|
 “but people, knowing I was from Michigan, would ask me what city. Since most New Yorkers had never heard of Lansing, I would name Detroit. Gradually, I began to be called “Detroit Red”—and it stuck.”
— The Autobiography of Malcolm X
It is May 19, 2010 and I am in Lansing, Michigan. This is the city where Malcolm X, born May 19, 1925 (he was born in Omaha, Nebraska), lived for several years as a youngster.
I drove out to the corner of Vincent Court and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Lansing, May 19, 2010, where there is a sign marking the lot of the former home of Malcolm X. Someone has placed a wreath here today. Someone has remembered.
The area is not a slum area but people are struggling here. You can see it. Low income housing, third hand automobiles, no name greasy food joints, dollar stores, a lot of people, black, white, or Hispanic, just standing around doing nothing.
Lansing is a city that is often forgotten. But it is the city that not only gave us Malcolm Little, but it gave us Detroit Red, and also, Malcolm X. We know he was here in Lansing at least until 8th grade before he went to Boston to live with his sister, Ella.
But it is a bittersweet place this Lansing for Malcolm Little.
Allegedly, the family's first home in Lansing was burned to the ground in 1929. This was, according to more than a few writers, and historians, because Malcolm’s father, Earl, was a member of Marcus Garvey’s black Pan-African organization, the United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). Malcolm’s father was eventually killed in Lansing. He was run over by a streetcar. Malcolm’s suggestion was always that his father was put under that streetcar by the KKK. Nothing definitive was ever revealed.
According to a newspaper account of his death at the time, Mr. Little died “because he forgot coat…” The same account states that Mr. Little, 41 years old, was “thought to have fallen under truck.” There was a coroner’s inquest but the damage was done; Earl Little, the glue of the family was gone. The Littles, a mother and 10 children, Malcolm included, were scattered throughout the local foster care system. His mother, Louise Little was committed to a mental hospital in Kalamazoo.
It was in Lansing that Malcolm X became disillusioned with becoming something in life, He was a very good student and became class president of his mostly white class. But in a very famous exchange, Malcolm’s English teacher, Mr. Ostrowski told him that becoming a lawyer was not a realistic goal for a black boy. He, Malcolm, should focus in on perhaps becoming a carpenter. Malcolm, as the story goes, was finished with school after that incident.
He left for Boston not long thereafter and became “Detroit Red.” He wound up in prison, and after his rehabilitation, and commitment to a new life in the Nation of Islam, he was now Malcolm X, the revolutionary leader who has come to symbolize the black experience in America even today.
That Lansing experience framed Malcolm X. His father’s pride and death, the destruction of a black family, the racial hatred of an educator telling a very bright black boy that he was nothing.
Then “Detroit Red” and the resurrection years later as our black shining prince.
There are two positive anecdotes from the world of Lansing, Michigan worthy of note.
First, in 1958, Malcolm X married the love of his life Betty Dean Saunders or Betty X (later Betty Shabazz) in Lansing. Who knows why Lansing was chosen to make their union real?
The couple gave birth to five daughters and by all indications, their marriage was a dedicated and faithful union. When she died after being burned in a fire started by her grandson in June 1997, she was buried in Ferncliff Cemetery, in New York, beside her husband.
Also, on January 23, 1963, Malcolm returned triumphantly to East Lansing (Lansing) and gave a speech at Michigan State University. The speech (it is available online with the right computer software), entitled, “Twenty Million Black people in Political, Economic, and Mental Prison,” lasts 21 minutes and to Malcolm’s personal satisfaction, several of his former white classmates from grade school attended.
His former classmates could not believe some of the “fearsome aspects of" Malcolm's "national image.” They came to witness for themselves what their Malcolm had become. One of his classmates, a female, who had not laid eyes on Malcolm since he dropped out of school after his disillusionment, left the Michigan State speech “bewildered that this fiery podium speaker had no trace of… her gentle friend…
This is Malcolm X and the city of Lansing. May 19, 2010.
(a version of this essay originally appeared in Ebony Magazine online - May 20, 2010)
|
|
 There isn't any doubt in my mind that the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens should be a woman. Women make up half the population anyway so why shouldn't the court reflect the population. Besides, the Court has been run by white men basically since the beginning of time and has never, ever had a man who wasn't of European descent or African-American. This is a shoddy record.
