Envy Is the Illusion

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary     January 24, 2012

By Perry Redd

 

 

Have you heard the latest buzzword?  It’s more akin to an allegation.  As we bear witness to the Republicans vying for the opportunity to face incumbent Barack Obama for the presidency, “The Politics of Envy” has become the allegation placed against anyone who might call a fact a fact or a truth a truth.

The fact is that there is a grand inequality of wealth in this country.  It is also fact that many with great wealth have executed great measures to prohibit others from the opportunity to gain a part of this nation’s wealth.  Another fact is that there has been concerted efforts to deceive non-wealthy Americans to think that ultra wealthy people have worked—just like anyone else—to achieve that wealth; and if anyone questions that premise they are accused of playing “the politics of envy.”

It is disingenuous of any rich person who would categorically posit that anyone that questions wealth gain is envious.  Most Americans admire people who have amassed great wealth (why, I’ll never know!).  The fact is that one generally questions wealth after the wealthy person states that he/she has “earned it.”  People want to see what that looks like.

Most working class people want to emulate the formula that worked.  Did they save their dimes and skip meals to amass that kind of wealth?  Did they put half of their paycheck in money market accounts and move in with their mother?  What exactly did rich people do to get rich?

When Republican primary candidate, Mitt Romney gave his acceptance speech after presumably winning the New Hampshire primary, Romney called President Barack Obama, “a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy.” Romney was referring to the president’s comments about fairness and income inequality, the 1% versus 99% argument. Rather than show any compassion on the subject, the next day, Romney defended his “politics of envy” comment on The Today Show.

 “I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms,” the former governor said, “But the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.” By “quiet rooms” does Romney mean boardrooms and country clubs?  Romney must understand that people talk about greed of Wall Street and insane profits of corporations in the face of ridiculously high unemployment and record home foreclosures; and they’re talking about it loud and in public—say, the Occupy Wall Street movement?

I find it virtually absurd to even consider registering my vote for someone who cannot begin to see that a healthy economy is based on consumer spending.  When people within a society don’t possess money to spend on goods and services, then an economy becomes crippled.  When one person makes $42.6 million in the span of two years, I immediately think to myself the number of working class salaries that could be!  I think, “how many $30,000/yr salaries could that be?”  Actually, that’s 142,000 people that could be employed at a living wage!  That could really help heal the American economy.  Because I see the inequality of that picture, doesn’t make me envious;it may make me mad, but envy doesn’t even paint an accurate picture.

So why the phrase?  It’s because the person in the superior role must attack the victim to excuse his/her greed.  Anger at the fact that Romney pays a lesser tax rate than most rich people, is reasonable if nothing else. Over two years, Romney’s effective tax rate — the percentage of his income that he owed in federal income taxes — was just under 14%.

Nevertheless, and contrary to popular perception, Romney’s effective federal income tax rate is still above that of many Americans—80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That tax rate is higher when other federal taxes—such as the payroll tax—are included.

The reason Romney’s rate is so low—despite having one of the highest incomes in the country—is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners. It’s not envy that questions this inequality, it’s anger.  Or at least, it should be.

The main people that will vote for Romney will be low to middle income earners; people who will be unsure of their employment or mortgage.  People who are paying a higher percentage of the incomes on gas, utilities and other necessities.  These people will choose to elect a person who cannot even begin to identify with struggling to make a monthly budget or sacrificing to send a child to college.  Why would someone vote for that?  Because, racist loyalty will cause one to vote against his/her own interest.

I beg you not to be that person.  Don’t vote against your interests.  A candidate might look attractive, but realize that money has no friends.  From his years as a venture capitalist, Romney has shown that money is more important than people.  I bet you he has more money than friends…to believe anything other is all but an illusion.

King Is Not Complicated

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary               By Perry Redd

The man himself was controversial, notes LaSalle University sociology professor Charles Gallagher in a CNN article. King— bound up with issues of racial and economic inequality that spotlight America’s worst sins—is a “Rorschach test,” Gallagher says, that people see in King what they want to see. No one agrees more with that analysis more than me.

I read more than a few commentaries this weekend on King and his philosophy, and what I know is that everybody is more complicated once they’re dead! One cannot answer the questions people want answered, which makes for more complication. People complicate King. I read one commentary that asked would King have supported gay rights…since he was a Christian. Christians ought to be able to answer that for themselves: Was he for you or against you when he was living? Well then; there you are.

I’m sure some of the organizers of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C. would not have expected the scrutiny of every little detail, including criticism that has continued right up to the first Martin Luther King Jr. Day since the memorial opened last fall. The memorial features a commanding 30-foot statue of King, arms folded across his chest, emerging from the “Stone of Hope.”

