We Shall Overcome

I recognize that black people don't own oppression but we certainly know a hell of a lot about it first hand. I first understood what it meant to be black in this country the summer when I was 8. That was the big knee cutting incident when rubbing alcohol came in glass bottles. I tripped over my own feet while carrying a bottle to my mother, knelt down to pick up the pieces and sliced open my left knee. My mother scooped me up, grabbed my younger brother and sister and raced to the local clinic where she attempted to enter the emergency entrance, the white only entrance. As she tried to enter with me in her arms, a blood soaked towel wrapped around my knee, someone told her that she needed to go to the nigger entrance. She did.


What I learned from that experience was patience. No amount of language, foul or otherwise, no amount of defiant attitude impacts people who are driven by ignorance, hate, and downright stupidity. When Dr. King came along, he understood this. He preached nonviolence not because he was afraid but because he recognized that the real crazies were unreasonable and unreachable, but that the rest of American whites might still have enough of a conscience to feel guilt. Those peaceful marches weren't really peaceful except on the part of the protesters. They were beaten, attacked by dogs, fired upon with high pressure water hoses, murdered on dark highways and they met this violence with nonviolence. The other big factor was television. Images of people being subjected to violence were shown around the world and sympathy was with the nonviolent protesters.


Always image conscious, White America didn't suddenly acknowledge that all people are created equal but a significant number of them sought to disassociate themselves from the overtly racist extremists. Racism wasn't dead, but laws were passed that made its overt practice illegal. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.--MLK, The Trumpet of Conscience, 1967.


I tend to think in analogical connections and our current battle against the unfettered conservatism that threatens to devour our country reminds me of the battle that was fought against that other voracious monster known as institutionalized racism . The feelings of powerlessness, frustration, and fear expressed by my fellow liberals are understandable and no Pollyanna pep talk is going to change those feelings. I don't believe that people are naturally good at heart, but from what I've seen in my lifetime, I do believe that change can happen. Forty-five years ago, I couldn't drink from a public water fountain unless it had a sign above it that read, "For Coloreds Only." The world of my childhood and today's world are as different as night and day.


We are far from a post-racial society. I'm a big science fiction fan and I think of racism as being a creature like that of the Alien movies, incubating in the chests of some people until it breaks forth screaming, spreading destruction everywhere. In the movies,  Sigourney Weaver kicks its alien ass. Alas, Sigourney isn't available except on the silver screen, so we have to do our own ass kicking when it comes to racism and the disease known as the Tea Party.


To do this, we have to be better strategists than they are. Like Dr. King, we have to determine how best to overcome. Venting our frustration may be necessary on occasion, but anger and frustration do not generate solutions. Our strength is our ability to act rationally in the face of irrationality. I don't find the use of vulgarity offensive, just useless. Anger is exactly what these people best understand. King and Ghandi understood this. Meet irrational hate with anger and you feed the fire of their hate; meet irrationality with reason and persistence and your enemy is confused and does not know what to make of your response. For that reason, we must keep our wits about us because our strength lies in our rationality, in our ability to reason and though the path be rocky, we must continue to traverse it, one step at a time.

Conservative Inconsistency or Big Government Is Fine When We Say So

Every time the opponents of big government, aka Republicans and Tea Party members, weigh in on issues of personal choice such as abortion or whom to marry, I marvel at how conveniently they ignore their own anti-government interference rhetoric when it suits them to do so.

Last week, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." The bill has 173 sponsors, most of whom are Republicans. 

The proposed legislation is an attempt to further restrict taxpayer funding for abortions. Current law already restricts the use of federal funding for abortions but includes exemptions when rape or incest is involved. Smith's proposed bill, which Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) has labeled a top priority in the new Congress, limits the rape exemption to "forcible rape." 

Those of you under the age of 35 may not recall the days when simply saying "no" wasn't enough to constitute rape. This bill would turn back the clock. There is no definition in federal law for "forcible rape." Under current law, rape isn't defined in terms of force or lack of force but based on consent or lack of consent. Did the victim consent or was the victim capable of meaningful consent? This proposed legislation would rule out the exemptions that allow federal assistance for abortions when the individual was a victim of statutory rape, or drunk, drugged, or otherwise impaired because technically, such rapes aren't "forcible."

This attempt to redefine rape is ludicrous. What does forcible rape mean?  Is there such a thing as "cooperative rape" or maybe "willing rape"? Rape by definition is non-consensual. The most obvious non-consent is when force is used, but having sex with someone who is unable to consent because of drug or alcohol impairment, or who is still in the caught up in the lack of judgment of youth, is still rape. The impact of this bill on current state criminal rape laws and statutory rape laws could possibly undermine existing laws to the extent that the crime of rate becomes even more difficult to prosecute. Already it's the only criminal charge where the victim is still blamed for possibly causing or inviting the crime.

