Allies in the struggle? Not so fast

  Skipping right over rap/hip-hop, uninvolved and irresponsible parents, and video games, the usual scapegoats blamed for all social evils, US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently placed much of the blame on the declining quality of US schools and education at the feet of the nation's schools, colleges, and departments of Education.

In a speech last Thursday at Columbia University's Teachers College, the nation's oldest and largest School of Education, Sec Duncan described what he sees as the role that the majority of teacher preparation programs play in producing mediocre teachers who then produce mediocre students.

Though he did note that there were exceptions, Sec Duncan's speech was an evisceration of higher education programs that seek to train future teachers. If you closed your eyes and tried hard enough you might have thought you were listening to the group who wrote A Nation at Risk in 1983.

It's good to know that as much as things may change, some things remain forever constant - always blame those in lower positions than you.

The Dept of Education press release describing the speech may be found here, and the full text of Sec Duncan's speech may be viewed here. You may also download a video of the speech here. The video is free, but you do need itunes. Time magazine ran an article on the Secretary's speech and the current administration's views on education.

Take a good look: This is the right

Not everyone whose political beliefs fall somewhere on the right side of the spectrum are racist, ignorant, violent people. But unless and until the smart, sane, and humane folks on the right stand up and speak out, this is the face of their movement. The pictures here come from a collection of similar beauties. Please take a look at these horrifying pictures from the DC this weekend and pass them on.

And do not think for a moment that this will simply go away. Ignoring hate and violence has NEVER resulted in it disappearing.

Special thanks to Tim Wise for the heads-up on these pics. And more broadly, thanks to Tim for being an articulate, intelligent voice trying to draw attention to dire state of affairs related to our collective social consciousness, or more appropriately the lack thereof.

And check out Tim's latest appearance on CNN yesterday. Reacting to this segment and the several others Tim has done recently, today Lou Dobbs called Tim a "self-loathing creep." Responding to this comment, one that he takes as a compliment, Tim said, "Once again, to say that a white person condemning white racism is 'self-loathing' is like saying the very essence of being white is to BE a racist: that loving oneself as a white person requires endorsing white racism. Wow, Lou apparently doesn't think very much of white people...ironic, dontcha' think."

Religion, lovely religion

Been slacking on the posting, so thought I'd post something to feel better about myself. Seems sort of redundant to say that, as having a blog is presumably all about engaging in activities in the general realm feeling better about yourself.

Nevertheless, working on a post that, like all my other posts, is much longer than I anticipated. I'm such a long-winded gasbag. Anyway, I wanted to draw attention to a couple items in the media from the past couple days that caught my eye.

First is a great piece in yesterday's (Sept 13) NY Times Sunday Magazine on the advocacy/activist/lobbying group J-Street. J-Street is pro-Israel group that acts as an alternative to AIPAC and other such hawkish, neo-con, anti-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim groups. As Founder & Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami said in the piece

We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, 'Israel, right or wrong.'

You should check out the piece and contribute to the work J-Street is doing.

The second piece is from Friday's online version of the Daily Telegraph. The piece discusses the difficulties a British film about Charles Darwin is having finding a distributor in the US because folks in the film industry think the subject is too controversial. In other words, the US is too religious and conservative to understand and appreciate a film about a man whose scientific discoveries came at a time after a profound crisis of faith. Or, and perhaps more to the point, too many Americans believe in magic, people returning from the dead, giant boats that housed two of every animal, and talking shrubbery (ie are dumb as shit) to even see a movie that may question their beliefs.

And you thought the tea party dumbasses were an aberration? Come on now.

Disrespecting the dead: Healthcare Reform and Kennedy's legacy

Back from hiatus, more crumudgeony than ever.

I appreciate the sentiment of those who have suggested that if/when our esteemed members of Congress pass healthcare reform that the legislation be named after the recently deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). But appreciating this sentiment does not mean that I agree with it.

There are two major motives that seem to be driving folks to call for such an action. The first is fairly straightforward – Kennedy spent much of his career and life fighting for equity, and healthcare was one of his primary foci. Naming healthcare reform after him would be a symbolic move that would forever link his legacy to the legislation he fought so long and hard for. Though he died before it became a reality, naming the legislation after him would serve as a reminder for what can happen when you fight the good fight. This line of thinking is well intentioned, but is guided by an incredible amount of naivety, ignorance, romanticism, and sentimentalism. We’ll get back to this in a moment.

The other motive for attaching Kennedy’s name to healthcare reform is far more pragmatic. When the final draft of the bill(s) that represents healthcare reform finally makes it to the floors of the House and Senate, most assume it will not include a public option. Progressives (there are some left) have voiced their displeasure with this possibility, with many stating that they will not vote on such a bill. Attaching Kennedy’s name to the bill will then put progressives in the unenviable position of having to vote against a piece of legislation with a title like “The Kennedy Healthcare Reform Act”.

