Dealing From the Bottom of the Deck

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

November 8, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

Wouldn’t you know it? They’ve moved the goalposts—changed the rules in the middle of the game.  Leading conservatives are now doing the thing they’ve accused and castigated the Left of doing for years: playing the race card.  Now that they’ve seemed to line up behind a Black man (sounds hilarious, doesn’t it?), they’ve flipped the deck and are dealing the card you never thought they would: the race card.

Members of the media had been warned ahead of time not to ask Cain about the sex harassment story, which had dominated the week’s political news. How are you going to warn someone in the public not to do something?  Does Cain think he’s God?  A sheet of instructions had directed them to “focus and report on reality, not gossip.”  That’s insane!  Factual sexual harassment settlements are anything but gossip…they’re fact!  The reality is that Cain did something unprofessional enough to cause women to lodge formal complaints against him. It is a fact that these women signed confidentiality agreements, with one receiving severance — a year’s salary of $35,000 — in a settlement, and the other reportedly getting a $45,000 payout. Get real, Man!

Cain is running scared—and should be.  He’s losing his fairytale lead in the polls.  He went off the chain at reporters this weekend after a policy debate with Newt Gingrich.  One of the reporters began with, “Mr. Cain, the attorney for one of the women who filed a sexual harassment complaint …” He didn’t even get the full question out before Cain snapped: “Don’t even go there!”

“No gossip!”   That was the chiding interjected by Gena Cook of the Texas Patriots PAC, the event’s organizer.  As the reporter persisted, Cain ordered his chief of staff, Mark Block, to send him a copy of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. “Seek truth and report it,” is the code’s first tenet.  He’s got some nerve!  The truth is, Cain refuses to reveal the facts of the settlement.  Reporters are seeking it.  That’s what happens when you run for the presidency; just ask John Edwards!

But that’s not the topper though.  Leading conservative pundits are using an unorthodox defense of Cain: his race.  Funny how white conservatives always decry the claims of racism when it comes from the very people being discriminated against?  They all but dismiss the notion that racism could even exist in America today.  Now that the ship of their new “white hope” has taken on water, they have found an anchor in race.

But now that his campaign is floundering due to the emergence of the sexual harassment allegations made in the 1990s when he ran the National Restaurant Association, Cain is spinning the idea that his race may be to blame for the controversy.  How convenient.  Specifically, he has tried to mesh his situation with that of Clarence Thomas, who when accused of past sexual harassment in his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, attacked opponents for what he called a “high-tech lynching.”

Cain interviewed last Thursday with Justice Thomas’ wife, Virginia, a conservative activist, and later pleaded his case to Fox News host Sean Hannity.  Liberals, he said, “are trying to attack me to intimidate other Black conservatives to not go public or to not think about looking at other ideas on the other side of the spectrum.”  What does he think will happen when you run from the truth?  Don’t sexually harass women. Then, you’ll have nothing to worry about!

Leading conservative defenders — notably Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh — revived the “high-tech lynching” metaphor.  What?  Americans for Herman Cain, an independent super PAC, used the phrase in a fundraising appeal that went out Tuesday in which it blamed “the left-wing media” for Cain’s woes. Coulter even floated the idea that Cain is a “good Black.”

Rush Limbaugh said: “Look at how quickly what is known as the mainstream media goes for the ugliest racial stereotypes they can to attack a Black conservative.”  You’ve got to remember that Cain was the candidate — who regarded himself as a colorblind American success story.  So how is he going to holler racism?  How can Limbaugh, the man who coined the “Obameo” phrase to disparage the President, expect to make a credible claim of racism?  Get real…

So over the past week, the Heritage Foundation gang has started their “save Cain” campaign.  Asked by Fox News’ Charles Krauthammer, “Do you think that race, being a strong Black conservative, has anything to do with the fact you’ve been so charged? And if so, do you have any evidence to support that?”  Cain answered:“  I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it.” What the hell is he talking about?  Cain hasn’t been charged with anything!  This is what spin looks like.

Cain added, “Relative to the left, I believe race is a bigger driving factor.”   If you don’t have any evidence to support it, then why would you even bring it up?  The courts have never allowed any Black person to win any argument without evidence…oh, but Cain is colorblind—and he ain’t in court!

It’s so convenient to play the race card, but we’re not going to let him.  He didn’t believe it existed before his skeleton fell out of the closet, so, don’t even try it now.  Sexually harassing women has nothing to do with being Black.  Cain has chosen to be a member of the political party that is male-dominated, patriarchal and exclusive.  It is more than conceivable that he could have been dense enough and disconnected enough to believe that he had done nothing wrong (as he has said).  That doesn’t mean you didn’t, and if you believe that—and people defend you—then you’ll very likely do it again.  You can’t do the people’s business and deal from the bottom of the deck.

Just A Bump In the Road

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

October 25, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

This should end the war in Libya.  A war reported as “civil” for it was between the rebels opposing the infamous, longtime leader of Libya, now-deceased Moammar Gadhafi.  Gadhafi was brutally killed last week by those pursuing him on behalf of the U.S.-sanctioned National Transitional Council (NTC), the new interim government of Libya.  America’s involvement—however shady—should end our combat operations in the region, right?  I mean, President Obama announced the troops in Iraq will be home for Christmas and all we have left is Afghanistan…yet like a late-night TV infomercial, “but wait, there’s more!”

