Image via Wikipedia

On April 4th, 1968, American history changed forever. At 6:01pm, gunshots ripped through the flesh of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,  as he stood on the balcony of his motel room. The purest embodiment of the civil rights movement lay motionless from a gaping wound to his neck.  Dr. King became that which most in the movement feared–a martyr, brought to his end by the tip of a coward’s bullet.  The heart of the movement had been removed from the body.

The man who dedicated his life to peaceful agitation for the rights of his fellow man, saw his life end in the most non-peaceful manner.  The irony was inescapable; the idea behind Dr. King’s nonviolent protest was that he believed that black Americans could never win a confrontation with armed authorities–those empowered to protect the scurrilous white supremacist status quo.  In the end, he was all too correct.

The system of racial oppression and white supremacy– and the stench from those willing to commit murder to enforce it, are not the legacy borne from Dr. King’s murder.  It is the sacrifice in pursuit of an America that is great and just–and America that realizes its potential, and invests her capital in all of her people.  That is the mantle held proudly by those of us dedicated to equality in the face of despair.  The struggle has changed somewhat.  The path to equitable practice is still not without strife.

What would Dr. King think of America’s dissipating middle class–that vital segment of American existence?  What would he think about the virulent anti-union climate in America?  Civil rights is about more than racial equality.  Civil rights equal gender and sexual orientation equality.  It means equality and justice in the workplace.  America is not a country of silence in the face of tyranny, oppression, or bigotry.

Our capital is not just the liquidity of our bank accounts–it is the heart, the mind, and the soul of the progressive thinker within us–progressive enough to affect change, and to embolden others to act as catalysts to remake our communities in an image Dr. King would be proud of.

Related posts:

1. New Bill Escalates The War On Women’s Rights To Dangerous Heights In keeping with the tradition of hypocrisy and doublespeak, pro-life...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

Let’s get right to it.  Here is part of John McWorter’s persuasive piece about ending the drug war, and saving black America:

If there were no way to sell drugs on the street at a markup, then young black men who drift into this route would instead have to get legal work. They would. Those insisting that they would not have about as much faith in human persistence and ingenuity as those who thought women past their five-year welfare cap would wind up freezing on sidewalk grates.

There would be a new black community in which all able-bodied men had legal work even in less well-off communities–i.e. what even poor black America was like before the ’70s; this is no fantasy. Those who say that this could only happen with low-skill factory jobs available a bus ride away from all black neighborhoods would be, again, wrong. That explanation for black poverty is full of holes. Too many people of all colors of modest education manage to get by without taking a time machine to the 1940s, and after the War on Drugs black men would be no exception.

And in this new black community, young black men, much less likely to wind up in prison cells or caskets, would be a constant presence–and thus stay in the lives of their children. The black male community would no longer include a massive segment of underskilled, drug-addicted ex-cons churning in and out by the thousands year after year, and thus black boys growing up in these communities would not see this life as a norm. They would grow up to get jobs, period.

Where to begin?  This is not the first time I’ve heard about legalizing drugs in order to rectify the slanted socio-economic plight within the black community.  I am a proponent of drug legalization, but  one of the issues with McWorter’s narrative is the growth of drug-addled Americans.  What would you do with the surge of addicts that would infest urban areas?  Undoubtedly, those addicts would be disproportionately black.

Make no mistake here; Legalizing drugs would lead to other pertinent questions.  What are the tangible effects in terms of cost on the taxpayer for drug treatment?  Would more addicts reside in black neighborhoods as a result?  What effect would this have on incarcerated men and women now?

The statistics are alarming.  African-Americans make up 8% of the prison population worldwide, yet only account for .6% of its population.  The bulk of those incarcerations are a result of the drug trade, and crimes associated with drugs.  It is appalling and shocking, and a blight on American society.  It’s also a debilitating feeling– constantly feeling the need to debate the existence of black determinism.  Growing up in the ghetto does not mean you are doomed to a life of crime, despite prevailing thoughts to the contrary.

But the reality is also the reality. Ta-Naheisi Coates’ critical take on McWorter’s piece takes a magnifying glass to his assertions.  In short, there has been no meaningful attempt to tackle this topic with any real substance.  Behind McWorter’s incisive, powerful dissertation lies no substantial ideas or methods on how to implement his thoughts–or answer the many questions they bring up.  Perhaps it was not in McWorter’s thought process to prop up his assertions.  Maybe his point was to move the ball on the discussion.  I commend him for it.

Despite a few misgivings, I agree with John McWorter.  Black Americans in urban areas are under constant indictment, mainly due to the crippling weight of the drug trade.  That life traps those who have no discernible path to the light outside their surroundings, and envelopes innocent bystanders in smothering fog of death.  Is legalization the complete answer?  Who can say with any certainty? But it seems it might be a first step in delivering a community from the depths of despair–and the blight of perceived fatalism.