Late Friday, the Department of Interior, which has jurisdiction over the memorial, announced a change in a quotation inscribed in one of the walls at the site. This action followed months of complaints about the language of the quotation, which had been paraphrased from a passage in a King sermon. The quote is prominent among a total of 14 of King’s most notable lines inscribed on that wall.

The quote in question sparked controversy last summer, when the worldly acclaimed poet and author Maya Angelou said its abbreviated, paraphrased version made the civil rights leader appear arrogant. The line reads: “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.”

In fact, King’s original words, from a 1968 sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, were: “If you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter.” Angelou said that leaving out the “if” changes the meaning. The “if” definitely places King’s intent in a different context. Why would someone be compelled to change his words? That just complicated it for the rest of us.

I went down to the memorial on more than a few occasions. I took my mother, I took pictures and I took deep breaths. It’s all good. The only memorial dedicated to peace on the whole National Mall, yet we call ourselves a “peaceful nation.” The complication ain’t with King, it’s with America. The complication comes in where you get your ideals. Does your worldview come from God or from white America? That will be the telltale of how complicated Dr. King is to you.

The misquote at the memorial wasn’t Dr. King’s doing; it was that of others. Isn’t that usually how complications work in our lives? Other people complicate what we are trying to say or intending to accomplish, or what we want for the world. If we could place ourselves in a state of understanding that, then we could get to a place of forgiving others more readily. Trying to interpret human beings is among the most difficult of tasks. But I’m not letting you get off the hook that easy.

Your view of Dr. King—his work, his vision—does not rest with you alone; it is not settled in your time. His life, work and vision are a “community” interpretation settled in the resolution of humankind. America is the laboratory of his work. This country is where his vision is played out…. You see, most Americans agree that Dr. King’s actions were the right thing to do, at the right time, and for the right reasons.

To the contrary, King’s life, vision and words were extremely non-complicated, so don’t place that burden on him. He was no enigma. The enigma lied in the government that opposed him, in the Blacks that shied away from him; the enigma lied in the Christians who stood in staunch opposition to his objectives: provisions for the poor, justice for Americans, and equality for all. So, the question today is ‘did we get it right—are we carrying out Dr. King’s work, his vision.’ If you don’t get that, then you are the one complicated.

Later On

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

January 10, 2012

By Perry Redd

 

There has been a flurry of racially insensitive rhetoric swirling around the politisphere.  We’ve always known there are racists in the midst, but election time seems to embolden the venom that lies within the fangs of the latent ones.  I want to take this opportunity to remind you so that when they come calling for your support—and vote—that you not only tell them no, but tell them why.

Now, let me exercise full disclosure here: President Obama is not guaranteed my vote come November.  I’m no longer a registered Democrat.  I’m still highly disappointed that he elected not to close Guantanomo, he chose not to prosecute the purveyors of the financial crisis we’re in, and his compromises with the Republicans empowered them and hurt the people.  I will vote, but one thing for sure, I won’t vote for the Republican candidate.

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum is quoted as saying, ”I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”  Santorum was addressing entitlements at a town hall in Iowa, as he does at almost every campaign event, but it’s unclear whether the GOP candidate actually said “black” people or simply stumbled on his words.

When asked for an explanation by Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Santorum neither confirmed nor denied his wording, only saying that he didn’t recall.  Like most Republicans do, he gave a disingenuous excuse: “I haven’t heard the context of the question,” he explained. “I haven’t heard it. All I can say is that I don’t single out any one group of people. That’s one thing I don’t do. I don’t divide people by group or race or class.”  Well geez, the entire country has watched the video!  How many words can you replace “black people” with?

Santorum was speaking on his opposition to Obama’s economic plan; how he sees more people being dependent on social programs.  He then launches into Black people? He was talking about people, period; how did black people even get into the conversation?  I’ll tell you how.  When Republicans pander to the conservative, traditionalist base, and they’re desperate, they must identify the common enemy; this will always be Black people. But later, he added, “I condemn all forms of racism.”

My chief reason for not voting Republican lies within their dangerous domestic agenda to balance the national budget on the backs of the poor and working class. Their insistence on not raising taxes on the richest Americans while ignoring the rising tax burden on the working class is yet another reason.  But for me, as a Black American male, I strongly despise their persistent racial attitudes and belief system as a reason not to even consider voting Republican.

I went in search of definitive findings that demonstrate which race benefits the greatest from welfare programs (there’s no doubt which race needs them more).  Being that race is the most sensitive political issue that can ever come up, those results are virtually unattainable.  That’s part of the systemically divisive paradigm.