Even though the American people are tiring of Middle Eastern wars, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that military action to protect civilians in Syria might be considered now that NATO’s air campaign in Libya is ending.  Success is addicting…

McCain spoke at the World Economic Forum in Jordan, saying “Now that military operations in Libya are ending, there will be renewed focus on what practical military operations might be considered to protect civilian lives in Syria,”. That was the story sold to us by our government in Libya: protecting civilian lives.  If that was the case then why, days after Gadhafi was captured and executed (by the peace-loving rebels), were 53 Gadhafi loyalists found dead in a hotel just after Gadhafi’s corpse was put on public display?

What I know is the thought of teaching American ideals to those we want as allies is a scary proposition.  You see, we claim to bring democracy to regions where we make cameo appearances, and for whatever reason, we fail to bring democracy.  Hell, we wanted immunity in exchange for staying on in Iraq.  Isn’t due process a part of democracy?  If you do something illicit—say, kill someone—aren’t we supposed to own up to it?  Accept responsibility?  Gadhafi was sodomized and tortured when captured by the U.S.-sanctioned rebels. We’re teaching everything other than democratic values.

“The Assad regime should not consider that it can get away with mass murder. Gadhafi made that mistake and it cost him everything,” McCain also said.  Didn’t we provide the resources to NATO so that they could bomb Libya?  Isn’t killing large numbers of people the definition of “mass murder?”  This is his precursor to knocking down another domino in the Middle Eastern theater.

It appears that the United States is indeed on a mission.  A mission to imperialize (and I don’t use that term often) the entire Middle East on behalf of Israel.  Each “enemy” happens to be a nation with a majority Islamic population.  It’s really hard for any reasonably breathing person to not think it’s about religion, but of course, its not.  It’s purportedly all about democracy, peace and a better way of life (i.e., capitalism).

Speaking of capitalism, isn’t it strange that the only countries America devotes resources to topple are countries with something to give (or be taken) in return?  We went to get Sadaam; he had oil and Gadhafi?  Well, he had oil and he also had 143.8 tons of gold…the real reason for the invasion.  Wherever there are resources, there the United States will be.  Can’t you see that you are facilitating evil, murder and greed?  Not to mention a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya: Punishment for Gadhafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, where Gadhafi did like deposed Iraq leader Sadaam Hussein tried to do: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gadhafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

General Wesley Clark, who commanded the NATO bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recounted in Winning Modern Wars, his 2003 book, being told in November 2001, by a friend at the Pentagon that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz’s take down list included Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Sudan and Somalia.

Though I’m an Arab Spring conspiracy theorist, let’s look at those countries for the sake of argument.  There’s Tunisia (which just had elections yesterday), Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco and Oman…strategic stones in the pond of conquest.  Syria is a geographical and political  keystone in the heart of the Middle East, bordering five countries with which it shares religious and ethnic minorities and, in Israel’s case, a fragile truce. Its web of alliances extends to Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah movement and Iran’s Shiite theocracy. There are worries that a destabilized Syria could send unsettling ripples through the region.

McCain has also threatened Iran.  Will it be so easy to tip that domino?  The elite Revolutionary Guard, Iran’s most powerful military force, has warned that there would be a strong Iranian response if the U.S. military were to take action against them.  The only way to get that domino is to put feet on the ground…like more in Africa.  President Obama announced Friday he is sending roughly 100 “combat-equipped” troops to Uganda as part of an effort to capture rebel leader Joseph Kony.  Kony sits on mineral resources by the way.

Kony is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes charges because of his role as the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel group that has waged a 20-year war against government forces in northern Uganda.

I have to ask, when is enough, enough?  Iran is the end game, but next on tap, Syria.  Stay tuned because, though you may not have asked for it, you get more for your money.  This infomercial will run all night long if you let it.  Libya was just a bump in the road.

De-Mythicizing Occupation

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

October 11, 2011

By Perry Redd

Enough of the lies—by both the American mainstream media and the conservative Republican Right!  There is nothing right in their attempts to equate the current groundswell of the Occupy Wall Street movement with the Tea Party movement of the past three years.  I will clarify for you the obvious similarities and the glaring differences between the two and the objectives behind those making these assertions.

The Tea Party is a conservative/libertarian movement which came to national attention in 2009 and spawned protests and supported specific candidates beginning in 2009.  They purported to be angry over government actions.  That’s where the similarities to the Occupy Wall Street protests end.  The Tea Part’s anger was focused on reducing government spending, opposing taxation, reduction of the federal deficit and the national debt and a stricter, originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

In contrast, the Occupy Wall Street movement doesn’t advocate for any political candidate (they’re all crap), but that the elected politicians are responsible and accountable for the vast disparities of wealth, the debt of the people (not the nation) and the bleak unemployment reality.  Occupy Wall Street protestors are calling attention to the years of neglect of the will of the people; but more importantly, the plight of the 99% (which would include most Tea Partiers) in relation to the Wall Streeters who caused the financial meltdown.

Now, what many in the press and the conservative blogs are seeking is an agenda…a road map of the Occupy Wall Streeters.  Guess what?  There is none; there is no laid out agenda for them to scrutinize and then marginalize.  Doing the right thing doesn’t have to be spelled out.  To act responsibly doesn’t need a hand-holder.  That tact may cause anxiety, but our elected leaders need to be anxious—damned worried as a matter of fact.  The Occupy Wall Street protests will culminate in election politics, but there’s no election today.  Today is time for action; time for legislative change.  All of the obstruction of Republicans and paralysis of Democrats needs to stop…today!

I was at the Occupy DC protest at Freedom Plaza in the nation’s capitol; I observed the lack of diversity, though Occupy Wall Street is an intentionally diverse movement.  Participants noted that absence of people of color in DC and called for Blacks, Latinos, Native peoples, Asians and whomever else to join.  Panning across the nation, people of all hues, sexual orientations and income levels have joined the protests.  That is not, nor was not the case with the Tea Party.

