Vyan

Thursday, February 28

Kingston Mainstreaming the Obama Patriotism Smears

Last Night on Dan Abrams, the program after Olbermann, Rep Jack Kingston went on the air and managed to repeat the Patriotrism Smears against Obama which have been circulating the internet, and then proclaims that it's not an attack, it's just a "little banter".

On MSNBC’s Live With Dan Abrams last night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said it was okay to "question" Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) patriotism because he doesn’t regularly wear an American flag lapel pin. Kingston claimed that "everybody" in politics "wears them."

The funny thing about this, besides the smug little "I've just discovered Kryptonite" smile on Kingston's face, is the fact that while he's attacking Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin - he himself isn't wearing a flag lapel pin!

There's just a bunch of things that Kingston gets completely wrong in this beside his own hypocracy about the pin that Abrams doesn't catch him on.

Kingston: His reason for not wearing the pin is convoluted.

Obama: "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," he said, "I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that’s what we have to lead with, our values and ideals," Obama said.

This isn't "convoluted" - Obama is taking a stand against false patriotism - which is exactly what Kingston in presenting.

Kingston also flat out lies:

"Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance"

Except for the fact that the picture in question that has been shown around the net, which even my mother receiving a copy from a co-worker who claimed it was "scary", isn't of the pledge of allegiance, it was a picture taken during the national anthem, and there's really isn't a requirement for people to have their hand over their heart during the national anthem.

The photograph was taken on September 16, 2007, at Senator Tom Harkin's annual steak fry festivities in Iowa, an important ritual for Democratic presidential hopefuls. Contrary to the e-mails attacking Obama for disrespecting the flag, the candidates were not reciting the pledge of allegiance. They were standing for the national anthem.

It's an option, but it's not a requirment.

Plus there are pictures of Obama singing the national anthem and he does have his hand over his heart.

kingston says that Michelle Obama should come out and explain that she doesn't hate America, but then again why should she do that since she made it perfectly clear exactly what she was proud of in the first place - all you need to do is pay complete attention.

"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

Kingston: It's just banter, but it works. Apparently it's like scratching fingernails on the chalkboard to the leftists to say "Barack Hussein Obama".

Well it's not like that to me for two reasons because I've known the name "Hussein" mostly in reference to King Hussein of Jordon our long-time ally in the middle east. Second there is the fact that his name is actually Barack Hussein Obama Jr., Kingston is using that hame to attack his Kenyan father not our current democratic front-runner.

So what do we have so far? Obama will say the Pledge of Allegiance, no one, has provided evidene to the contrary. He sometimes wears a flag lapel-pin when he feels like it (just like Kingston and for that matter - John McCain), he will put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, his wife was proud that for the first time "people were being unified around some basic common issues", and there's nothing wrong with having "Hussein" as your middle name.

But that isn't all the right-wing is coming after Obama for - not by a long shot.

Real Time w/ Bill Marr featuring David Frum, Jack kingston & Matt Taiibe

Frum attacks Obama over the idea of meeting with not just our friend but our enemies.

He's been drinking his own bath-water, he thinks he will apply that "Obama Magic" to meeting our enemies.

Well it's not like John Kennedy met with Krushchev, or Nixon went to China or Reagan talked to Gorbachev. It's not like any of those efforts helped turn some of those "enemies" into friends.

Except that they did, eventually.

Barack is offering a genuine different approch to governing, which does include reaching out across the isle - or across the ocean - but also means defying meaningless convention - like flag-pins, and refusing to Talk to people as if having a conversation is itself some kind of concession.

Frankly, there isn't a single thing here the Kingston gets right - not one. He claims that Obama has "never accomplished anything" in the Senate or attempted to "reach across the isle" - except of course for the Ethics Bill and the Lugar-Obama Bill to fight weapons proliferation and the... oh, you get the picture. He's yet again playing the Fear Card, the only one in the Republican Deck. But it appears that Kingston and his fellow cohorts in terror such as Bill Cunningham, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are going to have to put forth these smears - without the aid of John McCain.

In Ohio yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appropriately apologized after right-wing talk radio host Bill Cunningham opened his campaign rally by pejoratively referring to Sen. Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein while calling him "a hack." "I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," McCain told reporters.

McCain’s repudiation stung Cunningham, who bellowed against the senator on his show later in the day. Cunningham claimed McCain "threw me under the bus for the national media" and then said that he would now "throw" his "support behind Hillary Clinton."

Right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who also blogs for National Review, called McCain a "loser" for distancing himself from Cunningham’s caustic comments. Listen to it:

Because he won’t stoop to their low rhetorical level, right-wing radio is now telling McCain that he can "say good-bye to any hope of winning over the conservative base." Apparently McCain doesn’t have enough hate for "hate radio."

So much for the post New York Time Lobbying Story after-glow.... McCain's honeymoon with the Radical Reich-wing seems to be over already.

If Barack does become the Democratic nominee, we will see many more of these attacks - but if John McCain continues to repudiate them we just might actually see something else. We just might see these types of cheap smear and phony patriotism reduced to the dustbin of history where they belong.

Patriotism isn't about symbols, it's about action! It's not about whether you put your hand over your heart, it's about whether you'll take a bullet for your buddy - whether you put your hand over their wounds to staunch the bleeding, whether you'll help take that bullet OUT of him by making sure HE HAS HEALTHCARE TOO - it's about whether you'll fight for you're fellow American - your fellow man - not just who you'll fight against.

We have to remember that Kingston and Frum are part of the party that distributed purple-heart band-aids in order to denegrate the service of a man who won the Silver Star and the Bronze Star.

These are the people that attacked children for daring to want health care - gleefully.

These are the people who let an entire American City Drown, then Rot with neglect.

I Got Yer FLAG RIGHT HERE, Kingston!

And where were Bush and McCain while this was going on? Obviously doing their patriotic duty... by having a party. (Can you tell who has a flag-pin and who doesn't in this photo?)

These people don't have the slightest clue what Real Patriotism is.

But Barack does.

"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals."

Patriotism is being true to your values and ideals, it's not doing your best to copy the tactics of the Khmer Rouge with Waterboarding and wearing a flag-pin while you do it.

Waterboarding Table used by the Khmer Rouge

Of Course they're going to come after Obama on these kinds of issues, because they think it's a "winner" for them, but it's not. This is all that the right-wing can try to do against him - and so I say - Bring It On - Beeyotches

Bring it On.

Vyan

Friday, February 22

Obama Finally Got Me!

It's taken quite a while, but I finally made the decision to jump into Obama's corner.

I had supported John Edwards, even through Super Tuesday, because Edwards had been the only candidate I saw that was addressing the issues I was most concered about, which was the idea of reviving the American dream for the poor and the middle class. He was the only one with some real Spine!

I thought Hillary was a fine candidate, but most importantly I felt that the primary thrust of her criticisms of Barack - they he was all talk and little action - hadn't been successfully rebutted.

Now they have been.

I've had my problems and concerns with Obama, and I've thought that the petty territorial pissing contest between he and Hillary was just plain wretched.

However, some of this arguement has been important and illustrative.

Obama supporters have been livid at the Clinton campaign for it's various critiques of their candidate. People said they were "playing the race" card (a charge which I take very seriously as a Black Man Myself) but I always felt that it was a completely fair criticism to point out that their is often a difference between the person who may inspire progress and the person who may best implement that progress.

This was the MLK v LBJ arguement. A lot of people were offended by what they saw as diminishing MLK's importance, but the simple fact is he didn't do it alone. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Public Accomodations Acts would not have made it through Congress if not for a skilled legislator like LBJ twisting arms and glad-handing, pushing, pulling, cajoling and being a tough negotiator for change.

