking steps to recognize the legally elected representatives of the Libyan people...(oh, what's that you say, they haven't been elected by anybody). I'm sure that's just an oversight. At least when they get the money they will be able to provide the people of Libya with the resources I'm sure they so desperately need... (oh, what's that you say, they only want the money so that they can buy weapons to continue their civil war). Well at least the US government is setting a fine example for the Libyan people of supporting freedom movements all over the region... (oh, what's that you say, the US government has seen fit to ignore similar uprisings in neighboring countries like Syria where thousands have already been killed or imprisoned). Well at least the unfreezing of the assets can be viewed as humanitarian aid because it's not like we're at war...(oh, what's that you say, our drones sometimes fire rockets at targets). But since there has been no formal declaration of war and our President says that they have no real ability to harm our personnel that it doesn't qualify as war...(oh, what's that you say, just ask the family members of those that have been killed or injured by our rockets if they think we're at war). 

Well, in conclusion, I'd just like to say that this move by the US to recognize the Libyan rebels is a wonderful example of how we seek to promote and strengthen democracy around the world. I couldn't be prouder (oh, and by proud I mean absolutely disgusted).

Keep It Coming

In recognition of the NY State Legislature taking a historic step toward equality today, I'm reposting something I wrote a few years ago. Let's hope it's the start of an avalanche.

The most disappointing moment of the 2008 campaign for me came when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama did not support the right of homosexuals to marry (it was even more disappointing than Obama's vote on the FISA bill). It can only be seen as ironic that in an election when the American people decided to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, the voters in four states decided to deny homosexuals the right to get married. In California, even more ironically, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for the ban. I am positive that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are opposed to homosexual marriage, but in order not to ruffle the feathers of the country, they took the more popular public stance.

This battle is very reminiscent of the bans against interracial marriage which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (Just as a side note, Alabama had retained their law against interracial marriage on the books until 2000)

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". However the bans against homosexuals marrying have been upheld in various court challenges. The highest court in New York basically said that the homosexuals cannot be given the same protection under the law because discrimination against them hasn't been recognized until the recent past.

The New York Court of Appeals held in 2006:

"[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries...This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s... It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

I do believe that in time this will become a non-issue. It's just a shame that the American people always seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving oppressed minorities equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has usually has had to take the first step and I do have hopes that over the next 8 years, the Court will address this issue and lay it to rest once and for all. Here is what Barack Obama said in his now famous Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic convention:

"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work."

And I would add that if there is one person or group who are having their "fundamental" rights denied, then we are all oppressed, even if my rights are not being infringed upon. Denying the fundamental rights of citizens to marry is separate from the fight for Civil Rights of African-Americans (and clearly less violent), but the right to vote, the right to live where you want and the right to marry who you want are unalienable rights that are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that according to the Declaration of Independence, we were all endowed with by the Creator. Eventually we, as a country, realized that denying basic rights to an entire group of citizens based on something as arbitrary as skin color was wrong. I hope for the day when we as a country will realize that denying the fundamental rights of any minority group makes us smaller and uglier in the eyes of history. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was implemented to protect the rights of former slaves, but it should be applicable to every citizen regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference. The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Let's See Some ID

Image via WikipediaI wrote a piece back during the first month of President Obama's term that laid out the four things that I wanted him to accomplish. I was under no allusion that the administration was paying attention to my blog, but I figured it was worth the effort at the time. Of the four issues I mentioned, only one (health care) has been addressed in any significant way. Just as a refresher to all those who weren't followers of this blog at the time, the other three issues were Afghanistan, education and restoration of the Constitutional rights that were taken away under the previous administration.

I understand that logistics have gotten in the way of any significant change in Afghanistan, so I'm willing to give the President a pass on that one. I still don't believe that we have a real exit strategy or that our troops are doing any good, but I understand the difficulty in removing an army that is propping up a puppet regime.  However, the fact that education hasn't even gotten so much as a passing mention does not make me particularly happy. And the rolling back of rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution, well let's just say that this administration has apparently decided that it likes being able to eavesdrop on our conversations, detain us without due process and ship us off to other countries for "questioning" if it feels it's necessary. This is from the same President who said during his inauguration speech that the choice between safety and our ideals is a false one. Apparently he changed his mind. 