It is factual that Blacks have been—and always are—hit the hardest when the unemployed are counted.  That’s yet another point of the Occupy Wall Street protests.  Inequality based on race is a societal ill that Republicans in general, never want to admit—regardless of what the numbers say.  Democrats have de-prioritized that reality.  The Occupy Wall Street movement places that issue on the front burner.

Presidential candidate Herman Cain said this past weekend that he didn’t believe racism was a major factor holding minorities back in America, asserting instead that African Americans had a level playing field on which to advance economically.  This is the insanity and utopianism that has plagued the Black community since…since the end of the Civil Rights era.

Jobs numbers released just this past Friday showed the unemployment rate among Blacks standing at 16.0%, while the total national unemployment rate remained at 9.1%. For whites, that number is 8.7%.  “I don’t believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way,” Cain said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” It’s never a “big way” if it isn’t you.  “Are there some elements of racism?” he asked.  He then diverts the race issue to the economic growth.  The point is that even when the economy was healthy, the numbers between Black and whites was highly disparate.

Those critics of Occupy Wall Street include New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  Bloomberg blasted Wall Street protesters for “trying to destroy the jobs of working people in the city.”  If anything, the Wall Streeters have created jobs!  All of the police deployed in DC, Boston, New York, Chicago and other cities—to watch non-violent protestors—is a stimulus plan!

Calling for accountability and change is nothing to be ashamed of.  Its pretty darn patriotic (as patriotism goes).  When any group does that, they will be demonized by those who enjoy the status quo. In this case, that would be the top 1%.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor used part of his address to the Values Voters Summit this weekend to attack the Occupy Wall Street protests, and he condemned political leaders
who are supporting them.

“I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country. And believe it or not, some in this town, have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans.”  In America, debate is “Americans against Americans,” duh.  Otherwise, it would be communist, right?

Occupy Wall Street is being blamed for airing America’s domestic dirty laundry. Just as Blacks who remain economically disadvantaged, or the unemployed American worker, Herman Cain said “they often only had themselves to blame.”  Is there a chance that blame could be placed at the feet of the corporate raiders who depleted investment houses?  Or could it be home loan mortgage investors and greedy bankers who knowingly manipulated the financial system intentionally jeopardizing the financial system while enjoying huge personal gains?  Couldn’t be their fault for a failed economy, huh?

Well, that’s what Occupy Wall Street is here to address.  The agenda isn’t clear only to those who wear rose-colored glasses.  It is a myth that the Tea Party and Occupy are identical.  It is also a myth that there is no agenda of the Occupy Wall Street protestors; its just that the agenda that the pundits are searching for is the agenda the power structure doesn’t want to hear.

Depiction of Contradiction

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

October 4, 2011

By Perry Redd

This past week, the news cycle has been fast and furious.  If you’ve blinked, then you’ve missed something.  Not necessarily the stories, but the truth.  The actors have said one thing, then have done another.  They’ve stood on principle—or so they’ve said—then stood on someone else’s.  Of course, I’m sick of it, but this appears to be the American Way.

I continue to wonder how people in this country continue to express their pride in a country that reverses all they say they believe in: truth, justice, fairness and honor.  Then we see episode after episode of just the opposite.  I’ll start with the Palestinian bid for statehood—autonomy—in the United Nations.  America says it stands for independent,  democratic nations, but vowed to block Palestine’s efforts at that independence.

Just this weekend on the morning talk shows, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu said, “It’s because of them. You know, I said in the U.N., I said to President Abbas, “Look, we’re in the same city, we’re in the same building, for God’s sake, the U.N. Let’s just sit down and begin to talk peace.”  That’s the snow job I’m talking about! If that was the case, then why is it that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East—as he traveled to the Middle East?  He also said Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.  Did Netanyahu lie?  I’d say so…but the U.S. still stands by Israel…the liar?

Or Amanda Knox…help me out here.  An American travels to another country, and gets caught up in a murder…and Americans become enthralled with the titillating details and back her.  With all kinds of reasonable doubt surrounding her conviction, I’d say America should support her—or any other American for that matter—but of course, it doesn’t.  Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis has all kinds of reasonable doubt in his case and the morning news misses him—until three days prior to his execution date.  He gets executed, she gets off—in another country, no less!  Guess what? She’s white, he’s black…funny how that happens.

On another contradiction, Republicans are vying for leadership of this country.  Candidates for their party’s nomination are jockeying for position.  They’re clamoring for yet another “savior” in a guy who said he doesn’t want to run, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, while
the last “great white hope” they chose, turned out to be an unstellar performer and undercover racist.  Like our last president from Texas, he would’ve been a denier of truth too.

You see, Texas Governor Rick Perry was touted by the Washington Post.  Some time in the not too distant past, when Perry took friends, fellow legislators or campaign donors to his hunting camp, they passed the word “Niggerhead” painted on a rock. As the Washington Post reported Saturday, “Niggerhead” stood for the long-ago name of the Perry family’s hunting camp.  Niggerhead, huh?  And he says he wants to represent all of the American people.  That would include me…a Black American man.  Imagine that?

Perry told the Post that the name had been blotted out with paint as soon as his father purchased the property, the rock turned over to hide the traces of it. But the newspaper found multiple sources and some photographic evidence to contradict that claim.  I’m not surprised.  It ought to have been easy to find those people, because Republicans are some of the biggest liars I’ve come across in my 30-odd years of manhood.

This may have been a tactic to further cripple Perry’s chances at the nomination and sweep Chris Christie (R) in, but if so, why would you give someone ammunition like this to shoot holes in your future ambitions?  Or maybe, it’s just who you truly are.

