America's youth are failing at civics. You remember civics class. It was about government and who runs it and how it was established and who your representatives are and how a bill becomes law. I can never think of civics without hearing that schoolhouse rock song, "...I’m just a bill a lonely bill going up on Capitol Hill." Unfortunately, according to a new study, most of the youth of this nation are woefully lacking in knowledge about the workings of their government.
According to former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, we need to redouble our efforts at teaching government to our children. She says they can’t fully participate in this nation if they are ignorant of its beginnings and its functions and how they can influence its direction. I thought I would help Justice O’Connor and present you with my new curriculum for civics. Feel free to forward this to any middle or high school for their use.
One of the weakest areas of knowledge, according to a test, was knowledge of the Bill of Rights. Students didn’t know its origins nor what its importance is or why it was included with the Constitution to begin with. We need to teach them about the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. We need to develop lesson plans which will stress how corporations are considered persons even though the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this. These corporate "persons" have the right to inundate the political system with anonymous money so their voices can be heard. That this tsunami of money drowns out any ability of average citizens to have an impact on the political process is just an unintended consequence of enforcing corporate constitutional protections. The first amendment is cited constantly on regressive talk radio. They have to be free and unfettered to say anything they wish and any attempt to widen the debate smacks of censorship and totalitarianism. Students need to learn how one corporation can own 1,000 radio stations and newspapers and TV networks and how this lack of competition squeezed out any message other than the one Hanbaugh et. al. want you to hear. It's their first amendment right.
We need a PowerPoint presentation on the latest debate over the 2nd amendment. In states all over this nation, proposals are being put forth to permit students to carry guns on campus of colleges and universities. These are companion pieces to legislation allowing guns in churches, bars, sporting events and those guns can be concealed. Students need to know this latest iteration of the Supreme Court, which expanded first amendment rights for corporations, believes the founders wanted everyone, everywhere to have a gun and any attempt to register or control the supply is un-American and an affront to the Bill of Rights. We are a nation standing in gasoline up to our armpits and the 2nd amendment is designed to give everyone a book of matches.
One of the surprises our students will learn is there is no 4th amendment to the Constitution anymore. It has been rescinded in practice and soon in principle. It is supposed to protect Americans from unreasonable search and seizure of their person and property without probably cause and a warrant. Stop it; I can hear you laughing from here. Yes that is what it says. I know it was rendered moot by the Patriot Act. I know the government can listen to your phone, read your mail, mine your email and Internet activities and never have to ask you for permission or even ask a judge to rubberstamp their activities. I know your employer can make you prove you don’t use drugs with random tests and the police can set up checkpoints in which you are assumed to be guilty until you prove otherwise (actually this also renders the 5th amendment moot...well another chapter covered too). Justice O’Connor wants students to understand why the Bill of Rights is so important. She wants them to know it protects the minority from the majority...it protects the individual against the power of the government...it places limits on power...unfortunately what she wants them to know is as quaint as rumble seats and buggy whips.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has announced he wants to be president. He says his campaign will be based on the cornerstone of the 10th Amendment. It reserves for the states any powers not articulated by the Constitution for the federal government and gives them to the states. Gingrich used to call this "New Federalism". In his vision for America we would go back to the day when states were more powerful than the federal government. You remember that golden era don’t you? Jim Crow was alive and well in the South. Women had no voting rights. There were no child labor laws, no 8-hour day or 40-hour week. The world of Newt did not have equal access to education or medical care. Prayer and prejudice were comingled in public schools. Clean water, clean air and a healthy environment would be a thing of the past. Gingrich is the one who said if a school votes to establish prayer, it should be their right and the majority should rule. Perhaps Justice O’Connor could include him in her class.
We should all know more about the Bill of Rights. Like any endangered species, the only way to save it is to call attention to its possible demise. The death of Osama Bin Laden is a reminder of how much we have wrecked one of the great documents of all time in the name of safety and security and because true freedom scares the powerful elites to death.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL
Back in the day, the news about the separation of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver would have found me engaging in non- stop schadenfruede. When I would refer to Arnold, I used to call him the "boobengrabber". I couldn't believe voters ignored all the stories about his loutish and sexist behavior on movie sets. The L.A. Times faced withering criticism of trying to mess with the outcome when they published their story on all the accusations just days before the election. At that time, Maria defended him completely. Despite the revelations, or at least the rumors, he was re-elected and got a fair amount of the women's vote.
I knew Maria Shriver in passing. I taught her brother in high school, was a guest at her house on occasion and worked with her mother, Eunice, on a project to help reduce the number of teen pregnancies and increase the number of full weight babies born to teens. The few times I encountered her in Washington D. C. or when we were both covering news events, she was aloof, prickly and full of herself. She was in many ways the opposite of her mother and father.
Given such background, and given I thought Governor Schwarzenegger was a disaster for California, the fact of their separation should have been great grist for my mill. Instead, my first reaction was one of sadness. I spent a good portion of my professional life judging others and feeling free to cast aspersions and question personal morality. I was quick to condemn and didn't make much of a separation between the person and their politics or policies. I could be vicious and relentless. I'm not in the judging business anymore. Part of this shift in perspective is a result of my own fall from grace (the old people who live in glass houses adage). I worry people will ignore the majority of my life and reduce it down to one mistake. It's an easy way to put someone in a comfortable box and enjoy their struggles. I don't fit in a box. There was a me before my disastrous mistake in judgment and I resent being reduced to a caricature by some. Having now walked a few miles in the governor and his wife's shoes, I will make a distinction between their public and private selves and allow they could be vastly different.
The other reason my reaction to their separation is subdued is because "...there but for the grace of God go I." When my fall became public, it was both national and local news. It is impossible to describe the humiliation and embarrassment my family had to go through. At that moment, I offered to divorce my wife. It would be a symbolic act signifying she had nothing to do with my behavior, condemned it, and was kicking me to the curb in reaction to it (all of which is true as to her reaction except for the final conclusion). I thought a divorce would protect her from being tarred by fallout caused by my stupidity. She looked me straight in the eye and said, "...I married you for better or worse, and this is the worst ever, but I am not going anywhere." There is not a soul who would have criticized my wife for divorcing me. It made good sense and she would avoid being dragged underwater by the tsunami of coverage and condemnation coming my way. Yet, she did not choose this option. In no way am I trying to suggest we are somehow superior or better than the Governor and his wife, I'm just saying a marriage is a very private and complicated structure and presuming to know why two people act in one way or the other is a dangerous activity to engage in.