If I go out to the ATM machine at 3:00 a.m. and someone robs me, whether or not I have a history of making late night trips to the bank is irrelevant to the process of determining the defendant's guilt or innocence. Despite positive changes that limit making the rape victim's character the subject of a a rape trial, there is still far too much leeway to consider the actions and behavior of the victim as a possibly contributory factor and/or evidence that there was no rape. This new nonsense by the GOP is another step down the wrong road.

If these people really are concerned about the well-being of children, why not worry about the ones already present and breathing on their own. According to data from the Census Bureau released in 2009, as of 2008, one in five children in the U.S. live in families below the official poverty level. Research from the Brookings institute predicts that number will rise to one in four by 2012.

Want to do something besides complain?  MoveOn.org has a petition protesting this bill and urging Congress not to support it. Please take a moment to sign that petition.

The Unholy Trinity: Beck, O'Donnell, and Palin

A fellow blogger who goes by the handle of Capt. Fogg inspired what began as a comment on his post, Masters of Mendacity, but grew into a post of my own. The Captain's post adroitly dissects the fallacies at the heart of the ongoing proclamations by Palin, O'Donnell, and Beck that feed the clamor from the Tea Party of, "We want our country back." The basic reasoning appears to follow the lines of, "America is a Christian nation, founded by God or at the very least endorsed by God and it (America) must be saved from liberals." One of Palin's latest proclamations is that that the Constitution tells us that our "Unalienable rights" come from God. Christine O'Donnell has declared that the Constitution isn't merely a legal document but a covenant based on divine principles. Glenn Beck appears to have anointed the Constitution to be his Gospel, and himself as the Second Coming.

They aren't just liars, they are flat out wrong. There is no mention of God or unalienable rights in the Constitution; perhaps Palin, et.al. have confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. That document states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

What fascinates me about the language regarding unalienable rights is that Jefferson's concerns weren't about worshipping a particular God but about declaring that there were rights inherent to being human that could not be usurped and that the purpose of government was to protect those rights as opposed to curtailing them or taking them away. I think that his use of the term Creator reflected the broader concept that such rights were natural rights, innate rights that were not given but existed without being conferred or bestowed by any government.

Beck, Palin etc. have chosen to harp on this language as proof that this is a Christian nation. Based on the varied writings of Jefferson, Madison and others, I'm of the opinon that the furtherest thing from their intent was founding a Christian nation. I think that a modern debate on this matter fails to understand the worldview of the founders. These men were readers of Locke, Rousseau,Hobbes, and Aristotle. They struggled with the philosophical concepts of who are we and what is our purpose, not some fight over whose God was better. They actually thought about the purpose of government and concluded that it was to serve the people and that the power of the government came from the consent given by the governed.

It was a revolutionary idea, Certainly the English Monarchy didn't recognize its power as coming from the people but viewed its power as God given and superior to the will of the people. The Declaration took that philosophy on with its bold proclamation about unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. It was an assertion against the then ruling idea that the government decided which rights to grant the people and which ones to deny them. It wasn't a proclamation supporting Christianity but a declaration against tyranny.

As for attributing such language to the Constitution, it just raffirms my belief that most of the people shouting about the Constitution as being a covenant based on divine principles have never read the document with even a modicum of comprehension. The Constitution is a secular document that establishes the practices and laws governing the operation of the government. The Preamble states the purpose of the Constitution clearly and succinctly: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (There are many sites on the Net with info on the Preamble and the rest of the Constitution. I cited to Wikipedia here because it was the best of about a dozen sites that I checked. Up to date, and fully documented.)

Citing the United States Constitution as a religious text makes about as much sense as declaring that my telephone book contains the secrets of the universe.

The Tea Party: Full of Insignificant Sound and Fury

I find myself again needing to wash my mouth out with soap, having engaged in another round of WTF with no expletives deleted. When I was a child my mother temporarily banned me from watching Lassie. I would cry so hard every time Timmy got lost, fell down an abandoned mine shaft, or was otherwise in peril (pretty much a weekly occurrence) that my mother was concerned about my emotional well being. I'm thinking that maybe I should ban myself from watching or reading any news; my vocabulary is in danger of becoming that of an old sailor.

