Category Archives: Political

by

First Blood: Chinese visa rejection should open floodgates for dissent

 

US Olympic speedskater Joey Cheek

When asked the other day if USA Basketball players should speak out on human rights issues in China, Kobe Bryant said in effect that he and other players are not politicians but are there to “play the game.”  Normally I would say that’s a big cop-out!  After all, we know the power of the dollar these days and how much marketing makes a difference as players follow the “Jordan Rules” for remaining race and issue neutral on all things that do not pertain to promoting themselves or their brand.  I could site LeBron James’ reluctance to speak out about Nike sweat shops as an example. 

For sure the days of the concious athlete, i.e. Jim Brown, Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe, John Carlos and Tommy Smith, hell Billy Jean King are gone for the most part.  The rare exceptions for example are basketball players like Adonal Foyle, Dikembe Mutombo, and Etan Thomas.  Craig Hodges the former sharpshooter for the Bulls during the early Jordan years gave a letter to the president at the Rose Garden during their championship visit.  The letter talked about poverty and brought up issues that Hodges and others were concerned about that rarely ever get presidential attention.  He was blackballed by the league after that.  These people are conscious of not just their personal benefit and consumption from the sport, but of community and world affairs.  I don’t expect Kobe Bryant to know or care much about Tienanmen Square in 1989.  I don’t know that he is familiar with the issues regarding greater Los Angeles.  I would rather those speak who do know the issues so that the” stars” don’t make fools of themselves or degrade the cause.

Go to fullsize image

And so it goes with these Olympic games in Beijing.  I didn’t expect athletes with monolithic perspectives to chime in on weighty issues such as the Chinese human rights policy or the geopolitical stand of The Dali Lama.  Too bad the Olympics are in China in the first place, but perhaps we could just play nice and get through the games.  NOT!  Not now that the Chinese government has revoked the visa of Olympic Gold Medalist skater Joey Cheek.  Cheek is the founder of Team Darfur, a group of 70 athletes whose goal is to raise awareness of the human rights violations taking place in the Darfur region of The Sudan as told by Yahoo Sports.  China has many military, economic and diplomatic ties to The Sudan.

Again, initially I understood the modern athlete’s reluctance to get into political discussions during the games.  After all, it takes all one has just to prepare to qualify to compete with the best in the world on the world’s biggest stage.  The Olympics only happen once every four years.  Many American athletes have toed the line and not made any political statements regarding Chinese human rights issues and have focused their energies to promoting the games and making them attractive to fans, who may not otherwise know them.  However, China has thrown down the gauntlet two days before the opening ceremonies themselves.  American athletes should respond likewise by voicing their disdain for the way the Chinese have decided to treat Cheek.  They should use every opportunity especially during the medal presentations to make it their business to rally around a fellow American.  Talk about patriotism!  This is not a time to be politically correct but to make a morally definitive statement in supporting another American’s attempt to make the world better.  With the treatment of a great American like Cheek, it is unacceptable for any athlete to say with a straight face that it’s “just about the games.”  Damn the endorsements – speak truth to power!

by

The Best & Worst of Systems

 

Go to fullsize image

I was reading a column from one of my favorite columnist Sylvester Brown.  He talked about prejudice and a case he served on as a juror for.  This reminded me of an eye opening experience I had as a juror. 

When I got my first jury summons some years ago I remember talking to myself about this great opportunity to serve my community.  I checked in downtown and got my booklet which instructed me on the role of a juror and why I was there.  While waiting I read the book cover to cover.  Going in I knew that I needed to be impartial and to be ready to not allow my personal prejudices to dictate how I would rule on a case.  I was excited to say the least to participate in this most important of judicial processes.

Ahhh the case:

I make it past the first cut where we get to take questions from the attorneys.  The case consisted of a young male accused of selling drugs to an undercover police officer.  The young man was present with his attorney as was the prosecutor.  The laywers polled us by asking questions such as:

a) Do you know the defendant?

b) Have you had negative experience with police officers?

c) Would you need video or audio evidence to convict?

d) Are you more apt to believe a police officer over an accused individual?

Easy enough right?  Just tell the truth.  My answers to these critical questions:  I didn’t know the defendant.  I’ve had negative and positive experience with police officers.  If there was no video or audio I would only evaluate the that was presented.  I am neither apt to believe the police or the accused in any given situation.  Especially as it relates the case at hand.  My evaluation would be strickly based on the evidence presented.  See I had paid attention to my book – AND I meant every one of these words quite sincerely. 