The great actor, Jimmy Cagney, was married for 50 years. As Hollywood marriages go, that is extraordinary. He was once asked his secret. His response was one word..."expectations." He said our expectations about marriage are unrealistic and no marriage could live up to the picture painted by the movies and in the minds of romantics. He and his wife kept their expectations reasonable and rode out the highs and lows. Marriage in our culture has become an institution in name only. It is almost easier to end one than it is to start one. We live in a disposable society where we discard anything no longer useful or relevant and move on to something new. It should be lost on no one; the states with the highest divorce rates are below the buckle of the Bible belt. Religious fervor or fundamentalist beliefs are no predictor of a long marriage. It is also ironic one of the most contentious debates in society today is whether or not to allow two people of the same sex to marry. At a time of high divorce rates, and rising rates of people not marrying at all, you would think we would cheer to see a segment of our population fighting for the right to marry.
I have no idea why Arnold and Maria have separated. Perhaps she had played the good wife while he was in political office, but now that it was over she felt it was time to act. Perhaps she was constrained by her Catholic faith in which the Church is opposed to divorce and remarriage. Who knows? Maybe they just fell out of love. The Catholic Church believes every sacrament has an outward sign. The sign of marriage is the love between the two people. If it is no longer there, perhaps there is no marriage anymore. Maybe they will figure out a solution and an accommodation and be able to stay married. They have four children, as do my wife and I. My children are blessed with a mother who decided to try and hang in there and keep the family together and I am committed to rebuilding the damage I have done to our relationship. I hope, no matter what the ultimate outcome, the four Schwarzenegger/Shriver children are loved and cared for by both parents.
There is no joy or satisfaction watching a 25-year marriage disintegrate. Too often, as we argue and attack over political issues, we forget the other side is populated with people the same as us. We want to portray them as the "other" because it makes it easier to demonize them and fun to enjoy their failures and defeats. I will still attack and condemn regressives and expose the harm their policies will cause this nation, but I will try much harder not to portray them as "other" and to commiserate with their sorrow or pain whether they return the favor or not.
The tabloids will have a field day with this latest scandal. It will not be something I want to read about or advance any prurient curiosity in any way. I'm sad a family is in turmoil and it has to be played out in public. It is not an experience I would wish on my worst enemy.
I am a lucky and blessed man. I could have been thrown under the bus and had to endure this trial by myself. Instead, I have a loving wife and children, a marvelous extended family, and friends like so many of you. The gratitude I feel, and the knowledge it could have been so different, causes me to be sad when a marriage ends, when families suffer, when children are left to wonder about the future and my only regret is I didn't have this perspective a long time ago.
I knew Maria Shriver in passing. I taught her brother in high school, was a guest at her house on occasion and worked with her mother, Eunice, on a project to help reduce the number of teen pregnancies and increase the number of full weight babies born to teens. The few times I encountered her in Washington D. C. or when we were both covering news events, she was aloof, prickly and full of herself. She was in many ways the opposite of her mother and father.
Given such background, and given I thought Governor Schwarzenegger was a disaster for California, the fact of their separation should have been great grist for my mill. Instead, my first reaction was one of sadness. I spent a good portion of my professional life judging others and feeling free to cast aspersions and question personal morality. I was quick to condemn and didn't make much of a separation between the person and their politics or policies. I could be vicious and relentless. I'm not in the judging business anymore. Part of this shift in perspective is a result of my own fall from grace (the old people who live in glass houses adage). I worry people will ignore the majority of my life and reduce it down to one mistake. It's an easy way to put someone in a comfortable box and enjoy their struggles. I don't fit in a box. There was a me before my disastrous mistake in judgment and I resent being reduced to a caricature by some. Having now walked a few miles in the governor and his wife's shoes, I will make a distinction between their public and private selves and allow they could be vastly different.
The other reason my reaction to their separation is subdued is because "...there but for the grace of God go I." When my fall became public, it was both national and local news. It is impossible to describe the humiliation and embarrassment my family had to go through. At that moment, I offered to divorce my wife. It would be a symbolic act signifying she had nothing to do with my behavior, condemned it, and was kicking me to the curb in reaction to it (all of which is true as to her reaction except for the final conclusion). I thought a divorce would protect her from being tarred by fallout caused by my stupidity. She looked me straight in the eye and said, "...I married you for better or worse, and this is the worst ever, but I am not going anywhere." There is not a soul who would have criticized my wife for divorcing me. It made good sense and she would avoid being dragged underwater by the tsunami of coverage and condemnation coming my way. Yet, she did not choose this option. In no way am I trying to suggest we are somehow superior or better than the Governor and his wife, I'm just saying a marriage is a very private and complicated structure and presuming to know why two people act in one way or the other is a dangerous activity to engage in.
The great actor, Jimmy Cagney, was married for 50 years. As Hollywood marriages go, that is extraordinary. He was once asked his secret. His response was one word..."expectations." He said our expectations about marriage are unrealistic and no marriage could live up to the picture painted by the movies and in the minds of romantics. He and his wife kept their expectations reasonable and rode out the highs and lows. Marriage in our culture has become an institution in name only. It is almost easier to end one than it is to start one. We live in a disposable society where we discard anything no longer useful or relevant and move on to something new. It should be lost on no one; the states with the highest divorce rates are below the buckle of the Bible belt. Religious fervor or fundamentalist beliefs are no predictor of a long marriage. It is also ironic one of the most contentious debates in society today is whether or not to allow two people of the same sex to marry. At a time of high divorce rates, and rising rates of people not marrying at all, you would think we would cheer to see a segment of our population fighting for the right to marry.
I have no idea why Arnold and Maria have separated. Perhaps she had played the good wife while he was in political office, but now that it was over she felt it was time to act. Perhaps she was constrained by her Catholic faith in which the Church is opposed to divorce and remarriage. Who knows? Maybe they just fell out of love. The Catholic Church believes every sacrament has an outward sign. The sign of marriage is the love between the two people. If it is no longer there, perhaps there is no marriage anymore. Maybe they will figure out a solution and an accommodation and be able to stay married. They have four children, as do my wife and I. My children are blessed with a mother who decided to try and hang in there and keep the family together and I am committed to rebuilding the damage I have done to our relationship. I hope, no matter what the ultimate outcome, the four Schwarzenegger/Shriver children are loved and cared for by both parents.