But I did find Martin Gilens’ book, “Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy.”  In it, he contextualizes public perception of this public policy.  In almost every program area, the majority interviewed believed that spending should be increased. The data indicated that the general support for social welfare is not limited to just programs benefiting large numbers of Americans, such as social security and education but also for more targeted populations, such as the poor.  According to those surveyed, 71% believe that spending should be increased to fight poverty.

The results seemed to indicate that Americans do support social welfare programs, but when asked about whether welfare spending or support for people on welfare should be increased, Americans indicated they were strongly opposed to these general programs. 63% believe welfare spending should be decreased and 71% indicate spending for people on welfare should be decreased. These two results are essentially contradictory – Americans support helping the poor but don’t support welfare, the primary program designed to help the poor.

The question Gilens poses is how do we account for these perceptions of welfare recipients as undeserving and the racial attitudes, in particular, the attitude of Blacks as lazy. To understand how the poor have been portrayed in the media, Gilens traces the media representation of the poor over the past forty-five years in Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report as well as television news coverage for three historical periods, 1968, 1982-83 and 1988-1992.

From 1950 through 1964, the poor people portrayed were predominantly white, but from 1967 through 1992, blacks averaged 57 percent of the poor portrayed, almost double the proportion of blacks among the poor in the U.S. In addition to an increase in the portrayal of blacks in pictures of poverty, during the period of 1972-1973, when there was general widespread public opinion of problems with welfare, Blacks were represented in 70 percent of the stories indexed under poverty and in 75 percent of the stories indexed under welfare.

It’s widely held that roughly the same percentage of the Black and white populations receive welfare assistance, respectively…about 39%.  But since Blacks are only 12.2% of the U.S. population and whites make up 63%; of their respective numbers, Blacks receive more welfare benefits.  What’s always left out of the conservative’s attacks on black recipients is how the system has iced Blacks out of the job market, thus promoting wealth disparity and a imbalance in the unemployment rate; how the dismantling of unions strips Black workers of job protection; how the criminal justice system instantly disenfranchises a significant portion of Blacks or how under-funding for education promotes lower earning potential for America’s Black population. 

This misrepresentation in the media contributes significantly to Americans’ opposition to welfare. Republican candidates running for president take advantage of this disingenuous representation of the poor. The deserving poor—the elderly and the working poor—are typically portrayed as poor white individuals, whereas poor blacks have appeared mostly in stories about welfare abuse or the underclass. The stereotype of blacks as lazy is an image that has prevailed throughout American history, and as stated earlier, this perception was found to be a strong determinant to non-black’s opposition to welfare.

What I know is, after the primary, when the Republicans choose their nominee, that nominee will then revert to a reality in his rhetoric that seeks to court the Black vote.  Later on, they will act as if none of this misrepresentation was ever spoken.  I hope you’ll play the video—not only in your mind, but in your community groups, meeting halls and special events—to remind all who will be affected of the true intentions of the persons clamoring for the job of chief executive…and the one charged with looking out for your interest.

When A Wolf Is Not Wolf

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

January 3, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

The New Year is the time when people conscientiously decide to “turn over a new leaf” and do things differently.  Some excise old vices; others add new virtues.  But what happens when former ideals re-surface in the midst of professed change?  Or, even more, when past beliefs appear at inconvenient times of new progress.  Well, Texas Republican candidate Ron Paul is stuck with a dilemma on the eve of the Iowa Caucuses.

Ron Paul is in a virtual tie with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president. Paul spent much of the race pulling up the rear.  Paul’s rise in the polls has brought with it increased scrutiny over a series of racist newsletters that went out under his name in the 80’s and 90’s.  It’s not unusual that dirt comes out when you’re on your way to the top.  For all practical intents and purposes, it should.

The newsletters claimed that “[o]rder was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” that nearly all Black men in Washington DC “are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and that AIDS sufferers “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,” among other controversial claims. 

Each of the statements—whether cherry-picked or not—are specifically meant to demean and were targeted toward Blacks.  These are the same types of code-word statements used today by the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O’Riellys, Neal Boortzes and Glenn Becks of the conservative punditry.  These code words become the lexicon for whites who never have personal encounters or relationships with Black Americans; and for whites who will be voting in November.

Ron Paul’s campaign says he didn’t write an advertising letter mailed under Paul’s name 20 years ago that predicted a “coming race war in our big cities” and referenced a “federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS.”  Paul reiterated his claim that he did not know who wrote the newsletters, saying “everybody knows I didn’t write them, and it’s not my sentiment.” Funny how he never disavowed them upon their publication?  He suggested that the resurfacing of the issue reflects “politics as usual.”  What’s ironic is that these statements are direct reflections of what “smaller government” fiscal conservatives surreptitiously place before the American public as to why the nation is in debt.  Paul happens to be one of those conservatives.