Nevertheless, the same rules suggested in my entry on replacing Justice Stevens with a man should apply if President Obama nominates a woman: intellectual astute and sharp, young, progressive, and to add - a person willing to confront the conservative bloc on the Court. Here's one no one has even considered:
Michelle Obama
Don't laugh. And don't worry; he won't do it. But still, it is nice to dream.
President Obama needs to shake that place at its foundation. Nominate the First Lady. Is she intellectual sharp? Certainly. Is she progressive? Sure. Is she willing to confront conservatism? I am certain she will put Roberts and Alito and Thomas in their place when the moment arrives.
Democrats are probably afraid of her because they think she is a divisive choice. I guess I should remind everyone that no matter who Obama picks, it will be a divisive choice. The GOP is committed to division and obstruction. They don't govern; they wait for campaign donations. Anyone who governs offends them because it means they have to actually do something.
But Mr. Obama says he is committed to someone who understands ordinary people and how the law affects them. His wife doesn't meet that profile? Mrs. Obama does and that is the point. Nominate her. The GOP will be paralyzed again with fear. She also will let Roberts and Alito know that they will be challenged on all of their outlandish views. Throw in the fact that she is in her mid-40s and we are talking 35 years on the Court.
But he won't do it, and she wouldn't accept. Mrs. Obama loves her children and her freedom (within the confines of power). She also wants to go back to Chicago. I am sure of it. It is still nice to dream.
|
|
 Pragmatism is telling President Barack Obama to name a consensus builder, a moderate, to fulfill the soon to be vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat held by the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Stevens, a legend, and brilliant legal mind, has big shoes to fill.
But on this one, Mr. Obama should ditch the pragmatism. He needs to go long on this one and change the game. The safe play is the consensus builder; the bold play is to nominate a sleeper pick, a clear progressive jurist, who is intellectually astute, young, and ready to pursue an agenda that restores the rule of law, protects privacy, and promotes diversity with a living, breathing constitution, not a document lost in the racist and unequal past of the United States.
I am sorry to say that the candidates already being floated by the media are outstanding choices but are really not about the future except perhaps Elena Kagan. And this pick should be about the future, because by the time the new justice becomes a presence on the court, they might be in position to truly resolve some of this country’s dilemmas (same sex marriage for instance or the death penalty).
So what they are controversial; now is the time for controversy and ideology. Was John Roberts a consensus choice? Was Samuel Alito a pragmatic choice? Maybe I am search of the next David Souter (I doubt it), but really, I am in search of the next William Brennan or someone to the left of Brennan to balance this thing out a little. Activists and commentators on the right swear the Court is unbalanced; yet a conservative has been Chief Justice for 40 years now. This is why we need a little bit of ideology. We need a judge we know is a progressive who is going vote progressive. Roe v. Wade is the law and even better, it should be the law. Miranda v. Arizona is the law, and it should be the law. Affirmative action is the law and efforts to overturn it are driven by racism. What nominee would ever say any of that?
No one truthfully. But even still, let us dream a bit.
So you ask, who are these sleeper picks out there that no one has heard of (this is a good thing, actually)? We will do this in two parts, men, and then women (in a future column). Here are three men that Mr. Obama should consider in order to shake things up at the Court. We know Mr. Obama is a hopeless pragmatist but we are dropping the names anyway.
Goodwin Lui
Goodwin Liu was recently nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Republicans have thrown up roadblocks. This is because Mr. Lui is a rock star in the legal world and a progressive. He is in favor of abortion rights, diversity, and is big on the fact that Bush administration trashed the U.S. Constitution as they ramped up the war on terrorism. He has written about it so he is a known quantity and is trouble for the originalist crowd because he knows the original constitution was undemocratic. Yet, most importantly, Mr. Lui criticized both John Roberts and Samuel Alito for their views. This makes him the perfect pick: why not have someone on the Court who is prepared to intellectually challenge the conservative block currently sitting on the Court?
Aderson Francois
Professor Aderson Francois is currently a law professor at the Howard University School of Law, and is like Gordon Lui, an intellectual rock star. Professor Francois is just the kind of person the GOP is afraid of because he has no extensive writing history that can be used against him. In fact, if he were the nominee, everyone would say: Who? But Professor Francois is as qualified as anyone. He worked in a corporate setting as well as the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is a champion of civil rights and a scholar on constitutional issues. In the future, when the Court finally extends marriage equality to all (same sex marriage), Francois will be the person who can deliver the opinion because he has written about the topic from a historical vantage point. He practices in federal courts right now as he is a clinician in the civil rights area.