There is no joy or satisfaction watching a 25-year marriage disintegrate. Too often, as we argue and attack over political issues, we forget the other side is populated with people the same as us. We want to portray them as the "other" because it makes it easier to demonize them and fun to enjoy their failures and defeats. I will still attack and condemn regressives and expose the harm their policies will cause this nation, but I will try much harder not to portray them as "other" and to commiserate with their sorrow or pain whether they return the favor or not.
The tabloids will have a field day with this latest scandal. It will not be something I want to read about or advance any prurient curiosity in any way. I'm sad a family is in turmoil and it has to be played out in public. It is not an experience I would wish on my worst enemy.
I am a lucky and blessed man. I could have been thrown under the bus and had to endure this trial by myself. Instead, I have a loving wife and children, a marvelous extended family, and friends like so many of you. The gratitude I feel, and the knowledge it could have been so different, causes me to be sad when a marriage ends, when families suffer, when children are left to wonder about the future and my only regret is I didn't have this perspective a long time ago.
Friday, May 6, 2011
WWJD
Many Americans claim the United States is a nation founded upon Christian principles. A Christian principle is a tenet or belief with which Jesus of Nazareth would agree. Regressive Catholics excoriate their progressive colleagues for picking and choosing which moral precepts they will follow or ignore. These "orthodox" believers derisively refer to these dissenters as "cafeteria Catholics". I wonder how many other Christians find themselves picking up trays in the same cafeteria these days.
This country has seen celebrations crop up all over the land and celebrating the killing of Osama Bin Laden. So, I now ask the question...if pressed, would Jesus have approved of the decision to find Bin Laden and kill him?
Scripture couldn't be clearer on the subject. Jesus demanded his followers love their enemies...turn the other cheek...forgive an infinite number of times...He declared the dictum "...an eye for an eye", outmoded, to be supplanted by a new command...love God with all your heart and all your soul and your neighbor as yourself. When Peter cut off the ear of one of the men sent to seize Jesus in the Garden He rebuked Peter. He forgave the soldiers who crucified Him and envisioned a world where peacemakers are blessed and the meek inherit the earth. His title is Prince of Peace and yet the actions of the U.S. Seal team on Sunday were anything but peaceful.
President Obama claimed Bin Laden had been "...brought to justice." A columnist for the Wall Street Journal bristled at such a suggestion. According to him, this was an act of revenge, plain and simple and Americans should be proud of a President committed to avenging the attacks of September 11th. Where do you think the majority of Americans come down on this question? Where do Christians stand on this? Was it justice or revenge?
Play this in your own mind. Walk with Jesus as he eats with tax collectors, takes water from a Samaritan woman, refused to condemn the adulteress to death, and calls on His apostles and disciples to let go of the beliefs of the past and embrace a philosophy of total love and compassion. Get His attention and ask him, "...Rabbi is it proper to seek out Osama Bin Laden and kill him?" What would He say?
If we had taken Bin Laden in to custody and gave him a life sentence without the possibility of parole, how many Americans would have been shouting, "...USA, USA" and gathering all over the nations to celebrate? How many "Christians" would have demanded the death penalty?
No one has to be a Christian. However, if you are going to call yourself one, and then ignore the most fundamental tenets of the founder, what does that say about you? What would Jesus say about a nation, which invades another, lies about its motives, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and does so in His Mother's name? As our drones assassinate at will and we torture and devastate claiming the end justifies the means, how would Jesus react? So many of the same "Christians" who want to claim special status for this nations's founding principles, are thrilled today with the death of Bin Laden.
What about church leaders? What has the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops have to say about the killing of Bin Laden? What about the head of the Southern Baptist Conference or the United Methodist Church, have you heard from them? From Catholics to evangelicals, Lutherans to Baptists, the silence is deafening.
If you are honest and sincere in your understanding of the little Jewish carpenter, you know he would condemn the actions of the Seal team just as He would condemn Bin Laden’s actions as well. To claim otherwise is to bastardize the life and death and resurrection of this man. Those who want to claim this is a Christian nation have no problem ignoring most of what Jesus taught and have folded, spindled and mutilated His simple philosophy into something unrecognizable today.
So, lets admit a few truths. I too felt elation when I heard the President's announcement. It was an act of revenge. Americans would have been disappointed had he been captured and to killed and would have demanded his death anyway. I consider myself a Christian, but I am flawed and sinful. Sin is a Greek archery term which means, "...to miss the mark." I miss the mark frequently. I wouldn't be where I am today if I hadn't missed the mark badly. However, I can ask for forgiveness and promise not to do it again. I can try to implement as much of Jesus' philosophy as possible. I can strive to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and visit those in prison. I can have a goal of doing the most for the least of my brothers and sisters. I will still sin, but also continue to draw myself closer to God and feel Her closer to me as I struggle to live the best way I know how.
The question today is this the way most "Christians" approach life or are we a nation of cultural "Christians" who jettison Jesus anytime He becomes a hindrance to what they really want to do anyway?
You are walking with Him and ask Him, "...Master was it right to kill Bin Laden?" What would He say and how would you react?
This country has seen celebrations crop up all over the land and celebrating the killing of Osama Bin Laden. So, I now ask the question...if pressed, would Jesus have approved of the decision to find Bin Laden and kill him?
Scripture couldn't be clearer on the subject. Jesus demanded his followers love their enemies...turn the other cheek...forgive an infinite number of times...He declared the dictum "...an eye for an eye", outmoded, to be supplanted by a new command...love God with all your heart and all your soul and your neighbor as yourself. When Peter cut off the ear of one of the men sent to seize Jesus in the Garden He rebuked Peter. He forgave the soldiers who crucified Him and envisioned a world where peacemakers are blessed and the meek inherit the earth. His title is Prince of Peace and yet the actions of the U.S. Seal team on Sunday were anything but peaceful.
President Obama claimed Bin Laden had been "...brought to justice." A columnist for the Wall Street Journal bristled at such a suggestion. According to him, this was an act of revenge, plain and simple and Americans should be proud of a President committed to avenging the attacks of September 11th. Where do you think the majority of Americans come down on this question? Where do Christians stand on this? Was it justice or revenge?
Play this in your own mind. Walk with Jesus as he eats with tax collectors, takes water from a Samaritan woman, refused to condemn the adulteress to death, and calls on His apostles and disciples to let go of the beliefs of the past and embrace a philosophy of total love and compassion. Get His attention and ask him, "...Rabbi is it proper to seek out Osama Bin Laden and kill him?" What would He say?