MLK was vitally important to the Civil Rights Movement, but so was LBJ and so was JFK.

CLINTON: But there are differences between us. And I think, in our efforts to draw those contrasts and comparisons, we obviously try to let voters know how we see the world differently.

And I do offer solutions. That's what I believe in and what I have done. And it's what I offer to voters because it's part of my life, over the last 35 years, working to get kids health care, working to expand legal services for the poor, working to register voters, working to make a difference. Because I think that this country has given me so much.

And there are differences between our records and our accomplishments. I have to confess, I was somewhat amused, the other night, when, on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama's supporters couldn't.

So I know that there are comparisons and contrasts to be drawn between us. And it's important that voters get that information. So, yes, I do think that words are important and words matter, but actions speak louder than words.

Hillary has given up on trying to out inspire Obama, that ain't gonna happen - but even until today she hasn't given up on the idea that she is a better fighter than Obama, that she knows better how hard the other side will punch back (because she's gotten pummelled before) and what it's going to take to IMPLEMENT Change.

Yes, it may be true that progress doesn't happen at all if you don't have inspiration and that if you don't have Hope then you can't make positive change at all, but what we really need are both. Inspiration and Implementation.

If Obama has had any weakness in my mind - this is it. It's going to take more than just happy talk to get the difficult things we need done through Congress. We need more than just Hope Alone, We're also going to need someone who is also can effectively Implement the things that we Hope for.

I think Barack did a great job of answering this criticism.

OBAMA: Well, I think actions do speak louder than words, which is why over the 20 years of my public service I have acted a lot to provide health care to people who didn't have it, to provide tax breaks to families that needed it, to reform a criminal justice system that had resulted in wrongful convictions, to open up our government and to pass the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate, to make sure that we create transparency...

(APPLAUSE)

... to make sure that we create transparency in our government so that we know where federal spending is going and it's not going to a bunch of boondoggles and earmarks that are wasting taxpayer money that could be spent on things like early childhood education.

You know, I think if you talk to those wounded warriors at Walter Reed who, prior to me getting to the Senate, were having to pay for their meals and have to pay for their phone calls to their family while they're recovering from amputations, I think they've said that I've engaged not just in talk, but in action.

So yes, Obama is not just all hat. - he's not just all talk.

He's DONE. STUFF.

And so has Hillary Clinton, but now that that's settled what else is there?

Well, there are some differences in their policies particularly on Health Care and that had a vigorous discussion of that topic - but it's also true that we all know that any election time proposals are going to be completely different by the time the get through the sausage factory of Congress. Nice to see they are both so well versed with the issue, but this isn't a make or break issue for me.

I don't simply want just another place holder in the White House with a (D) by their name. The massive corruption and malfeasance of the Bush Administration is going to take literally decades to clean up and correct. Our international prestige, our integrity, our national infrustructure, our national debt, our trade deficit, our economy and our armed forces have been left in tatters by this Administration.

We've got some serious heavy lifting in front of us.

What Barack showed last night was that he's been able to Implement as much and as well as anyone, and Hillary has made it clear that she's willing and able to FIGHT hard - and even somewhat dirty - to get what she feels will help the American people.

The point where Barack finally got me was when he finally explained why his approach and strategy is critically different from everyone else in the political plain...

OBAMA: Now, I think that Senator Clinton has a fine record and I don't want to denigrate that record. I do think there is a fundamental difference between us in terms of how change comes about. Senator Clinton of late has said: Let's get real. The implication is that the people who've been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.

(LAUGHTER)

And that, you know, the 20 million people who've been paying attention to 19 debates and the editorial boards all across the country at newspapers who have given me endorsements, including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: You know, the thinking is that somehow, they're being duped, and eventually they're going to see the reality of things.

Well, I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. What they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well...

(APPLAUSE)

The reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it is not just a matter of putting forward policy positions.

OBAMA: Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions. But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and nonperformance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways.

I'm running for president to start doing something about that suffering, and so are the people who are behind my campaign.

Barack is arguing not for what he can do personally - he's arguing for what he can INSPIRE US TO DO.

What he's clearly saying here is that the American People have to have hope and faith in the political process once again, and that once they do the American people have far more power and influence than any corporate lobbyists can have.

OBAMA: The problem we have is that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die. They go to die because the lobbyists...

(APPLAUSE)

They go to die because lobbyists and special interests have a strangle-hold on the agenda in Washington. They go to die in Washington because too many politicians are interested in scoring political points rather than bridging differences in order to get things done.

And so the central premise of this campaign is that we can bring this country together, that we can push against the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda in Washington, that we can be straight with the American people about how we're going to solve these problems and enlist them in taking back their government.

When John Kerry called on Dailykos to help him Filibuster Judge Alito - we answered the call. Alito eventually defeated the filibuster, but the point is that when Kerry originally brought it up he was standing virtually alone. After he called for our help, and we started to bombard Congress with support for Kerry's stance - we changed things. The votes started to flip within a day or two, what seemed impossible suddenly because plausible - then it was possible, then it happened.

And We Did it. Kerry inspired Us, he asked Us to Fight, and We Stood up.

It finally occurred to me that this is what we need. We The People need to push back against the cynicism, push back against the defeatism, push back against the pacifism, push back against the entrenched interests who depend on our non-participation.

We The People need to take control of our nation back.

Hillary is asking that we place our trust in her, Barack is asking that we place our trust IN US.

This is the Change that he's talking about, and let's just think about what that might mean in the long term future.

From Kos today.

Watching Obama build his incredible ground operation across the country, I can't help but hope that this newly built infrastructure stays in place through November.

We must build long term, in every state, toward a solid future progressive majority.

We can help downticket races, even in states where our presidential nominee won't likely win.

And we need to run up the popular vote.

Here's the thing, that infrustructure has to become Permanent. The thing about Barack is that he's not just asking for us to vote for him, his vision also includes those downticket races in the House and Senate where various candidates - both Democrat and Republican - will begin to be judged on whether or not they on Barack's Team or not, whether they are likely to help America move for - or be a Road Block.

Kos Again...

On that last count, LBJ was the last Democrat to win his election by more than 50.1 percent of the vote. Bill Clinton never even broke 50 percent. So it's hard to argue you're a national party when we've been unable to notch a solid national presidential victory in 44 years.

So I want a presidential candidate who won't just fight for every electoral vote in the swing states, and who won't just create new swing states like Virginia, Colorado, Montana and -- can we dream? -- Texas.

I want a presidential candidate who will eat into GOP popular vote advantages everywhere, even in states like Idaho and Alabama, helping cut into the GOP's vote tally. We must mobilize Democrats everywhere, in every state in our nation, to deliver the most dominant Democratic margin of victory in half a century.

Imagine if we begin to turn a significant number of the Red States, Purple? Imagine if we finally start to Drink the GOP's Milkshake?

The issue of "Implementation" becomes almost moot.

If that is what we truly want to do, if this is the direction that we want to go then Hillary Clinton - wonderful pit-fighter though she may be - is not the candidate for the Democratic party, and not the candidate for America.

Barack Obama is.

Vyan

Thursday, February 21

Michelle Obama and the Reframing of American Pride

Yesterday's mini-explosion over Michelle Obama's comments:

"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- or the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

What interesting about this isn't just Bill O'Reilly's idiotic ill-advised "not gonna start a lynching party" comments, - gee, thanks for the consideration Bill - but really the very serious disconnect and failure to comprehend the very simple point Michelle was making on the issue of "Pride".


The Cons just don't understand.

How could an adult person in America, not be proud of America?