Eric Halperin
No one has heard of Eric Halperin either and that is good. He works at the U.S. Department of Justice as Special Counsel on Fair Lending. He has extensive experience in litigation and was for a long time, the Director of the Center for Responsible Lending. This organization was about ordinary people which is where the Court has been lacking for decades now. Justice Earl Warren departed back in the 1970's and the conservatives took the place over. Halperin, like Ralph Nader, is consumer focused and is a top notch attorney with again - no extensive paper trail but it is safe to say, he is progressive on many of the key issues. He probably does not want to be a judge but it is likely he would make a great counter to the conservative judicial movement on the court. He is also, as required by your writer, a young man.
|
|
 With little, if any, notice this past week, the 50th anniversary of the student sit-in movement arrived. It was, indeed, 50 years ago, that four college students in North Carolina, decided they had had enough. They entered a Woolworth's store in Greensboro, North Carolina, sat down at a lunch counter and asked to be served. The lunch counter did not serve the four students because they were black. The date was February 1, 1960. It was a social earthquake that these four young black men risked their lives and future that day, but they did, and all is different, in the United States at least partially because of them.
The students sat for two hours that day, and did not get served. The store closed and they departed being sure to report back to their friends and fellow students what they had done. The next day, more than 20 students appeared at the same counter, and the modern civil rights era had begun. The black students had courage and were fearless; history was on their side too.
I recently wrote about the moment in commentary for the Progressive Media Project. The opinion piece has already appeared in several newspapers. It is good to know that the word about this historical event is trickling out. Yet, reading some of the comments one would be disturbed at the attitudes of some of this country's citizens. Here is one comment to my article from a Fredricksburg, Va newspaper:
"This is Black History Month. Why not USA History Month instead? Why do we have the UNCF and Black colleges? Did our current President attend one of these colleges? Why do we have a Black Miss America contest when our current Miss America is a beautiful, talented, and humble black woman? Why do we have the BET? The NAACP? And any number of other racist programs? Why do we keep telling non-whites that they need these programs? That they are not good enough to compete without them? When will it stop? 1 USA?"
There seems to be complete disconnect when reading that response. How is that the person reads about the sit-ins, an incident where human beings want to be treated equally, and they decide it is an opportunity to attack the very idea of diversity? It was, to say the least, a disturbing comment but needless to say, one of many. Another comment stated that the sit-ins were something akin to affirmative action. How can allowing people to sit down, order a meal, and pay for it, be affirmative action?
Ultimately, these comments reflect a failure of the country to not only oppose racism but to promote diversity, and not as a novelty either but as something which is the way of the world. Perhaps, we need mental sit-ins to change the way we think.
|
|
 I wrote a commentary for the Rev Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s holiday commemoration, for the Progressive Media Project. The commentary, which basically stated that the United States was not "post-racial" yet, and needed to work to be "post-poverty," was picked up by 31 newspapers around the country. This was over 2 million potential readers all around the country, In states such as Texas, California, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and even North Dakota, the article appeared in small to medium sized local papers, just the kind of papers I personally love and are the backbone of our system of a free and independent press.
The fact that the commentary was picked up by so many newspapers is again a testament to the enduring and universal message of Dr. King. Dr. King's words resonate today. The selection of the commentary also again highlighted the importance of our media system and the editors which make that system work. The Progressive Media Project simply provides the commentary; it is up to the editors to select the particular commentary for distribution. The fact that a progressive opinion service got the word out was a great thing.
I am proud to have been able to contribute a small bit of discussion to continue the legacy of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. To a certain extent, in the age of Obama, many of us have gotten complacent about King's legacy on race and poverty. The U.S. is a deeply unequal country with millions of poor people, millions of people out of work (who want to work), and millions without health care. Millions also go hungry each day. No one has taken up Dr. King's cause since his death to the extent that he did during his life. He asked before he died: where do we go from here? We know but no one is moving anywhere. |
|
|
 I do not get what the problem is with what Harry Reid said about Barack Obama. According to the scuttle butt I have receiving from various sources (word of mouth, electronic, etc.) Reid urged Mr. Obama to run for President in 2006. Reid's thinking at the time was Mr. Obama was light skinned and did not have a "negro dialect" unless he needed it.