Sort of like the all-American Hank Williams, Jr., who every Black boy I grew up with  embraced the Monday Night Football theme that opened one of America’s great pastimes.  We thought Williams—a good ol’ boy—liked us.  Then we find that ESPN is not ready to let Hank Williams Jr. open last night’s game after his incendiary comment about President Obama on Fox News (oh, them again).

The country singer criticized the president’s recent “golf summit” with Republican House Speaker John Boehner. The singer told Fox & Friends that the meeting “would be like Hitler playing golf with [Israeli leader] Benjamin Netanyahu.”  Which one you think he’s calling Hitler?

Williams’ voice is famously used to open Monday Night Football, asking viewers “are you ready for some football?” ESPN released this statement separating itself from Williams:  “We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight’s telecast.”  Now, if that’s not uniting America…

Williams explained during the Fox News telecast that he made the comparison because the president was “the enemy.”  The enemy? Williams supports warhawk Republicans and Obama assassinates an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki against all that is right and humane, and you call him your enemy?  Obama just did your bidding Williams…

And on another note, our country wants us to support capitalism and patron American corporations.  Our country touts the First Amendment, but when we protest those corporations that do wrong to and by the American people, the private corporations are paying the public police agencies to quell protestors.  In Minneapolis, St. Paul, during the 2008 RNC convention, they negotiated a special insurance provision with the Republican host committee so that the first $10 million in liabilities for lawsuits arising from the police crackdown would be covered by the host committee. The same thing happened in Denver for the Democratic convention.

But more to the point, it becomes clearer day-by-day-by-day that America is the land of contradiction.  It says it wants to be a “shining light on the hill”, but acts like the dirtiest, darkest hole in the galaxy.  It continues to depict itself as a bastion of truth, but keeps lying to us.  Though it’s depicted as truth, justice and honor, its simply a contradiction…“the American Way.”

Not So Sleight of Hand

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

September 27, 2011

By Perry Redd

My concern for the people of Palestine goes back to my discipleship and pastoral training in the mid-90’s.  I grew to question the contemporary mainstream American Christian teaching of the history of the region currently know as Israel.  I was displeased with the imagery that showed white people as the inheritors of that land.  I especially questioned how the prophet—and to some, savior of the world—Jesus could be white.  I suspected some superiority demonry going on.  I am pleased today.

I am pleased because, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did the improbable—against admonitions and threats from the United States.  Abbas stood before cheering crowd Sunday upon his return from the U.N. General Assembly, where he had launched a controversial bid for Palestinian statehood.  Under Barack Obama, the United States vows to veto any bid for statehood for the  Palestinians—though the U.S. is a nation that values and embraces democracy and freedom (i.e., sovereignty).

With that said, my question to you is how can Americans reconcile being the “land of the free” when America is supporting the bondage of the Palestinian nation?  Bondage and freedom are not synonymous.  How is it that Israel can paint the picture being “victims” when they have occupied Palestine for decades.  They build settlements where Palestinians have resided for centuries.  What type of sleight of hand is this?

At the U.N. General Assembly, Abbas mentioned the creation of the Israeli state in 1948.  Why is it that Israelis fail to bring that fact of history up when this issue of statehood comes to the surface?  Why do we support this unequal dispensation of justice?  I think it’s chiefly because of the Evangelical Christians—who coincidentally combine church and state—err in this support for Israel. They believe that from the very beginning, Israelis and Americans have had a kinship that goes beyond politics. They both see themselves as “chosen peoples,” selected by God as different, exceptional, and separate. That exceptionalism will surely make you despised by just about anyone you encounter.  That’s the mindset of slaveholders of early America.

Jews trace this concept to the Book of Deuteronomy, in which God calls the Israelites “treasured people out of all the people on the face of the earth.” For Americans it begins with John Winthrop, an early leader of the Puritans, who declared the New World the “city upon a hill”—itself a reference to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.  I don’t recall Jesus mentioning American while he was on the Mount.  I definitely don’t recall Jesus mentioning cities on the hill oppressing cities not on the hill.  Show me that one.  Oh, the “make you a footstool” verse, huh?  Then maybe I need to re-think Christianity.

I’m Black, by birth and by choice—not that white America would give me one.  For centuries in America, Blacks have had to live with that same superiority complex from whites.  In any scenario, we all know that these imaginations are those of the group of people in power.  If you subscribe to the notion that you are a “city on the hill” or that you are “most treasured out of all people”, then that means that everyone else is of less worth, maybe even meaningless.

America’s legacy of treating me, as a Black person, in that vein, does not endear me to Israel, who treats the Palestinians in that manner.  So when you bring that conversation to the table, understand that Israel (especially with America’s backing) will not get my support.  No, it doesn’t make me un-American, but it does make me anti-racist.  For my Jewish readers, which are you?

To be for liberty and freedom, is to be against bondage and oppression; to be for justice and equality, is to be for autonomy and sovereignty—for all mankind.  To masquerade as the only ones who want peace is for Israel to be disingenuous. Though they’re the pink elephant in the room, the Palestinians in Gaza want peace too.  It’s been inhabited since as least the 15^th century, so they aren’t new to this.  It’s about time for recognition as a state.

Just this week, Newsweek has revealed the Obama administration has secretly sold Israel 55 deep-penetrating bunker buster bombs, which could be used in any future military strike against Iran—or Palestine. We say we want peace but we’re demanding that Palestine disarm, while fortifying Israel.  What part of equality is that?  The bombs were sold to Israel in 2009 just months after Obama took office. The Israelis first requested the bunker busters in 2005, only to be rebuffed by the Bush administration.  For conservatives to claim that Obama has not been a friend to Israel is disingenuous as well; but that’s another commentary.