Long story short I didn’t get picked.  Some of those who did however included a gentleman who said he would more than likely NOT believe the police under any circumstances.  And another who said he came from a family of police officers and was likely to believe anything the police would say.  These guys decided the case.  Eventually my time was up.  Three days of pay for reading a couple books, and hours of hurry up and wait. 

I learned a couple of sobering things about jury duty and the judicial system.  First of all the attorneys are not concerned about justice in the strictest terms.  The prosecutor wants a conviction.  Period.  He may have aspirations of being circuit attorney, attorney general, a senator or governor.  If he does not rack up a large number of guilty verdicts his chances for promotion are reduced.  At the same time the defense wants an acquittal.  Doesn’t matter really whether the person did it or not, but rather whether the prosecutor can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  The attorneys with the most aquittals command the lions share of retainer fees.  Its all a game and the jury are merely a part of the players.

Second, though a jury are supposed to be made up of peers.  I found that to be a mixed bag as well.  Listening to some of those people talk I knew damn well I would never want them sitting on any jury I was counting on if I was faced with doing time.  Lets just say many were without much depth.  Some only complained about not wanting to be there.   And that they would rather be home watching Judge Judy or something.  This was especially disheartening when I heard African-American women complain this way.  After all black folk get the brunt of the short end of the justice stick.  And while they don’t want to serve – let alone serve with honor they are the first to complain about the all white jurors who hung ‘Lil Ray Ray’ out to dry.  I gave them sisters a piece of my mind and explained to them that serving was an opportunity to have a say within their community and being an active participant in the justice system.  I asked if it were them on trial, or their sons or brother or cousin, would they want a juror with their attitude to determine their loved ones fate?  (Let alone if any of them were being tried themselves…)  Some shot me a look of death.  And others thought I had a good point. 

The conclusion is that we in America do indeed have the best system in terms of the idea and the model.  But there is no way to legislate righteousness and once the details are executed with people who have motives that may or may not have to do with truth or justice, the system can get out of whack.  Its a serious thing being caught up in the system.  If you have loot there is a better chance of having decent representation.  One can get investigators, doctors, psychologist, forensic experts ect. to speak on behalf of ones case.  But if your broke, the case can be as flimsy as a wet t-shirt at the Hooters beach party against you and you could still be a goner. 

Nevertheless, I advocate that those of us who are of sound mind, logical, reasonable, and compassionate should do all we can to serve on a jury when called upon.  We may not have the education that the lawyers have, but we still have the last say in most cases for common sense to rule in these complicated issues that effect people’s lives.  Be the juror you would want to have. 

Peace

by

Black on the 4th of July

 

Go to fullsize image

As this nation celebrates its 238th birthday I am annually conflicted with the holiday.  For me, its a day off work and in this case paid I may add so its all good.  As a youth it meant fireworks, hotdogs and picnics.  I don’t recall a lot of talk about independence from England with the exception of 1976.  That was the 200th year or Bicentennial.  Otherwise, back then as it is today its about the festivities and in some years as this one a three day weekend.

As an American of African descent I am not sure how to comprehend this day.  I love my country for sure.  I love it enough to embrace its virtues and criticize its faults.  I am a patriot but not a nationalist.  Also I happened to have recently read Dick Gregory’s book “Callous On My Soul.”  Talk about great Americans… Gregory is one of the greatest Americans we have ever produced.  Anyway, in this book I have learned so much more about both the virtues and vices of this country we call America.  And considering the racism, classicism, poverty, and arrogance we so readily embrace, as a young nation we still have far to go to be as great as we think we are.  In many ways we live in separate Americas.  One for white and one for black, one for rich and one for poor.  One for those who are in and another for those who are out.  And yet when we celebrate these type of holidays we are expected to embrace the meanings in the same fashion.

I think of September 11th and how that forever changed many in America in terms of how they viewed their own patriotism and vulnerability.  But what about the many people of African descent, Native American as well as poor whites have viewed their patriotism and vulnerability.  For this I reference Gloria Ladson-Billings who argues:

Over and over people in this country describe the world as pre-September 11 and post-September 11.  Yes, this is a significant date, for now, but it takes history to determine whether or not it will become a teleological fault line.  For me time and chronology can be divided in an infinite number of combinations: Pre-April 4, 1968 (assassination of MLK) and post-April 4, 1968, pre summer of 1963 and post-summer of 1963 (bombing of the little girls in the Birmingham church), pre-summer of 1955 and post-summer of 1955 (murder of Emmett Till).  Each of these events made me feel less safe, less secure, less able to lay claim to any notion of myself as American. 