All that being said, I am totally on board with the President's mission of changing the tone of Washington. He has tried time and time again to reach out to the opposition. He has made so many concessions that some of his supporters have doubted his conviction to progressive ideals. I never have (okay, I may have wavered a bit during the health care debate). Despite all of the in fighting and political horse trading that has gone on during this administration, I always felt that the President was at least speaking truthfully or as truthfully as he could, to the American people. This week, however, I believe that he has crossed the line. In speaking about the continued NATO action in Libya, he said that US would always intervene when it saw the leader of a country harming it's own citizens (I'm paraphrasing here, but that was the general sentiment). I know, he knows and the American people know that is a crock of shit. There are multiple regimes that we support (particularly those with oil), who do great harm to their own citizens and we don't so much as bat an eye in protest. In fact we support those countries with our dollars and our weapons. We did the same for Qaddafi only a few short months ago, until he apparently turned into the worst person in the world. 

This is by no means a renunciation of my support for this President or his administration. I am very satisfied with the many things that he has been able to accomplish in the face of historic opposition. He has survived unsubstantiated attacks against his family, his citizenship, his academic record, his patriotism, his religious beliefs, etc. to forge a very impressive record of accomplishments. I stand by him and stand ready to support him in the next election. What I am saying is that I'm disappointed. Not by the lack of action on my pet issues, but that this President who I hold in such high regard, would speak to us, would speak to me as if I were a child with no understanding of the world. 

I always thought that President Obama did us the courtesy of speaking to us as if we were adults. I appreciated that after having to listen to the jingoistic patriotism that was spewed out at us by the previous administration. It didn't always come across as exciting or sound bite worthy, but it was the truth (or as much truth as could be shared). We all know that we are not the world's morality police. We can't afford to be and frankly we are no position to foist our views of morality on anyone. But when we decide to target a particular leader for removal based on strategic considerations, I would appreciate it if the President would show us the courtesy of being upfront about it. We have no moral basis for intervening in Libya. There was no genocide going on. What we did was get in the middle of civil war because it served the strategic goals of us and our allies. I know politicians think that we are pretty stupid (and given our willingness to be convinced of almost anything I can understand why). However, part of the change message that I bought into was that we were now going to be treated like adults. Stupid adults maybe, but adults nonetheless. Up until now I thought the President was doing a pretty good job of that. I can only hope that this is just a misstep and not a sign of things to come.

The Human Condition

"Can't we all just get along?" Those famous words were uttered by Rodney King during the height of the LA riots. And the answer to that is, of course, no. We are not designed to live in peaceful coexistence. From the time we are able to reason, we look for ways to separate ourselves from others. We, individually, or in a group start labeling those around us. We start looking for ways to make ourselves feel superior as soon as we become self aware. 

Often the question is asked, how did the holocaust happen? The answer is as easy and as predictable as every time it has happened since then. The pattern goes something like this, our innate feeling of superiority leads to a feeling of entitlement which leads to frustration which leads to resentment which leads finally to anger. Once we reach the point of anger all that we need is a target to focus that anger. It has happened time and time again. Whether it was the Armenians or the Jews or the Japanese or the Chinese or the Blacks or the Tutsi or the Mayans or the Muslims or any other group that has faced genocide in human history. It happens time and time again. It leads one to the inescapable conclusion that we, as a race of beings, are born with the ability to commit the most haneous of crimes against each other.  