GOP Chairman, Michael Steele is on record as calling for Senator Reid to resign because the statement is racist. Huh? Am I missing something?
For the record, Mr. Steele is a well known opportunist for his party, the Republicans. I understand it is job to fan the flames of division and make Senator Reid look bad. I get that.
However, I have a suggestion for Mr. Steele: choose something else. This is not a Trent Lott moment or an Alphonse D'Amato moment. This is not even close to racism. In fact, it might be a moment of clarity in our racial madness.
Clearly this statement is no indication that Mr. Reid's statement is a racist, as Steele and many other Republicans have alleged. If anything, Mr. Reid is airing the dirty laundry of the United States and telling everyone else, the country is racist. He is saying emphatically in code nonetheless, that White America will vote (and did) for Mr. Obama because he is light skinned (and has a white mother) and because he doesn't sound like most black people White America encounters. This is, for want of a random survey, thought to be factually accurate by many people, black and white and red and brown and yellow.
In other words, White America still has trouble with black people but Mr. Obama, by being light in complexion, and by speaking in that funny Kansas accent, most of the time, had a good chance to get elected. Not only was Mr. Reid correct in his racial perception, Mr. Obama was elected.
The other fact about this is, black people were saying this for months about Mr. Obama. Many African-Americans did not like him because he was not a descendant of a chattel slave and because he was light skinned. The negro dialect issue was also mentioned repeatedly in circles I travelled in over and over during the primaries. It was not until he won in Iowa that black people began to think he could win and forgave him for not having the blood of slaves in his veins.
So before many of us call for Mr. Reid's head, lets think about what he said carefully because one day many will say - Harry Reid did not tell any lies. This is America is is talking about; he just told you where you live.
|
|
 It has been said quietly, amongst many African-Americans in Washington D.C., ever since Michelle Rhee took over as Chancellor of Public Schools, that she had been brought in to shake things up. It has also been said amongst many of the same people (people I have spoken to) that she was trying to do it as "the new white person" meaning, she is doing what a white person cannot do because she is Asian, and a person of color as well, a minority so to speak. It was a dicey allegation when I heard it, and Rhee, who is intelligent, and seemingly well intentioned, certainly doesn't come across that way. However, more than one person said it, in fact, many said it.
Yet, it is likely now that the racial drums will beat louder now because of two events: the improvement in math test scores amongst D.C. Public Schools, and Rhee's rather coy comments regarding the firing of an African-American principal at Hardy Middle School in Washington D.C.
The first of these events is obvious: while test scores amongst students is up, the test scores of black students barely moved. Chancellor Rhee framed it that way but the very next day, The Washington Post, brought her back to earth. The most vulnerable group, the students who this is really all about, are not improving yet Rhee was happy about improved test scores. The subtle implication: oh, those are just the blacks, they're stupid anyway.
The second event, the firing of Patrick Pope, principal at Hardy Middle School also has racial implications though not as obvious. Hardy, for the record, is located in Georgetown, one of the more affluent areas of the city, and an area with a high concentration of whites. The children, though they are located near pretty good public schools, don't attend these schools. Rhee wants to change that. In addition, at a contentious meeting regarding the firing, Rhee's attempt to align herself with the neighborhood parents, crashed and burned on the policy runway. Her knowledge of the situation, according to reports, was awkward.
In the end, many concluded that Rhee simply wants to do something; what that is, no one seems to know. Parents of black students think it is racial.
While no one can really know, to suggest that race played no part in decisions involving a school system that is still mostly black is corrupt. It would better for Chancellor Rhee to deal the cards straight and not try to cup cards and cheat to win. Whites have been pouring back into the city for a decade now and the city's racial make-up is flipping. This is a fact. It would only follow that white families seeking to stay would want the racial make-up of their schools to begin to reflect the city's racial make-up. To assert otherwise is a bad reflection on anyone. The real shame is, the schools are awful but now that whites are returning to the city, there is finally some real talk of change. Too late for so many black children with diplomas who can't even read, I guess. |
|
 Twenty years ago (this year) when Texas Congressmen Mickey Leland’s plane went down in the mountains of Ethiopia on August 7 killing him and everyone else on board, Leland’s singular cause – world hunger took a hit as well. Of course there was the normal exultation to keep Leland’s memory alive by working for his causes (and many did), but the missing piece of the puzzle - Leland, his presence, his determination, his force as a human being, was gone. Some in the media understand the loss of Leland even today.