My latest round of profanity was in response to Tuesday's debate between Christine O'Donnell (R) and Chris Coons (D), both candidates for Delaware's U.S. Senate seat. Although nominally a Republican, O'Donnell has aligned herself with the Tea Party platform. During the debate, held at Widener University Law School, the subject of religion and the law arose. Coons asserted that the separation of church and state provisions of the Constitution prohibits teaching Creationism in public schools (O'Donnell prefers the term Intelligent Design). O'Donnell countered with, "Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"

The audience, consisting mostly of law students gasped in horror but before you join them, take a gander at O'Donnell's follow-up observation to Coons assertion that the First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?" (emphasis added)

Technically, O'Donnell is correct. The text of the first amendment does not include the phrase "separation of church and state." The phrase is not found in the U.S. Constitution at all. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

O'Donnell is a nut job but already the conservative media has put a different spin on her remarks, declaring that O'Donnell was pointing out the lack of any specific phrase in the Constitution proclaiming that there is to be a separation of church and state. I doubt that O'Donnell was really parsing out the language of the Constitution but was instead clueless as to the consistent interpretation of the 1st amendment. Technically, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear at all in the Constitution. The concept of separation of church and state is derived from the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. I wish that Coons had countered with that observation rather than sparring with O'Donnell as to whether the First Amendment literally contained the words separation of church and state; it doesn't.

I'm not just nitpicking. I've been thinking about how the far right has commandeered this election year and determined the parameters of the issues up for debate. I think that we have to reframe the argument. We can't afford to be sloppy with language.

O'Donnell didn't lose any votes because of her gaffe. If Coons had acknowledged that the precise phrase is not in the Constitution but that the language that is there was interpreted in the writings of no less than Thomas Jefferson to mean that there is a wall of separation between government and religion, then he would have deflated O'Donnell's argument and her ego. Many historians and students of the law trace the phrase "separation of church and state" to a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson in which he observed that the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between Church and State." There is also a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence that has consistenly interpreted the language of the First Amendment regarding religion, aka the Establishment Clause, as calling for the government to refrain from being in the business of promoting or censoring religious belief or lack thereof. In spite of O'Donnell's protestations to the contrary, separation of church and state has long been established as a valid Constutional interpretation solidly grounded in the First Amendment.

Of course the audience of law students scoffed because they understood the jurisprudence interpreting and applying the 1st amendment, but has the average American even read the Constitution outside of a cursory reading in some middle or high school civics class, let alone studied it? Even if they have read the Constitution, it's likely that they will agree with O'Donnell that there is no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution. To understand the meaning of the U.S. Constitution takes more than simply reading the words.


Die hard Tea Party members are not likely to be persuaded to change their beliefs no matter how succinct and valid the argument. However, there are a lot of people who are angry with the status quo and bewildered by all the voices claiming to offer solutions. They need clear, straightforward information that they can use to make jugments as to which voices speak with truth and honesty. O'Donnell speaks as if she's their friend and there are a lot of disenchanted people who are anxious to believe that she has their best interests at heart.

The left needs to take a lesson from Toto and pull back the curtain to reveal that O'Donnell is just a bad magic act, hiding behind a curtain, pretending that she's the Wizard of the Right. To do that we have to stop merely shaking our heads in laughter and declaring O'Donnell and her political cohorts to be appropriate objects of ridicule. We need to offer people another reality by exposing that the Tea Party rhetoric is filled with sound and fury but signifies absolutely nothing.

The Myth of a Post Racial America

I was meandering about the Internet today when I came across the "cartoon" to the left (the artist gives her name as Darleen Click). Clearly, my Aunt Dorothy is wrong about exploding heads because if mine was ever going to blow, this should have lit the fuse. Although my head is still intact, I do have a throbing headache brought on by the various streams of thought running through my brain in response to this image.

I’ve been having some interesting discussions with friends on Facebook about the progressive left and the discontent expressed about President Obama’s advancement of a progressive agenda. I get that no one is above critique, certainly not the president. I also concede that many of us, myself included, have been guilty of challenging any criticism from the left as unrealistic expectations based on a lack of understanding on the political process.

After viewing Darleen’s cartoon, I’ve decided to come clean as to what really annoys me about the left’s head shaking at what it perceives to be Obama’s need to be liked and not offend the recalcitrant Republicans in Congress. I don't think that it's the limits of the political process that progressives don't understand, at least not as the sole issue or even the biggest issue. I think what progressives don't always fully appreciate is what it means to be the first black president. I don't say this as an insult or as an accusation. White men have had centuries of never being the "first" anything. The power structure in this country has always belonged to white males.

In spite of the wishful thinking of some, this is not a post racial age. I read a lot of my news on the Internet. Every day, I read comments on those news stories. Every day I read the most insulting racist comments that I have ever heard in my lifetime. I don't recall such insults even in the 1950s and 1960s when I was growing up. I cannot visit a website and read the comments unless I am prepared to be insulted. I am not using hyperbole; I literally mean every day. The people who post this vileness defend their right to spout racist commentary under the guise of the 1st amendment.