The only question to how far we are willing to go is how much the "target" has been dehumanized or devalued. In the case of the victims of genocide, the target has been so devalued that they are no longer viewed as worthy of the same right to life as the perpetrators. The victims are viewed as "monkeys" or "innately evil" or "sub human" or "dirty" or something less than <.I would ask those on the left whether they feel "superior" to those on the right? Do you think that you are better because you care more about the preservation of our planet? Or because of your more tolerant attitude toward people who are different? Or because you are against war? Those on the right may feel superior because of their religious beliefs, or because of their greater sense of patriotism or because the color of their skin. Are you superior to your neighbor because you have a higher IQ than they do?  Are you superior to your neighbor because you have more money than they do? Are you superior because your kids go to better schools? Are you superior because you shop at better department stores than do? The fact is that doesn't matter what the reason is, we are always looking for a reason.

Our ability for cruelty, hatred and disdain toward our fellow human beings is seemingly limitless. Our current political discourse is just an example of our seemingly congenital need to feel superior to someone or some group. Those on the right see Godless, unpatriotic hippies on the other side and they feel superior to them. Those on the left see racist, hypocritical rednecks on the other side they feel superior to them. It is just a continuation of our need to subjugate someone to make us feel better about ourselves. The thing is that there are lots of shared views on both sides of the debate. I'm fairly sure that at church on Sunday, there are representatives from both sides of the isle. I'm pretty sure that both sides pray to the same God. I'm fairly sure that both sides have their fair share of patriots, rednecks and hippies. There are Gays, Blacks, Jews, Asians, Mexicans, etc, who vote Republican at every turn. And there are Whites from Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, etc, who are dedicated Democrats. 

As Abraham Lincoln once said, there is much more that unites us than separates us. But as we use terms that devalue others based on something as insignificant as political views, we are fulfilling a basic tenant of the human condition. Does it matter what we issue we use to separate ourselves? Does it matter whether we open a boiled egg from the big end or small end? Not really. We will find what makes us different and someone will always be there to exploit our need to feel superior. Whether for political gain or monetary gain or a power grab, those looking to gain something will always be able to manipulate some portion of the masses to go along with them as long as they appeal to one of our most basic needs. The Human Condition allows us to commit the most horrible of acts without a second thought. I guess we can be grateful that our current political discourse has not yet devolved to the point of an armed conflict. Yet we are only a few short steps from taking up arms under the guise of protecting ourselves against an as yet unnamed enemy. If history has shown us anything, it is that every society (regardless of how supposedly enlightened it may be) is cable of turning against itself. That is the Human Condition.

An Ordinary Man

As we approach the anniversary of the death  of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I can't help but think of the sacrifice of those who fought to bring the potential of the American dream to all people. I'm not talking about the people who made headlines, I'm talking about the people who made sacrifices small and great and who are for the most part forgotten by history. The leaders of the civil rights struggle are rightfully venerated by the masses, but I think we overlook the majority of those who made it possible for civil rights to become a reality. From the housewife who donated her time and energy to the cause to the bus driver who spent all his free time handing out pamphlets to the student who put his education on hold so that he take part in a march to the bus boy who risked not only his job, but his life as well as he took part in a sit in at a segregated restaurant. I hope that at this time when we remember the ultimate sacrifice that MLK made that we also remember the faceless nameless masses who also contributed mightily to the ultimately successful attempt to fulfill the promise that was made in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal". 

The reason that I think of those regular people who made those sacrifices is that I'm not sure that the debt that is owed to those individuals can ever be repaid. How does one pay back what so many suffered to gain with their blood, sweat and tears?The election of Barack Obama and the elevation of many African Americans to positions of power and influence has led some to declare the battle for equality at an end. It is said that if we can elect a black president then blacks have certainly achieved all that they set out to accomplish during the civil rights struggle. In my view, that is certainly not the case, but I can understand how some could have that opinion. However, my question is, was the only goal of the civil rights struggle to create a climate so that a few could reach exalted heights. Did those factory workers, maids, students, housewives, sacrifice all so much in order to elevate the few?

I ask the question because I have struggled often with the thought of living an ordinary life. I have had all the advantages that a middle class life could offer. I went to good schools, graduated from college, got a scholarship to go to graduate school, graduated and became a working member of society. The problem with an ordinary life is that I feel the pressure to be extraordinary. Having lived an "ordinary" life, I can't help but feel that I have somehow failed the generation who suffered so much in order to give me the opportunity to be more than "ordinary".