If we had taken Bin Laden in to custody and gave him a life sentence without the possibility of parole, how many Americans would have been shouting, "...USA, USA" and gathering all over the nations to celebrate? How many "Christians" would have demanded the death penalty?
No one has to be a Christian. However, if you are going to call yourself one, and then ignore the most fundamental tenets of the founder, what does that say about you? What would Jesus say about a nation, which invades another, lies about its motives, kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people and does so in His Mother's name? As our drones assassinate at will and we torture and devastate claiming the end justifies the means, how would Jesus react? So many of the same "Christians" who want to claim special status for this nations's founding principles, are thrilled today with the death of Bin Laden.
What about church leaders? What has the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops have to say about the killing of Bin Laden? What about the head of the Southern Baptist Conference or the United Methodist Church, have you heard from them? From Catholics to evangelicals, Lutherans to Baptists, the silence is deafening.
If you are honest and sincere in your understanding of the little Jewish carpenter, you know he would condemn the actions of the Seal team just as He would condemn Bin Laden’s actions as well. To claim otherwise is to bastardize the life and death and resurrection of this man. Those who want to claim this is a Christian nation have no problem ignoring most of what Jesus taught and have folded, spindled and mutilated His simple philosophy into something unrecognizable today.
So, lets admit a few truths. I too felt elation when I heard the President's announcement. It was an act of revenge. Americans would have been disappointed had he been captured and to killed and would have demanded his death anyway. I consider myself a Christian, but I am flawed and sinful. Sin is a Greek archery term which means, "...to miss the mark." I miss the mark frequently. I wouldn't be where I am today if I hadn't missed the mark badly. However, I can ask for forgiveness and promise not to do it again. I can try to implement as much of Jesus' philosophy as possible. I can strive to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and visit those in prison. I can have a goal of doing the most for the least of my brothers and sisters. I will still sin, but also continue to draw myself closer to God and feel Her closer to me as I struggle to live the best way I know how.
The question today is this the way most "Christians" approach life or are we a nation of cultural "Christians" who jettison Jesus anytime He becomes a hindrance to what they really want to do anyway?
You are walking with Him and ask Him, "...Master was it right to kill Bin Laden?" What would He say and how would you react?
FRIENDLY FIRE
As we watched the President announce the death of Osama Bin Laden, a fellow federal guest remarked he was amazed at the damage one person could do to the United States. I realized Bin Laden had done relatively little damage himself. The real harm was the result of friendly fire.
It is estimated Bin Laden spent about $500,000 to conduct the attacks of September 11th. In return for t his investment in terror, almost 3,000 people were killed, the World Trade Center destroyed, the Pentagon hit and employees killed and a field in Pennsylvania was damaged. The death and destruction were horrible and tragic, but even Bin Laden himself could not have imagined the ripples of fear and paranoia, which washed across this land fomented by Americans themselves. Or could he?
Did Bin Laden time his attack to coincide with the administration of George W. Bush? Did he know Bush and Cheney, and the Project on a New American Century crowd (PNAC), would seize upon his action to gin up an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time of his attack, America had a budget surplus, low unemployment and there were talks of a peace dividend. After his attack, Bush pushed through tax cuts for the rich to the tune of $1.3 trillion and started two wars, which will cost well over $2 trillion when, and if, they are over?
Was it just regressive serendipity the attacks of September 11th occurred with Dick Cheney in office as America's first prime minister? Cheney, still angry the first President Bush didn't go to Baghdad and take out Saddam Hussein, (Bush said Hussein wasn’t worth one additional American life), considered the Presidency a weak-kneed, sissy-nancy compared to the days of Reagan. Congress had eviscerated the Executive and he was on a quest to restore it to its former glory. Bin Laden allowed Cheney and his acolytes, Chu...LIbby...Feith...Wolfowitz...Ashcroft...Rumsfeld...Hadley...Rice...Pearl and others, to promulgate policies which resulted in seriously weakening the civil liberties of Americans and weakened the system of checks and balances the founding fathers considered so crucial to preserving the republic. Signing statements rendered the legislative branch impotent. White House counsel opinions allowed the President to engage in torture and ignore treaties we signed and international law we championed. Secret, warrantless wiretaps and Internet surveillance eliminated judicial review over the executive.
When Congress did act, it was as a rubber stamp for administration initiatives. Is it a coincidence within months of September 11th, there was finished legislation written which codified into law every regressives wet dream...the Patriot Act? This lightening quick congressional action battered the 4th amendment beyond recognition. The party of limited government now signed into law a bill which allowed the executive and its agencies to enter your home, bug your computer, mine your email and internet activity, listen in on your cell phone, require all cell phones to have a GPS chip, demand your library records and all of this without every having to inform you or allow you to contest this massive invasion of privacy. The FBI was able to use national security letters, which we now know they abused repeatedly, to investigate citizens and incarcerate anyone who revealed they had been asked questions or provided information about you. American citizens were arrested and put in jail without access to counsel and with no right to Habeas Corpus. Now that is what you call terrorism.
We will never know what Bin Laden thought would happen after September 11th. He knew one attack would not destroy this country. Did he also know American are easily frightened and they will genuflect to anyone who comes along promising to protect them? Did he know us that well? Did he know a $500,000 investment would enable a cabal of like-minded folks to weaken this country from within? No enemy of America ever invested so little and got so much in return.
The America which ended Bin Laden's life is weaker, more divided, less secure and less hope-filled than it was the morning of September 11th. Almost all of this damage has been self-inflicted; we did it to ourselves; Bin Laden had nothing to do with our current condition. As you rejoice in his demise, ask yourself where the real threat to the nation's security resides? Was Pogo right?
It is estimated Bin Laden spent about $500,000 to conduct the attacks of September 11th. In return for t his investment in terror, almost 3,000 people were killed, the World Trade Center destroyed, the Pentagon hit and employees killed and a field in Pennsylvania was damaged. The death and destruction were horrible and tragic, but even Bin Laden himself could not have imagined the ripples of fear and paranoia, which washed across this land fomented by Americans themselves. Or could he?
Did Bin Laden time his attack to coincide with the administration of George W. Bush? Did he know Bush and Cheney, and the Project on a New American Century crowd (PNAC), would seize upon his action to gin up an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time of his attack, America had a budget surplus, low unemployment and there were talks of a peace dividend. After his attack, Bush pushed through tax cuts for the rich to the tune of $1.3 trillion and started two wars, which will cost well over $2 trillion when, and if, they are over?