This illustrates a voice of Americans rarely heard and mostly ignored.  This makes sense in that in 1776 independence was not meant for people who were not Europeans.  So in essence the freedom they sought was also freedom to hold and sell slaves, freedom to rape and oppress others etc.  And even if one does not believe in reparations certainly a sincere apology may be at the very least useful.  This probably won’t happen in my lifetime – and thus the conundrum.

As Michael Eric Dyson explains in his book, Pride, “During July 4 celebrations, some blacks spurn the holiday altogether, because the freedom celebrated is segregated by skin color and even class at times.  They resonate with Langston Hughes’ plaintive poem. “Let America Be America Again,” when he says, “America never was America to me/…(There’s never been equality for me, /Nor freedom in this ‘homeland of the free.’)  Other blacks are torn.  One the one hand, they completely resonate with their bitterly disappointed brothers and sisters.  One the other hand, they acknowledge that black blood, sweat, and tears have built this country.  Hence they echo Martin Luther King Jr. when he declared, “I ain’t goin’ nowhere.”  King was responding, perhaps to mean-spirited critics who would dare deny blacks who fought for the nation’s freedom their right to criticize American in love as a gesture of profound patriotism.  Such critics use a pat line that is truly trite: “If you don’t like America, go back to where you came from.”  But as Deborah Mathis says of blacks, “Most of us – 91 percent – were born and have lived only here.” 

The Seven Deadly Sins

One thing is for sure… without the diversity that is evident in this nation – America would not be what it is today.  By this I mean in terms of industry, commerce, and culture.  And good bad or indifferent, people of color ARE and will always be a large part of America.  I close with the words of Stevie Wonder who in his song Black Man (written for the 1976 Bicentennial celebration) spoke truth to power when he said:

Now I know the birthday of a nation
Is a time when a country celebrates
But as your hand touches your heart
Remember we all played a part in America
To help that banner wave

Complete Lyrics of Black Man

by

Divided He Falls – If Obama Picks Hillary!

I find it ironic that my main main and fellow blogger R. Fitzgerald aka The Rich House in his series of breaking down the 48 Laws of Power would choose to use the one regarding never putting too much trust in friends and learning to use enemies in his latest entry.  Robert Green’s bestseller detailing how to gain and maintain advantages in life is a great manuscript and it’s theories are a proven way of success.  However, every rule has its exceptions.  Wisdom is knowing how to balance a good theory and when to turn it on it’s head when appropriate.  Such is the case of Barack Obama as he ponders his choice of a running mate for the upcoming presidential election in November. 

With a relatively close campaign between he and Senator Hillary Clinton people have spoken for months of a so called “dream team’ should the two combine campaigns for a run at the White House.  Clinton certainly has her supporters and she won enough states to garner a level of respect.  Her constituency range from the Caucasian, African-American, and Latino community respectively.  The Clintons made a lot of friends of the Democratic persuasion over the decade of the 90s, and Hillary proved to be a leader who can gather consensus.  Perhaps on paper it could have worked.  An African-American male and a Caucasian woman creating history together to promote positive change for a nation that desperately needs it.  However, I must say that Hillary Clinton as Vice President would be a disaster for Senator Obama’s campaign and certainly his potential administration.  Since this isn’t the New York Times or some other “official” news source I can afford to keep it real.  And I will. 

Lets start with Clinton’s speech on Tuesday night.  After losing the battle for the Michigan and Florida delegates over the weekend and a not so dominating result in the Puerto Rico primary, Obama gained the necessary delegates to become the presumptive nominee with the Montana and South Dakota primary results.  I recall Senator Clinton saying on many occasions that if she were not the nominee, she would put her full support behind Senator Obama and unify the Democratic party.  On Tuesday night many Dems fully expected her to start that very process by steering her supporters to Senator Obama in a concession speech.  Instead she showed her ass once again as being a defiant and “deranged narcissist” as one commentator on CNN stated.  The race is over!  But instead of keeping her promise to unite the party, she gave Obama warmed over generic praise and tooted her own horn by continuing to try her case as to why she should have won.  Earlier in the day she was floating out her interest to be VP on Obama’s ticket.  And while on paper that ticket had its attractive features prior, Hillary’s words and actions only proves that she would be a cancer to an Obama campaign and especially his potential administration.  Despite her previous speeches of her desire to fight for Americans who have not had the platform they needed the past eight years, her speech on Tuesday night proves once and for all that Hillary Clinton is for Hillary Clinton.  Her desire to be VP is only a last minute ploy to get a piece of the action. 