Voting with a conscience, instead of with an eye on reelection and superficiality will certainly have consequences. The media will harp on the name and how unconscionable it is to disrespect the legacy of Kennedy by voting against a bill with his name attached to it; they will pat little attention to the reasons why a Representative or Senator might engage in such a dangerous political act. It will be difficult for these elected officials to explain such a move to their constituents, the vast majority of whom get their news from said asinine sources and have no real understanding of what is and isn’t in the legislation, to say nothing of their ignorance of Kennedy and his beliefs. And here is the bridge between this point and the first motive I spoke about.

Much larger than this individual issue is the issue of the American public’s lack of understanding of history and social policy. I’m not suggesting that these are the only areas where we are an ignorant nation, but they are particularly troubling, and particularly relevant to this discussion.

Whether you like Ted Kennedy or not, and whether you favor a publicly funded health insurance system is not important in this context. What is important is that you at least understand and acknowledge that Ted Kennedy believed in and fought for the creation of a healthcare system that would provide healthcare to all. He believed in universal care, plain and simple. He didn’t fight to lower the costs and increase access a little bit. He believed that all people should be treated the same when it comes to quality of medical care. Your income (or inheritance) should not afford you better care. He understood that not all enterprises should be for-profit, and he named healthcare as one.

Unfortunately we live in a world where the government is seen as evil. Anything government-run is seen as evidence of a turn towards socialism, and socialism is constructed as a system akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. These overly simplistic representations of complex ideologies serve as a means to perpetuate a capitalist system that has lead us down a road of widening disparity, while simultaneously dumbing us down. Ask Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Malkin, and the rest just how much Marx they’ve read. Then ask yourself. Now tell me how qualified you are to name any system or policy as socialist, let alone connect a connotation to it.

We have to own up to the fact that we have become a dumb, fat, and lazy culture. The internet has provided us with the means for virtually unlimited discovery. But instead of being more informed of the nuances of policy or delving into examinations and critiques of the social conditions we live in, we want more news on the Bachelor and Jon & Kate. It’s pathetic; but it’s not nearly as pathetic as naming healthcare reform without a public mandate (fuck that option shit) after Ted Kennedy would be.

And spare me with the Kennedy saw Obama as the savior, and if this is Obama’s plan Kennedy would be cool with it talk. Kennedy supported Obama because the only real lefty with a remote possibility of getting the nomination (John Edwards) was quickly jettisoned from the conversation of realistic candidates. Two candidates for one party’s nomination was already too much for the media to handle. Throw in a third candidate who was taking about issues the others weren’t – like poverty and racism – and the collective talking heads would combust. So Kennedy backed Obama, in large part because his healthcare plan looked more like Edwards’ than Hillary’s did.

But soon after being elected Obama showed himself for who he is, who his record shows him to be – a good, honest, often well-intentioned person who is a capitalist at the trough just like virtually everyone else on The Hill. He believes insurance should be a for-profit enterprise. Saying otherwise might get us somewhere, but he’d have to believe it first.

I’m not the biggest Ted Kennedy fan in the world. I think he did some wonderful things as a legislator, and I think he did some not-so-wonderful things too – No Child Left Behind comes to mind when I think of the latter. But I’m knowledgeable enough about what he stood for, what he believed in, and what he fought for, to know that any healthcare reform that continues to perpetuate the existing system of a few people getting rich at the expense of the poor health of the many is not something he would champion. I’m not glad he died, but I am glad he didn’t have to live to see this.

Lindsey Graham's Shocking Defense of Choice

Was Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) using yesterday's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as an opportunity to announce to the world that he has changed his mind on the issue of reproductive rights? Is the noted and outspoken anti-choice zealot now pro-choice? Check out this quote from yesterday:

Here's what I will say about you. I don't know how you're going to come out on [a second amendment case]. Because I think fundamentally, Judge, you're able, after all these years of being a judge, to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself, to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you but for the group, they're necessary. That is my hope for you. That's what makes you to me more acceptable as a judge and not an activist because an activist would be a judge who would be chomping at the bit to use this wonderful opportunity to change America through the Supreme Court by taking their view of life and imposing it on the rest of us.

As you can tell by the brackets used to refer to the context in which he was speaking, Graham's statement was not made in reference to the issue of a woman's right to choose. No, it was made in reference to an issue Graham (and Hatch, Kyl, Cornyn, Corburn, and the rest of the oppressed white guy gang) find far more important - the right to own a gun.

Political and social issues should be examined individually; no individual issue is the same as any other, and it is far too easy to make false analogies. Similarly, the rationale we all use to come to conclusions on where we stand on individual issues is not always the same. Sometimes the rationale we use to explain our position on one issue seems to contradict the rationale we use for another.

But the philosophical rationale Graham states is a somewhat transitive one. Essentially he is advocating for the need to recognize the fact that belonging to any group necessitates embracing the notion that individuals within the group should be allowed to make choices that you may find to be problematic, perhaps even antithetical to your own sense of morality. This is particularly the case when it comes to reproductive rights, where so many on the anti-choice side base their position on theological beliefs and/or a belief in when human life begins. Neither of these are provable or universally held.