It is in America’s best interest to allow all of her citizens as productive as possible is it not?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This explains quite a bit about the ambivalence in the electorate regarding UI– and in some cases unemployment.  Any thoughts from the masses?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

H/T to Andrew and the Dish:

This was too good not to pass along to my readers.

It gets better:

While 75% identify the Republicans as the party regarded as doing best in the midterms, fewer than half (46%) know that Republicans will have a majority only in the House when the new Congress convenes in January. About one-in-seven (14%) say the GOP won both the House and Senate; 8% say they won just the Senate; 5% do not think they will have a majority in either chamber; and 27% do not know.”

The rate at which Americans know anything other than who the current contestants on Dancing with the Stars are, should put the current socio-political climate in perspective today.

We have devolved into a society that praises mediocrity, and worships D celebrities dancing poorly.  We lionize Sarah Palin for quitting her duly elected position to serve the people, in order to become a pseudo-political celebrity–and we encourage her to lead the greatest nation on earth despite this– and despite her mediocrity.

The devolution of the American dream into the American nightmare is unfolding right before our eyes.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A confederacy of dunces indeed

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” - Senator Mitch McConnell.

“When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”  -Jonathan Swift

Surely the leader of the senate in the GOP has more important objectives than this right?  I mean, would it not seem the most important thing is delivering the American people from the yoke of institutional oppression–borne from years of unregulated companies and industries that have run amok.  Wouldn’t it be making sure Americans have access to affordable health care?  Wouldn’t it be reining in the ballooning deficit?

So here we have the opposition–  champions of Constitutional rights who, invariably, know next to nothing about what is actually in the Constitution–but are proud to extol the virtues of limiting government overreach, using the constitution as validation.

And why would they have to?  When the electorate in this country is so upside down.  When the voting public answers the same question in two different ways, why would this new breed of populist public servant feel they need to be nuanced and litereate on pertinenet issues? Example:

What to make of the findings of the latest NYT poll? I have to say it makes me scratch my head. It portends a big Republican wave election, buoyed by a new conviction that people want smaller government that does less rather (55 percent) than a bigger one with more services (36 percent). At the same time, 71 percent oppose reducing social security benefits for future retirees; 54 percent oppose raising the retirement age (42 percent support it); 57 percent oppose not giving social security recipients a raise in benefits this year; and a small majority 45 – 41 do not want the health insurance reform bill repealed.

It’s no wonder Americans aren’t batting an eye at the sheer lunacy of some of the political fringe.  They’ve fed off manufactured packaged outrage for the last two years.  Thus we are left with mass political confusion.

Clearly what we’re dealing with is the absence of ideas– there is no clear cut methodology as to how their goals get achieved.  The loudest voices in the Tea Party have become the moving fog, sucking oxygen from the improbable mixture of a bad economy, misplaced fear, and right-wing fundamentalist theology.  But what happens when the party of nihilist protest achieves power, and comes to find that wielding it means putting away their pitchforks?  Without a plan–other than cutting taxes–what is to prevent them from doing far more damage to an already depressed economy than they ever imagined?

Herein lies the problem:  Can one of these new wave politicians articulate a policy–any policy that significantly reduces the deficit, or cuts entitlement programs?  What government waste are they interested in cutting that is not a social program aimed at alleviating hardships of middle class and poor Americans?  Are they only interested in abolishing tax hikes forever and repealing government sponsored health care?  The answers to the former is nothing, and the latter is yes.

This season’s political climate is a reflection not on the seriousness of counter policies–as evidenced by the quote above from Mitch McConnell–but about broad euphemistic falsehoods, rooted in fear and obstruction.  The seething treatment of elite strategy seems to be a cover for inflated deficiencies in both policy knowledge and intellectuality.  It’s working perfectly, because not one media outlet is choosing to expose it.  The media is culpable for acquiescing to the tea party mythos because it entertains and it draws in viewers.  The strategy of the dunce has sapped the life from the progressive movement.  Welcome to the new political reality, controlled by a confederacy of dunces.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The security failure–if that is in fact what happened–is unfathomable, and unconscionable.  Just how close were we to potentially initiating World War III?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And it’s about time too.  Via Brown Man Thinking Hard:

August 17, 2010

Dear Republican Colleague:

We are writing to you today as loyal Americans who are active members of the Republican Party. We also happen to be proud of our Arab American and Muslim American contributions to the Republican Party.

We are deeply concerned by the rhetoric of some leading members of our party surrounding the construction of the Muslim Community Center in downtown Manhattan. These comments are not only constitutionally unsound, they are also alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party – individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.

As you know, our party has had a long history of inclusion – beginning with our great President Abraham Lincoln, whose leadership on the slavery issue was monumental, and continuing through President George W. Bush whose public statements and actions on the differentiation between Islam and the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were critically important. We are particularly proud to note that President Bush appointed more Arab Americans and Muslim Americans to his administration than any other president in U.S. history.