Was it just regressive serendipity the attacks of September 11th occurred with Dick Cheney in office as America's first prime minister? Cheney, still angry the first President Bush didn't go to Baghdad and take out Saddam Hussein, (Bush said Hussein wasn’t worth one additional American life), considered the Presidency a weak-kneed, sissy-nancy compared to the days of Reagan. Congress had eviscerated the Executive and he was on a quest to restore it to its former glory. Bin Laden allowed Cheney and his acolytes, Chu...LIbby...Feith...Wolfowitz...Ashcroft...Rumsfeld...Hadley...Rice...Pearl and others, to promulgate policies which resulted in seriously weakening the civil liberties of Americans and weakened the system of checks and balances the founding fathers considered so crucial to preserving the republic. Signing statements rendered the legislative branch impotent. White House counsel opinions allowed the President to engage in torture and ignore treaties we signed and international law we championed. Secret, warrantless wiretaps and Internet surveillance eliminated judicial review over the executive.
When Congress did act, it was as a rubber stamp for administration initiatives. Is it a coincidence within months of September 11th, there was finished legislation written which codified into law every regressives wet dream...the Patriot Act? This lightening quick congressional action battered the 4th amendment beyond recognition. The party of limited government now signed into law a bill which allowed the executive and its agencies to enter your home, bug your computer, mine your email and internet activity, listen in on your cell phone, require all cell phones to have a GPS chip, demand your library records and all of this without every having to inform you or allow you to contest this massive invasion of privacy. The FBI was able to use national security letters, which we now know they abused repeatedly, to investigate citizens and incarcerate anyone who revealed they had been asked questions or provided information about you. American citizens were arrested and put in jail without access to counsel and with no right to Habeas Corpus. Now that is what you call terrorism.
We will never know what Bin Laden thought would happen after September 11th. He knew one attack would not destroy this country. Did he also know American are easily frightened and they will genuflect to anyone who comes along promising to protect them? Did he know us that well? Did he know a $500,000 investment would enable a cabal of like-minded folks to weaken this country from within? No enemy of America ever invested so little and got so much in return.
The America which ended Bin Laden's life is weaker, more divided, less secure and less hope-filled than it was the morning of September 11th. Almost all of this damage has been self-inflicted; we did it to ourselves; Bin Laden had nothing to do with our current condition. As you rejoice in his demise, ask yourself where the real threat to the nation's security resides? Was Pogo right?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
KINDA SORTA WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE
Osama Bin Laden is dead, but in the midst of all the celebrations and congratulations is the bitter knowledge he could have been killed almost ten years ago and thousands of lives spared. America's leaders were more concerned with going to war in Iraq than they were with getting Bin Laden. President Obama called former President Bush to inform him of Bin Laden's death and when he hung up, the former President has to know Obama has cleaned up his mess and accomplished something Bush wasn't particularly interested in finishing.
When American forces invaded Afghanistan in 2002, they quickly chased the Taliban out and discovered bin Laden, and his second in command Dr. Zawahiri, along with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora. They were hiding deep in caves from which there was no exit, but which would require a dangerous operation to go in and root them out. It would have resulted in many deaths for those in pursuit of these terrorists. Instead of using American special forces, the ones used to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan, President Bush opted to allow Afghan troops to take the lead. The result was someone was paid off, or possibly sympathetic to Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, and they were allowed to slip away over the border into Pakistan. Had Bin Laden been killed at that time, Al Qaeda would have fallen apart. Its ability to morph into a worldwide brand and to franchise its terror would have been impossible. The ability to recruit new fighters would have been far less successful. Instead, as the CIA reported in 2006 and again in 2008, Al Qaeda was stronger than ever and had reformulated itself into a more widespread operation, more decentralized with Bin Laden still at its center.
At the time of the Tora Bora operation, President Bush and his national security team had already decided to invade Iraq. Resources were already being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. One of the few military units which spoke Pashtun in Afghanistan was replaced by a unit which contained foreign language experts, except they were experts in speaking Spanish. Satellite and other electronic surveillance were shifted to the Iraq theater as well as large numbers of intelligence assets. The end result is the initial successes in Afghanistan were lost, Bin Laden et.al. escaped and were able to wreak havoc in Iraq for a number of years as well as in other countries. No one will ever know how many Americans and Iraqis died because Bin Laden was able to continue to operate and coordinate his terror forces.
Some would say this is all sour grapes. We should be celebrating the death of Bin Laden and to bring up the past is just partisan and has no value now. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The obsession which Bush and Cheney had with Iraq resulted in a series of decisions and actions which directly led to the fiasco which Iraq became, caused the lies and propaganda campaign which the Iraq Study Group in the White House conducted to convince the American people to support the invasion, and was the reason for the half-baked effort in Afghanistan. 100,000 American troops are in Afghanistan today, suffering unacceptable levels of casualties, because of the Bush administration abandoning the effort in Afghanistan in favor of the disaster which became Iraq. Trillions of dollars were spent unnecessarily and are still spent to clean up what Bush and company left behind.
The death of Osama Bin Laden is a day to celebrate. He wished to be a martyr and his wish has been granted. His religious fundamentalism, like all religious fundamentalism, had nothing to do with God or Allah but rather with trying to force his version on the Muslim world and he was willing to use violence to accomplish his purpose. He killed innocent people because, in his religious zealotry, no one was innocent who disagreed with him. Fundamentalism is still a grave threat in this world whether it is Islamic or Jewish or Christian. Bin Laden should have died in Tora Bora, but other fanatics, those in the White House, were too obsessed to do their job and protect this nation from a genuine threat.
When American forces invaded Afghanistan in 2002, they quickly chased the Taliban out and discovered bin Laden, and his second in command Dr. Zawahiri, along with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora. They were hiding deep in caves from which there was no exit, but which would require a dangerous operation to go in and root them out. It would have resulted in many deaths for those in pursuit of these terrorists. Instead of using American special forces, the ones used to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan, President Bush opted to allow Afghan troops to take the lead. The result was someone was paid off, or possibly sympathetic to Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, and they were allowed to slip away over the border into Pakistan. Had Bin Laden been killed at that time, Al Qaeda would have fallen apart. Its ability to morph into a worldwide brand and to franchise its terror would have been impossible. The ability to recruit new fighters would have been far less successful. Instead, as the CIA reported in 2006 and again in 2008, Al Qaeda was stronger than ever and had reformulated itself into a more widespread operation, more decentralized with Bin Laden still at its center.