The ideology Graham articulates is exactly what the pro-choice movement is all about, and it is why the anti-choice folks' use of the term pro-abortion to describe those who are pro-choice couldn't be more inappropriate.

The clip was difficult to find, and the only place I could find it was on C-SPAN's website. I embedded the clip below, and you can also link to the clip here.

The quote above comes from around the 46:55 mark. Enjoy.

Compromise on Public Option is Not Acceptable

Since June we've known that there are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) that plan to vote against any healthcare legislation that does not provide for a robust public option. Yesterday we finally saw the list of the 50 members of the House who plan to hold firm to their belief that a Democrat in the White House and 60 in the Senate is the right time to advance legislation that actually meets the needs of the 47 million Americans without healthcare. The list may be seen here. Follow the link and you will also see a list of an additional 11 members who are apparently leaning towards voting against a plan without a robust public option.

Firedoglake has been instrumental in putting pressure on the members of the CPC, as well as reporting on the issue. They have a great tool on their site that provides the names and contact info of all the CPC members and where they stand on the issue. Please contact these folks and urge them to hold firm.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the argument is that the federal government can't do anything right, why is the right so worried about private insurance companies' inability to compete with a government program? If the ideology is all about competition, and the government can provide better and cheaper services, why is that a bad thing?

I know that part of the answer is that it is unfair for the federal government to use its size and accompanying power to essentially create a monopoly that makes it unfair and virtually impossible for private businesses to compete. In fact, we have anti-trust laws that prohibit such actions. But if we engage in a meaningful and critical discussion about this particular issue, and don't simply accept this rationale on face-value, we then must ask if healthcare is just like every other commodity and/or service, or if it is inherently different?

To equate healhcare with any other enterprise (and that is unfortunately what it has become) is to dehumanize us all, particularly low-income folks and people of color who are disproportionately impacted by the disparities in access to and quality of care. We must stop prioritizing the GNP, GDP, and shareholders' needs over the fundamental right all people in every other indutrialized nation currently have to healthcare. Let's join the ranks already.

And it's enough already with the government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor bullshit defense of for-profit insurance. The imagery of people dying in emergency waiting rooms and while they wait for approval for a necessary procedure is real, it's just misplaced. It's happening now as insurance companies look for ways to beef up their bottom lines, no matter the human costs. These costs, after all, are just another number on a ledger. Who thinks the current system that places a profit-driven technocrat between you and your doctor is working well? Find a doctor or a person who is not wealthy that does and get back to me.

The time for compromise, appeasement, and comforting rhetoric is over. The time to pass sweeping changes to healthcare is now. We all have a part to play. Now, let's play it. It is vital that we contact the elected officials who have the power to force an end to this conciliatory bullshit and make the Congress and the President act in a significant way. There are already signs of waffling, so let's get to it. If we don't act now, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Legacy Lost in the Shuffle

Been wrestling with the need to write about the passing of Robert McNamara. I just watched an episode of Charlie Rose where he replayed interviews with McNamara from episodes in 1995 and 2003. The 2003 episode was an interview with McNamara and Errol Morris. Morris is the noted documentarian who made The Fog of War, the Oscar-winning film about McNamara's life and career. I highly recommend viewing the The Fog of War, and you can see parts of the Rose interviews here:




With that said, here are some thoughts.

It's been seven days since the passing of Robert McNamara. He died Monday, July 6 at the age of 93. I know it's a recurring theme in my blog entries, but it must be noted that the media coverage of his death, and more importantly what he did during his life, has been embarrassingly scant.

McNamara served as Defense Secretary for JFK & LBJ, and is known as one of the primary architects of the Vietnam War, as well as the US bombings in Laos and Cambodia. He will forever be remembered (for those who care to give a shit about history that isn't about which celebrities are fucking each other) as being part of the brain-trust that contributed to the death of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Americans.

But it is the role he played in that circle, as a voice clamoring for death and war, for the eradication of the evils of Communism across the globe, that desperately needs attention. His legacy is that of a technocrat, far removed from the brutality and realities of war, who advanced and helped create the modern industrial military complex.

It is imperative, particularly now as we are mired in two wars (regardless of when troops pull out of city limits, we're still engaged in war) that were planned, justified, and now are being executed (in terms of the plans and accompanying PR spin) by individuals (almost exclusively white men) who built careers much like McNamara's.

McNamara is important not just because of what he did, though that certainly is important in its own right. But if we take a broader look, it is possible to view the significance of his decisions and deeds as being overshadowed by the manner by and through which he institutionalized roles and careers like his and the modern-day neocon hawks and neoliberal cheerleaders of globalization that now orchestrate, dictate, and articulate our foreign policies and the perspectives they normalize.