I want to talk about the hypocrisy of this statehood debate, but that tire is out of tread; we’re pretty much aware of that.  There is a faction of Americans who’ll remain loyal no matter how wrong it is to do so.  I challenge that faction.  It’s like if you saw your parent kill your baby brother, would you tell?  Is the issue loyalty or morality?  If they got away with it once, do you think they won’t do it again…and maybe to you?

With America sure to veto a security council resolution that favors Palestine, the only means of justifying that action is by doublespeak: piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining…like a magician, I would say it’s a sleight of hand, but it’s really not.  They’re doing it in your face! America is selling freedom, while Israel is delivering occupation and telling you it’s the other guy’s fault!  This is a bad magician’s trick with not so sleight of hand.

Taking the Wrong Class

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

September 20, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

You should be as sick of it as I am…Republicans twisting an issue of national importance into an impossible proposition.  This time, it’s taxes.  After the debt ceiling was raised last month, the issue was certain to re-surface since the agreement was just an extension.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, slammed Obama’s proposed “Buffett Rule.” “If you tax something more…you get less. If you tax job creators more, you get less job creation. If you tax investment more, you get less investment,” Ryan argued.  Strangely enough, the Bush tax cuts had not created those jobs Ryan speaks of. In the decade of operating under those tax cuts, there had been zero net job creation since December. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. American household income declined and there were two recessions, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

Ryan insisted that the best plan is to lower taxes on job creators and investment. Obama’s new tax rate for millionaires “is going in the wrong direction. Let’s not forget that under the current law that the president has already passed, the top tax rate on individual and small businesses in 2013 goes to about 44.8 percent,” Ryan explained.

Ryan accused Obama of inciting “class warfare” with his proposed tax increases and added “class warfare…may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics. We don’t need a system that seeks to divide people.”  Let us not forget that the tax rate for millionaires and corporations is currently lower than that of the working class.

It appears that since he brought it up, then he—Ryan—has evoked class warfare. So, let’s examine the differences between Ryan’s Republican definition and the other side of the tracks.  Obama calls it “shared sacrifice.”  Ryan terms it “class warfare.”  Has it not been class warfare for the past 30 years?  Programs to aid the poor have been under attack.  Legislation aimed at relieving minority disparities and social ills has been under attack.  Regulations designed to protect the American consumer has been under attack, and unions have been under attack for 30 years—since the days of Ronald Reagan.

These battles to save or expand social programs and to protect Americans from unsafe products and unhealthy foods have not hurt rich people.  Only poor and working class people have been adversely affected in the aftermath of partisan battles over policy cuts.  If working class and poor people suffer from such battles, I pose the rhetorical question: Who benefits?

Ryan argued that Obama’s deficit reduction plan will impede job growth. “We need a system that creates jobs and innovation, and removes these barriers for entrepreneurs to go out and rehire people. I’m afraid these kinds of tax increases don’t work,” Ryan said.  The problem with his position is that the Republican plan hasn’t worked—in over three decades!  Employers get tax breaks for hiring, tax abatements for investment risks and a lower tax rate—and they still aren’t hiring!  Banks are hoarding surplus cash and refuse to loan to smaller businesses, so those businesses can’t hire.  How is that Obama’s fault?  The tax cuts of the last decade have not resulted in greater prosperity, more jobs, nor more innovation.

Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said that Republicans working with Democrats in the newly-created “super  committee” will be open to compromise on solutions that stabilize the economy in the coming months.  But then he said, tax increases on millionaires are “off the table,” and with a straight-face response to the “Buffet Rule,” McConnell asked “Why doesn’t Buffet just write a check?” So which is it: compromise or a “my way” stance?  Will you or won’t you?

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) applauded the worthy goals of cleaning up the tax code and reducing long-term deficits, and he gave us reason to feel positive about how to achieve them. “If we want to create a better environment for job creation,” the Speaker said, politicians of all stripes can leave the ‘my way or the highway’ philosophy behind.”  But then, his party’s echo chamber parrots that Obama’s proposed tax increases for millionaires are “off the table.”

And the American people complain that Congress is getting nothing done?  Get it right: it’s Republicans who are paralyzing Congress’ work!

Sure, I’m pretty upset with Obama for his threeyears of compromising with Republicans when they have done everything conceivable to ensure that he fails, but I have to ride with him on this.  The Republicans twist the truth and unfortunately, the very ones who the President is trying to help—the working class, Right-leaning whites—stand in opposition to him, for unjustifiable reasons.

The President has committed to veto any bill that comes to his desk that is not balanced.  Rich people in America (and corporations have insanely been determined to be “people” too)  need to make just as much a sacrifice as the working class is being ask to make.  Anything less is indeed, class warfare.  It’s just that the war has been declared on the poor class.  We know this. When Republicans call Obama’s proposed tax increases on millionaires anything other than a shared sacrifice, it‘s disingenuous. Do not allow them to dictate this narrative—not this time. I want you to know this and demand that Republicans be honest about it.  Anything other is disingenuous. It’s about class; it’s just that Republicans are taking the wrong class.

Illusion of Democracy

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

September 13, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

This is all about the illusion. An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory
stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most  people. An example is: “America is a democratic nation that upholds the principles of democracy, freedom and sovereignty,” or “The United States is the bastion of liberty.” Most Americans hold fast to this illusion and have been conditioned to believe it regardless of what our federal government does in its action or policy.

