comments

a word on the two previous posts. i fear a rise in openly white supremacist actions in the years ahead. i have spoken often about obama's abilities to "transcend" race, but for many whites, a black man will never be able to transcend his race. while those on the left may describe obama as a centrist who fits neatly within the power structure, to millions of whites the fact that he has ascended to the peak of political power is a shocking blow that signals a defeat of major significance. i expect the more ignorant among them to become more bold and violent with the passing of time. their actions will have to be recognized, condemned, and combated. i don't expect obama will speak a word about them, but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to be silent. on top of what was mentioned in this article, a black church in springfield, ma, was burned to the ground hours after obama's victory. and in long island, new york, four white youth beat a black muslim youth, yelling "obama" at him as they swung at him with a baseball bat. the same media that lionized obama's victory kept silent over this beating, and i had to get the word on it from democracy now.

as far as z's article, i stagger at the 50 billion total. more money for the auto industry? that money could go to begin the vital work of creating a quality system of affordable and environmentally friendly public transit. some of it could go to purchasing bikes. the auto industry is represenative of everything that is wrong with american capitalism; it pollutes the environment, it is controlled by a handful of giant corporations, it creates false needs, it helps to waste people's money, and it is closely tied to the oil industry. the pink one recently told me that obama said "we need to grow the economy." in fact, we need to shrink it. our industrial footprint is sinking this earth. we need to create economies of scale. we need to situate ourselves as caretakers of the earth. instead, we are wasting the planet's bounty. what good is it to protect a man's job if the end result is that man's son will inherit a ruined earth?

thompson was lucky that king curtis didn't put him in a half nelson. instead they watched oliver, and then caught the trane to the forrest, where they met jimmy, a one time artist who was now a farmer.

i'm sorry

John Lewis Was Right
McCain Owes America an Apology
By BILL QUIGLEY

John McCain spent months fanning the fear-filled fires of folks scared of terrorists, socialists, and anti-Americanism in his campaign for President. On election night he made a fine concession speech and walked away – but the fires are still burning. John McCain apparently thought it was OK to turn fears on high for as long as possible to help his quest for the presidency. But he cannot now just expect the flames to turn off. He owes America an apology for running a terribly fear-mongering, knowingly false and divisive campaign.

Just outside of New Orleans, a newly discovered chapter of the Ku Klux Klan murdered one of their newest recruits in the past few days. The woman who was murdered was a novice who took a bus down from Oklahoma after the election for the specific purpose of joining the Klan. She was shot and her body was burned after a disagreement with the Klan leader. Coincidence?

Nationwide, gun sales are up. People in Houston are buying, according to the Los Angeles Times, assault rifles and high capacity magazines of ammunition. Denver, according to the New York Times, set a one day record for people seeking weapons. Coincidence?

In the most expensive exclusive private school in New Orleans, a classroom of 12 year olds was asked by their teacher what their reactions were to the election. In front of one African American classmate, one white student said, “Twelve black people can’t run a Burger King, how do you expect one black man to run the country?” What made that student and his family think that was acceptable speech? Does the fact that McCain got 86% of the white vote in Louisiana give a hint? Coincidence?

The New York Times reported on the people in small town Alabama, where the election is making whites fear that blacks will now be more “aggressive.”

John McCain professed to be deeply offended by Congressman John Lewis’ warning that the campaign of McCain and Palin was stoking fires that could not be put out. They spent months pounding away at supposed connections to terrorism that they knew were bogus. They spent months screaming that socialism was on the advance if they lost. Their campaign gave comfort and support to their fellow travelers of the hard right to scare and scare and scare people. And guess what, people are scared. And scared people do scary things.

Congressman Lewis warned them in October. "As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."

Senator McCain was “offended,” seriously offended by Rep Lewis’ comments. “Congressman John Lewis’ comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama’s record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign.”

Maybe this is all just a coincidence since the election. Coincidence? I think not. John McCain owes this country a real and full apology for fanning the fires of fear. And he also owes John Lewis an apology.

Bill Quigley is a law professor and human rights lawyer at Loyola University New Orleans. Bill has visited Haiti many times as a volunteer advocate with the Institute for Justice and Peace in Haiti. www.ijdh.org Vladmir Laguerre, a journalist in Port au Prince, helped with this article. Bill can be reached at quigley77@yahoo.com.

catching up on my z's

Driving Mister Barack
November 12, 2008
Mickey Z.