How could they not feel their heart swell when the vast majority of Americans are completely cynical about politics, where they don't get involved, where they don't think their votes matters or will even get counted, where the factors that affect their lives - from the cost of health care to the collapsing housing markets, collapsing infrastructure, collapsing wages, rising costs, poisoned food, poisoned water, poisoned toys - all remain unresolved and the only hope were supposed to have is continued blind faith in the mystical merry magic of the "Free Markets" to take care of everything for us.

Most of us know this is all a crock. Corporations are not going to take care of us, they're going to take care of their stockholders - their customers and employees be damned. And while corporate lobbyist have the government in a stranglehold, they aren't going to come to anyones rescue - because that might be bad for business to be able to actually get things for free from the government, instead of having to go into debt for school fees and health care fees.

It's really simple. America has not lived up to it's promise, but it CAN. America isn't perfect, it has many flaws - but it can be better. It can be much better than this.

We know that the brooks brothers set doesn't get it, they already think thht American is just fine as it is (for them) and anyone who dares try to make it better just simply "Hates America" - but sometimes the depth of their lack of reality is truly staggering.

Case in point - Brit Hume:

HUME: Yeah, she's -- first time she said in her, I guess, adult life.

HILL: Adult life.

HUME: She -- adult life she'd been proud of America. That's --

HILL: What in the world does that mean?

HUME: Well, it means that she is a liberal, and maybe an arch-liberal.

Why is she a "liberal"? Cuz Liberals Hate America - don't cha know?

And now that Michelle has said how she really feels, they want to know what Obama really feels?

HUME: Is this -- I mean, for example, was he proud when the first President Bush ran Saddam Hussein's army out of Kuwait? Was he proud when the United States went to the rescue and did all that our Navy and other military forces did for the tsunami victims? Was he proud then? Indeed, one might ask her, "You sure you weren't proud then as well?" But I think this was something that she kind of thinks that the -- and there is -- there is this feeling, and it has affected Democratic politicians for a long time, that they are kind of embarrassed by patriotism.

No, what were embarrassed by is the militaristic exploitation of patriotism. We're embarrassed by Jingoism.

Jingoism: (jĭng'gō-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

n. Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

Extreme and emotional nationalism, or chauvinism, often characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, accompanied by an eagerness to wage war.

noun

  1. an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions [syn: flag waving]
  1. fanatical patriotism [syn: chauvinism]

So naturally every element of Hume's example of "Pride" has to do with the U.S. Military, it has nothing to do with the American people themselves and how they've come together to accomplish - well - anything, because America as a nation hasn't done anything dramatic or impressive together during the entirety of Michelle's adult life over the past 20-25 years.

Hey Brit, were you "proud" when America had a better response to the tsunami than it did to the Gulf Coast and let an American City DROWN? We're you proud when while American's were dying of dehydration in the Superdome, when all they needed was some water? Are you proud that we waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and part of the information he gave us about Saddam training Al Qaeda on chemical weapons which Colin Powell told the UN was completely bogus!.

Were you proud when Americans kidnapped Abu Omar and Maher Arar, two innocent muslims who were wrongly accused and tortured by Egypt and Syria because of our mistake.

We're you proud when Tim Griffin Caged the votes of African-American soldiers serving in Iraq just to help George Bush return to the White House?

Is that the America that you love?

It seems to be the America that Cindy McCain loves:

CINDY McCAIN [video clip]: I'm proud of my country. I don't know about you if you heard those words earlier. I'm very proud of my country, and I'm proud to be a person that has voted in elections and I hope that all of you will do so today.

Yeah, you're proud you can vote - even if it's not clear whether that vote will count or not (especially if you hapen to be in Michigan or Florida).

Then there's Ralph Reed:

Now you get this, and the problem is, the reason why I think this isn't going to go away, unless she apologizes quickly, is because it plays into a stereotype about the left wing of the Democratic Party, that it blames America first, that they don't see the greatness of America, and it really makes me wonder as somebody who is roughly about Barack and Michelle's age, what country she grew up in. I mean, I was proud of America when we won the Cold War, and the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union disintegrated. I was proud when we expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. I was proud when we liberated 50 million people from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. I was proud when we provided humanitarian aid to the victims of an earthquake in Iran and to a tsunami in Asia.

Or John Gibson, when he puts Reed's premise to Kirsten Powers and she bats it back like a fastball into deep right field:

GIBSON: Kirsten, let's put it this way: Michelle Obama is finally proud of the U.S. Does that mean that President Barack will blame America first?

POWERS: Well, actually, listening to that little speech that Ralph just gave, I mean, why do people think that about liberals? It's because people do what Ralph just did.

It's true that both Liberals and Conservatives love America. They both love their country, but Conservatives love America the way a five-year old loves their parents. It's an idealized vision where American can do no wrong, where their response is to throw a tantrum when someone points out that Dad has a compulsive gambler and Mom is constantly dipping into the cookie Sherry over it.

Liberals love America, but they want Dad to go into Gambler's Annonymous and Mom to stop drinking. They want America to live up to it's full potential not just kick the neighbor kids ass every few years.

Update:There are plenty of things about America that Liberals are proud of. Most of the time though it's been things that we stopped doing or avoided.

We're proud we stopped Jim Crow and Segregation.

We're proud we stopped denying blacks and women the right to vote.

We're proud we didn't start WWIII over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We're proud we avoided a war with Iran over the Hostages.

We're proud we ended the Cold War.

We're proud we ended the War in Bosnia.

We're proud we helped end the War in Northern Ireland.

We're proud we have the potential to continue bringing these types of values and peace to the rest of the world.

But we won't unless we realize that we MUST get better and be better than we have been. We have to STOP our continued Racial polarization and exploitation, our own willingless to violate international Human Rights standards, and our failure to implement aggressive yet fair-minded diplomatic efforts to promote peace and prosperity.

We have to STOP being proud of our failures, and start being proud of our successes.

Vyan



Monday, February 4

I'm Still Voting for Edwards on Super Tuesday

Crossposted on Dkos

I agree that both Barack and Hillary are outstanding candidates. Both or either would be a massive improvement for America.

You could contrast "Hope" vs "Experience" all you want, but there really isn't an incredibly huge difference between their positions and what either one of them is likely to do as the new leader of the free world.

I'm not voting for John as a "Protest", or simply as sour grapes because his message was never truly allowed to resonate with the public by the corporate media.

There's one simply reason. One simple thing that America can't afford not to have. Just one thing. One word.

SPINE!

Whether you liked him or not, whether you agreed with him or not - John Edwards fought the good fight. He's repeatedly stood up against the corporations who've been sucking us all dry and for those who had no one else willing to stand for them.

As Poligirl noted yesterday, his true supporters are going nowhere.

"Unity" is a good thing. "Change" is a good thing. But I simply have to ask - "Unity on what issue?"

Change into what exactly?

Have we forgotten what we up against? Do we remember how pissed we were just one year ago? This was how I summarized it back then...

...this pack of rabid criminals running the White House and the Government have got you hopping mad with ignoring Richard Clark, ignoring the Cole, ignoring the PDB, ignoring the attempted invervention on Rice and the Crawford One-on-One with Tenet on Osama, Yellowcake, no al-Qaeda in Iraq, trumped up links between Saddam and 9-11, ignoring the insurgency, ignoring the Iraqi People, ignoring Afghanistan, Body Armor, Abu Ghraib, Tora Bora, Gitmo, revoking Habeaus Corpus, the Katrina aftermath, ignoring both Fact and Science on climate change and stem cells, the Voter Caging, Freedom Fries, the midnight ride to Terry Schiavo's hospice, the Domestic Spying, The NSL's, outing Valerie Plame-Wilson, Diebold, Abramov, Safavian, Guckert, the "fucking faith-based thing", the midnight ride to Ashcroft's bedside, the Partisan Purging of DOJ and Civic Rights Division, Walter Reed, the Cheney Branch of Government and most of all -- the endless lies and bullcrap about all the above.