That being said, it perplexes us as to why some vocal members of our party have chosen to oppose the construction of a cultural and religious center on private grounds. Not only does the First Amendment to our Constitution protect the right of these private citizens to worship freely, it also prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Our party and the leaders in our party should not be engaged in judgment issues of the location of a cultural center and a house of worship in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

While some in our party have recently conceded the constitutional argument, they are now arguing that it is insensitive, intolerant and

American Muslims free to practice their faith.

unacceptable to locate the center at the present location: “Just because they have the right to do so – does not make it the right thing to do” they say. Many of these individuals are objecting to the location as being too close to the Ground Zero site and voicing the understandable pain and anguish of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. In expressing compassion and understanding for these families, we are asking ourselves the following: if two blocks is too close, is four blocks acceptable? or six blocks? or eight blocks? Does our party believe that one can only practice his/her religion in certain places within defined boundaries and away from the disapproving glances of some citizens? Should our party not be standing up and taking a leadership role- just like President Bush did after 9-11 – by making a clear distinction between Islam, one of the great three monotheistic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity, versus the terrorists who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and who are not only the true enemies of America but of Islam as well? President Bush struck the right balance in expressing sympathy for the families of the 9-11 victims while making it absolutely clear that the acts committed on 9-11 were not in the name of Islam. We are hoping that our party leaders can do the same now – especially at a time when it is greatly needed.

While we share the desire of all in our party to be successful in the November elections, we cannot support victory at the expense of the U.S. Constitution or the Arab and Muslim community in America. As President Lincoln so eloquently stated in his famous speech: “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

As proud and patriotic Americans, we are grateful for all the rights our U.S. citizenship allows us, and we will always do our best to not only protect our rights but the rights of all others as well. May God Bless our nation, our freedoms, and our party.

David Ramadan
Vice Chair, Ethnic Coalitions, Republican Party of Virginia

Sherine El-Abd
President, New Jersey Federation of Republican Women

Randa Fahmy Hudome
Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, Bush Administration

George Salem
Solicitor of Labor, Reagan Administration

Suhail Khan

Chairman, Conservative Inclusion Coalition.

The ball’s in your court Newt, Sarah, et al.  Are you still zealous defenders of the Constitution, or are you hypocrites?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Are Americans this fucking stupid?  Is this the type intelligent discourse they crave?  Why do some of us presume to be more enlightened than others?  Clearly we are not, judging by this idiot’s disrespectful banter.  [editor's note:  I have broken my unbreakable vow not to comment or post anything about the messiah Glenn Beck.  I feel so cheap.]

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Take a look at this list– compiled by conservative blogger John Hawkins– of the 25 worst figures in American history:

Conservatives have the right to say dumb things; It's the American way.

• 23) Saul Alinsky
• 23) Bill Clinton
• 23) Hillary Clinton
• 19) Michael Moore
• 19) George Soros (8)
• 19) Alger Hiss (8)
• 19) Al Sharpton (8)
• 13) Al Gore (9)
• 13) Noam Chomsky (9)
• 13) Richard Nixon (9)
• 13) Jane Fonda (9)
• 13) Harry Reid (9)
• 13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
• 11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
• 11) Margaret Sanger (10)
• 9) Aldrich Ames (11)
• 9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
• 7) Ted Kennedy (14)
• 7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
• 5) Benedict Arnold (17)
• 5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
• 4) The Rosenbergs (19)
• 3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
• 2) Barack Obama (23)
• 1) Jimmy Carter (25)

What type of psychosis is today’s conservative party suffering from? Putting FDR on this list with the Rosenbergs is an absolute disgrace–and utterly devoid of any grasp of American political realities.  Today’s conservatives seem to suffer from paralysis by unsubstantiated analysis– an amazing lack of understanding of how American events shaped the leaders who guided us through them.

FDR–no matter how you felt about his policies–steered us through one of the darkest chapters in American history.  Indisputable.  The Rosenbergs were spies.  Comparison fail.  Letting your hatred of anything left of center clouds rational thought.

Bill Clinton and Tim McVeigh?  A president who presided over a prosperous era, and who signed welfare reform–a conservative pet project– and a vile mass murderer?  Why Barack Obama and no Jim Jones?  Jim Jones, the notorious cult leader and mass murderer didn’t make this list huh?  Wow.

I don’t have issues with conservatives making lists–even lists I might disagree with on substantive grounds.  But to mix political ideologies that you don’t like with some of the most deviant Americans, who committed some of the most heinous atrocities imaginable, borders on lunacy.   It doesn’t serve your aims particularly well, and it short-circuits your argument on cogent discourse.  In short, you look like a fucking moron who’s never read a book nor looked at anything through an objective lens.  Your opinion matters not.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Drudge Report Slings mud and shame.

So, what does this front page picture on Drudge Report tell you?  What do you think it means?  Conservatives seem hell-bent on devolving this WTC mosque issue into gutter politics– a place most are accustomed to working from–for reasons I cannot imagine.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.