As someone whose just getting into this whole blog writing genre, I think it's better to collect and refer you to the writings of others who have already articulated much of what needs to be said. These things need to not only be said, but they need to be thought about, remembered, and more importantly taught.

We need to speak up about the time in our history that McNamara influenced so profoundly in an effort to illustrate how what we normalize and take for granted today related to the professionalization of careers predicated on the existence of bad guys and evil-doers, death, destruction, and the annihilation of peoples with divergent viewpoints (particularly those in poor and brown/black populated nations) is a construction that happened in a particular moment. It is not normal or natural; it has only been made to seem that way.

With that, I urge you to read the following:

Great piece by Michael Lind on Salon.com on the bipartisanship of blaming the Vietnam War on McNamara.

Joseph Galloway's commentary on taking pleasure in reading McNamara's obit.

Andrew Lam arguing that McNamara's mea culpa and purported hindsight still failed to grasp the gravity of his role in Vietnam.

Sam Smith of the Huffington Post interviews Errol Morris on his thoughts of the life of Robert McNamara.

The obit that the AP, Huff Post, and others ran.

Short piece by Joseph Nye on redemption and reflection, both of self and others.

Joe Costello offers an interesting lens through which to view McNamara by comparing and contrasting his life, legacy, and the meanings they were built on and helped build to those of Hunter S. Thompson.

And finally, I'll leave you with a weird video clip and accompanying text of McNamara reading reading Dylan Thomas' The Hand that Signed the Paper. This was a scene from the previously mentioned Errol Morris that was deleted and was not included in the final cut of the film. Self-awareness escapes us all, and all we can hope is a degree is knowledge about ourselves. Perhaps more dangerous than not engaging in this pursuit that we know will never come to an end and will only produce minimum results is the belief that you are more in touch with who you are than in fact is the case. This is all comes to life here:

Tell Me Again How Electing Obama Changed Everything

The instant analysis/commentary nature of the internet makes me feel like I’m a bit late on this; but I suppose better late than never. And I think this incident is important, not only as an individual example of racism, but as a representation of the many untold incidents like it that happen across the country everyday.

Please note that a significant portion of this entry has been cut and pasted from two stories on the Philadelphia-area NBC affiliate's website. You may view those stories here and here.

Earlier this week 65 Black children from Creative Steps Day Camp in Philadelphia were kicked out of the private Valley Swim Club.

Creative Steps paid The Valley Swim Club more than $1900 for one day of swimming a week, but after the first day, the money was quickly refunded and the campers were told not to return.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

The next day the club told the camp director that the camp's membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded. 
 


"I said, 'The parents don't want the refund. They want a place for their children to swim,'" camp director Aetha Wright said.
 


Campers remain unsure why they're no longer welcome.
 


"They just kicked us out. And we were about to go. Had our swim things and everything," said camper Simer Burwell.
 


The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded. 
 


"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

The situation left the camp and the campers facing the possibility of not having a place to swim for the rest of the summer. So the staff at Girard College, a private Philadelphia boarding school for children who live in low-income and single parent homes, stepped in and offered their pool.

"We had to help," said Girard College director of Admissions Tamara Leclair. "Every child deserves an incredible summer camp experience."

The school already serves 500 campers of its own, but felt they could squeeze in 65 more – especially since the pool is vacant on the day the Creative Steps had originally planned to swim at Valley Swim Club.

"I'm so excited," camp director Alethea Wright exclaimed. There are still a few logistical nuisances -- like insurance -- the organizations have to work out, but it seems the campers will not stay dry for long.

And to sweeten the deal, the owners of Gumdrops & Sprinkles treated the kids to a free day of candy and ice cream making.

The banning has caused so much controversy that U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) plans to launch an investigation into the discrimination claim.

"The allegations against the swim club as they are reported are extremely disturbing," Specter said in a statement. "I am reaching out to the parties involved to ascertain the facts. Racial discrimination has no place in America today."

The cutting and pasting segment of this entry ends here.

Unfortunately, I can't say that this incident surprises me. It disgusts and angers me, but it doesn't surprise me. In addition to anger and disgust, I'm left with the following feelings and questions:

1. Why, in the little national media attention that this story has received (an issue unto itself), is anyone making the point that this is somehow more surprising because it happened in the Northeast and not the South? Ever been to Philly? Or Boston? Or any other city in the NE? See much celebration of diversity? These cities are as racist and segregated as they come. I'm tired of the South being portrayed as more racist than other parts of the country. It may play out differently, but the end result is pretty similar. See this piece for more on this issue.

2. How many more incidents like this do we need to silent the voices who claim racism is no longer an issue in America? Oh, and by the way, the head of the club that kicked these kids out is a liberal Obama supporter and head of the Philly area Peace Action group.

3. Where are the civil rights activists from the right who were so concerned about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court based on the fact that they claimed she is a racist? I'm waiting for Newt, Buchanan, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of their little conservatives concerned about racism group to start screaming. Still waiting....