As you know, the Empire has selected a new emperor. The Mafia has chosen a new don. The corporation has hired a new CEO. Are you brimming with hope yet? Read on…

According to Reuters, (Nov. 11, 2008), President-Elect Barack Obama has urged President-Select George W. Bush to take “measures to help the ailing (automobile) industry on top of a $25 billion loan packaged approved in September.”

I could easily discuss—yet again—the unspoken reality that America’s version of capitalism relies entirely on socialized costs and privatized profits and all those who righteously decry Big Government are choosing to ignore the massive state subsidies that created and maintain Corporate America and “our way of life.”

But Earth’s problems are far worse than state capitalism wearing a transparent free market mask. The auto industry Mister Barack and his merry band of Democratic comrades so desperately want to bailout and revive is and has been one the primary causes for our planet’s environmental and social degradation.

Does the Chairman of Change know or care that during the last century, an area equal to all the arable land in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania was paved in the U.S.? This area requires maintenance costing over $200 million a day and the surreptitious cost of the car culture totals nearly $500 billion a year in the U.S. alone, much of that going to the sustentation of a military presence in the Persian Gulf.

An Obama aide said Mr. “Yes We Can” has suggested “accelerating implementation” of the current auto industry loan package and “exploring avenues that exist under current law.”

Does Bilkin’ Barry the Baby Boomer ever think about how cars create 7 billion pounds of un-recycled scrap and waste annually? With approximately one billion discarded tires littering our increasingly paved landscape, let his loyal Obamatrons meditate upon this: Every tire loses one pound of rubber per year, spewing minute grains of rubber into the stratosphere and then back down to find a new home in our water and/or our lungs. Has anyone told the Pope of Hope about the innumerable eco-systems exterminated in order to make way for highways, off-ramps, parking lots, strip malls, and other auto-centric structures?

I could go on (and on) while BHO begs GWB to identify “someone in charge of the auto issue who would have authority to bring about reforms that would lead to a viable auto industry.”

Here’s the equation: A viable auto industry = a non-viable global eco-system.

Along those lines, there was other news on November 11…but it did not make the Reuters wire. The North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF) Press Office announced: “We have one message for the incoming Obama Administration: act to protect the environment or the ELF will.”

Sounds like change we can believe in…

Mickey Z. is a self-educated writer, personal trainer, martial artist, and vegan who lectures on US foreign policy at MIT in his spare time. He has appeared in martial arts films and was known as the Underground Poet for hanging his poetry in the NYC subway. He is the author of numerous books, including, most recently, "CPR for Dummies" and "No Innocent Bystanders". He lives with his wife Michele in New York City. You can contact him here. Visit him on the web at Mickeyz.net.

Comments
There are no comments posted yet. Be the first one!
Post a new comment

reflections

the people of california have decided to not allow gay couples the right to marry. the question is, why are the rights of minorities being decided by majorities? if the people in the states of the south had voted on the legality of racial segregation, how do you think the vote would have went? for that matter, if most states in the not too distant past, had voted on the legality of interracial marriage, how do you think the vote would have went? we should not let people decide whether other people should have rights.

furthermore, it seems to me to be common sense that if someone is opposed to gay marriage, than they shouldn't marry a gay person. just as i, an english major, was opposed to science courses, and therefore, didn't take any. put simply, if a matter doesn't concern you, you shouldn't have a right to vote on it. in this case, progressive legislation is needed to guarantee equal treatment under the law for all people. equal treatment under the law is not a subject that should be determined by the states themselves. any student of the civil rights movement remembers the white south's cry of "states rights" as a rejoinder to those who wanted to end racial segregation.