We thought when the 110th Congress came into power in 2006 that they would change things, right?

How we doin' on Impeachment, eh? Where are we on the penetrating hearings into Bush Administration wrong-doing? Seems to me that Lorita Doan is still in the GSA despite numerous violations of the Hatch Act. When - oh when - will we ever a vote on Contempt of Congress for Miers, Bolton and Rove?

Time and time again, no matter how strong their rhetoric, when Democrats try and move forward their agenda the Republicans would kick them down the stairs and take their lunch money. Conservatives not only broke the all-time world record on obstructionism in the U.S. Senate - they doubled it, while Democrats did literally - nothing.

Ending Torture? Ending the War? Restoring FISA?

Fogeddaboudit!

Each and every time Democrats were more concerned with trying to "reach across the aisle", not appear to "partisan", not "rock the boat" and the results simply haven't been pretty.

It's been disgusting. Fucking Pathetic.

Two and half years ago John Murtha stood up and called for our troops to be pulled out of Iraq. Republicans decided to embarrass him and other Democrats by voting of an ridiculous sham version his bill. Only three Democrats, including Robert Wexler (who had originally voted FOR the Iraq Use of Force), realized the error of his ways and had the backbone to vote against continuing the war.

Before 2006, John Kerry came right to Dailykos, stood up and called for the Filibuster of Alito.

Chris Dodd stood up to stop the FISA Bill.

Russ Feingold started an earthquake when he simply called for George Bush to be Censured. Not Impeached. Not Prosecuted for War Crimes as he should be - just censured.

While all this was happening both Barack and Hillary were right in the middle of it all and not once did they bother to stand up and show some backbone.

Not. One. Time.

Both of them have begun their health care proposals without banning pre-existing conditions, without banning incentives to deny coverage to paying customers (like Nataline Sarkysian), without an absolute unwavering commitment to ensuring that everyone is covered, and that run-away costs will be reined in. The fact is that once either their proposals hit Congress, their only going to get watered down and weakened.

That's not what I have "Hope" for.

There is no question that both Barack and Hillary would be better for America than either McCain or Romney - but right now I don't see any reason to believe that any of this will "change" if either of them becomes President.

Not unless we continue to DEMAND that it changes. Not unless we require that before either of them get our vote, they speak to our issues. That they come directly here - or to Dailykos - just as Kerry, Feingold, Kennedy, JOHN EDWARDS and others have done - and personally show us some spine.

All of these people came directly to the progressive blogosphere to rally our support and fight the good fight, could you imagine Obama or Hillary doing that as President?

Do realize how powerful that would be?

Do you realize that is never going to happen?

Neither of them is the candidate I want. Not yet. There's still time, they can still take a stand on something - anything - between now and November.

There's still a chance that they can show some passion and committment for something besides bickering with each other.

In the meanwhile, my vote on Super Tuesday will go to John Edwards.

Vyan

P.S. I'm not trying to argue that anyone take my position. It's mine, I'm keeping it.

Also this is not an invite for Clintonians and Obamites to try and pull me, at the last minute, toward their candidate. That's not happening. These candidates themselves have had plenty of time to Show me Something that I've been looking for, I've seen ALL the debates - they've had dozens, even hundreds of chances to vote in the Senate, dozens of chances to take a stand in public - to show the backbone that frankly I know that a lot of Dkos realize is what we absolute need - I don't think any surrogates can show me something they don't have.

Is Obama's idea of "backbone" talking to Ahmadiniejad (sic)? Really? That's "Bold"? Hillary's idea of a tough stance is that the Iraq War is all Bush's fault? Puh-lease!

Corporate interests and their lobbyists control this country. They either write the legislation themselves (like the Bankruptcy Bill) or they block it (Medicare Drug Price Negotiation) when it doesn't line the pockets of their overlords.

We absolutely need Public Financing of Campaigns. That is non-negotiable. Political Ads on TV need to be made available for free (paid for with tax offsets) to all candidates on the ballot with equal time requirements. This is the kind of change we need, but Barack and Hillary don't seem to see that.

These guys need a serious wake up call, both of them.

What we need isn't just "Change" - a swapping of the palace guard - it's Progress!

Vyan

Tuesday, January 29

The Troops, The Truth and other things to Discard

Well, O'Reilly is still at it. He's still bashing John Edwards, bashing David Letterman, bashing the Center for Public Integrity - and somehow managing to make himself the poor set-upon victim.

Talking with his fellow Fox Shills, Bernie and Jane, it's actually quite amazing in the depth of their collective delusion. There really should be some long-term psychological studies of these people - they don't have "issues", they have Volumes!

Sometimes it's just takes my breath away, it really does.

First O'Reilly claims there aren't 200,000 Homeless Vets on our streets - even though the VA says there are.

Then he goes off on the arguement that the reasons aren't economic, they're because of drug addiction and mental illness - even though the VA addressed that too.

About one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country in the Armed Services. Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.

Never mind the idea that people who are ill, need healthcare and that people who have addiction problems need treatment and every guest that even O'Reilly has had on to support his claims has said - "We Aren't Doing Enough!" - nevermind the fact that his best argument still indicates that we are 50,000 beds short of what the VA says we need - Big 'O BillO still think's he's the only one who has his facts right.

Despite all this, O'Reilly seriously thinks that David Letterman Owes Him an Apology?

OhGodWhattaDick!

Then there's his argument that the Center for Public Intergrity list of 935 Lies perpetrated by the Bush Administration which led to the Iraq War should be ignored because of the support and funding of the dreaded George Soros.

At one point Bernie, after accusing Letterman of "O'Reilly Derangement Syndrome" because he dared go after a cheap laugh in front of his audience - a comment which generates a laugh from Jane - actually says that even if there was a report proving the "Left-Wing Bias" of the Press that the first thing that the media would point out is that the study comes from a Right-Wing funded organization.

Ok, let's point out that NO ONE has ever produced such a report who wasn't funded by Right-Wingers. In the effort of "Balance" it should be pointed out that Left-Wing organizations such as FAIR have completely debunked these bias claims and found that:

. On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

. Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

. The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

. Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

Did this get reported heavily in the media? Not really.

And here's the thing about the CPI, I've actually bothered to look at their list of Funders and George Soros isn't on the List.

This attack the messenger and the message based on who wrote the messenger a check tactic is age-old. O'Reilly has previously used it against Media Matters claiming they are "Soros Funded" even though they aren't.

Back then O'Reilly claimed that MM received money from the Tides Foundation, which in turn received funds from Soros' Open Society Initiative - ipso, facto - Soros' "funds" Media Matters. Except for the fact that all the money that Soros gave to OSI was earmarked to specific Grants such as the Death Penalty Mobilization Fund - but not Media Matters. They also argued that Soros launders his donations through another group called Democracy Alliance.

Well, again checking the CPI funder list, Soros still isn't on there, neither is the Open Society Initiative, the Tides Foundation or Democracy Alliance.

Oops! And it was such a perfect left-wing conspiracy theory BillO had going there.

I know might be an alarmist, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think O'Reilly IS LYING AGAIN!.

My own mildy penetrating analysis indicates that Soros has nothing to do with CPI, and even if it he does - So F-ing What!? If he did would that somehow magically make any one of the Bush Administration MOUNTAIN OF LIES about Iraq suddenly true?