These universally accepted statements bring us to a reckoning of the doublespeak that roots our country’s political paralysis and contradictory
foreign dilemma. Our relationship with other foreign nations is perilous, at least, and fatal at most. Our interventions in Libya for what we said were ”humanitarian” reasons, fall into questionable waters when we stand by and watch Syria (or Egypt or Tunisia) murder its citizenry on a daily basis.

Even worse, we support the overthrow of Moammar Gadhfi in Libya in favor of what we have labeled “rebel fighters” as they undertake the identical conduct of the one we seek to displace. The regime of ousted leader Gadhafi and the rebel government-the National Transitional Council-have both committed war crimes during the conflict in Libya and someone needs to take control to stop abuses from continuing, Amnesty International said in a report released September 13th.

The 112-page report detailed many examples of abuses by the Gadhafi loyalists, which included “mass killing of prisoners, torture, enforced
disappearances, and arbitrary arrests.” Those same offenses were listed under the rebels as well. They also shot their first appointed leader in the head in a mob-style murder just two months ago. America never flinched. The illusion of building a democratic Libya is what we’re selling.

The question here is how can we stand behind-with our money and military resources-a manufactured ally who contradicts the principles we purport to stand for? Do most Americans believe an illusion? Have we made the choice between the devil or satan? Oh, forgive me, that’s what Christians think of Muslims anyway.

Let me share with you another illusion. The Palestinian Authority has been steadily building support for the United Nations to sanction the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem this month, a move that could place Israel into a diplomatic vise. Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow United Nations member, land it has controlled and settled for more than four decades and some of which it expects to keep in any two-state solution. Though the United States says it espouses the principles of democracy, freedom and sovereignty, it has committed to veto any majority vote, if the U.N. votes to grant Palestine it’s state sovereignty. I was taught in Poli-Sci 101 that the majority rules. That’s how it works in American elections (save Gore v. Bush, 2000). But of course, that too was an illusion.

How can an American maintain confidence in a system, society and nation that contradicts its core principles; blatantly denies it own values? The expectation of loyalty is a tough row to hoe when its citizenry watches it renege on its word with others. One knows that the same will be done to him.

President Barack Obama said that a Palestinian bid for recognition next week at the United Nations was a “distraction” and would not result in viable statehood, as Arab foreign ministers agreed to gather support for the Palestinians at the U.N. Why would any people NOT want to be free of occupation? Why wouldn’t the United States champion the thing they cherish: sovereignty?

In a roundtable with Hispanic journalists, Obama on Monday said that Israel would “hurt itself” if it retaliated against the UN vote by withdrawing resources that might harm Palestinian self-policing efforts. Yet, The US has said it will work up to the last moment to avoid a Palestinian statehood bid. Of course, the US wouldn’t dream of denying its own statehood or that of Israel’s.

Like the uprising at New York’s Attica prison 40 years ago, the media today is distorting reality, just as a magician does through illusion. Case in point: The media reported that the prisoners slit the throats of their hostages in a step for prisoner dignity, but television cameras showed that New York state police fired volleys of high-powered firearms- killing 39 people-29 prisoners and ten correctional officers and civilian employees.

The takeaway is this: We continue to believe the “stories” reported by the press. They’re more often than not, illusion; a clear distortion of reality, yet shared by most people. Why do we so readily believe? I believe we’d rather believe the lie because believing the lie commands us to do nothing; it’s a balm, a soother, a comforter, a pacifier. Doing what we’ve always done will continue to get us what we always got (to do): struggle. Gotta wean ourselves from the pacifier.

As A Condition of Your Freedom

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

September 6, 2011

By Perry Redd

As the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11^th, 2001 approaches, we are constantly reminded of two things: safety and
freedom.  The narrative is that if we are kept safe, then we can enjoy freedom.  I venture to ask: if we are bound by the fear of a lack of safety, then how can we be free?

I watch and now anticipate the coming Congressional schedule of events that include several fiscal items left undone in the last session.  The debt ceiling debate will re-surface, the nation’s budget will have to be passed, FAA funding and the like.  All items that should have been reconciled last session, but the uncompromising positions of the Tea party caucus held—and still hold—the country and its progress hostage.

This will to be non-compromising by the Republicans only made me re-examine the losses Blacks have taken in compromising with the white American majority.  The very people who are defending segregation, dragged their feet on integration, are diligently fighting to end affirmative action and institute voter suppression through voter ID laws are the ones unwilling to spend money on new construction projects, trying to end jobless benefits, erasing environmental and labor protections, cutting taxes  for profitable oil companies and the wealthiest Americans.  When will I stop compromising with them?

In my soon-to-be-released book, “As a Condition of Your Freedom,” I say in the forward that as a condition of your freedom, you must assess how much you’re willing to give.  If you give too much, then you’ve made your freedom ineffectual.  Freedom is not only a physical  phenomenon, but freedom encompasses one’s spirit, one’s intellect and one’s emotion.  A prohibition on any one of those elements effectually holds one in bondage.

The text was written to inform Americans on where they’ve surrendered their actual freedom for a unreasonable facsimile.  Simply because you can buy an X-Box or travel to the marina does not make you free.  In America, you are not free to live wherever you choose.  Gated communities are the most obvious reminder of that reality.  As of the writing of the book, if you are a gay American who wants to practice marriage to a same-sex partner, you can only get married and/or recognized as married in six states.  Everywhere else, you are prohibited from practicing that freedom that other Americans might enjoy.

In some areas of my hometown, though you own your home, you may not be able to cookout in your front yard.  This is a decision made by people who don’t pay your mortgage, nor employ you.  Is that truly freedom?  One must question his/her interpretation of freedom.  In that, you must decide how much you are willing to give in order to obtain and maintain your ideal level freedom.