American society seems to only pay attention to either the best or the worst of black society. Criminals, welfare cheats, drug addicts, prison inmates who happen to be black are consistently highlighted on the news and in popular culture. There are those who would ascribe the negative qualities of the worst of those individuals to all African-Americans. I could offer many real life examples of this, but suffice it say that this is not limited to only those narrow minded individuals that we call bigots.

American society will also heap inordinate praise on those who have been able to reach the heights of popularity or power. Athletes, entertainers, politicians, business leaders. Of course if one of those who reach those heights were to commit a transgression of some type, then all the negative stereotypes are immediately brought to bear. They are no longer one of the "good ones", they immediately become "just like the rest of them".

Given our "post racial" society, the question remains, what is required of the descendants of the greatest generation. Is being ordinary, enough? Does being ordinary fulfill the desire of those who made so many sacrifices given the almost schizophrenic attitude that society has toward African Americans? It is easy to argue that the goal of the ordinary people who were the engine of the civil rights movement was that they and their descendants be allowed the same opportunity to fail or succeed as the rest of the America. The fought for the right to be treated as individuals. They fought for the right for their fortunes to be tied to their own strengths and weaknesses.

So do I honor that generation with the life I lead? I'm not sure. I suppose on one level I do, I suppose on one level America does as well. They just happen to be different levels. We as a country have advanced enough to elect a black man as our president and yet we still manage to vilify people because of the color of their skin. Those ordinary people who suffered might say that they did it so that I could live the as I do, but I'm sure they would also be disappointed in the attitudes that still exist. The promised land is not having a black person reach the presidency, on the contrary, the promised land is being treated as an equal regardless of your level of achievement. The battle for that ultimate goal rages on. It rages on even though some would like to put the ugliest of episodes behind us.

I can honor those bravest of Americans by talking and writing about how much they sacrificed. I am not sure that I can honor them by the life I lead. The battle for Civil Rights continues today as it probably will for the foreseeable future. The battle continues throughout the country and it continues inside me as I'm sure it does inside many who happen to share my pigmentation. Is being ordinary a fulfillment of the legacy of all of those who came before me or a betrayal of it? I wish I had the answer to that.

The Long and Winding Road

I haven't found the energy or motivation to write much lately, and I'm not sure that I'll be writing much more in the future, but I do have a few things to get off my chest. First I'd like to address the critics of this administration. The politics of absolutism are bound to result in disappointment. Citizen Barack Obama would surely be on the side of those calling for this administration to take more aggressive stance toward the Republicans and to push a more progressive agenda. Perhaps even Senator Obama would be a voice of agitation for this administration. However President Obama does not have the luxury of dealing with absolutes. There is no black and white in politics, only shades of gray. The politics of absolutism, on the right or the left, demand everything and criticize anything short of that goal. There is no middle ground or compromise in the politics of the absolute. And while the need to push our elected officials from safe and entrenched positions is necessary, there is a point at which reason and some understanding of reality should kick in. However in the politics of absolutism, that point is never reached. Nothing is ever good enough or quick enough or comprehensive enough. If a goal is accomplished, there are numerous criticisms that are leveled because in the eyes of absolutism, the finish line is a constant moving target. Perfection, especially in something as imperfect as politics, can almost never be attained. The absolutist would have railed against the Emancipation Proclamation because in reality it freed no one. The Civil Rights Act would have been considered too little, too late. These are extreme examples, but I think they are valid. I have been reticent to express my opinion of late because I simply have no patience for the politics of absolutism. There is simply no politician who given the weight, responsibilities and limitations of the presidency would act they way they would want him or her to. In our fractured political system, the best that we can hope for is some kind of fragile consensus. That consensus cannot be built without compromise and reasoned debate. As soon as an intractable position is taken, any attempt at moving forward is doomed to failure. So please exercise your right to criticize this President and this administration all you want, but remember that if by some miracle your desired candidate were to hold the position, they would be subject to the same problems, limitations and complexities of the office that this President is subject to. 