now, those who are "defending" marriage claim that marriage is between a man and a woman. well, throughout much of the world, it is between a man and his many wives, or a woman and her many husbands, or between a spouse and the person/people the spouse is having an affair/s with, or between a husband and his abused wife, or between a wife and a deadbeat dad. doesn't seem like a system worthy of a strong defense. furthermore, they tell us that marriage is "sacred," and they go on about the "sanctity" of marriage, and finally, they stress the "traditional" meaning of marriage. well, the white south always talked about their traditions too. supposedly, jim crow was a part of their "heritage" and a fundamental aspect of their "way of life." so, what we have is tension between tradition on one side and rights on the other side. but what is tradition? honor killings of raped women is "tradition," but that doesn't mean that we should do it. lynchings were a "tradition" as well, but they are now largely frowned on. of course, marriage is a much better institution than honor killings and lynchings, and that is why we want to expand its availability. so, it seems clear to me that the right of gay people to get married should trump the tradition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. their rights trump our traditions. people can practice their traditions without taking away the rights of others. religious jews can practice their tradition by wearing small hats, but that doesn't mean secular jews need to. furthermore, straight people can practice their tradition by marrying other straight people, while gay people can exercise their rights by living with, and marrying, the partner of their choice.

furthermore, as a matter of a policy, we should never allow the oppressor to determine the rights of the oppressed. if men had voted on whether women should have the right to vote, they would never have gained the right to vote. as stated earlier, if whites had voted on racial segregation in the south, it likely never would have ended. it is up to government to ensure the rights of all of its citizens, and it is not up to majorities to vote on the rights of others.

name that speaker...

"today we send a clear message to all who have worn the uniform: thank you for your courage, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for standing up when your country needed you most."

"'let us praise the extraordinary service and selfless sacrifice of our nation's veterans. since 9/11, a new generation of american heroes has borne a heavy load in facing down the threats of the 21st century, and their families have been asked to bear the painful loss of a loved one. these americans are the best and bravest among us, and they are all in our thoughts and prayers."

perhaps due to the shorter length of the first quote, you guessed that bush made the first statement, and obama made the second statement. other than the superior flow of the latter remark, i don't sense much change here, do you?

miles behind

thoughts

"the election of obama shows that racism has been overcome in america." did the election of morales show that racism was overcome in bolivia? did the election of chavez show that racism was overcome in venezuela? did the election of mandela show that racism was overcome in south africa? have the elections of african presidents in africa helped to feed, house, and heal the millions of impoverished black africans, hence ending systemic racial and class oppression in africa? will it matter to the impoverished in afghanistan and pakistan that they will now have the privilege of being bombed by a biracial imperialist, as opposed to a white one? president karzai of afghanistan called on the new president to end civilian casualities there. how this can be done while expanding the war is quite the problem. this monday, yet another wedding in afghanistan was bombed, "apparently" by american forces. we have heard obama say that a nuclear iran is not acceptable. will he now say that bombing weddings in afghanistan is not acceptable? maybe i missed it, but i haven't heard a comment from him on the subject as of yet. how are we supposed to defend the "sanctity" of marriage if we insist on blowing up weddings? perhaps the only people getting married in afghanistan are al qaeda operatives. is increasing the troop levels in afghanistan an example of "change we can believe in?" will the thousands of dead that will result from a deepening of our bombardment in afghanistan accept their deaths because the rise of a biracial man to the american presidency has made a number of americans feel good?

we have heard a lot about martin luther king lately, but not what king stood for. you would never know from listening to john lewis and jesse jackson that king was a radical pacifist who once said that the u.s government was the most violent nation on the earth. you would never know that king, at the end of his life, had become a democratic socialist who was attempting to lead a multiracial poor people's movement. absent from all of this is concrete ideas. we are just supposed to feel good and give ourselves a big hug. that has its place, but it will not stop one bomb from dropping, it will not build one home, it will not insure one person, and it won't free one innocent man from prison. if king were alive, he would point all of this out and more. surely, he would be happy that a majority of americans had chosen a black man for president, but he would insist that obama, like any other leader, be pushed to implement a series of radical initiatives to help the masses of oppressed, and he would criticize the plethora of obama's pro-war and pro-corporate policies.

america has always been a form over content country, and we have shown that yet again. in this case, we have separated race from racial consciousness. obama, we are told, "transcends" race. as opposed to who? the millions of blacks in poverty? the millions in prison or on parole? the millions without work or health insurance? a significant section of white america was sufficiently impressed by obama's "transcendence" to vote for him. the question is, why should anyone have to transcend their race? what does that even mean? obviously, there is a way you are supposed to look, there is a way you are supposed to speak, there is a way you are supposed to dress, there are certain schools you are supposed to attend, and, most importantly, there are a set of policies you are supposed to espouse. if you don't do these things, you can not "transcend" race.