So of course now, as world hunger surges amidst the global recession and the shortcomings of foreign aid, the world is crying out for a champion like Mickey Leland to give the cause legs again, like in the 1980’s.
''I am as much a citizen of this world as I am of my country,” Leland barked once back in those days. “To hell with those people who are critical of what I am able to do to help save people's lives.”
This was Leland. He was responding to criticism that he spent too much time trying to help other nations and not his own. Leland, born and raised on the poor, tough streets of Houston’s Fifth Ward, wasn’t having it.
Today’s statistics on world hunger call out for Leland.
According to reports this past summer from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Program (FAO), 1.02 billion people are suffering from hunger and starvation in the world today (nearly 17 percent of the world’s population). This is a record number of people. In addition, FAO estimates that 100 million people will be pushed into hunger and poverty this year as a direct result of recessionary conditions. Of course, Africa, the continent has highest levels of hunger and human devastation.
Bread for the World, an international organization devoted to the cause of fighting world hunger, reported this summer that three million children under the age of five die each year from hunger. In the United States, the country where people throw food out as if it were a religious practice, over 11 million children live in homes where someone has to skip meals so the family can make ends meet. Home grown hunger (in the U.S.) remains an issue that is being ignored for the most part by the government.
The summer meeting of the G-8 countries in Italy did result in a commitment from the member nations to commit $20 billion to poor nations to develop their agricultural sectors. This is good because it is aid but also helps the countries help themselves (if it happens). However, three years ago in Scotland, some of these same countries pledged billions of funds for Africa where hunger is severe but obligations were not met
As for Leland, the champion of this cause as a politician, his arrival as an international player in 1978 was preceded by a career as a Texas civil rights advocate and state legislator. When the great Barbara Jordan’s seat in the 18th District of Texas opened up in 1978, Leland ran for it, and was elected. Leland immediately began to fight for his causes - most notably, world hunger.
By 1983, after years of struggle, Leland was able to establish the House Select Committee on Hunger in the U.S. Congress. The committee, which he chaired, was instrumental in providing $800 million to Ethiopia as a desperate famine began ravishing the country. He took a contingent of U.S. governmental officials to Ethiopia during the crisis in 1984 a year before Michael Jackson and all that famous cadre of rock stars of America recorded “We are the World” and ultimately put the plague on the map.
Leland tried to help other poor nations too; he visited Asia, and the Caribbean regularly, and by his own admission, his work in the world sometimes caused him to neglect the congressional district he represented. But he never lost his focus.
"I am now an activist on behalf of humanity everywhere,” he told Jacqueline Trescott of the Washington Post in 1985, “whether it is in Ethiopia ... South Africa ... Chile ... in any part of the world where people are desperate and hungry for the freedoms and rights deserve as human beings.”
His dedication has left a legacy. The Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows Program sends fellows every year to countries all over the world to fight hunger, on the ground, and on the policy level. Texas Southern University, his alma mater, maintains The Mickey Leland Center on Hunger and Peace. It includes a website, archival material, and internship programs.
But it would be so nice to have Leland around right now to get loud about world hunger. President Barack Obama has much on his plate; he can’t be out front on every issue. Mickey Leland, if he were around, would be more than happy to take this one on and make the media and lawmakers sing his tune.
|
|
 My gut says, the global financial system, needs more regulation. Yet, deep inside the recesses of my mind where common sense and pragmatism dwells, I don't think more regulation by federal government (statism, in the words of writer, George Will), is the solution. This is not just because the federal government is enormously unsuccessful in prosecuting and regulating the bad acts of the financial moneychangers, this is because when big governments get in the act, smaller actors with more of an attachment to the bad acts, lose their ability to address the problem.
Each week (or day), I read about the financial sins of bankers and investors all over the world. Countries (their governments) talk of addressing the problem with more regulation, more oversight. Of course, we need some oversight, but please do not take away the power of the smaller players to regulate if and when the big regulators move in.