Not bloody likely.

Let's please remember that the biggest lie of course, the one which was recently repeated by Mitt Romney, is the one about Sadam Hussein not letting the Inspectors Back In.

"If you're saying let's turn back the clock, and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein, therefore, not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in. But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in."

Here's a news flash Mitt - SADAM DID LET THE INSPECTORS BACK IN.

We have actual pictures of them locating and destroying some al-Samoud missles which violated UN rules largely because they hadn't had their guidance packages installed yet.

Hey Mitt, if the inspectors didn't get back in - how'd we find the Missles?

The truth is that the Inspectors weren't finding any chemical or nuclear weapons, they said our Intel was Garbage, and rather than let them finish their job or go back to the UN the way he was supposed, Bush simply attacked Iraq without justification, and trapped us in a situation that has cost more American lives than were lost on 9-11, will cost over $2 Trillion in tax payer funds and according to Paul Rieckoff of IAVA put more more than 1,500 more veterans out in the streets.

The fact that anyone on Fox, which is funded and owned by Rupert Murdock, and run by Karl Rove protege Roger Ailes who was also the former campaign manager for Rudy Guiliani - a fact they never bother to disclose as they report on the Bush Admistration or the Republican Presidential Race - has the balls to talk about so-called "bias" from someone who isn't being funded by George Soros is just plain insane.

You wanna talk about "Balance" - let's see Fox go after Romney for continuing to spread lies about "Sadam wouldn't let the inspectors in."

Don't hold your breath unless Baby Blue is your color.

Vyan

The Fight Worth Having

Meanwhile as the Obama and Clinton campaigns continue their frankly ridiculous cat-fight over who can appeal to the bigger closeted undercover racists and sexists, standing just to the right of the big cloud of fur and smoke is John Edwards who happens to be in a Fight Worth Having with Bill O'Reilly over exactly how many homeless veterans we have in America and what we can - and should - do about it.

It all began innocently enough during the New Hampshire Democratic Debate, like so...

Edwards: What you see happening in America today, if you're president of the United States and you're looking at this from altitude is you see a very few Americans getting wealthier and wealthier, you see the biggest corporations in America's profits through the roof -- ExxonMobil just made $40 billion, record profits -- all of that happening at the same time that we have 47 million people with no health care, 37 million who will wake up in this country tomorrow worried about feeding and clothing their children. Tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America and served this country honorably will go to sleep under bridges and on grates.

It's time for us to say and it's time for the president to say enough is enough. This is a battle for the future of our children. This is a battle for the middle class.

Edwards made his claim and apparently this simply got O'Lielly's goat as he initially claimed "there couldn't be that many.."

O’Reilly said, "They may be out there, but there’s not many of them out there. Okay? ... If you know where’s a veteran, sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it."

This didn't sit to well with Paul Rieckoff of IAVA.

OLBERMANN: Well, we know what we want to say here, and it involves suggesting Mr. O'Reilly should go and do something anatomically impossible to himself with that attitude. But do you know any homeless vets, by any chance?

RIECKHOFF: Absolutely. I mean, the VA says that there are approximately 200,000 of all generations. We know that there are at least 1,500 that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our organization and others are in touch with them every day. I made a few phone calls today to my friends who work in Los Angeles. They go out to Skid Row every day, and they said they're tracking six Iraq veterans alone that are living out in Los Angeles. We know there are about five or 10 here in New York. So, they're there. This is a very real problem. And all you have to do, to be honest with you, if you're Bill O'Reilly, is go downstairs and look out in the streets of New York, and you can find homeless veterans living on our streets every night.

Are Paul and Keith off base? It's seems that the Washington Post had no trouble confirming Edwards claim.

Several readers have asked us to check this surprising statistic, often used by Edwards. The language may be overly dramatic, but the figure is an official one, from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The department believes that one-third of the adult homeless population of the United States "have served their country in the Armed Services." A posting on the department Web site says that about 195,000 veterans are "homeless on any given night" and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year.

Veterans Affairs estimates that about 45 percent of homeless veterans suffer from mental illness, and 70 percent from alcohol abuse or other drug abuse problems. Roughly 56 percent are African American or Hispanic.

And what does the VA Say?

About one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country in the Armed Services. Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.

The amazing thing is that rather than simply admit defeat and go home, O'Reilly decided to migrate his argument into so-called "Class Warfare". He re-focused on the view that these people aren't in this position because of economic conditions - even thought the VA Says that for some of them it IS Economic - but instead, they are there because of mental illness and addiction, which of course means there's "nothing anyone else can do."

But when O'Reilly tried to make this point with his own hand-picked guest,
Joseph Califano, head of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, he didn't get what he bargained for.

CALIFANO: Now one fact, a very important fact about the veterans. I mean, the veterans are -- the real tragedy here is most of those veterans have had combat experience that are suffering from drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems. And we are not taking care of them.

O'REILLY: And that is something that should be addressed.

CALIFANO: The Veterans Administration spends about half a billion dollars a year in substance abuse treatment and methadone maintenance for the heroin addicts. But that's not enough.

O'REILLY: OK.

CALIFANO: And it's not a --

O'REILLY: Nobody is arguing that, Mr. Califano.

CALIFANO: OK.

O'REILLY: What we're arguing about is this is being demagogued by a guy who's trying to put up a phony scenario, Ms. Beversdorf, that it's poverty driving the people who are in trouble out on the street. It isn't poverty. It is, as Mr. Califano defined, abuse of substance and mental health problems, which I think everyone agrees, particularly with combat veterans, should be addressed in a very urgent and aggressive way. But that's not what Edwards is saying, madam.

That is exactly what Edwards is saying. Califano said it: What we're spending to address the problem is "not enough". That is an economic issue. Pure and simple. People with mental health problems are not capable of making the best choices on their own behalf, people with addiction problems aren't either - they need treatment, they need HEALTH CARE!

That's why Edwards said : "we have 47 million people with no health care,"

And it seems that the last thing O'Reilly wants - is for anyone to get more healthcare, particularly when the reason they need healthcare at all is the fact that they dared to serve their country and may have become mental-ill and drug addicted because of that service.

To Edwards, it'a not really about how or why these people are in this position, it's a moral question of what we should be doing about it.

The one with the phony arguement here is clearly O'Reilly, particularly following Edward's appearance on Letterman.

He then addressed the subject with Fox Contributors Carrie Lucas and Col David Hunt.

After a month of "searching" (ie. Waiting for Homeless guys without TV's or Radios to CALL HIM) O'Reilly still can't find the vet living under the bridge. Try Over Here - Billy.

Hunt: We're not doing enough. I haven't seen 150,000 beds. It's wrong for one veteran to be on the street.

Lucas: This is a matter of what is the proper role of the federal government. Private charities are better able to address this.

O'Reilly: Are you going to force these people into rehab? Are you going to grab them by the scruff of the neck, you going to drag them into rehab?
Are you willing to do that? It's an individual problem Col. It's an individual addiction or mental illness - and in order to solve that problem you have to force him, and nobodies willing to do that in this country.

Hunt: I think we ought to try.

Like the typical little jack-booted thug that he is, O'Reilly views this in martial terms. In his demented world you would have to force these people into rehab facilities, go running around with butterfly nets and big trucks - gather them up and take them to the big scary building on the hill.

Lock them away.

He never considers the idea of taking the treatment to them. He never considers the power of positive persuasian, or the use of Intervention to help someone make a positive choice and how other veterans who've survived the same difficulties might be best suited reach out to these people.

Nope. Can't do that. To him it's all force, just like when he was shoving the Obama staffer around.