Paul claims he didn’t write those newsletters, but of course, his name was on every one of them.  If he didn’t write them and the newsletters emitted some positive, world-changing rhetoric, do you think he’d then claim them?  He wouldn’t hesitate to take responsibility for any uplifting, uniting publication.  For that reason, we should be acutely suspicious of these writings, their origin and their distribution.

He ain’t new to this rodeo. This is Paul’s fourth run for president.  He ran the first time as a Libertarian.  The Libertarians still embrace him as one of theirs.  His policies are good for white America—and are a death knell for Blacks who suffer from America’s systemic injustices in all areas, including the federal departments concerned with education, environment and housing.  He wants to eliminate oversight and regulation of the bandits who fleece the working class: banking, housing, retail corporations and workplace safety.  He wants to de-fund government-sponsored opportunities for our children to attend college. 

His opponent in the Republican race, Michelle Bachmann, says that Paul’s policies make him “dangerous” as a candidate (she better hope he doesn’t win the nomination).  But she finds him “dangerous” for an entirely unrelated reason.  She’s coming in dead last in the polls and has to use some inflammatory rhetoric to bring him down.

Sure, Paul’s policy positions are consistent.  Many know his drug legalization policies make sense.  Sure, his anti-interventionist foreign policies are wise and frugal, but when it comes to the real lives of the one-quarter minority population, Paul’s belief system is adverse and harmful to representing our interests. 

In the final analysis, we only wish that we could cherry-pick our candidates, taking the good parts and discarding the trash.  Unfortunately, every candidate must be taken in whole.  If the preponderance of his/her positions work against our best interests, we must discard the entire candidate.  Only their best ideas can be incorporated into the better candidate in the race.

Paul’s policy positions made him a wolf in the 80’s and 90’s; he’s trying to put on the sheep’s clothing today.  We’ve seen in this Republican race, most of the candidates have been exposed for what they truly are.  Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and now, Ron Paul.  Don’t be fooled.  What I know, is that in politics, it is rare that a wolf is not a wolf.

Future Course Correction

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

December 27, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

It would be conceivable that civilized societies have the capacity to change the course of history.  The United States boasts an exceptionalism that other nations dare to claim.  So why is it that the U.S. can identify problem after problem, but fails miserably at fixing them?  Is it because democracy is so “messy”; or is it because to exercise the will to fix the problems would cause some to lose the privilege, status and position they so blissfully enjoy?

 

The American future leaves prognosticators in quandaries.  There is virtually no one who can forecast with any degree of confidence what this country’s stability will look like.  You see, America has taken “the people” out of the equation; and we all know that any nation is only as powerful as it people.  The United States has given all deference over to corporations—small cabals of privileged people who run powerful industry-driven companies with voiceless subjects.  The subjects—these employees—serve these corporate entities loyally, only because they must pay their mortgage, feed their families and know that if they don’t, there aren’t many other options out there.

 

The socio-political analysts are powerless to accurately forecast the fiscal stability of a nation that chastises foreign sovereigns for their financial shakiness, when it stands on shaky ground itself.  The U.S. owes China over $1.2 trillion; it’s corporate tax revenues look at America from off foreign shores and it’s dwindling manufacturing base is headquartered in lands that span oceans.  The question of the hour is: when will America make a course correction?

 

When will we come to the reality that raw goods, does a manufacturing base make.  No matter how far into the future we go, tangible products are still sellable products; if you make them, they will come.  The tech sector is great for America, but as we’ve seen, the tech sector leaves us short on jobs, thus an unstable economy.  One doesn’t have to be an economist to see that what we’ve been doing—conservative, capitalist style, free-market economic drivers—aren’t working.  Our unemployment is the highest it’s been in decades and jobs are not coming back to these shores.

 

With these dynamics, how is America supposed to get back to enjoying the super-power status it held for over a century?  Maybe, that shouldn’t be the objective; maybe, just maybe, America should seek to be a partner…not just with other nations, but with its own people.  Maybe we should be caring more about the homeless, the hungry and the jobless people right here in America.  Maybe we should be concerned about squashing debt, educating people, providing affordable healthcare, making savings possible and cease fomenting foreign wars.  If we do that, then not only will we have a strong economy, but we will be a super-power again.  But that won’t happen anytime in the future until we commit to make a course correction.

Words Matter for Our Progress

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

December 13, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

So the story goes: “we’ve made great strides in American race relations.  We’re in a post-racial society.”  I, of course, don’t go for that one.  As a matter of fact, I believe we’re rapidly digressing from the progress we had achieved through the blood and sacrifice of our enslaved forbearers and civil rights warriors.  One recent example among many is sufficient to make this point.