Friends and family tell me that I should just stop reading these comments. My response is, “Will they disappear because I don't read them?” Mind you, I'm not talking about white supremacists websites; I'm talking about trivial stories about which Hollywood starlet is going to be the next big thing or some how to article on the best way to organize your closets.

These trolls exist to spread their crap; they don't care that their comments have nothing to do with the story at hand. They are simply seeking an opportunity to make ugly, depraved racist commentary. They have invaded websites that specify that they are geared to a black audience such as Black Voices, The Griot, and The Root, for the sole purpose of making racist comments.

Since Obama has taken office, it's as if these people have upped the ante in expressing their racism. Every step Obama takes, every move that he makes, he is being watched with a scrutiny that no president has ever had to endure. There have been more death threats against him than any other president. Dimwit Darleen’s cartoon portraying Obama as raping Lady Liberty disingenuously claims that there is nothing racist about this portrayal of a black man as a rapist, conveniently ignoring the history of false allegations of rape that lead to the lynching deaths of thousands of black men in the 20th century. Michelle Obama has suffered the indignity of being portrayed as an ape on multiple occasions. As a black woman, I can tell you that it is an insult that cuts to the core, especially when you must maintain your cool and never let them see you break a sweat.

I have no problem with progressives calling Obama to task for not following through on his agenda or even for not being forceful enough in promoting his ideas but where I take offensive is anyone daring to suggest that this man has made any decisions because he fears being disliked and holds some kind of Pollyannaish notions about bringing us all together to join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah. I find such commentary insulting to the very real dangers that Obama and his family faced in simply running for the presidency. I think that he and Michelle are both incredibly brave.

I get that the Republicans in Congress are obstructionists and are unlikely to change. I agree that wooing them was useless if the point was to get them to participate in a bipartisan agenda. However, I don't think that was ever Obama's agenda. It wasn't the Republicans in government that he was playing to, it was the American public. His win seemed solid and overwhelming, but he knew from the start that he would be judged by a different standard.

Since the election, there has been an interesting shift in the mood of the country. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 48% of voters feel that the Tea Party more accurately reflects their views. Along party lines more of the Tea Party supporters self identify as Republicans or Independents. Democrats continue to be more likely to favor Obama’s agenda.

I don’t believe that polls are gospel. Statistically the samples are limited and people’s responses are influenced by many factors including the wording of the questions asked. However, even when you factor in a percentage of error, polls do shed some light on the pulse of the country. My point is not that Progressives have become members of the Tea Party, nor is my point that progressives have betrayed Obama.

It’s the Independents who have shifted from supporting Obama to threatening to vote Republican in 2010 and 2012 that disturb me. My take on this is that if these folks had ever been fully committed to Obama's agenda, then hell would have to freeze over before they would capitulate to a right wing agenda, no matter how dissatisfied or disappointed in Obama they were.

I'm not a cynic by nature but my life experiences have fed my growing cynicism. I think that there are people who voted for Obama because it made them believe that they were not racists. From my perspective, there are a lot of white people who spend an inordinate amount of time declaring, "I am not a racist." Normally we don't declare that we don't possess a negative belief. For instance, no one feels compelled to declare, "I'm not a child abuser," or "I am not a wife beater." When someone declares that they are not a racist, I believe he or she has doubts and is trying to convince him or herself.

Obama was the fashionable trend of the moment. Now the hate against him in many quarters is palpable. I think that his efforts to cultivate the public failed, but he wasn't acting out of some fear of not being liked. I don't think that a black person who has worked his or her way into the dominant power structure could possibly get there if we were so thin-skinned that we honestly worried as to whether people liked us on a personal level. My people are made of sterner stuff; it is a strength forged on the anvil of oppression.

I recognize that it is an unintentional slight, but to characterize Obama as being motivated by a fear of being disliked or a desire to be liked is to trivialize the reality of race in this country. It has taken more than 200 years since the inception of these United States for a person of African heritage to achieve the highest office in this land. Two hundred and thirty-two years of not being counted as people, of legalized abuse, of denial of the most basic of human rights--how can anyone honestly think that this man, this black man is worried as to whether or not he is liked! If black people spent our time obsessing as to how to make white people like us, none of us would ever have the courage to leave our homes.

Obama’s moves were strategic; what he wanted was to build public momentum and support for his agenda. He thought that he could achieve that by demonstrating reasonableness in the face of unreasonableness. It didn't work. I think that he misjudged the depth of the unreasonableness, the strength of the animosity of those who declare their lack of racism as if speaking the words makes it so and negates their actions to the contrary.

Say that Obama made a strategic error in spending so much time trying to cultivate a bipartisan health care plan and you’ll get no argument from me. Say that this man is motivated by the insecurity of an ego that needs to be stroked by being liked and I will borrow the mantra of the GOP, “You lie.”