The term freedom is not a light word to toss around.  Most Americans cling to the concept.  But in reality, they misinterpret its true  definition.  Why is that, you may ask?  It is because a privileged few have formed the narrative.  The homeland security complex have worked long and hard to form your understanding of freedom through various means: fear, sports and nationalism, just to name a few.  Gallup reports that 77 percent of Americans said the U.S. economy is getting worse, up from 71 percent two weeks prior and 64 percent a month ago. Meanwhile, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 73 percent of Americans believe the United States is “off on the wrong track.”  Those same Americans will easily say that “America is the greatest country on earth.”  This refrain is made only to shore up their perception of freedom.

Never mind, we have street cameras on every third corner in my neighborhood.  Cars and cell phones are all manufactured with GPS devices installed and the Patriot Act is still alive and kicking.  You’re only as free as the homeland security complex allows you to be.  After all of that, we still have persistent questions with safety.  So what do we do?  We approve giving them more of our safety to gain something we say we already had, freedom.

The cycle is insanity. Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as saying,” Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  I just can’t see being comfortable with living in fear to enjoy a movie or bowling in between working my unprotected job.  I happen to agree with Franklin that we deserve neither, because we’ve done just that.  We’ve compromised with the very people who claim to protect our “freedoms.”  Conservatives have stripped all responsibility that corporations had to not rape you in the marketplace.  All that you’ve worked for over your career as an adult laborer are on the chopping block by politicians that make up some of the richest members of Congress.

Did you know that one-fifth of the 50 richest members of Congress are freshman House Republicans sent to Washington last year with strong Tea Party support, according to The Hill’s 50 Wealthiest for 2011. Ohio’s Rep. Jim Renacci, the wealthiest of the 87 freshman Republicans elected in 2010, has an estimated net worth of $35.9 million and is the 11th richest lawmaker in Congress.  Do you seriously think these people care about—or will—protect your freedom?  They surely didn’t get rich by concerning themselves with that.

As we approach the 9/11 anniversary, don’t be compromised by the scare tactics and illusions of liberty—i.e., freedom—that will be whispered in your ear.  At the same time, they’re whispering in your ear, you’re being robbed…of your freedom.

How to Honor King

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

August 30, 2011

By Perry Redd

The latest rift in America isn’t the proper amount to cut from the nation’s budget, nor is it the Tea Party’s attack on anyone who isn’t them.  The latest rift is between the very people who need not be rifting: the Black community in America.  The recent cancelled dedication of the newly minted memorial to the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the national mall has Black activists, intellectuals and organizers at odds.

Among that crowd, arguments have surfaced over ideological, physical and spiritual elements of the memorial.  It’s been amazingly sad to hear the attacks on those who disagree.  I have found that merit exists in each and every criticism of the memorial.  Black and white commentators alike weighed in on the memorial. From cost, to artist; from location to size; from appropriateness to benefactors, there’s something to raise holy hell about.

The original date of dedication was cancelled due to east coast hurricane Irene that hit the day prior.  I don’t even want to imagine how Pat Robertson interprets that one!  There were many who elected to make known that they would not attend the dedication.  Then, there were many who chose to be there on that date.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who you are), it didn’t happen.

Days prior I took my mother to see and experience the memorial.  She flew up from middle Tennessee and expressed her objections to the memorial on religious grounds; the whole thing about “worshipping graven idols” and such.  I couldn’t discount her concerns, but I did disagree and pointed out that most people won’t worship anything, but hold in high esteem the legacy of Dr. King’s work, life and vision.  The memorial would be one of the places where it rests.

Criticisms I came across this week ranged from Dr. Cornel West’s commentary in the New York Times that we are substituting substance for symbolism and that we need a revolution, not a memorial; to Dr. Boyce Watkins’ insistence that he wouldn’t attend the dedication because of the reality of ignoring the big picture of King’s mission. Some, like activist Medea Benjamin of Code Pink criticized the hypocrisy of corporate interests who exploit the essence of memorializing King.  Even the Washington Post’s Philip Kenicott played Limbaugh in his dislike of the location as well as the premise.  Of course, his criticisms were pure crap.  But I found elements of substance in all of them.

As with anything in America, you will never make everyone happy with everything you do.  I have my criticisms of the memorial too.  Some of mine rests within the greater voices who have made theirs known in the blogosphere.  What I do know is that, like the King holiday, parity means having the same status as our white counterparts is necessary in America.  How many of us believe that there shouldn’t be a national holiday dedicated to an African-American?  If not King, then who? Tubman, Douglass, Turner?  It’s more than about King, it’s about the collective struggle among Blacks; and here we find ourselves striving against each other.

Another thing I know is that whites don’t care that we strive among ourselves.  The blessing is that there are some whites who are allies and see the big picture: honoring the struggle that continues today.  I believe that’s where we all are.  Color of the granite, land mass and location, sponsorship and artistry all have a place in the conversation.  The good thing is that there are a lot of us are involved; not enough of us, of course, but more than would’ve been the case 40 years ago.  Because of the advances in technology, we are a more informed society.  It’s easier to access the information that makes us knowledgeable on the issues that effect us.  But there’s not enough technology to get us more engaged.  Technology cannot grow courage…courage to act

I believe that when we’re not acting, then we’re part of the problem.  Opponents of progress bank on the non-actors.  We make their jobs easier
when we fight among ourselves.  We know that corporations exploit any and every opportunity they can—and those who are around it.  I pronounce us guilty when we allow them.  I was accused this week of “drinking the Kool-Aid” of not building a revolution and building a memorial.  I tried to place my feelings aside and not be drawn into the striving caused by those wearing rose-colored glasses.  Some don’t believe the memorial has its place.  I disagree.