A Buffalo girls basketball team was suspended after the players allegedly used a racial slur as part of their pregame cheer last week.  You already know what the slur was…

Tyra Batts, the sole Black-American on the Kenmore East High School’s squad, told the Buffalo News that her teammates would hold hands before the game, say a prayer and then shout “One, two, three (nigger!).”  Now, I have to ask you why anyone—Black or white—would do that, but you know what it is.  It’s really simple: White people do it because they can!

The behavior came to light when Ms. Batts was suspended for getting into a fight about the use of racial slurs during practice, according to the newspaper.  Now, I know me; I would’ve been in fistfights over this too—even at my age.  I was kicked out of the military in the early 1980’s for that same thing.  It retarded the trajectory of the rest of my life.  As I aged, I realized, I could’ve done some things differently.  Though, at the time, I went through the prescribed channels to address racial threats and discrimination.  Unfortunately in my case, the system was ill-responsive; even blaming the victim.  After I saw that the “authorities” would do nothing to intervene, I took direct action…and busted some heads!

Ms. Batts said that she was alarmed by the cheer, but had been outnumbered and told that the use of the slur was just a team tradition. “I said, ‘You’re not allowed to say that word because I don’t like that word,’” she told the newspaper. “They said, ‘You know we’re not racist, Tyra. It’s just a word, not a label.’ I was outnumbered.”  This scenario is not a surprising one.  You see, whites echo the very excuses we, as Black Americans, make when this vile language comes out: it’s just a word.

The N-Word has never gone away.  It was used during the country’s infancy as a demeaning and degradation tool toward the enslaved imported Africans.  Don’t be fooled, words have power.  “I love you” has spawned many a baby.  “The sentence of death” quote has killed many a men.  Words have power.  Even Christians believe that God spoke this world into existence.  Now that’s power!

This incident is more than unfortunate…it is indicative of what we—Black Americans—allow.  We haven’t excused it from the English language.  Until we make it unacceptable, white America won’t find it unacceptable.  I watched my first Paul Mooney performance the other night, and the comedian’s liberality with the word does us no favors and great harm.  He’s a one comedian I’d never heard of before a Bush-era video was brought to my attention.  He is a socio-political conscious individual, and liberally uses the word “nigger” in all references.

He has the right to say what he so chooses, but the irreparable harm cannot be calculated. Though we relish freedom of speech in America, all speech doesn’t need to be free.  Though some feel that language is of no consequence, all dynamics of race (voting, health care, criminal justice, etc.) are relevant, important and significant, and thus need to be on the table.

Incidentally, the 15-year-old eventually exploded after a practice when a teammate called her a ‘black piece of (expletive).’ She says she got into a fight with the girl later in school.  I know what the child was feeling, especially when you’re supposed to be part of the “team.”  I was 18-years old and under the belief that in the army, we were all green.  How wrong I was.

“It was a buildup of anger and frustration at being singled out of the whole team,” Ms. Batts told the newspaper.  Her suspension was shortened after the principal learned of the racial allegations. At least a dozen girls were suspended.  Incidentally, Ms. Batts initially received a longer suspension than any of the white girls.  How ironic, right?

Some of the team’s former players who took to Twitter seemed to have little knowledge of any “tradition” the team had of racial chants.  Collusion and cohesion was the same tactic used when I filed my complaint of racism while I was stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  I was the sole Canon Fire Direction Specialist in my unit.  They knew it.  They, my tormentors and those up the chain of command, worked in concert to diminish my claims.  Of course, the focus turned to my “attitude.”

“You (racist) b—-,” a 2010 graduate tweeted. “Glad I’m out of there.”  Another one added, “Haha oh yeah that Ken East crap that’s going on. I want no part in that.”  Honestly, who does?  When it’s all over said and done, children or adults, racism in America is alive and well.  Our children are victims—Black and white.  The perpetuation of this poison has retarded any progress that this country has seen.  And with the Republicans dominated by the conservative right-wing, there’s nothing post-racial on the agenda for 2012.

Making Policy On the Fly

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

December 6, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

You wanna talk about improbable?  I was going back over my commentary from May of this year.  I am not going to eat my words, but they are a bit haunting right about now.  Do you remember what I said about a certain Republican presidential candidate?  Let me refresh your memory:

Remember when the latest polling said that, “if the election were held today, President Obama would lose to at least two of the Republican hopefuls.”  Well, you’re not hearing that now; not this month.  That’s because Republicans made the unwitting choice of grooming nitwits for a no-nonsense job.  It’s hard to get elected to the most visible job in the free world when you’re wearing dirty laundry.

Well, when I said this in May, I also followed up by naming names.  I said, “The likelihood of Newt Gingrich winning the presidency—much less, the Republican nomination—is as likely as an ice cube’s walk through hell…it ain’t happenin!  But he’s poised to make a run in 2012 anyway.”  I haven’t changed my prediction.  Though he’s leading in the polls, Gingrich is still Newt…and Newt is still Gingrich.