The ironic thing is that it was the use of force that put us in this situation in the first place.

If we're truly going to talk about the route causes of this problem, we have to look no further than Ronald Reagan, and the explosion of homelessness that took place on his watch.

... many homeless rights activists say the single most devastating thing Reagan did to create homelessness was when he cut the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by three-quarters, from $32 billion in 1981 to $7.5 billion by 1988. The department was the main governmental supporter of subsidized housing for the poor. Add this to Reagan’s overhaul of tax codes to reduce incentives for private developers to create low-income homes and you had a major crisis for low-income families and individuals. Under Reagan, the number of people living beneath the federal poverty line rose from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32.5 million in 1988.

CAROL FENNELLY (Director of Hope House in Washington): You know, I remember the month that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president. Our soup line, which would grow from the beginning of the month to a short line, to a large line by the end of the month, and then it would drop down when people got their small checks or whatever. At the first part of the month, it could get small again and grow up through the end of the month. But that first month, it was almost as if there was some cosmic energy out there, you know, telling us what was coming in the future, but the first of the month rolled around and the line didn’t get shorter. It stayed the same. It grew and grew and grew and the soup lines just went around the block in those years. I mean it, was a very difficult time. There were not enough services. We were literally claiming people off streets who had frozen to death in Detroit and, you know, in the industrialized states like Michigan. People who were out of work went into double digit unemployment.

The Republicans Hero Ronald Reagan, starting when he was governor of California, closed state supported mental institutions, closed treatment facilities and put people in need of care out on the street. He took the responsibility away from the government, and put it on the "individual" and private charities who of course were completely unsuited to handle the problem.

And frankly, that hasn't changed all that much in the last 30-years as Anderson Cooper documents, (repeating what was shown in Michael Moore's SiCKO) the dumping of homeless people on the streets of downtown L.A. by Kaiser Permanente.

There's nothing about this that doesn't stink. It's not just embarissing, it's Criminal. It's a Moral Outrage that we can't make sure that anyone who has served their country should ever have to worry - regardless of the reason - about becoming homeless.

There's no excuse.

None.

We should do what we have to do, whatever it takes. There should be no question, no hesitation, no ARGUMENT.

O'Reilly should be fucking ashamed of himself.

Vyan

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Well, there's been a lot of talk about how we either have or haven't gotten over racism in this country following the territorial pissing contest between Barack and Hillary this past week.

Fortunately, that mess is over know that B and H have decided to kiss make up at the Nevada Presidential Debate, but what about the issue their phony mud-fight was founded on in the first place?

What about actual racism imbedded into the systemic fabric of our society?

Let me let you in on a secret.

Slavery and Indentured Servitude Have Not Been Abolished

"Ridiculous" you say?

"We've come so far since those days?"

"What are you Smoking!?"

Trust me on this one, I know - because for the last two months, ending this past monday - I myself was a Slave to the State of California.

"How could such a thing happen in this day an age?" you wonder?

It happens all the time right under our noses and none of us will usually bat an eyelash. You see it all begins right with this little piece of Constitutional slight-of-hand.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

  1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
  1. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Let me just re-emphasize the part that you might have missed, just in case.

The point is that Slavery and Involuntary Servitude were abolished 143 years ago - except as punishment for the "Duly Convicted".

Ok, well that's not a real problem is it? The "Duly Convicted" must deserve what they get, right? Yeah, kinda like everyone at Gitmo probably deserves to be locked in a stress position until they pee themselves.

Yeah, sure.

The "They Got what's coming to them" view certainly isn't true for more than 200 people that the Innocence Project has exonerated and freed from decades of prison time after doing DNA analysis and proving that they simply didn't do the crime they were accused of and imprisoned for.

Unfortunately DNA evidence is only available in a tiny fraction of cases, so the other 2 Million people in our jails and prisons are just plain out of luck, whether they are truly guilty or not. Obviously some of them are guilty, but just how many are not? Even an only 1% failure rate would mean that our jails are holding have 200,000 innocent people.

Anyone think our court system is 99% efficent? It is part of the same government that couldn't get water and buses to the Superdome for 5 days, isn't it?

But we were talking about The Racism weren't we? Yeah, ok - here's the thing. You do know there are lots of black people in our criminal justice system, don't you? I mean LOTS! Just look what the Bureau of Justice Statistics says.

  • As of December 31, 2001, there were an estimated 5.6 million adults who had ever served time in State or Federal prison, including 4.3 million former prisoners and 1.3 million adults in prison.

  • Nearly a third of former prisoners were still under correctional supervision, including 731,000 on parole, 437,000 on probation, and 166,000 in local jails.

  • In 2001, an estimated 2.7% of adults in the U.S. had served time in prison, up from 1.8% in 1991 and 1.3% in 1974.

  • Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for

    -- men (11.3%) than for women (1.8%)
    -- blacks (18.6%) and Hispanics (10%) than for whites (3.4%)

  • Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.

  • More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996.

  • An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity.

For decades the issue of incredible 100 to 1 disparity in sentences for drug crimes between Crack and powdered cocaine has been indicated as a major factor in the high numbers of black prison inmates (who tend to be users of the cheaper and more potent crack) and whites (who tend to be cocaine users) - even though most drugs users are, in fact, white.

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

But right now I'm not talking about that issue, because it's only half the story and has been covered in great detail. Half of those incarcerated in our jails and prisons have been placed there for violent or drug crimes, but what about the other half?

Well, here's a Chart just in case things aren't clear, which came with this caveat :

Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail.

These are all results, but what about the causes?

In his book "The End of Racism" - which I wrote about and debunked 15 years ago, Conservative author Dinesh D'Souza argued that statistics such as those I've just listed and quoted themselves justify what he called "Rational Discrimination."

His argument was that if facts and figures, quantifiable evidence indicates that person x is more likely to a criminal and/or dangerous than person y - it's completely reasonable and rational to take steps to protect yourself and society from that person. You see, the "odds are in your favor."

It's not "racism" because what people are doing isn't based on "Hated" it's based on - well - Fear, which is much more "reasonable", see?

Except of course for the fact that odds really aren't in your favor.

Let me point out something that appears to have slipped the mind of Rational Racists like Dinesh's, and that is that if 32% of black males are likely enter the state and federal prison during their lifetime, it also means that 68% of them WILL NOT!

If you follow Dinesh's logic you should be 3 times more afraid of black men than others, but the facts also say that chances are better than 2 to 1 that any random black male you might happen to meet, is not a criminal, has never been arrested and doesn't deserve to be the recipient of other people's terror.

Dinesh would argue that your safety is more paramount than the "minor inconvenience" of additional scrutiny that would be carried by innocent black people.

Anyone buy that argument when it comes to the NSA's illegal domestic spying program? You really think it doesn't matter when the FBI starts a file on you, or your name winds up on a No-Fly List because of bad information and there's no way to get that information fixed?

I would argue that unfairly treating 68% of black males this way just might tend to make them a tad bit - how shall I say - PISSED OFF.

Besides that, it's also true that according to the data Black people do not use drugs at a higher rate than other demographic groups but they are clearly serving a bulk of the jail and prison time for drugs - which is of course, the direct result of being under high scrutiny and the not-so-soft bigotry of lower expectations.

The real question is how do these "facts" play out in terms of law enforcement? Well, I have my own anecdotal examples which I plan to get to and will explain why I have to carry a piece of paper in my wallet to guarantee my continued freedom, but before that how 'bout a few more stats?

In 1993 the ACLU did a study on New Jersey Turnpike which revealed some interesting results.

African Americans made up 13.5 percent of the turnpike's population and 15 percent of the speeders. But they represented 35 percent of those pulled over. In stark numbers, blacks were 4.85 times as likely to be stopped as were others.