Lets me make it plain.  Despite losing, the Clintons and their supporters are trying to gangster their way into the White House by forcing themselves down Obama’s throat.  Her lack of concession and posturing in asking her supporters give her advice via her website is a sad and desperate attempt to headlock Obama into taking her through the Denver convention.  Her position to Obama is basically, “I have a following and you need me to deliver them if you want to be president.”  Some commentators talked of her trying to cement a legacy for her and Bill by gaining themselves one more go at the nation’s biggest political stage.  That sounds accurate to me.  That being the case we need not hear anymore from Hillary about her fighting for the needs of the nation.  Instead she is fighting for a place for her and her husband seeing as though she felt the presidency was her birthright in the first place.  Something needs to happen soon to end this foolishness.  Its getting out of hand with guys like Bob Johnson formally of BET writing letters to the CBC and making TV appearances to press Obama to accept Hillary.  Obama cannot afford to fall for these extorted power move by the Clintons. 

The truth is that while Hillary could be of great help were she able to make like a good soldier and fall in line with the voter’s desires and the rules of her party, her divisiveness only shows that if she were to be the VP she would only be interested in having a separate administration that would be in constant conflict with that of Obama’s.  Its plain that she and Bill would undermine everything they feel would not benefit their own need to gain recognition and power.  It can be clearly forcasted that an Obama/Clinton administration would be two administrations – one with Obama’s crew and one with Bill and Hillary’s in constant conflict for power and position.  For the first African-American president – this would be an awful thing because as Commander In Chief the buck is going to stop with him, perhaps more than with any other president in history.  Everything that goes wrong is going to fall on his shoulders.  To have a successful administration there has to be leadership across the board, but there can only be ONE leader.  One Chief!  Bill and Hillary are not humble enough to be Indians.  And her words on Tuesday night placing her voters on the table as bargaining chips proved so emphatically.  

Supposedly Clinton is supposed to concede tomorrow and throw her hat in with Obama.  People will be watching her tone to see if she can pull off the Oscar in convincing her loyal followers that she is indeed sincere.  Honestly, I don’t see her doing it with the enthusiasm needed to fully unify the party for the run at John McCain and the Republican Party looking to exploit any and all weaknesses.   

Meanwhile,  Hillary can blame herself for her own blunders and mistakes during this campaign.  For one she is still “sleeping” on Obama by continuing to underestimate his appeal and message to the nation.   Two, she continues to overestimate her own level of importance.  The Clintons may have some juice but the Democratic party is tiring of her self-appointed grandstanding.  They may indeed have to show her that neither she nor her husband is bigger than the party itself.  If necessary the leadership under Howard Dean will throw them under the bus before losing this election in November.  Her extortion play on Tuesday night was the last straw I’m sure.  And what will the Clintons do if Obama doesn’t pick her anyway?  Join John McCain?  Continue to travel the nation as solo artist?  That would be political suicide even for them. 

Clearly the Clintons have no respect for Obama and that is part of their ongoing problem – part of the reason she lost in the first place.  Its the same reason that McCain is going to lose in November.  He too underestimates Obama by summing him up to being merely a great speaker with no experience.  As if McCain has a lot of experience himself – as if George W. Bush had a lot of experience going in. 

Senator Obama was extremely gracious and classy in his praise of Hillary Clinton.  He’s a better man than me.  His poise is rather presidential and if anything this proves that is indeed willing and capable of working with anyone in a bi-partisan fashion.  Just as Jackie Robinson had the courage to perform under pressure while simultaneously standing above foolishness and stupidity, Obama has the courage and conviction to hold his tongue and know when to let folly slide when necessary.

One thing is for sure.  So far the Obama team has proved remarkably sharp in handling all things necessary for winning the White House.  They ran a great primary campaign by having a consistent message.  They raised and managed money equally in ways not seen before.  And they have handled adversity with class and dignity.  Therefore I am confident that they will not fall for the “okeedoke” with regards to the pressure put on by the Clintons and their regegade inner circle. 

by

Hillary Out of Line?