What I’ve watched him do during this run is something that conservatives live for: a personality who’s willing to risk it all by throwing the most offensive, improbable and even insane policies against the wall to see what sticks.

After saying recently that child labor laws are “truly stupid,” Gingrich last week told an Iowa audience that children in poor neighborhoods have “no habits of working” nor getting paid for their endeavors “unless it’s illegal.” Of course many people—especially poor people—took exception to Gingrich’s perception of a huge constituency of Americans.  This is a public stereotype assault that is usually spoken only inside the safe confines of conservative talk radio.

Gingrich went on to clarify himself: “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” the former House speaker said at a campaign event at the Nationwide Insurance offices. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

Many of us trying to make sense of Gingrich’s purpose realized immediately that he has never been poor nor lived in a poor neighborhood.  Though he may conduct himself as “poor, white trash,” he’s anything but.  Newt’s net worth is obscene—in respect to the people he’s seeking to serve.

More to the point, this a calculated method of policy-making.  Conservatives literally throw out an insane proposition and wait for either public praise or public outcry and then throw it out or run with it.  You may say, that’s the way policy is done!  You may be correct in some instances, but I argue, this is not responsible policy-making procedure.  What is responsible is listening to the needs of the people you shall serve.  Why is that so hard to understand?  That’s why Occupy Wall Street is alive and well today.

What’s so scary is that Gingrich is serious!  Doesn’t he know that our country has outgrown that stage of it’s primitive past?  That we enacted child labor laws because of the barbaric, irresponsible and exploitative nature of it’s premise?  In 1916, the NCLC and the National Consumers League successfully pressured the US Congress to pass the Keating-Owen Act, the first federal child labor law. The Supreme Court struck it down in 1918. It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children. In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.

In reality, why would a candidate running for president even suggest children working when our country has an unemployment rate over 8%–for adults!  In a country where our children are effectively under-achieving in their education as compared with the rest of the world?  He’s running as a candidate that wants to de-fund the department of education and under-employ children?  Then, keep adults out of work?

I imagine Gingrich would also support gold production in artisanal mines using child labor and unsafe refining processes…not in Africa, but here in the good ol’USA?  Thank goodness such mines aren’t a booming US industry; though coal is still around! Newt Gingrich will be remembered as one of the most hated and insensitive politicians in my lifetime. Despite his adeptness as a tactician (having led the Republican Revolution of 1994), Gingrich will come into office and ruin the lives of millions. Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who benefited from Gingrich’s skill, recently stated that he “just found his [Gingrich] leadership lacking.”

He’ll legislate as a social and ethics leader, but the truth will unmask the hypocrite (3 marriages, two ending in affairs; an affair while crusading for Clinton’s resignation under the Monica Lewinsky cloud; a paid lobbyist for Fannie Mae). Eventually, he’ll be run out of office as he was in 1999 when he was sanctioned, fined, and eventually resigned.  Let us not forget…

I implore you to learn and then do not forget Gingrich’s history.  Social policy is a serious and thoughtful element of American reality.  Never trust a politician that, like Herman Cain tried to make policy with the 9-9-9 tax plan modeled on the SIM City video game, …Gingrich will create policy on the fly and pass off hair-brain ideas as urban policy and expect you to live by it. Don’t be fooled.

Occupy

Occupy is the new song from Perry Redd and Reddland recordings from the upcoming “Strange Revolution” CD…The movement to “Occupy Wall Street” (in 1,574 cities as of today) has been crticized, maligned, demeaned and demonized by the status quo…but it contiues–to gain momemtum and credibility–as the rats that brought America’s economic system to a place of irrevocable redemption. Government-sanctioned wars, corporate greed and legislative irresponsibility has caused harm and hardship on poor and working-class Americans–black, white and otherwise–that aren’t felt by the top income brackets of this country. We “occupy” to voice disdain and disapproval of this unjust system, demolish the current injustices and make way for a re-structure of the corrupted socio-economic American system.

It’s Racism, By God

November 29, 2011

By Perry Redd

 You know, I’ve been thinking about a story that cropped up in the news over the weekend and it’s been in my craw today. Yes, it’s about race and politics-the two things that can wake me from a dead sleep. I read that Israel is recruiting American Blacks to champion their cause of Zionism. I’m not so bent that Israel would do that, but that Blacks would allow themselves to be exploited by Israelis.

For those of you who are Christians and are reading this, you’re probably already appalled that I could say such a thing; then there are those who know me and wonder why I haven’t gone off the chain? Actually, I’m off the chain, but civilly off the chain.