there are a number of things we have heard and we will continue to hear. we will hear "he has to move slow." this is code for "don't criticize any inaction that he will display." how slow does he have to move? he has said he will exit iraq in 16 months. if he doesn't do that, will we be told that "he has to move slow?" will they accept our involvement in iraq for 3 more years? there is a democratic president, a democratic senate, and a democratic house. how slow does he have to move? of course, the fact is he doesn't want to move quickly. it is not in his nature to do so, and nothing he has said should lead us to believe that he will move quickly. "he has to move slow" may become a mantra of the so called left that is fawning over obama.

when a vote is taken at the un to end the cuban embargo, and the vote is 187 to 3 to end it, would obama be "moving too quickly" to attempt to end the embargo? of course, we don't have to worry about this, as he is on record as saying he supports the embargo. an embargo, by the way, that largely impacts progressives, the poor, blacks, and latinos, all groups that strongly supported obama. if he doesn't attempt to increase the minimum wage, we will hear "he has to move slow?" if he doesn't attempt to insure more people, we will hear that he "has to move slow?" in fact, we will hear this said by the very same people who are supposedly going to be pressuring him, according to the fantasies of zinn and others on the left, who apparently slept through the progressive capitulation during the clinton years.

as far as combating racism goes, you don't do that by allowing for the ascendance of one talented individual, and then going back to lead an apolitical existence. if people are truly concerned with racism, they should insist on government action in the following areas.

massive public works, funded by progressive taxation and cuts to the military budget.

the creation of a mandatory anti-racist and multicultural curriculum in our schools.

the building of affordable housing throughout the country.

massive aid to the victims of katrina.

a serious effort to punish police brutality.

equal sentencing. an abolition of the three strikes law. an emphasis on rehabilitation and not retribution within our prisons.

where is the interest in such policies? has obama spoken to any of these issues? who will now pressure him to at least begin to address these concerns? the fact is, many of the people who believe in such an agenda will be too busy pleading with the more agitated among us to "give him a chance" and reminding us that "he has to move slow." therefore, nothing will get done, but at least we will be able to "feel proud" about what we accomplished. furthermore, we can always make ourselves feel better by remembering that the republicans are worse.

as the bombs fall somewhere else.

pow to the pow

vote for change! it makes cents. today, i ran around brookline high telling people to vote for change while holding up a dime. i told a young student that i was voting for cynthia mckinney. she seemed hurt until i told her she was a black woman. this perked her up, and she wrote her name on her hand. walking home from work, a bus full of young students passed by. the students were yelling out the windows..."obama! vote for obama! obama 08!" a student at brookline high said that "he would take a bullet for obama." i said i hoped it would be the kind where a white flag comes out with the word "bang" on it.

obama wins

when you looked at the crowds supporting the two candidates, you couldn't help but want obama to do some serious ass kicking. it was nice to see people excited. our phone was ringing off the hook, as friends and family of tixon began to celebrate. certainly, there is a symbolism in the multiracial obama, who can directly trace his background to africa, becoming president in a country that practiced slavery, segregation, lynching, and even continues to practice disenfranchisement of many black voters. so, yes, i feel some joy about this. to see elderly black people, many of whom couldn't vote in their youth, crying and shouting, was a great thing to witness. it was nice to see young people excited, dancing into the night. and it was cool to witness the diverse coalition that rallied around obama, as compared to the fat, stupid, ignorant mass of monotonous crackers that backed mccain.

having said that, we need to keep in mind a number of things. for one, millions of people have projected their ideas onto obama. i am happy his win has made people happy, but that doesn't mean that he himself believes in, or will fight for, the kinds of things many of these voters want to see happen. none of his supporters were chanting "bomb afghanistan! and pakistan too!" though obama has repeatedly said that he is in favor of both actions. i heard no one screaming "a nuclear iran is not acceptable!" though obama said this throughout his campaign. i heard no one castigating hugo chavez, though obama often does. i didn't see throngs of people exclaiming "keep the cuban embargo in place!" despite obama saying he will do just that. i didn't see any "support israel" signs, though obama made it clear that he will blindly do so. i also didn't see any "support the bailout" banners, even though obama helped to push that legislation through the senate and congress.