Example: the U.S. wants to move in and regulate their financial markets more right now. This means the banks and the bankers should expect more oversight. Yet, the problem with the current proposal is, the federal government in its desire to regulate, will take away the ability of the states to regulate the rogue individuals in their own states and would consolidate power into one federal agency. This would be a bad trade-off.
The states know what is happening in their area. North Carolina, a leader in addressing predatory lending issues, knows what is happening in Cackalack. Let them alone. Ohio knows Ohio. Michigan knows Michigan. Maryland knows Maryland. In other words, regulate but do not take away the power from the states.
Currently, this is what is about to happen.
In a huge case last year, Cuomo v. Clearinghouse Association, the U.S. Supreme Court left open the possibility that states could regulate nationally chartered banks through enforcement of their own lending laws (consumer laws). It was a big victory, for once, for the little guy.
The banks sprung into action and are not hoping that the federal government will take over regulation of national banks, by statute because they know the states are about to slap them with lawsuits to get them in line with the laws in the various states. It is shrewd move by the banks which is why the states must fight to keep their own powers regardless of what the federal government does in the area of regulation. |
|
 I am officially declaring the Republican Party of the United States the party of uselessness. Some call them the party of "no." I can accept that but I am looking for more strident words these days. A matter of fact, why do any of them run for office and run the government? I've got an answer: to make sure government does not work and that the business community dominates the lives of the masses.
The Saturday night vote on health care is the latest evidence of their moral bankruptcy and political uselessness. The U.S. Senate voted to start debate on the health care bill pending in Congress. The bill, most agree, is pro-business in a lot of ways and will not cover all Americans with a single payer, universal health care system. It probably will not have a coherent public option but will provide private insurance companies with 31 million more customers. There are some good things for people and over 30 million people who did not have coverage, will have some kind of access to health care after this bill becomes law.
Yet, the Republicans did not even vote to start debate on this bill, a bill most agree, is flawed. The vote was 60-39 in favor of the Democrats and debate has begun with all Republicans voting "no." Imagine, the insanity of the GOP decision to vote party rather than people. This is what they do all day, everyday, no matter what. This is their modus operandi: forget about people. In fact, to hell with people. Party, baby. Party.
None of this is surprising. The GOP has had its share of moments of anti-government over the years, folks.
Under Ronald Reagan, the GOP wanted to re-classify ketchup a vegetable in the school lunch program to save money in the budget.
In the 90's with Newt Gingrich, Republican, running the House of Representatives, the party recklessly shut down the government in the name of party, and not people. The decision was a disaster politically and it allowed Bill Clinton to regain his footing as President.
There is more of this throughout our recent history. George W. Bush, Republican, starved the government but fed an insane war in Iraq with billions of dollars. Thousands of people died over there in that war by the way.
I don't need to document the inability of the Republican Party to do anything useful for people collectively for decades. The record speaks for itself. The party is the party of "no." They just vote against things and never for anything unless it benefits people who have already lined their pockets with billions of dollars.
But here with health care reform is a golden opportunity to break with the past, and show some guts and not one of the Republicans voted just to start debate. This is, I stress, not a vote for the bill, as written, but a vote for debate. This is their chance to offer up some innovative change to the bill that will make it more humane, that will reach out to the people.
Don't hold your breath because such an amendment is not forthcoming. The GOP's goal is to stand united and then wait until the next elections where they will rise up and say - look, we stood against health care reform. Over 40 million of you did not have any health care, and over 90 million did not have care at some point in 2007 and 2008 and we are here to tell you that we fought like hell to keep it that way. Even though we lost, if you vote for us, the health care coverage you have recently been granted, will be rescinded under our rule.
Who would vote for this crew?
By their own admission, the GOP had a plan. It was all about tax cuts and tort reform and would cover 3 million additional people, not 31 million. Unbelievable.
If you had no care at all, and are a person who is playing Russian roulette with your life involuntarily, how can you vote for the GOP? They are morally bankrupt and politically absurd. |
|
 Attorney General, Eric Holder, was asked the ultimate question regarding the terror suspects, this past week. If Khalid Shiekh Muhammed, takes his case to trial, and is somehow acquitted, for whatever reason, is he free to go?