Whites honor their heroes and I think we should honor ours.  If they help, then fine, but we cannot allow whites to co-opt our choices.  They didn’t respect Martin Luther King then, and I am suspicious when they want to now.  It is for us to take the lead.  No, we don’t have the billions of Wal-Mart, Exxon or Phizer, but we do have the spending power that corporations respect—and need.  If each of us would have given $7, we could’ve built the memorial ourselves.  That would’ve honored Dr. King.  That would’ve honored ourselves.  Instead, we enriched Toyota, BF Goodrich, MTV, Wal-Mart, Apple, Microsoft, the NBA, Gucci and Nike.  That’s our dilemma in capitalist society.

What I know is that revolutions begin from within.  We must start with ourselves.  Whites don’t care until they are made uncomfortable.  Black people don’t mind “getting along”, but the conditions cannot be “go along” conditions.  All of us need to have a voice and have a hand in the actions to grow and revive this movement.  We honor our fallen warriors each time we gather, pray and reflect.  The King Memorial just happens to be a big one, it won’t be the last one…the revolution continues.  Let it continue without hating on a brother from a different mother.  That’s how we honor Dr. King…that’s how we honor ourselves.

The Crtic’s Corner

The Other Side of the Tracks: A Socially Speaking commentary

August 23, 2011

By Perry Redd

 

For Republicans, campaign season is in full swing.  And swinging, they are—for the fences.  Each candidate, as if on cue, takes a swing at their potential opponent, President Barack Obama.  Whether it’s Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney or current front runner, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, they’ve carved out their niche to throw it against the wall and see what sticks.  So, what does stick?

Admittedly, I’m a critic of Obama’s methodology and not necessarily with his policies.  His intentions of standing up for the people over the interests of corporations are grand reasons for the people to support him, but as we all know, his approval ratings are the lowest of his
tenure.  The Healthcare reform debate, stimulus packages and the debt ceiling debate took a lot off of his approval, but in the end, he did the right things for the right reasons.  Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann all stood against raising the debt ceiling limit.  We know what transpired and what happened since we did.  That ought to help you make a qualified decision on their credibility.

One thing I’ve learned is that when you’re on top, people will find the pettiest reasons to argue that you shouldn’t be.  The Republicans have criticized Obama’s lack of passion, lack of emotion and lack of leadership.  Again, they throw anything against the wall just to see what sticks.  Even with his approval ratings down, it appears that the vast majority of Americans aren’t going for the hype.  They appear to realize that being president takes a special person with unimaginable patience—with critics.

Mitt Romney shot at the president for taking a vacation when the U.S. economy is in shambles.  “If I were president today, I wouldn’t be looking to go spend 10 days on Martha’s Vineyard,” Romney told a Chicago radio broadcast before Obama left for a 10-day vacation on the summer island just off Cape Cod, where he has spent his summer vacation the past two summers.  Romney quit his last job in 2007 and has been on vacation ever since.  He needs to quit it…

Martha’s Vineyard is in his home state of Massachusetts, so he said he didn’t want to say anything negative about people vacationing there. “But if you’re the president of the United States” he said, “…and the nation is in crisis — and we’re in a jobs crisis right now — then
you shouldn’t be out vacationing. Instead, you should be focusing on getting the economy going again.”  What a bogus statement to be making, being that the nation is always in crisis!  Something is always wrong in America and more over, presidents always take vacations—whenever!

The reality is that even on vacation, a president is in constant communication and get regular briefings from his/her national security team as well as his economic team. Something we all know as Americans anyway.  But being Republican means being petty.

And evenmore, let’s be real about this issue…Obama has taken 61 days of vacation in the  two-and-a-half years he’s been president, compared to George W. Bush who spent 180 days at his ranch in Texas at a similar point in his first term in office. Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch in California at the same point.  It’s just another opportunity for Republicans to lie to the American
public and another reason to not even consider voting for them.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an ardent critic of the president as well.  I take a position like that of Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, who questioned why President Barack Obama has not visited any black communities during his recent Midwestern bus tour, saying some black lawmakers are hesitant to criticize him. Waters, explained to a crowd in Detroit last week that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are hesitant to criticize Obama because they feel they may lose support from the black community. That’s sad, but true.  Some criticism has merit—and all need to be vetted for validity.

Rick Perry criticized the president on his inability to create jobs; then compared the president’s record to his own.  What a mistake? The fact is, the numbers are just smoke and mirrors because the new jobs are primarily low-wage ones. “What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote  on Sunday.

Texas is tied with Mississippi for having the highest proportion of hourly workers earning minimum wage or less, according to Bureau
of Labor Statistics data. Overall, Texans earned about $2,300 less than the national average, according to 2009 Census Bureau data. These low-paying jobs usually do not come with health insurance, which is part of the reason why Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people in the country. One of every four Texans lives without health insurance.  So guess who pays for that void in healthcare?  You got it, the government.  It’s just like Wal-Mart does: shift the burden to the government.  I don’t think that’s the job creation you envision for America.

They criticize Obama for “failing to lead.” The president spoke 171 times on his jobs agenda, but these critics say that he’s been silent on the issue.  This is disingenuous at best, lies at least.  What they bank on is the more you say something, the more chance there is for it to stick.

I’ll remind you that the naysayers were in full force once Obama won the nomination in ’08, so nothing should surprise us now.  Even as a critic, be reasonable, and more importantly, don’t be swayed by lies.  They attacked his friendships, his birthright, his faith and even his race…and he’s still doing what he was elected to do: run this thing.  I advise that we be reasonable in our criticisms because, in a two-party system, the alternative will be a hell of a lot worse!