And this is how we get tough on terrorists?

In yet another victory for the Klan, Edgar Ray Killen has been let out on bond, while he is appealing his conviction. The judge says that he was convinced that Killen was not a "danger to the community". That statement flies in the face of the conviction, when members of that very same community decided that he was a danger, that he was a criminal and that he should be locked up for his crimes.

Sphere: Related Content

John Roberts and the Nature of (American) Man

Altercation spoke earlier this week about the man the President has nominated to fill the newly vacated seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; in this post - which was little more than an aside - the good doctor included a blurb about “judicially-created and enforced liberalism” and how it may have weakened the cause of liberalism overall. This forms the basis of our sermon here today, for while Altercation did not state so explicitly, I want to return to this point as it at least implies that liberalism as a political philosophy is so weak it cannot sustain victories achieved in the judicial branch of a democratic government. There is indeed that potential flaw in liberalism and I would be the first among us to step forth and lead the re-forging of liberal thought, but as liberals we must first pay homage to root causes, as there are deeper aspects to what we are attempting to do here with this society - creating that more perfect union and all. Now is the time for that deeper reflection; indeed, there is no better time to do so than when we are called upon to endow an individual with the power to spend the rest of his or her life interpreting our most basic values and applying them to the world in which we live.

I posit that if you conduct this deeper analysis, you will find there is a continuous thread of existence that flows throughout all of the experiences of European immigrants in this New World: rejection of the need to respect the rights of "others" - however this “other” may be defined. It courses through our social fabric to such a degree that it infects our conversation - even against the will of those who are aware of its presence. The common terms we use to communicate - like "New World" - are laden with the blood of this disrespect. We teach "American History" (supposedly the story of the land on which we live) as though these lands were vacant before the arrival of the Pilgrims; while at the same time calling the people who met the boats on which the Pilgrims arrived: "American Indians" - a double misnomer, as it relates them to an Italian adventurer who arrived here millennia after their own ancestors and to a people who populate a land far on the other side of the planet. Yet our society has developed no terms of usage, with which to refer to those who welcomed the Pilgrims with any respect. "Native Americans", “indigenous” or "Injuns" are just separate ways of saying, "who you are is not up to you to define, it is up to us" and if you say to a people that you will not allow them to define themselves, you are saying you do not respect them or their right to exist as humans.

This model - creating a class of humans identified as "the other" and then removing from them the basic rights with which we supposedly believe all humans are endowed - is the most basic pattern of existence in this American experiment. That is how early African arrivals to these shores could be migrated so easily - across so many political jurisdictions - from indentured servants (a class which no one denies was placed upon Africans and at the same time no one reflects that this very status reflects a recognition of the humanity of the African - surely no one has ever called a cow or a dog an indentured servant; what could be the point of setting the animal free after a set period of time; what would the animal do? Yet still today, the humanity of the African is questioned and the highest phrase to be heaped on our shoulders is, "he/she speaks so well") to bondage slave. Once you create an “other” and codify that in law – whether through treaties which no court will enforce or through description in the ultimate law of the land as “nonpersons” – these “others” will forever have their humanity questioned. Creating an “other” enables humans to suspend what their eyes are telling them as you have placed before them a filter that says, “well, I would react in this form or fashion, but that is because I am a human – who knows what motivates these “others” to do what they do”.

We all know that it is important who resides at the table, the seat of power we call the Supreme Court, but unless we understand the patterns and practices of power that those nine individuals will be upholding, we cannot properly answer for ourselves whether or not an individual nomination is the appropriate selection to wield that staff of power. As John Roberts has already demonstrated in judgments on enemy combatants, he is well-versed in the practice of defining “others” and removing from them any of the rights, with which he nominally believes all humans are born. History shows us what evil leads from a Supreme Court that believes one people has no rights which need be respected by another people; this definition of what it means to be a slave comes to us from the 1854 Dred Scott case. The fact that a case from a time in our history – which we have all been taught was behind us – so reflects the battles that are being fought today, ably demonstrates how insidious is this disease of defining "others" and then taking away their rights. Indeed, this current administration has so enveloped themselves within this practice that they have empowered the descendents of slaves (either be they children of US slave stock from our own cotton/tobacco plantations or newer arrivals to this nation from the sugar plantations that the British West India company populated throughout the Caribbean) to present that declaration of “otherness” to the nations of the world.

To see this pattern does require some distancing of oneself from the current narrative being told (or the current hymn being sung), so that the parallels between "the savage", "the slave" and "the enemy combatant" can seen more clearly, but once that distance has been reached, the pattern is unmistakable. Indeed, it becomes obvious that our nation derives its strength from this most basic pattern; that our ability to mobilize our citizenry in an instant - whether into a lynch mob at the local level or into divisions of thousands of troops on the national level (Pat Tillman, anyone?) - is at the core of our existence. The world is littered with the corpses that tell the story of the ways in which man can be inhuman to his fellow man. One wonders what can be done to stop this cycle from repeating itself; surely the answer begins with teaching people to recognize this pattern when they see it in the actions of their fellow citizens - and in themselves. Once that pattern has been identified, it must be opposed - relentlessly.

Sphere: Related Content

The Curse Has Been Lifted

Thousands - if not millions - of Boston Red Sox fans have believed for the better part of a century that their favorite team was cursed in the early 1900s, when the team owner sold the star player off to the New York Yankees. From that fateful transaction all the way through 2004, Red Sox fans watched helplessly as fate seemingly conspired to destroy their hopes and dreams over and over again.