At the time of the Tora Bora operation, President Bush and his national security team had already decided to invade Iraq. Resources were already being diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. One of the few military units which spoke Pashtun in Afghanistan was replaced by a unit which contained foreign language experts, except they were experts in speaking Spanish. Satellite and other electronic surveillance were shifted to the Iraq theater as well as large numbers of intelligence assets. The end result is the initial successes in Afghanistan were lost, Bin Laden et.al. escaped and were able to wreak havoc in Iraq for a number of years as well as in other countries. No one will ever know how many Americans and Iraqis died because Bin Laden was able to continue to operate and coordinate his terror forces.
Some would say this is all sour grapes. We should be celebrating the death of Bin Laden and to bring up the past is just partisan and has no value now. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The obsession which Bush and Cheney had with Iraq resulted in a series of decisions and actions which directly led to the fiasco which Iraq became, caused the lies and propaganda campaign which the Iraq Study Group in the White House conducted to convince the American people to support the invasion, and was the reason for the half-baked effort in Afghanistan. 100,000 American troops are in Afghanistan today, suffering unacceptable levels of casualties, because of the Bush administration abandoning the effort in Afghanistan in favor of the disaster which became Iraq. Trillions of dollars were spent unnecessarily and are still spent to clean up what Bush and company left behind.
The death of Osama Bin Laden is a day to celebrate. He wished to be a martyr and his wish has been granted. His religious fundamentalism, like all religious fundamentalism, had nothing to do with God or Allah but rather with trying to force his version on the Muslim world and he was willing to use violence to accomplish his purpose. He killed innocent people because, in his religious zealotry, no one was innocent who disagreed with him. Fundamentalism is still a grave threat in this world whether it is Islamic or Jewish or Christian. Bin Laden should have died in Tora Bora, but other fanatics, those in the White House, were too obsessed to do their job and protect this nation from a genuine threat.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
HE IS RISEN!!!
They sat frozen in fear, wondering if they were next. They looked at each other and saw the tears and felt the abandonment and wondered what it all had meant. There were no profiles in courage among the occupants of that upper room. They had run and hid while their friend and teacher had been taken away and executed. What was it He said? What do they do now? No one wanted to venture outside. All expected to be arrested. Worst of all, all of them were haunted by doubts about Him and His message and what would happen to their lives.
Sometime after that "good" Friday, these same friends, once scared of the sound of their own voices, went out to the people in Jerusalem and proclaimed they had some Good News. Their friend wasn't dead. He wasn't gone. He is alive and death has been conquered. They began repeating His message. They were full of such joy. The fear, which had paralyzed them, was gone. He had promised He wouldn't leave them. He guaranteed if they followed His lead, they too wouldn't have to fear dying and would have abundant lives. You couldn't shut them up. They spread out all over the region and beyond. They continuously proclaimed the life, death and resurrection of their friend Jesus and they said His message, His closeness to God, His love and forgiveness were available to anyone...to us today.
The apostles and disciples weren't just convinced Jesus' memory and message would go on. They were transformed; they were transfigured, by the experience of the risen Jesus. He was dead, but now He is alive. He wasn't a ghost either. They tell stories about him eating and drinking. This wasn't an apparition. It was Jesus. The experience of encountering Jesus caused them to tell anyone they met what had happened. Can you imagine?
There are not a lot of post-resurrection stories in scripture. What there are have one thing in common. Those who encounter the risen Jesus don’t recognize Him. Whatever resurrection is, it is not cosmic mouth to mouth returning you just as you were before. Whatever "it" is, we are different. The essence of who we are, our soul some would say, goes on. Eventually, the apostles in the upper room, the women at the tomb and the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus and their joy is impossible to conceal. They weren't guessing. They weren't repeating hearsay. They weren't claiming to have been visited by a spirit. The experience and contact with the risen Jesus ended their fear, tears, anxiety and doubts. The question on this Easter is whether we will open ourselves to the same contact with the same result?
One of the best homilies I have heard on Easter was based on one sentence. "He is risen." "He"...is Jesus of Nazareth. Born to Joseph and Mary. A carpenter's son. He had traveled though Judea proclaiming the message of God and living such a radically loving and caring life, He became as close to God as a son to His Mother. This human opened up a new relationship with God. The distance between God and us had been eliminated. "He" was human, and now all of us could get as close to God as He was. We could lead an abundant life. "He is"...Those scared and cowering friends living in the upper room changed when they re-connected to Jesus. Their message is He is risen. It isn't an event in the past. It isn't something to wait for in the future. This Jesus is with us now and 2000 years later he still is. On Easter, we don't celebrate an event, which happened 2000 years ago. Jesus is as present and relevant and available now as he was on Easter morning. Those of us, who claim to be Christian, aren't reminiscing about some event in the past like the 4th of July or the birth of a friend or loved one. The same Jesus, who so energized and transfigured this ragtag group, is as real today, alive today, available today, and inspirational today, as He was in the upper room. "He is risen"...they were convinced He was alive. The same Jesus who they saw laid in the tomb, behind the stone, is the same Jesus who they encountered and reveled in His presence. He definitely was dead. They were devastated. He isn't dead anymore. This wasn't speculation. He had promised and He kept His word.
We are Easter people. Without Easter there is no Christianity. Christmas is the birth of another Jewish boy without Easter. Without Easter, there is no Good News...no gospel. Death no longer defines human existence. How many of you, like me, think about death and can't get beyond its finality? How many of us have lost someone we love and miss so much there is a hole in our hearts? How many of us, aware of our own mortality, struggle to put off the inevitable any way we can? The message of Easter is one of great joy. Death is not the final answer. We go "on...." We can touch the same grace which energized Jesus. We can be as close to God as Mother to son or daughter. We can have an abundance in life, which does not end. That is the good news...that is why we celebrate...that is the message of Easter...we can all participate. In the end, it doesn't matter what you call yourself...Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist...what matters is how you live your life. If you can love your enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive an infinite number of times, treat the least of your brothers and sisters with love and dignity, the grace and promise of Easter is yours.
HAPPY EASTER. HE IS RISEN. ALLELUIA, ALLELUIA!!!