One Soldier's Perspective, Part 3

Presenting part 3 in a series of writings from a USAF Veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can read part 1 here and part 2 here.

One of my most memorable missions into Kandahar was actually quite uneventful. The flight in was uneventful, the flight out was uneventful. We were on a detainee transport mission. I had never been a part of this type of mission before this night. The theater commander required certain training for the air crew and it is an extremely dangerous mission. I was very interested and almost excited. As an aircrew member, I am more accustomed to dealing with the enemy with a few jerks of a yoke and some counter measures. I was now going to meet the enemy up close.

While we were on the ground in Kandahar, I went to the back of the aircraft as we were loading the detainees. I asked one of the prison guards if I could see one of the detainees. He pulled one aside and took off his mask. What I saw was both intriguing and scary at the same time. I saw in the eyes of this detainee a wanton disregard for my human form. I felt if he was unshackled, he would have tried to kill me on the spot. I felt like if he could gain the whereabouts of my family, he would probably have made a run at ending their lives as well. This event is something I have spent a good bit of time thinking about since.

I have thought about the fact that he had been captured, that he was shackled in the back of a United States aircraft. His future was unknown. I suppose these factors contributed to this detainee’s hostile appearance, but it was something more than the immediate surroundings. This man had a deep seeded hatred for the man standing before him (ME!). I am amazed to this day that this man had such conviction that he would die for his beliefs. I have realized over time that he and I had similarities. I wore the uniform of an Air Force officer and pilot. I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. I take that seriously, as did this man. He took an oath to protect and defend his way of life.

This event took place in the back of an aircraft, with the engines running, in the middle of a cold night in Afghanistan. The encounter lasted only 30 seconds or so. This event had a profound affect on my life. I remember this man as someone who had no respect for my life. Yet I somehow have respect for him and his convictions in what he believes, but I do not believe in this man’s way of life. Such is the dichotomy of war.

R.J. Strapper
US Air Force Academy, Class of 1997
317th Airlift Group, 40th Airlift Squadron, Air Mobility Command. We flew the mighty C-130H.

Thinking About the 4th of July

Celebrating and commemorating the 4th of July has become a dumbed-down day full of nationalism, jingoism, a whitewashing of history, and a celebration of consumption. In other words, it is quintessentially American.

While there are many who write about reflecting back on the founding of the nation with a critical and honest perspective, perhaps none do it better than noted writer, activist, and educator Tim Wise. It is with that said that I offer Tim's latest essay, Of Fireworks and False Memories: Reflections on History, Race and Nation as a counter to all the blathering, inane bullshit that filled the airwaves and cyberspace the last several days. Enjoy.

Of Fireworks and False Memories:

Reflections on History, Race and Nation

By Tim Wise

July 4/5, 2009

"...the past is all that makes the present coherent, and further...the past will remain horrible for exactly as long as we refuse to assess it honestly." (James Baldwin, 1952)

I have this fantasy, the indulgence of which I resist, due in part to the impracticality of it, but also, and mostly out of a general distaste for inviting potential violence upon my person. It only comes to mind once a year really, on this day in fact, as cities and towns across the United States gear up for their respective July 4th celebrations, replete with fireworks, hot dogs, and lots of red, white and blue banners, flags and wardrobe accessories ubiquitously assaulting the visual landscape from sea to shining sea.

In the fantasy, it's incredibly hot out, even as the daytime sun recedes, giving way to the darkening skies that will soon serve as the canvas for a colorful explosion of incendiary art: the end product of two unstoppable forces--American self-love, and Chinese manufacturing--brought together in an audacious display of grandiosity, not unlike, say, Siegfried and Roy, or at least Peaches and Herb.

As Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" blares from the back of a sound system loaded onto a truck, and the yearly Independence Day parade begins, I bide my time. Then, just as the first procession of Boy Scouts passes by, I turn to the man standing next to me, the one with the big "God Bless the USA" button on his hat, and say:

"Why can't you just get over it? I mean, why do you people insist on living in the past? That whole 'breaking away from the British thing' was like more than 200 years ago for God's sakes. Isn't it time to move on?"

In the fantasy, the man's head explodes, bloodless but powerfully and very, very final, at which point I move on to the next reveler, knowing that I only have so much time in which to put an end to this special brand of sanctimony by thought-murdering the assembled. After all, once the big sky-booms begin, no one will be able to hear me.

Truth is, I'm not a violent person. But if I thought this would work, I just might try it. This is, of course, exactly the kind of thing that whites (especially white conservatives) say whenever the subject of racism is raised, and always, if it is linked to the brutal national legacy of enslavement, Indian genocide and imperialistic land grabs. As in, "Oh, that was a long time ago, get over it," or "Stop living in the past," or as one intrepid soul explained to me last week in an e-mail, "Shit happens." That an otherwise literate, and by his own claims, well-informed individual would think nothing of turning hundreds of years of oppression--during which millions perished as a result of white supremacy--into the equivalent of a bumper sticker, should be more than enough to dampen the enthusiasm with which we celebrate our nation at this time of year. At least, it would be if the moral calibration of the people of said place played any role whatsoever in our understanding of the national self. Naturally though, it doesn't.