I have never been a baseball enthusiast, but i do have some family history with being sold. I can attest that having the most talented and beloved members of a family sold away by those claiming "ownership" does indeed have a negative impact on that families ability to function going forward. Also, these effects can extend over generations as the wounds are slow to heal. Congratulations to the Red Sox; here's to hoping that the curse is finally lifted.

Sphere: Related Content

A Day That Will Live In Infamy

Americans chose many different ways to commemorate the third anniversary of the attacks on our nation. Some chose a quiet ceremony, respectfully marking the passage (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5962227/), others chose to ostentatiously declare that despite their failure to protect us in the past, they could do so in the future (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5962986/). I still have not forgotten a single moment of that day - when I arrived to work, how quickly I realized I needed to return home, how difficult it can be to leave an island, how empty the skyline now looked and how the military jets that looked so exciting at air shows could now look so terrifying when on a search and destroy mission. Amidst all of the chatter and the calls for us to realize that 11 September 2001 signified the opening of another front in World War IV (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm), I began to ask myself a few, small questions.

Can a group of a few thousand irregular soldiers, ensconced in caves on the other side of the planet really declare war upon the most powerful nation on the planet? Can a mouse declare war upon a lion (http://www.greatbooks.org/library/selections/lion&mouse.shtml)?

Can we really claim to be liberating the Shia from the terrible reign of Saddam Hussein, if we are fighting against them at the same time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5949556/)? How many of this group we are attempting to save should we kill to avenge the deaths of 2700 of our citizens? Where are the actual perpetrators of the attack and why have they not been dealt with yet.

When I see indiscriminate killing in an attempt to bring democracy to a nation, I hear an echo of earlier indiscriminate killing in an attempt to "civilize" (as if murder were an accepted process for civilization) the original inhabitants of this land (http://www.indigenouspeople.net/gooddead.htm).

When I hear economic rationalizations for this war - our economy depends upon oil, we have to protect our national interests, etc. - I also hear the reverberations of earlier actions we took to initially establish the wealth of this nation (http://www.providence.edu/afro/students/kane/triangle.txt).
Must we really launch another war with no end in sight, solely to protect moneyed interests that run deep amongst the Bush and Kerry clans? Is there no way for this society to build our gleaming towers to the sky except upon the blood of others?

Happy Anniversary.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Do Black Republicans Play This Game?

By now, you have all heard that Alan Keyes has changed his mind and decided that it is okay for someone to run for the US Senate in a state other than that which they commonly reside (Keyes Will Run for Senate in Illinois). What might be news to you is that Keyes has reversed another long-held belief and now supports reparations for the descendents of slaves (Reversal of attitude:
Alan Keyes on reparations). Feel free to peruse the reading material and then come back to help answer the question of this post: why?

Black Republicans insist that they should be taken seriously, that they have a legitimate and consistent philosophy that will provide better results to Black Americans than the Democratic Party has delivered over the last 40 years. How can they be viewed as anything but a joke (and a sick one) when every "strongly held" belief is tossed aside in service of their masters? Why should we believe their claims of insult when they hear themselves described as house Negroes?

For the record, Alan Keyes was the loudest voice railing against Hillary Clinton being a candidate for US Senate from New York. His claims in 2004 that his run is in no way comparable - Hillary chose NY as she believed she could win there, while IL chose him as they believed in him - is laughable. Let's pretend for a second that I believe a single word this man has ever uttered and that he was right in saying that Ms. Clinton chose NY because she felt she could win that race - what does that really mean? Nothing more than that the people of NY have the same values and goals of a Senator than Ms. Clinton represents. The most significant change she made to run for the office from NY was taking off a Cubs hat and putting on a Yankees hat. Alan Keyes has changed his position on an issue that has strong support within the African-American community (reparations) but one that is far afield from any Republican in national office in the country today. It is so far out of modern Republican political dogma, that it can only be viewed as a blatant attempt to pull some progressive Black voters from Barack Obama. Are their Black people so self-deluded to fall for this feint? There are, but they are already Black Republicans, a very small group indeed.

This blatant shilling for Blacks to vote Republican - regardless of there being absolutely no interest on the part of Republicans to do anything for Black people - is not unique to Mr. Keyes. Every member of this subclass we call "Black Republicans" exhibits this trait and it can be seen in their undying, unyielding loyalty to their white overseers to the obvious detriment of their own blood (and don't let any of them tell you that they are no kin of ours - the one thing slavery has surely done is destroy our family ties). Let's do a quick summary of the examples of this betrayal:

- Clarence Thomas - went to college and graduate school on affirmative action programs, now finds them objectionable.

- Colin Powell - went to Vietnam as an ROTC lieutenant and wrote in his biography of the distaste he had for the wealthy sons who bypassed Vietnam in the National Guard, now he works for the poster boy for keeping his ass out of danger.

- Armstrong Williams - this conservative commentator has made a living critiquing Black people who are not living up to his moral code, but he received his start from that old racist Strom Thurmond - now famous for raping a Black teenager and impregnating her with a daughter he never revealed to the public until after his death. Armstrong kept ol' Strom's secret and has never said one word against him.

One has to hope that the worst Keyes will do to African-Americans is lose to the third Black Senator ever elected since the end of the Reconstruction era, but hope is not a plan. Every person of good-will in this country should put their efforts to ensuring his defeat, but any means necessary.

Sphere: Related Content