Sometime after that "good" Friday, these same friends, once scared of the sound of their own voices, went out to the people in Jerusalem and proclaimed they had some Good News. Their friend wasn't dead. He wasn't gone. He is alive and death has been conquered. They began repeating His message. They were full of such joy. The fear, which had paralyzed them, was gone. He had promised He wouldn't leave them. He guaranteed if they followed His lead, they too wouldn't have to fear dying and would have abundant lives. You couldn't shut them up. They spread out all over the region and beyond. They continuously proclaimed the life, death and resurrection of their friend Jesus and they said His message, His closeness to God, His love and forgiveness were available to anyone...to us today.
The apostles and disciples weren't just convinced Jesus' memory and message would go on. They were transformed; they were transfigured, by the experience of the risen Jesus. He was dead, but now He is alive. He wasn't a ghost either. They tell stories about him eating and drinking. This wasn't an apparition. It was Jesus. The experience of encountering Jesus caused them to tell anyone they met what had happened. Can you imagine?
There are not a lot of post-resurrection stories in scripture. What there are have one thing in common. Those who encounter the risen Jesus don’t recognize Him. Whatever resurrection is, it is not cosmic mouth to mouth returning you just as you were before. Whatever "it" is, we are different. The essence of who we are, our soul some would say, goes on. Eventually, the apostles in the upper room, the women at the tomb and the disciples on the road to Emmaus recognize Jesus and their joy is impossible to conceal. They weren't guessing. They weren't repeating hearsay. They weren't claiming to have been visited by a spirit. The experience and contact with the risen Jesus ended their fear, tears, anxiety and doubts. The question on this Easter is whether we will open ourselves to the same contact with the same result?
One of the best homilies I have heard on Easter was based on one sentence. "He is risen." "He"...is Jesus of Nazareth. Born to Joseph and Mary. A carpenter's son. He had traveled though Judea proclaiming the message of God and living such a radically loving and caring life, He became as close to God as a son to His Mother. This human opened up a new relationship with God. The distance between God and us had been eliminated. "He" was human, and now all of us could get as close to God as He was. We could lead an abundant life. "He is"...Those scared and cowering friends living in the upper room changed when they re-connected to Jesus. Their message is He is risen. It isn't an event in the past. It isn't something to wait for in the future. This Jesus is with us now and 2000 years later he still is. On Easter, we don't celebrate an event, which happened 2000 years ago. Jesus is as present and relevant and available now as he was on Easter morning. Those of us, who claim to be Christian, aren't reminiscing about some event in the past like the 4th of July or the birth of a friend or loved one. The same Jesus, who so energized and transfigured this ragtag group, is as real today, alive today, available today, and inspirational today, as He was in the upper room. "He is risen"...they were convinced He was alive. The same Jesus who they saw laid in the tomb, behind the stone, is the same Jesus who they encountered and reveled in His presence. He definitely was dead. They were devastated. He isn't dead anymore. This wasn't speculation. He had promised and He kept His word.
We are Easter people. Without Easter there is no Christianity. Christmas is the birth of another Jewish boy without Easter. Without Easter, there is no Good News...no gospel. Death no longer defines human existence. How many of you, like me, think about death and can't get beyond its finality? How many of us have lost someone we love and miss so much there is a hole in our hearts? How many of us, aware of our own mortality, struggle to put off the inevitable any way we can? The message of Easter is one of great joy. Death is not the final answer. We go "on...." We can touch the same grace which energized Jesus. We can be as close to God as Mother to son or daughter. We can have an abundance in life, which does not end. That is the good news...that is why we celebrate...that is the message of Easter...we can all participate. In the end, it doesn't matter what you call yourself...Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist...what matters is how you live your life. If you can love your enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive an infinite number of times, treat the least of your brothers and sisters with love and dignity, the grace and promise of Easter is yours.
HAPPY EASTER. HE IS RISEN. ALLELUIA, ALLELUIA!!!
Saturday, April 16, 2011
JAMES CROW
One hundred and fifty years ago, millions of Americans were willing to go to war against their cousins, brothers and friends in order to protect the institution of slavery. On April 14, 1861, they fired on Ft. Sumter and the Civil War began. It ended in a courthouse at Appomattox, but it still haunts us to this day because we have never admitted to the dirty little secret about America. It is a nation built and established of white people, for white people and by white people.
In a recent poll, 40% of people in the formerly Confederate South, still believe the South was right to secede and to fight Northern aggression. Why? At Appomattox, Lee laid down his sword, Grant allowed Confederate soldiers to keep their rifles and horses, and Confederate generals still in the field, who could have carried on a guerrilla action and extended the war for years, surrendered and went home. The war was over. They fought the good fight and almost were victorious. Why or what are these people in the South still trying to articulate or preserve? If Lee and Longstreet, Beauregard and Davis accepted the end and went back to life in a "United" States, why cant today's occupants?
Slavery had existed since the dawn of time. It was not an alien institution to our land. It was an accepted part of the human condition. In a remarkable paradigm shift, slavery was outlawed in the Western world by the middle of the 19th century. Yes, the south had fought to preserve it. Yes, they thought ending it would destroy their culture and way of life. However, their views on slavery were no different than those of Washington or Jefferson. Even the Catholic Church in America owned slaves. Defending slavery was not an extraordinary leap of logic. In and of itself, fighting to preserve slavery was an example of Americans defending a deeply entrenched value. If Lincoln could have prevented war by leaving slavery in place, he gladly would have accepted that deal.
The reason the Civil War still haunts this nation is because after the South was defeated, after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after the Constitution was amended to make former slaves US citizens, something new arose which continue to perpetuate most of the rudiments of slavery, just under a different name...Jim Crow. Despite proclamations, amendments and the failed experiment called Reconstruction, America still remained a nation of white supremacists. African Americans were no more welcome in the North than the South. Opponents of slavery often condemned the institution, while opposing attempts to integrate African Americans into society. In the South, this new suit of prejudice and bigotry was put on but with new tailors. Laws were passed to prevent black people from voting, having access to the courts, living wherever they wished, engaging in free market capitalism or taking advantage of the rise of land grant colleges and universities. Separate and unequal became the law of the land. Former slaves, or the descendants of slaves, declared non-persons by the Dred Scott decision, were still non-persons and all of America participated in the process.