We did not obtain data on the race of drivers and passengers searched after being stopped or on the rate at which vehicles were searched. But we know from police records that 73.2 percent of those arrested along the turnpike over a 3 1/2-year period by troopers from the area's Moorestown barracks were black--making them 16.5 times more likely to be arrested than others.

It's been some time since 1993, but all indications are that not much has changed, while the body count has been growing.

On October 12, 1995, Jonny Gammage, a 31 year-old African American male, was killed after being pulled over while driving the Jaguar of his cousin, Pittsburgh Steelers football player Ray Seals, in a predominately white community.

On February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo, an unarmed 22 year-old immigrant from New Guinea, West Africa, was shot and killed in the narrow vestibule of the apartment building where he lived.

On April 7, 2001, in the early morning hours, Timothy Thomas, a 19 year-old African-American, was shot to death by police officer John Roach. Thomas had 14 outstanding misdemeanor warrants, mostly traffic violations, including failure to wear a seat belt.

The stats seem clear, but also cold and clinical. Those who lose their lives due to police over-zealousness are easy to rally behind, but they are still rare. What about the many thousands of black men and others, like myself, who've never committed a violent crime, never committed a felony - I've never even taken a illicit drug my entire life, seriously I won't do anything stronger than aspirin - yet because of numerous, and some frankly ridiculous, traffic stops I haven't had a valid drivers license for at least 15 years, and I honestly can't remember a time during my entire adult life when I didn't have an outstanding arrest warrant.

I'm not going to say I haven't ever ran a red light. I have. I know the usual rules: Green means "Go". Yellow means "Go Real FAST!". Red means "Oh, SHIT!" I'm not saying that I'm a saint, or that most of the people I've met during the last two months in my journey through of "justice system" were either.

Yes, I have bent and broken a traffic law in my time - I can cop to and take responsibility for that - but the lengths that all of this has come to are just plain insane. Although it may seem extreme to those who haven't been through it, I suspect my own story isn't that different from hundreds of thousands of other people across the nation.

Here's the deal: 12 years ago I received a ticket for driving on a suspended license, this week I completed service on that charge which amounted to a $1000 fine (of which I paid over $700), plus 4 days in county jail and 20 days of "Work Release".

I'll be honest, I don't even remember why my license was suspended in the first place. It was too long ago and driving around in L.A. as a black man you are a target for law enforcement. Yes, I know it seems like a trite cliche but it's true, you are Guilty of Something - until you prove yourself Innocent - if you can.

Facts and Figures are one thing: Real Life experience is another.

I'm sure lots of people have similar stories - this is mine. (Get some coffee, I have a lot to get off my chest)

    My first experience with LAPD was as a kid. I grew up on 94th and Hoover, which was Crip territory. While I was in elementary school during the 70's, we had hookers on the corner and drug dealers living directly across the street. The dealers used to solicit the cars driving by, and block traffic for the entire block, usually a line of cars would pile up while they did they business selling PCP, which was called "Sherm" on the street. We used to see this everyday and called it the "Car Wash."

    Well, one day a black and white LAPD patrol car came around the corner and found itself at the end of a line of about four cars, with the dealers servicing the car in front. It was late afternoon, after school, all the kids in the neighborhood were out playing and could see what was going on, we all knew something was about to go down - but not what.

    The seconds ticked by slowly as anticipation built...

    Then finally the police loudspeaker clicked on.

    "Stop Selling SHERM and Get Out of the Street!"

    This struck us all has just hilariously funny, so while we all collapsed to the ground in stitches the traffic cleared up, the black and white passed on by to what must have obviously been more important work - and the dealers kept dealing.

    My own mother was the one who eventually got the dealers out of the neighborhood by starting a petition to have them evicted. They responded by burning down the house they were renting. And so it went. After a while seeing a sudden fire among the rental property in the neighborhood was hardly an odd occurrance.

    "Oh, look another Drug House fire - let's get some nachos!"

    My first job was for Defense Contractor Northrop-Grumman where I worked for a dozen years in their IT department. I had a Top Secret/SAR Security clearance, and in 1984 I bought myself a sporty new car, a Burgundy Nissan 200SX. I'd had my background checked and my trash picked at by the FBI in order to gain that clearance, but since I still lived in South Central and now had a shiny new car to the LAPD I was a suspect.

    Between the time I brought my 200SX home and my plates arrived in the mail, which was just a few weeks, I was pulled over at least 4 Times. I remember once being stopped just 2 blocks from the infamous corner of Florence and Normandie, and when they checked the V.I.N. number they found the car was so new - it wasn't even in the DMV Database yet.

    Some may scoff but in many ways the LAPD, particularly back in those days, were much more dangerous than the gangs.

    Another officer pursued me for 20 blocks down Figueroa before pulling me over. Once he saw my brand New 200SX, it seems that was all he needed and he wasn't letting go. I knew he was coming after me as soon as I passed him. But by this time I was getting a little pissed - I mean, who wouldn't? - so as soon as I stopped I got out of the car and asked the obvious but almost fatal question:

    "What's going on?"

    I knew damn well what was going on, but also knew this would throw him off balance and give me the upper hand psychological. It did, but not the way I expected. As it turned out this guy was a rookie, and responded to my "obvious aggression" of standing up and asking a perfectly reasonable question by freaking OUT and pulling out his service weapon on me!

    So, since the way he was shaking told me I'd already been through more traffic stops than HE HAD - even though we were about the same age - I decided to have a little chat with him and talk him down they way you would a guy about to jump off a cliff. He was clearly teetering on the edge being all alone with the weird black guy who spoke in complete sentences, and no "black-ccent" what-so-ever in the middle of South Central. I guess I was practically an ALIEN to what this guy had apparently been told to expect.

    "Hey, dude - just relax. Everything is cool. It'll all be all right, just go ahead and run my plates - I'll wait right here. On the ground, it's plenty comfy."

    I sat down in the middle of the street, which fortunately was a cul de sac, with my hands positioned non-threateningly at my sides and let him run his checks to find out - I was completely clean. Oh, I probably had a pending fix-it ticket at the time, but otherwise - nothing. He eventually calmed down and put away his weapon, he didn't even cite me for anything (Maybe because he had no damn good reason to pull me over in the first place, let alone pull his weapon) With 25 years of living in a "gang neighborhood" that was the only time anyone ever pointed a gun at me. Ever.

    Fortunately for me, unlike Johnny Gammage and Amadour Diallo, I'm still here to tell you the tale. If I hadn't calmed him down, I wouldn't be. Thank god I wasn't brandishing a loaded cell-phone, like Diallo allegedly was.

    One thing I will say about LAPD is that when they realized they had no case, they usually let the issue drop. Most of the time I didn't even get a ticket from them - possibly because once they actually talked to me, they could tell I wasn't "in the gang life". Gang-bangers seemed to be all they cared about and who they were looking for.

    Truth is: It was the suburban cops who wouldn't know a gang-banger from a go-go dancer that caused me real trouble.

    I once got pulled over on the 110 Freeway because my license tags were about to expire. Which is to say, they were perfectly good - I had three weeks left to get them renewed - but this motorcycle cop stopped me anyway, then gave me a seatbelt ticket. (At the time it wasn't legal to use a seatbelt as an reason to stop someone - so he fucking made up a reason!)