Holder, a great lawyer, essentially said that the U.S. Department of Justice would not fail. He was pressed a bit by Senator Chuck Grassley, on this issue, and it was noted by Grassley, according to media accounts, that if Muhammed beats his civilian charges in federal court, he immediately becomes an "enemy combatant." This means is not free.
Sorry Khalid. I guess you thought you had a chance to evade martydom.
On another note, one Republican Senator asked Holder why was he wasting time prosecuting a guy who wants to plead guilty so he can be executed so he can become a martyr. This was odd (The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks that Muhammed wants to die to trigger terrorist activity).
Why did the Republican Senator (I did not catch the name) want to toss out all elements of judicial due process just because a person, the accused, wants to die? We have had plenty of that in U.S. history but the person still gets tried, convicted, and executed, for the sake of the system. As Holder noted, it is not for the criminals to decide their fate; the state handles that.
But I want to return back to the suggestion that even if Muhammed is acquitted, he is still not free. So, why try him anyway? You are not going to free him for any reason so you still go through with a trial? This is a facade. This is especially so in light of the 183 waterboards Muhammed received from the government. How many people believe he wasn't forced to implicate himself and others? Who was waterboarded to get information on Muhammed? Who was tortured? How is this a real trial?
The problem with all of this is, because the U.S. under Bush handled the suspects wrong from the beginning, any hope for a real trial has been dashed. Due process did not exist from the beginning so it can't exist now. Can you set them free? No way. How could you politically and in good faith? Can you hold Muhammed and his crew forever and ever? That too is insane. Maybe you can release them but not really. Would the South African-Steven Biko (I hate even suggesting this but...) model work?
That is, release them but in an area where there is no one and nothing for them to do but be under surveillance at all times even though they are not in prison and can eat, drink, and breathe. They can't leave and can't talk or have meetings or phone conversations with anyone that are not monitored.
Of course, this is quasi-prison and is a laugh as well. It all makes you scratch your head. How is it that the U.S. was in the right because of the bombing of the country on 9/11 but due to overzealousness and bad policy, the U.S. is wrong. |
|
 Basically, President Barack Obama is doing a mop-up job for the nation on the administration of George W. Bush. The Bush administration rolled into town in 2001, on the heels of a disputed election, and made of mess of things.
Where should we start?
Foreign policy? They were asleep at the wheel. They ignored outside threats, made a joke of the Middle East peace process, and within 9 months of being in office, hte country was bombed on September 11, 2001. Right before this bombing, evidence had been received that strongly suggested the mother of all terrorist attacks was imminent. Bush and his employees ignored it.
The economy? They ruined it. They also allowed the financial markets to become like Las Vegas casinos. No one was accountable. Kill or be killed. The housing market collapsed as a result of this recklessness. Throw in an insane giveaway of a tax cut and here we are in the throes of insolvency.
New Orleans. Katrina. FEMA. Need I say anything else. Government failure.
Criminal justice, and civil liberties. Madness. A complete disregard for over 200 years of constitutional protections and due process guarantees. Torturing. Denial of basic rights, a mockery was made of a system that is the envy of the world, as far as due process protections. Simple ideas like you can get a lawyer were tossed aside.
This is just some of the mess Mr. Obama inherited. While I don't agree with Mr. Obama on some of his policies, it is silly to think people oppose him so adamantly. They have probably forgot the craziness he inherited. He is trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Mr. Bush left a ridiculous mess of the government.
People complain about the bailout to the banks and the economic stimulus. Should Mr. Obama just let the economy wither away and die and not signed the stimulus? And the bailout, remember, was passed into law with Mr. Bush in charge.
As for complaints about closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (aka "GITMO), this is a good thing. The place is an insult to decency. It should be closed. Due process must be supported. The rights of even the worse criminals has to be respected. Mr. Obama is seeking to make the world and the nation understand that. This is not the 16th century England or 18th century France. We are not ruled by kings who want to chop off heads. We are ruled by laws executed by men and women, of many different racial and ethnic backgrounds. This is, considering the record of the human race, a pretty serious deal and must be maintained.
Mr. Bush, as I stated, left a mess of things. Mr. Obama is seeking to clean it up. He is doing a fairly decent job. Just call him the janitor. |
|
 When I recently read an article about the opposition by Republicans to trials of terrorist suspects in the states (New York City, and Charleston, S.C.), I did a double take. The GOP was opposing trials of terrorism suspects from 9-11? It made no sense. Isn't the GOP the party of law and order? And a naive piece of me also was wondering if the GOP was about to challenge the trials altogether because they are a judicial farce.