Keith Olberman sure does think so and he made some strong points in saying why.  Senator Clinton’s supporters often tout her brilliant mind and fighting spirit while her detractors have called her polarizing.  Even still some observers believe she is desperate.  I happen to believe she posesses all of these characteristics.  Polarization and desperation may be overshadowing her other qualities.   If she used her words to plant the seeds that many like Olberman believe, this would only prove my personal belief that she would do anythig – and i do mean ANYTHING to be president – which is percisely why she should not be president.

by

Lame Apologies & Hypocritical Philosophies

After all of that BS that went down with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his words/associations with Senator Barack Obama, John McCain for the most part has been given all but a free ride with the endorsement of John Hagee.  Hagee, a long time evangelical zealot nutcase gave a few choice words regarding the Catholic church in calling them “the apostate church” or “the great whore.”  McCain glady took his endorsement anyway and claimed to be ignorant of his remarks.  This is because McCain is trying to shore up as much of the republican base as he possibily can.  It is interesting to see him play this game of conservative musical chairs, as on one hand he plays to his past as being an adverary of many of the ways and policies of W, and at the same time embracing many of W’s policies such as the war in Iraq, the disdain of anything Islamic, and making permanent tax cuts for the rich.  Like many politicians he’ll say anything to get elected and because Hillary and Barack have been kicking each other’s asses in the headlines from state to state, he has gotten a free ride. 

In addition, I believe that in addition his ride has been easier because to a degree white people can afford to be more polarizing than people of color.  You’d be hard pressed to convince me that there would be that many Catholics who lean towards conservative politics who wouldn’t vote for McCain regardless of some crackpot preacher comments.  But Obama’s relationship to Wright who didn’t call any religion any names has to be exhausted to the point where we are tired of hearing about it. 

But what is with the generic apologies that people make often in the media?  Rarely do I hear these people take responsibility for what they said – or speaking directly to the core of what was done or said. 

For example, what about a racist comment like Fuzzy Zoeller’s years ago at the Masters:

“That little boy is driving well and he’s putting well. He’s doing everything it takes to win. So, you know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not serve fried chicken next year. Got it?”

Then Zoeller smiled, snapped his fingers, and walked away. Then he turned and added, “or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve.”

After the outcry from fans who found those statements racist and stereotypical – Fuzzy’s apology went like this:

“My comments were not intended to be racially derogatory, and I apologize for the fact that they were misconstrued in that fashion.” 

He apologized for our dumb selves misconstruing his comments – Imagine that?

Hagee chose a similar reprive:

In a letter to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, Hagee wrote: “Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.”

Uhhh does that mean he no longer thinks the Catholic church is an apostate or the great whore?  And perhaps others who are not Catholic found those remarks to be offensive.  He continued…

“In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholics and Protestant relations with the Jews,” Hagee wrote. “In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church. It most certainly does not.”

“I may have contributed????”  What is that?  It’s a poor excuse and a lame ass political statement is what it is.  Can you imagine telling your significant other,  “In the midst of arguing in the kitchen last night, I apologize for words I may have used that may have given you the impression that I called you a bitch.”  This would never fly in real life – but in the life of media and politics it seems to be just fine.

When it comes to race or hate politics, whites who are racist tend to effectively dismiss such comments by Hagee as being a part of the process.  They know that McCain probably does not have an opinion on Catholosism one way or the other – other than they vote.  Therefore Hagee’s comments won’t stick to him like a leach sucking his political hopes away.  As long as he holds to their political views when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, the economy, the war and a prevailing dose of subtle white superemacy.

If there was no election at stake and McCain wasn’t pining for every vote there would be no apology.  clearly they got to Hagee.  Meanwhile McCain never disassoiated or rejected Hagee’s endorsement anyway.  And it was cool – unlike Obama who had to run the hell away from fellow Chicago resident and political firestormer The Minister Louis Farrakhan who is still getting raked over called the Jewish faith “a gutter religion” after so many years have passed.  Look at how Obama responded to Tim Russert’s questions about Farrakhan’s support of his candicy:

“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”

See the difference?  We have a long way to go in this country when it comes to sincerity and acknowledgment of these subtle nuances.  When we are honest with ourselves and our prejudices – then we won’t accept these lame apologies and hypocritical philosophies.