Shit happens. In other words, the past is the past, and we shouldn't dwell on it. Unless of course we should and indeed insist on doing so, as with the above-referenced July 4th spectacle, which is, to put it mildly, about some old shit. Or as many used to do with their cries of "Remember the Alamo," or "Remember Pearl Harbor," both of which took as their jumping off point the rather obvious notion that the past does matter and should be remembered, but which underlying logic apparently vanishes like fog before noon when applied to those historical moments we'd rather forget. Not because they are any less historical, but merely because they are considerably less convenient.

Truth is, we love living in the past when it venerates us. When it elevates us. When it places us upon the pedestal we have grown accustomed to seeing as our national birthright, as something to which we are entitled, as if placed there by the very hand of God Almighty, who of course speaks only English, lives in the suburbs, and drives a Hummer. If the past allows us to reside in an idealized, albeit mythical place, from which we can look down upon the rest of humanity as besotted, benighted inferiors, who are no doubt jealous of our greatness and our freedoms (and so that, of course is why they hate us and why some attack us), then the past is the perfect companion: an old friend, or lover, or at least a well-worn and reassuring shoe. If, on the other hand, some among us insist that the past is more than that--if we point out that the past is also one of brutality, and that this brutality, especially as regards race, has mightily skewed the distribution of wealth and opportunity in our nation--then the past becomes a trifle, a pimple on the ass of now, an unwelcome reminder that although the emperor may wear clothes, the clothes he wears betray a shape he had rather hoped to conceal. No no, the past, in those cases, is to be forgotten. Or if not forgotten, at least it is to carry no weight in the halls of power, such as the Supreme Court, which has reminded us repeatedly, and most recently this past week, that as regrettable as the history of anti-black racism is in this country (a history in which they themselves have played more than a mere supporting role), there is virtually nothing that can be done to remedy the effects of that history. It is, in the eyes of the court mere "societal discrimination," a bloodless and apparently perpetrator-less crime, mentioned in a dismissively clinical tone, and without regard for possible repair. In other words, shit happens, sayeth Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. So suck it up.

Of course, so as to put a more benign and intellectually appealing gloss upon their position, white folks will often dress it up in the language of compassionate concern. Thus, they insist that dwelling on past injustices, or the present-day effects of those, is unhealthy, whereas dwelling on the supposed glories of the past is perfectly salubrious. Yes, those bad things happened, they might admit in a moment of temporary honesty, but to spend too much time on such matters is to create, or perpetuate an already-created mentality of victimhood among the, well, victims, though we shouldn't think of them as such. And so the right, with this master stroke presents itself as the defenders of black and brown dignity, merely seeking to protect them from the self-imposed straightjacket of victimization, rather than as the charlatans they really are: people who never, in any era gave two shits about the well being of people of color, and who stood in opposition to every single advance towards racial equity in this nation's history, but who now deign to pose as modern day inheritors of the legacy of MLK.

But their hypocrisy in this regard is stunning, or rather, it would be, were one capable of being shocked any longer by the patently dishonest pedantry of such persons as these. After all, it seems beyond obvious that they would never tell the parents of a murdered child to "get over it," or to "move on," nor warn them that their continued recitation of their family tragedy was somehow turning them into carriers of a deadly social pathogen known as victimhood. No indeed; rather, crime victims are able to parlay their victimhood into celebrity status, and market their suffering to the masses, who will then elevate them to the status of experts on the subject of crime, as with John Walsh or Marc Klaas, whose only claim to expertise on crime control policy comes from the fact that their children were viciously murdered. But if this is all it takes to be an expert on crime, then I guess the fact that I once got food poisoning from eating a bad oyster in Tacoma means I'm qualified to weigh in on quality control standards in the nation's fisheries. And no, I am not analogizing murder to food poisoning. For the record, a good childhood friend of mine was murdered exactly 29 years ago today, but this sad truth fails to imbue me with special insights on the particulars of proper crime control, though Nancy Grace would beg to differ I suppose, and although I would, as a result of this fact, reap the never-ending compassion of the very people who inveigh against the adoption of a victim mentality when the victimization is because of race.

Likewise, those who claim to be concerned only about the debilitating effects of a victim mentality never tell Jews to stop dwelling on the Hitlerian holocaust--indeed, historic Jewish victimization is today used to justify virtually any depredation against Palestinians, all in the name of Jewish nationhood, surrounded by cries of "never again"--and they don't say it to Cuban exiles who still can't get over their families' lost financial stake in Batista-era casinos, or to the Kurds who were gassed by Saddam, or, for that matter, even to the religious fanatics who claim to be victimized by the fact that they aren't allowed to recite a decidedly Christian prayer over the intercom in a public school. Oh no: to these there is nothing but sympathy. Their victimhood is recognized, honored and cultivated like soybeans in the post-Dust Bowl midwest. It is ennobled, even as the victimization of peoples of color is disregarded, downplayed, dishonored and turned into a subject of ridicule.