But then I read the article closely and realize, it was, yet again, political madness.
The GOP oppose the trials because they want to score political points. They are making the same argument as before that the suspects should never be brought to the mainland U.S. because their presence endangers lives. Their other argument is the fact that the suspects don't deserve a civilian trial.
Of course, this is hogwash.
Bringing the suspects to the U.S. makes us all no less safe than incarcerating them at the inhumane Gitmo prison in Cuba. I am sure their comrades would love to liberate them. Moving them to New York City doesn't make the hatred many have for the U.S. rise any higher; their opposition to the U.S. is fairly consistent.
However, here is the point that was totally missed in all of this: how can the terrorist suspects, many of whom were tortured into confessions, and who were probably tortured after others were tortured, who did not have lawyers present, or their rights read to them; how can they get fair trials anywhere? Will any evidence obtained through torture be used to convict them? President Obama also asked for the death penalty; how can he, a lawyer, justify the use of illegally obtained evidence to sentence someone to death? If so, this could be a new low for our President on the rule of law front?
In all honesty, it would be better to simply say that these individuals will never be released but they will not be tried for 9-11 crimes either. The easy justification is national security. We have to hold them for the sake of national security. Even that is odd but it is better than seeking the death penalty using confessions obtained by torture. While many believe the evidence obtained through torture will be excluded, no one believes that. It will create an epic appeal process that might be impossible to sort out in the end.
Fact is, the Bush administration got it wrong from the start by suspending the rule of law. If the rule of law was suspended, you can't suddenly declare it back in effect. The process is tainted. Let it go, and simply declare that a fair trial is impossible, and these suspects, for the sake of national security, cannot ever be released or tried in court.
The GOP, with its very backward reason for opposing the trials, missed a chance to stand for the rule of law. As expected, they didn't. In fact, it is rare they are on the right side of the law. |
|
So Larry King asked Carrie Prejean, Miss USA, why she settled her lawsuit against Miss USA Paegant officials. Ms. Prejean, already under fire for her comments indicating she was opposed to gay marriage, slip slided away from King's inquiry. Ms. Prejean told Larry he was being "inappropriate" and that the settlement terms were confidential. She took off her microphone and ruined herself.
Larry, who has probably settled some cases over the years being a man in the limelight, was ready. King insisted he didn't want to know any confidential terms; he wanted to know her motive, or in other words, why did she settle? This was a great question because it isn't likely that "why" she settled is part of the agreement. What she settled for is clearly off limits but why she decided to give up her lawsuit was another issue altogether.
While some speculate that it is because of the revelation that she made a sex tape and that it was about to go public (this would, of course, destroy the image she nurtured at the paegant amidst the gay marriage issue), this is irrelevant. My issue is, was King within legal bounds when he asked for the motive? I would argue - yes, and that Prejean's avoidance of the issue was dishonest and slippery.
For example, I sue someone for $5 million dollars for discrimination. During the litigation, I learn a few things about the person I sued, and come to realize that even though I could win easy, the person is not as bad as I had believed. In fact, I believe they have made great strides to improve themselves. They offer me $100,000, and I take it because I honestly believe they have made great strides to stop discriminating. The parties agree to keep it confidential - the terms. When ask why I settled, I can say, I settled because I believe settlement is the best course of action for all parties; I am motivated, in other words, by a change of attitude towards the defendant.
Is this a breach?
Did the beauty queen avoid a fair question? |
|
Senator Joe Lieberman is so politically bought he now says he will filibuster with the Republicans any Senate bill on health care reform that includes a public option. Can you imagine this?
Let's break this down.
If health care reform passes, approximately 36 million more Americans will have some form of coverage. They will not be subject to caps on treatment and will not be denied because of "pre-existing conditions." Like everyone in the era of health care reform, they will have to purchase coverage. This means (don't laugh), the insurance companies have potentially 36 million new customers to scoop over.
No wonder they are opposed to a public option. Why would they want to compete with the government for these new customers? They want them for themselves. This is what Joe Lieberman's play is all about. He is fighting for the insurance companies. He also knows they will bankroll him into office if he pulls this one off.
|
|
|