furthermore, i am already tired of hearing how this proves what a great nation america is, and how this shows that anyone can make it in our society. just as integrating the army hasn't saved the millions, most of them people of color, dying under our bombs, the rise of a multiracial president won't save the millions both here and abroad suffering from systemic modes of oppression. for sure, it is good symbolism, and it does express a certain racial progressivism amongst wide sectors of the population, but it does nothing to alter the corporate and militaristic power structure, which is the source of most of our problems. the issues, as always, are the same; who bombs and who gets bombed; who owns a home and who pays rent; who eats at fancy restaurants and who starves; who has health insurance and who doesn't; who can afford college and who can't; who can afford a place to live and who can't; who survives childhood and who dies at birth; who pollutes the air and who dies from polluted air; who has a job and who doesn't; and who goes to prison and who doesn't. the rise of an individual to power doesn't eliminate these institutional structures of racial and class oppression.

of course, obama will answer to a different mass of voters than a republican would. his voters are more likely to be anti-war, pro choice, pro universal health care, pro stem cell research, etc. this, along with democratic control of the house and senate, will give him a degree of leverage to implement some reforms. on the domestic level, his presidency should be a fairly significant improvement over bush. of course, these improvements will be within pathetically circumscribed confines. so, while he will likely be better on abortion, he will almost certainly not begin to institute massive efforts to build affordable housing. while he will be better on gay rights, he will not drastically reduce the size of the military and spend that savings to create a national system of affordable public transit. surely he will act within the accepted confines of the political power structure, despite whatever the ideas are of the masses who voted for him. if it is made clear to him by an organized mass of politically aware citizens, that his reforms will have to be substantial, perhaps we could see a more progressive agenda take hold. however, such a radicalized populace does not exist in this country. as it is, he will tinker with this and reform that, which is surely better than what we have had over the last eight years, but the fundamentals of imperialism, racism, and economic exploitation will continue to exert a dominant strangle hold on u.s, and by extension, world affairs.

so, the better man won. his supporters were more diverse and progressive, and held more tolerant and civilized views on most of the issues. what impact, if any, this will have on an obama presidency remains to be seen. as it is, it is a good thing that a person of color became president. that fact inspired millions of people, and it was nice to feel their energy. also, obama did have better views than mccain, and for that alone, was the worthier of the two.

but when someone tells you they will bomb this country and that country, don't assume peace is on its way.

that's all i'm sayin.

new things

state senator diane wilkerson, a progressive black woman, has recently been charged with accepting bribes totaling over 23,000 dollars. sadly, no one has charged the many regressive white men in our government for accepting the loss of millions of lives to further their imperial foreign policy aims. where are the authorities to cuff cheney, send away rumsfeld, and to imprison bush? no, they would rather harass the petty crooks while the real criminals run the government. they would rather prosecute men for seeking gay sex in a public bathroom, than to prosecute straight men for starting wars. and when they do prosecute one of these petty crooks, they tell us that "no one is above the law." oh really? the federal government is not above the law? the corporations are not above the law? think about it.

please seek immediate medical attention for an election lasting more than four years.

i was watching cnn yesterday. people were calling in to say who they are going to vote for on tuesday. one guy, a mccain supporter, said he is going to vote for mccain because his three year old son has cancer, and he doesn't like what obama is going to do with health care. he didn't say what he was actually going to do. then, an obama supporter called, and she couldn't even pronounce the word "redistribution." just for once, can we stop glorifying "the people."

there was finally an article about third party candidates in the globe. did the article tell us what these candidates stand for? did it interview them? no, and no! of course, the article was about how third party candidates could impact the election, or rather, how they could play the role of "spoiler." even when they get coverage, it's not real coverage. our political system is beyond rigged.

so, tuesday is coming. it will soon be over. the more i hear about mccain, the uglier it gets. according to counterpunch, his wife has gone to the hospital several times with bruises and cuts. on a more surprising note, i learned that on a 60 minutes in the mid 90's, mccain actually said "i'm a war criminal. i killed women and children." why haven't we heard from the so called liberal media that mccain once described himself as a war criminal? you would think this would be something worth hearing. and by the way, why is it ok to kill men? we always hear that "women and children were killed," and that of course, is a terrible thing. but what about men? why should they be killed? i certainly wouldn't want someone to drop a bomb on me just because i'm a man, and i wouldn't consider my death less of a crime because of my gender. in any case, i find this admission by mccain remarkable, but i am not in any way surprised that it has been ignored.

the truth, as always, gets lost in the shuffle.