Next I want to talk about the "revolutions" in the Middle East. The successful removal of the Egyptian president has led to copycat movements all over that most explosive of regions. The Libyan situation has provoked the most response from the people and from politicians all over the world. NATO and the UN are considering what they can do in response to the uprising in Libya. People in the country are calling for us to help those who would try and get rid of their dictator. I would like to ask the question of when the last "revolution" in the Middle East led to a better life for the people in that country. Do the families of the upwards of a million dead in Iraq feel their lives are better after their dictator was overthrown? Did the Egyptians feel like their lives were better after their previous President was assassinated? Do the Iranians feel that their lives are better after they got rid of the Shah? Egypt is now run by a military commission. Does that sound like an improvement to you? Frankly I don't care about liberating the countries of the Middle East from their dictators and neither does NATO, the UN or the US government. The only issue at stake is oil. A month ago, Qaddafi was tolerated and supported with arms and money from the same governments who are now trying to figure out ways to help remove  him. Those governments don't care about the "liberty" of the people, they only care about stability in the region and keeping the oil flowing. There are calculations being made now about what is most likely to happen in Libya, so that the correct side can be supported. It's all about which side will get things back to normal as quickly as possible. Qaddafi's latest offensive push is without a doubt causing quite a bit of consternation in the rooms of power. Also isn't it amazing how quickly the world rallied to the aid of those poor citizens of Libya who were being killed by their own government. How long did that take before everyone was freezing assets and threatening "no fly" zones and possible military intervention? A week? Maybe less. Isn't it amazing that just a few miles to the south in Africa where there is no oil, the systematic murder of tens of thousands can go on for years without an international outcry. It takes George Clooney and other celebrities to bring attention to genocide in Africa after hundreds of thousands have been killed and yet we have one week of civil unrest in a major oil producing country and our politicians and people are up in arms and willing to consider the severest of actions. Apparently the world doesn't really value the lives of Africans without oil or who happen to have a little darker skin pigmentation. So really, I don't want to hear about how worried we are about humanitarian violations, because a month ago no one cared and the world still doesn't care about what goes on below the oil line in deepest, darkest Africa.

My last point in this probably pointless rant is probably the biggest reason why my output has basically come to halt (I'm sure some are probably not particularly broken up about that). It comes down to the futility of the effort. We all know (even the most optimistic among us), that this country is run by and for a very privileged few. We haven't experienced the disparity in wealth that now exists in this country since before the depression. It seems (certainly with the Wisconsin example, and many states ready to follow suit) that we are rushing headlong into a time when the working people of this country will be once again be at the mercy of the whims and whimsy of their bosses. The scary thing is that this time we're gonna get there with the approval of a large vocal minority. The Republicans and their town criers at Fox News have managed to convince a large percentage of the people that the reason we are in such economic straights isn't the unbridled greed on Wall St., but the hard fought gains of those lazy civil servants. The teachers, the fire fighters, the cops, the sanitation workers, those bastards are the ones to blame. The fact that unions helped to create the middle class in this country is lost on those  people whose grandparents probably built their legacy on the backs of those hard fought gains of the very unions that they are now demonizing. Outside of a full scale revolt by the people, there is nothing that can stop the current wave from becoming a tsunami. The problem as I've stated before is that half of the people who are being adversely affected have been convinced to fight on the side of their masters. A slave revolt doesn't get very far if the slaves fight each other. 

I think I've always tried to be a voice of reason in any political debate I've taken part in. Occasionally I've let my temper get the better of me (sorry, Tim). The problem is that reason doesn't get you very far in today's climate. To an absolutist, I look like a sellout (or from the right, a commie or worse) and to the ruling class, I'm a non entity. I can't say that this going to be last foray into politics, but it probably will be for a while. So to all of you still fighting the good fight, I wish you good luck and God speed.