Those 40% of Southerners, who identify with the Confederacy, aren't doing so for states rights or because of antipathy towards the Federal government. They were thrilled to allow FDR to bring electricity and power to their rural homes. They loved the economic benefits of the interstate highway system. They took advantage of the G.I. bill, Social Security and Medicare. They applied for FHA mortgages and student loans. What they couldn't abide was a federal government, which attempted to dismantle separate but equal. They resisted a government mandating an integrated military. When the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed, along with the Public Accommodations Act, then President Lyndon Johnson is quoted as saying the Democrats just lost the South. Richard Nixon and the Republicans developed a "southern strategy" in which they promised not to enforce civil rights laws in return for political support. The South became solidly Red in no time.
At the same time, in the North, cities like Detroit and Chicago became the most segregated cities in the country. African-Americans, who had migrated north for jobs, didn't find much difference in attitudes. Ghettos were commonplace. Police and fire departments were all white, corporate America was white as the driven snow. Even the great American pastime, baseball, was segregated and separate. Despite a war to end slavery...despite over 600,000 Americans killed...despite almost destroying the nation...the reality remained this country is white and no others need apply. The one big difference was residents of the North were not as wedded to the romantic historic revisionism of the Civil War as those were in the South.
The 40% of Southerners, who romantically long for the glory of the Confederacy, see themselves as victims. With the ascendancy of African Americans, Hispanics and Asians, they feel left out and taken for granted. Even worse, they have no claim to superiority. They blame the federal government for their plight. However, the culture of white supremacy they long for is till singing its siren song in all parts of this nation not just in the South. Yes, we did fight to end slavery, and then we simply turned our heads and pretended not to notice a proxy system, which accomplished the same goals of slavery, under a new name.
It is romantic and acceptable to defend the Confederacy as a champion of individual and states rights. It would also be wrong. Those who display the Confederate flag on t heir license plates and hold tribute to Southern leaders annually, do so because they know they can't openly mourn the end of Jim Crow and segregation and institutional racism. The Confederacy, and its role in the Civil War, becomes a euphemism for the sorrow many whites feel about their loss of prestige and pride in the light of the Civil Rights era.
The historian, John Hope Franklin, told me until America can admit this nation was built on the principle of white supremacy, there can be no meaningful dialogue on race.
Was he right?
In a recent poll, 40% of people in the formerly Confederate South, still believe the South was right to secede and to fight Northern aggression. Why? At Appomattox, Lee laid down his sword, Grant allowed Confederate soldiers to keep their rifles and horses, and Confederate generals still in the field, who could have carried on a guerrilla action and extended the war for years, surrendered and went home. The war was over. They fought the good fight and almost were victorious. Why or what are these people in the South still trying to articulate or preserve? If Lee and Longstreet, Beauregard and Davis accepted the end and went back to life in a "United" States, why cant today's occupants?
Slavery had existed since the dawn of time. It was not an alien institution to our land. It was an accepted part of the human condition. In a remarkable paradigm shift, slavery was outlawed in the Western world by the middle of the 19th century. Yes, the south had fought to preserve it. Yes, they thought ending it would destroy their culture and way of life. However, their views on slavery were no different than those of Washington or Jefferson. Even the Catholic Church in America owned slaves. Defending slavery was not an extraordinary leap of logic. In and of itself, fighting to preserve slavery was an example of Americans defending a deeply entrenched value. If Lincoln could have prevented war by leaving slavery in place, he gladly would have accepted that deal.
The reason the Civil War still haunts this nation is because after the South was defeated, after Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after the Constitution was amended to make former slaves US citizens, something new arose which continue to perpetuate most of the rudiments of slavery, just under a different name...Jim Crow. Despite proclamations, amendments and the failed experiment called Reconstruction, America still remained a nation of white supremacists. African Americans were no more welcome in the North than the South. Opponents of slavery often condemned the institution, while opposing attempts to integrate African Americans into society. In the South, this new suit of prejudice and bigotry was put on but with new tailors. Laws were passed to prevent black people from voting, having access to the courts, living wherever they wished, engaging in free market capitalism or taking advantage of the rise of land grant colleges and universities. Separate and unequal became the law of the land. Former slaves, or the descendants of slaves, declared non-persons by the Dred Scott decision, were still non-persons and all of America participated in the process.
Those 40% of Southerners, who identify with the Confederacy, aren't doing so for states rights or because of antipathy towards the Federal government. They were thrilled to allow FDR to bring electricity and power to their rural homes. They loved the economic benefits of the interstate highway system. They took advantage of the G.I. bill, Social Security and Medicare. They applied for FHA mortgages and student loans. What they couldn't abide was a federal government, which attempted to dismantle separate but equal. They resisted a government mandating an integrated military. When the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed, along with the Public Accommodations Act, then President Lyndon Johnson is quoted as saying the Democrats just lost the South. Richard Nixon and the Republicans developed a "southern strategy" in which they promised not to enforce civil rights laws in return for political support. The South became solidly Red in no time.
At the same time, in the North, cities like Detroit and Chicago became the most segregated cities in the country. African-Americans, who had migrated north for jobs, didn't find much difference in attitudes. Ghettos were commonplace. Police and fire departments were all white, corporate America was white as the driven snow. Even the great American pastime, baseball, was segregated and separate. Despite a war to end slavery...despite over 600,000 Americans killed...despite almost destroying the nation...the reality remained this country is white and no others need apply. The one big difference was residents of the North were not as wedded to the romantic historic revisionism of the Civil War as those were in the South.
The 40% of Southerners, who romantically long for the glory of the Confederacy, see themselves as victims. With the ascendancy of African Americans, Hispanics and Asians, they feel left out and taken for granted. Even worse, they have no claim to superiority. They blame the federal government for their plight. However, the culture of white supremacy they long for is till singing its siren song in all parts of this nation not just in the South. Yes, we did fight to end slavery, and then we simply turned our heads and pretended not to notice a proxy system, which accomplished the same goals of slavery, under a new name.
It is romantic and acceptable to defend the Confederacy as a champion of individual and states rights. It would also be wrong. Those who display the Confederate flag on t heir license plates and hold tribute to Southern leaders annually, do so because they know they can't openly mourn the end of Jim Crow and segregation and institutional racism. The Confederacy, and its role in the Civil War, becomes a euphemism for the sorrow many whites feel about their loss of prestige and pride in the light of the Civil Rights era.
The historian, John Hope Franklin, told me until America can admit this nation was built on the principle of white supremacy, there can be no meaningful dialogue on race.
Was he right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)