Of course, that the right--and especially its white members--would prove to be hypocrites on the subject of the harms of "victimhood" should hardly surprise. After all, this is a bunch that has, in every era, posing as the arbiters of tradition and defenders of all that is holy and true, played the consummate victim. Even as they sought to conquer the indigenous of the Americas they claimed victim status, notably, whenever those they sought to extirpate opted to fight back, rather than to go gently into that good night. And they claimed to be the victims of witches in Salem, and Papists, and foreign potentates (against whom those seeking to become citizens must still today swear a vow of bitter enmity), and abolitionists, and impoverished immigrants, and Jews, and evolutionists (also known in some quarters as scientists), and communists, and union bosses, and integrationists, and fluoridated water, and the United Nations, and hippies, and secular humanists, and feminists, and more communists, and the New World Order, and now Mexicans, and Mexicans, and Mexicans, and affirmative action, and multiculturalism, and of course big government, and taxes and welfare, and the liberal media, and gay marriage and Muslim terrorists.

The white right loves victims, as long as they are the right kind. In keeping with their great admiration of victimhood status, Glenn Beck inveighs on behalf of such an elevated and salutary identity as this, every time he implores Americans to return to "who we were on September 12th" of 2001. Such an entreaty takes as a given, after all, that we should bask in our victimhood, wallow in it, let it envelop us like a warm blanket, or perhaps an old discarded chrysalis, no longer functional but oh so reassuring about the place whence we come. Yes, if we can just get back to that, Beck assures us, we will recapture the purpose and mission that is ours to claim; we will soar to new heights, on the wings of the wronged, the attacked, the victimized, never allowing ourselves to forget for one minute what happened, nor even to get two days beyond it, always bringing it up, always using it as the excuse for anything and everything we do to anyone else in the world. It will allow us to claim the mantle of victim in perpetuity, until the end of time. And if we waver in our commitment to living as permanent targets of ill-fortune, never fear, perhaps Osama bin Laden will slaughter a few thousand more of ours in a new terrorist attack: something for which one of Beck's TV guests recently hoped, and with which Beck took no umbrage nor uttered even a syllable of indignant protest.

In other words, victimhood, far from being self-defeating, is a status to which the right has long aspired, and a label they have long sought to wear, like a badge of honor on their lapels. They have wanted nothing so much as to be seen as the ultimate victims, of every evil conspiracy ever concocted: to usurp God and nation and mom and apple pie. Their concern is not that blacks and other folks of color, by remembering history, will somehow chain themselves to a crippling narrative of victimization, but quite the opposite: that by remembering history, they will perpetuate the recognition of who did the victimizing. It is not victimhood they mind, but an honest appraisal of their own implication in the injury.

Which is no doubt why Beck, on this very day--Independence Day--announced on his radio show that he "hates the last one hundred years or so of American history." For it is that century in which the prerogatives of his kind of people (and the kind of people favored by the right generally) began to be effectively challenged. That was the century in which women got the right to vote, formal apartheid was dismantled, very much against the will of conservatives, child labor was outlawed, and workers received at least some basic protections from exploitative bosses. And so it is that one hundred years that has made a victim out of Glenn Beck and others like him. They now pose as the victims of a new America they can't even recognize, and can't abide. They claim to love the country, but actually only love the Leave It To Beaver version of it, which of course was always a fantasy, indulged by those whites too wrapped up in their racial narcissism to recognize how fundamentally insane was their rendering of the national truth.

This is why white folks suffered such apoplexy at the words of Jeremiah Wright, back in the spring of 2008: not because they had evidence to contradict what he said about U.S. militarism, the murdering of innocent civilians by the American empire, or about the regular and repeated medical experimentation done on black folks throughout the years--all of which has been amply documented by whiter and far less "radical" persons than he--but because his words forced a comeuppance with truth, for which they were none prepared. We had preferred the sanitized lie, and were incredulous that some among us might not be willing to play the game as we had played it for so many years.

Sadly, our national willingness to confront hard truths--or more to the point our unwillingness to do so--is a contagion, the likes of which has clearly infected the President, as evidenced by his July 4th message to the nation today, a copy of which arrived in my e-mail inbox as I was writing this, in fact. In it, President Obama--a man who surely knows better but who, having traded honesty for political viability, now finds himself tethered to patriotic blather as a condition of his public image--begins by insisting that on this day we should remember the "courageous group of patriots" who "pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the proposition that all of us were created equal." Of course, as I'm sure the President learned at Columbia (or for that matter in prep school in Hawaii), most of them believed in no such thing. For many of the revolutionaries, indeed most, freedom and liberty were to be the preserve of white men only. And so, while whites like my own sixth-degree great grandfather received 10,000 acres of land for his service in the war, the 5000 blacks who served every bit as valiantly as he received no such prize. Indeed, slaves who fought rarely even obtained their freedom as thanks for their service. That is the truth of the independence we celebrate today: namely that it would remain a lie, even in theory, for virtually all non-white folks for another century, and in practice, for nearly two.