There was a recent meeting in Brooklyn billed as “A Gathering of Solidarity with the State of Israel,” sponsored by Christians United for Israel, the biggest Christian Zionist group in the country. That is their American-born right to assemble on any issue imaginable. My issue is that Black Americans would entertain Zionists plea for their support after the atrocious history that Euro-Zionists have compiled over the past century and a half.

In the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land called Palestine. Self-proclaimed as Zionists, they represented an extremist minority of the Jewish population. Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine.

 At first, this immigration wasn’t problematic. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine-many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state-the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. Hitler’s rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew to what we know today.

 In 1947 the United Nations, led by the United States, decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land. This is the seed of occupation.

 With the 2012 elections on the horizon, President Barack Obama is positioning himself as an unwavering friend of Israel-to the peril of people of color in the region and around the world. In May, Obama spoke to AIPAC, giving an explicit, emphatic ‘no’ to the ’67 lines and Hamas, while expressing boundless support for the State of Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state whose security is ensured-though Israel does everything antithetical to America’s principles.

As this article is published, the Palestinian bid for statehood hangs in the balance. It shouldn’t. The Palestinian people have had their lands occupied, their humanity diminished and their people bombed from the air by the state we know as Israel. Their democratically-held elections have been nullified by the western world. To ask support of Black Americans in light of a racially-driven occupation is at least, insulting.

Pastor Michael Stevens, the African-American outreach coordinator for Christians United for Israel, is on a mission to build a bridge between the nation’s black and Jewish communities based on support for Israel, partly by pointing out what he calls parallels between the two groups. Stevens isn’t alone in promoting the alliance. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has begun building relationships with rising leaders at historically black campuses like Spelman and Morehouse College, both in Atlanta.

 The outreach comes at a time when Israel has become increasingly isolated on the international stage and is looking for new allies. What’s often missed is that Israel has caused its own alienation. Israel has refused to cease building settlements on Palestinian lands despite repeated US requests to do so-although half-hearted requests at best. It has also continued to block shipments of human aid to Gaza, as well as threaten the flotillas delivering that aid as they sailed international waters. 

This outreach to Blacks reminds me of the 1960s Life cereal commercials with its familiar tagline: “Let’s give it to Mikey; he’ll eat anything.” When you’re running out of allies, then run to the Black community…they go for anything. Pastor Stevens’ is willingly doing the subtle but desperate bidding of Israel whose “friends” list is dwindling. Funny how Israel never enlisted Blacks as friends before now? Just examine its historically dismal track record at building bridges and you’ll understand why. I hope that Brooklyn church listened intently, listened politely to Pastor Stevens, and then resoundingly responded “If you believe that [that we believe you, Pastor Stevens], I’ve got a [Brooklyn] bridge to sell you.”

 Black leaders like Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson have been sharply critical of Israel, decrying its treatment of Palestinians. Despite that fact, American Evangelical Christian groups have been zealous in carving out a segment of the Black community to rival the more defiant leaders. This is a “divide & conquer” strategy that I am here to warn of.

Many Blacks see themselves as kindred to the Israelis. I have found amusing Black Americans who cling to the notion that Israel is their ancestral home. This is the picture of successful brainwashing, and not some newfound phenomena. This is a conditioning that took place over hundreds of years, implanted via slavery. Blacks who embrace modern-day Israel (Zion) as their kin mistakenly confuse Zionists for Old Testament Israelites.

Same land-Palestine. Different people–Europeans, different time-Zionists, 2011. Increased alienation on the world stage calls for innovative tactics for winning. Israel will staunchly defend its right to invade, occupy, and ultimately erase every trace of Palestinian sovereignty from Palestine. To achieve its goal, Israel is seeking new allies. One’s imagination needn’t be too vivid to capitalize on the sympathy of Black Americans toward Israel for its desire to return to its “original” homeland of Palestine; and, I already mentioned the Old Testament Bible-based notion of a Black American-Israel kinship-even if the notion is erroneous.

They say it’s God’s will. The Israeli occupation of Palestine is led by white-skinned Jews; the darker-skinned Palestinians are the subject. This is the epitome of racism, by God.

The New Kent State

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

November 22, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

You might find this extreme. You may strongly disagree with this statement, but you’ll eventually agree that suppression of free speech is a common theme in the police reactions to Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests nationwide and those protests that take place in solidarity with OWS protests.

The University of California at Davis (UC Davis) has placed two police officers on administrative leave after video of them pepper-spraying non-violent protesters at point-blank range sparked outrage across the nation at UC Davis school officials. Why would someone approve of violent tactics against Americans…and our young people—our future—at that?

Last week’s incident has led to calls for the resignation of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, who announced the action in a written statement Sunday. Katehi said she shares the “outrage” of students and was “deeply saddened” by the use of the chemical irritant by campus police. That statement is politically correct, but does nothing to prevent the militarization of our “servers and protectors.”

I have said since early this year that I had doubts about the veracity and authenticity of the so-called “Arab Spring.” I’m not speaking of the sincerity of the participants, but in the origins of the move(ment). Tahrir Square—once a center of euphoria following the ouster of longtime President Hosni Mubarak in February—continues to be a major flashpoint for the unrest.

The number of people wounded in three days of clashes in Egypt has reached 1,700, a health ministry spokesman said Monday. My point here is today, it’s pepper spray; tomorrow, it will be bullets. When is it our time to put a stop to the over-policing we are witnessing? We have elected people into positions who appoint people into positions to protect their positions. By our complacency, we have allowed those elected persons to transgress our Constitutionally protected rights to free speech—the very thing we spent precious American dollars, resources and lives to help Arab nations gain. Free speech has been a subjective casualty in this country.

The Black and white of these assaults cannot go unmentioned. America has sicced its police forces on Blacks during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. It took a while for America to become outraged, but when our country attacked white students from middle class families, it was time for immediate redress. Some of us remember America’s assault on peaceful demonstrations against the Ohio National Guard’s shooting on May 4, 1970 of unarmed college students protesting the American invasion of Cambodia. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis—all to quell peaceful protests. Sound familiar?

You might recall the Supreme Court in March of this year that ruled a grieving father’s pain over mocking protests at his Marine son’s funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech. All but one justice sided with a fundamentalist church that has stirred outrage with raucous demonstrations contending God is punishing the military for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. Strangely enough, police did not pepper spray the Westboro protestors—and they were hateful in their mannerisms and message!

The 8-1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, was then the latest in a line of court rulings that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” Can we see that Occupy protests qualify as “hurtful speech” to banks, governments and corporations? To attack the UC Davis students for their silent, the epitome of peace protests is an affront to all of us! It is indeed politically motivated with conservative interests and corporations directing law enforcement to do their bidding.

And furthermore regarding Egypt, 20 people have died, including at least 10 on Sunday in confrontations between protesters and security forces in Cairo. Doctors at Cairo’s Tahrir Square said injuries include gunshot wounds, excessive tear gas inhalations (made in Jamestown, Pennsylvania) and beatings to the head. This is on the horizon for the United States, if OWS protests don’t subside and the protestors don’t submit to police orders.

I call on the protests to not only continue, but accelerate.

Opponents of the Occupy movement ask the benign question, “What do they want?” They know what the protestors want: justice, equality and jobs. They want an end to the economic corruption that sparked the collapse of the American economy. They want to balance the economic disparities that have decimated the middle class. They—we—want those who were elected to oversee our interests to do what they were elected to do! Egypt’s parliamentary elections are set to take place November 28th, but demonstrators are upset about a proposed constitutional principle that would shield the military’s budget from scrutiny by civilian powers. They worry that the military would be shaped as a state within a state. We know that too much unchecked power is a dangerous thing—in the hands of people with guns. That’s why America doesn’t trust the Tea Party…but back to Egypt.

The military in Egypt said it wants to transfer power to a civilian parliament and president, but many citizens are dissatisfied with the pace of the transition and the resolve of the military rulers. You see, they’re talking about transfer taking place late next year! That’s the farce of the Arab Spring. The fight must continue to make it genuine.

The “American Autumn” (Occupy movement) must be encouraged by the Mahatma Ghandi quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Initially, OWS couldn’t get press coverage at first; now the mainstream news reports on the growth of these protests daily. Then, Fox News spent valuable airtime (and still does) ridiculing the protests. Since it’s leaderless, Fox News can’t target the leader. We are entering the third leg of this battle for justice, equality and jobs. The images of the UC Davis police officer pepper spraying those silent, peaceful student protesters will go into textbooks and cyber curriculums across the nation. OWS is in its infancy; it is change in America—change we must believe in. And to think that Canada spawned this change ought to make us in America re-think our priorities.

One thing we know is that free speech isn’t free. Our country is paying a high price, but as my mother used to tell me, “Nothing worthwhile is easy.” The dogged efforts of legislators to over-fund law enforcement agencies is an assault on our right to speak openly, honestly and freely about the theft of the American Dream. Beware of maintaining the status quo in elected leadership; because if we do nothing about that, then we’ll re-live Kent State.

Last week global justice activist Arundhati Roy with a peoples amplification system (a grassroots human microphone) said in a speech delivered at OWS New York City, and I’ll paraphrase, ‘the poorest of people are stopping the richest corporations in their tracks…few of us dreamed that we’d see you—the people of the United States—on our side, trying to do this in the heart of empire.’ We cannot allow a new Kent State.