In other words, whereas Glenn Beck sees fit to condemn the last one hundred years of American history, it is only this century--and especially the last half of it, what with its steps forward, however incomplete, towards racial equity--that true lovers of liberty can possibly endorse and celebrate. The rest is mostly a menagerie of oppression, broken promises and outright lies: fraud masquerading as fact, tyranny posing as freedom, overt white supremacy and racial fascism smiling through the toothy grin of half-assed Constitutional guarantees that weren't worth the parchment upon which they were written.

And so as the fireworks pop outside my window, and the celebrants of our national glory retreat to their homes, filled with the warm fuzzy feeling that only raw and naked hubris can provide, may the rest of us--the non-celebrants, who value truth more so than comfort--pledge to continue troubling their sleep, disturbing their dreams, and haunting their patriotic consciousness well into the future: a future which, in the absence of an honest appraisal of where we are and where we've been, will be little more hopeful than the past from which we've only recently begun to emerge.

And if their heads explode, well, all the better.

Tim Wise is the author of four books, most recently, Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama (City Lights, 2009).

Many of his essays may be found online at www.timwise.org

Israel's Human Rights Violations in the 2009 Gaza Conflict

I can't wait to see how my fellow American Jews justify and spin this one.

Late Thursday Amnesty International released the first comprehensive report on the Israeli invasion of Gaza earlier this year. The report, titled Operation "Cast Lead": 22 Days of Death and Destruction, claims that both Israel and Hamas (as well as other armed Palestinian paramilitary groups) engaged in practices that violated international laws governing wars and conflicts, as well as blatant disregard for human rights.

Israeli forces killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians and destroyed thousands of homes in Gaza in attacks which breached the laws of war.

Amnesty cites several violations of international law committed by the Israelis, including, but not limited to, the following: engaging in indiscriminate attacks using white phosphorous and flechettes (tiny lethal metal darts encased in tank shells), using civilians (including children) as human shields, hindering access to medical care, engaging in firefights that placed medical personnel in direct danger, denying humanitarian aid workers access to the wounded and displaced, and destroying homes and public buildings without justification and/or warning.

It should come as no surprise that Amnesty found Hamas and the other Palestinian armed paramilitary groups guilty of human rights violations. Hamas is a terrorist organization; but Israel is a nation-state that the US claims as a close ally, often citing the Israeli government as the only democracy in the Middle East.

Among the specific Israeli violations Amnesty lists, the following may be the most disturbing:

During Operation “Cast Lead” Israeli forces repeatedly took over Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip forcing families to stay in a ground-floor room while they used the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position – effectively using the families, both adults and children, as “human shields” and putting them at risk. While soldiers wore protective body armour and helmets and shielded themselves behind sandbags as they fired from the houses, the Palestinian inhabitants of the houses had no such protection.

According to testimonies, in several cases Israeli forces also forced unarmed Palestinian civilian males (mostly adults but in two cases also children) to serve as “human shields”, including making them walk in front of armed soldiers; go into buildings to check for booby traps or gunmen; and inspect suspicious objects for explosives. These practices are not new. Numerous such cases have been documented in recent years and the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that such practices contradict international law and prohibited them in October 2005.

These examples say nothing of the destruction of schools and other public buildings. The usual justification for destroying such structures is that the Palestinians are evil people who hole up in these buildings, essentially using the civilians inside as human shields. Pot, meet kettle.

The American press has essentially ignored the story. The New York Times buried the story in its US edition, while giving it a somewhat more prominent spot in its global edition. Alternet, The Huffington Post, and The Raw Story all have stories about the report, though The Huff Post is not providing nearly as prominent a position on their site as this story merits.

There is nothing about Amnesty's report on the websites of America's leading pro-Israel groups. The website for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a haven for hawkish neo-cons and their ilk and self-described as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby", states that their offices are closed today in observance of July 4. There is no such disclaimer on the American Jewish Committee's site (AJC).

I know that many simple-minded folks blindly loyal to Israel will not only justify these actions by the Israeli military, but will also label my words as those of a self-hating Jew. This simple and mindless approach to issues involving human rights does nothing to advance the cause of Israel.

Being an ally, much like being a friend, should be about being critical when necessary; it should not be akin to being a cheerleader. This mindset is dangerous and analogous to that used to justify the US's torture of prisoners. It's time for Jews and others who consider themselves friends and advocates of Israel (I consider myself such a person) to engage in an honest and substantive conversation over human rights. The only way to justify the acts described in this report is to view Palestinians as less than human. Unfortunately, I think this is an apt description of many American Jews' thoughts and feelings about Palestinians.