    The worst situation I can remember was in West Hollywood in the late 80's on the way to see some friends play a gig at the Troubadour. Me my wife and a friend who'd flown out from the midwest to see the Hollywood Sunset Strip for the first time were driving down Santa Monica Blvd, when an emergency vehicle appeared behind us. Santa Monica has two lanes going each way and we were in the fast lane, so we needed to pull over - but the slow lane was full of a long line of cars. For those who've driven in L.A., this will seem very familiar, those who haven't probably won't believe it - but no one in the slow lane would let us get over. There was one car just in front of my right front quarter panel, and another in my blindspot - but not enough room between them to change lanes so I could let the ambulance pass. I had my turn blinker on and was edging toward the line to indicate that I needed to get in their lane - but they wouldn't budge. Everyone was slowing down together, but no one was making room.

    By the time we were all almost stopped I was practically driving on the line, so I finally said "FUCK IT" and decided to by-pass all the cars in the slow lane and go all the way to the head of the line in order to keep from blocking the ambulance. This meant that I had to nearly side-swipe every car in line in order to move in time, which I managed to do without hitting anyone, go to the front of line and finally change lanes. Mission accomplished. Except that it turned out that the car in front of that line of traffic was a West Hollywood Sherriff's patrol car.

    If you ever have a chance to avoid being on the bad side of the West Hollywood Sherrif Deputy - TAKE IT. Those guys are not exactly house broken.

    They gave me a HUGE ration of shit, but I'd been through it so many times - It was practically a joke to me, which just made them more angry. I knew I'd just been trying to obey the traffic rules, but they didn't see it that way - not that they'd really seen anything other than the fact that I didn't hit them while avoiding an ambulance. They interrogated me. They interrogated my wife, who is of Irish, Russian extraction and not exactly what these apparently expected to see with some HoodRat/IT Guy in a 200SX ...and they scared the BEJEEZUS out of our friend Kim who had been flirting with moving out to L.A., to be near all her Rock-n-Roll heroes and Icons. She dreamed of being able to visit the Whiskey-A-Go-Go where the Doors first performed, or the Roxy, or Gazzarri's (which was still standing back then). It was something she'd always dreamed about. Not after this though. She gave that dream up, and still lives in the midwest - the hell away from L.A. Cops - to this day.

    My wife was livid.

    "Who owns this car?"

    "My husband."

    "And where is he?"

    "He's the gentleman you're interrogating over there..."

    Yeah she was pissed, Kim was terrified - both of them had seen what had happened, both tried to explain that I had done nothing wrong and it was the other drivers who'd put us all in danger. But like more than a few cops I've met, but not all, they were truth impervious. It didn't matter that I had witnesses. Once they'd made up their mind - no minor fact storm was going to change it.

    They also gave me a hard time because I had an outstanding warrant due of some other, probably equally bogus, traffic stops that I hadn't paid for yet - eventually I did, but these extra bills were starting to really PILE UP - finally they gave me a ticket for "Failing to Yield to an Emergency Vehicle", which ironically is exactly what I DID Do, "Yield."

    Over the years the details of most of these stops have become a blur - there were just so many of them. I remember a ticket for balding tires in El Segundo, and a left turn against a "No Left" sign in Pasadena. Both of which I admit were legitimate. But I also remember having my car searched one late night in Torrance and officers telling me they'd found Cocaine in my vehicle simply because I had turned down the wrong side street at 3 am. In this case my license tags actually were expired (keeping a car up to date with Smog checks can be a really expensive PAIN) and I knew it, so rather than deal with some cops I saw ahead, I turned around and quietly parked. Problem is the street I choose - in lovely suburban Torrance - supposed had a history of "drug activity" (Not compared to my old neighborhood in LA it didn't) and their surveillance van had spotted which way I went. (Isn't it nice that they got a surveillance van?) They kept me out there for two hours in the freezing cold trying to get me to break down and admit who my "Dealer" was - while I tried, unsuccessfully, to keep from laughing out loud at them.

    After the rookie with the itchy trigger finger, these rubes weren't bullshitting me.

    "You think this is Funny??"

    Well, Hell Yes it was funny since I don't even know what Cocaine looked or tasted like.

    "No, sir!"

    I don't even remember exactly how my license got suspended. All these tickets would pile up, some were legit - most not, but I still had to pay the bill or fight them or whatever. The ongoing grind of it was wearing me down. If I missed a court date. Warrant. If I missed a payment. Warrant. Gradually I was catching up to them - one by one - but not quickly enough. If you have a Warrant outstanding too long - the DMV will suspend your license. If you get caught driving on a suspended license - and who can LIVE without driving in LA? - they pull out the big guns on you.

    12 years ago, a pair of Whittier Deputy Sherrif's crossed the double-yellow line and nearly hit me head-on - so naturally since they were the ones to FUCK UP in the first place they pulled me over, found my license was suspended and impounded my car. The impound fees were almost a thousand dollars. The ticket fees were more than a thousand dollars and I worked out a payment plan which I kept up long enough to pay them over $700.

    Then with $350 pending on the fine, I bounced a check.

    I didn't mean too, I don't remember why it happened other than just getting some financial wires crossed. I tried to go back and give them a replacement - but they wouldn't take it. I had to see the judge again. I'd seen this judge twice already, and let me be honest with you - he was a PRICK.

    I knew this guy was going to give me jail time, so I admit it - I didn't go back. And in the meantime - I moved out of LA. to Sacramento.

    Two years later I got pulled over in Seal Beach. while visiting LA for two days (That's all it took) Again, I don't think there was any actual reason to stop us, and the OC Sherriff's didn't give me one - but they stopped us anyway. (My guess would be that I was probably speeding a bit, since I wanted to get the FUCK out of OC!) As it turned out that judge had put out a $50,000 Warrant for me - so they took me directly to jail.

    I spent about 25 hours in custody with scores of Meth-heads, Asian gang-bangers and Heroine addicts - I know, because they told me - but that was in Orange County. In those days inmates in LA County Jail were dying in custody by the car-load because of overcrowding. I was not going to LA. period. No way. We paid the bail by using cash I was saving to pay my taxes (which eventually caught up to me later), and I went back again to see that judge - but he didn't give me any credit for time served and still wouldn't take my $350, so when I got back to Sac I basically said to myself -

    FUCK 'EM - If they really want me so bad they can fucking come and get me!

    Ok, I admit it - I was a little steamed. I'd had warrants against me for my entire adult life, and the worse I ever did was probably an illegal lane change.

    Was I a lousy driver? Well, after 20+ years of driving and I've been in ONE - count 'em - ONE accident when I was still in my teens. Yeah, I'm was such a scoff-law. I grew up in a neighborhood with real criminals, most of the kids I knew from my middle-school didn't make it to see 30 years old because of drug using or drug dealing - a lot of them were flat-out murdered - and these guys are coming after ME over an overdue bill?

    Did I mentioned the "pissed off" thing? "Fuck this" is what I thought.

    In Sac things were different, they actually had decent public transportation and I didn't need to drive. Besides, the brakes had gone out one day on our car and my wife had totaled it, so driving was irrelevant. The police were actually a part of the human species. Helpful, Cheery, Polite. Wow.

    That was ten years ago and I haven't gotten a moving violation ticket since, maybe because I haven't been driving for that entire time unless it was a dire emergency, maybe because I was 400 miles from LA. Maybe both. From my experience it seem obvious that if you aren't in the driver's seat - you become invisible. The target is off your back.

    But not entirely gone.

    There was the one time I was in the passenger seat and Bobby Blotzer (drummer for the band Ratt) almost got me arrested because he decided to loudly, and badly, sing some Sinatra at 4am in the middle of a Redondo Beach neighborhood while we waited for Don Dokken to get home from an Alice Cooper show. But that's an even longer story than this one.

    In 2000 my wife and I filed for bankruptcy - and I know for a fact I included the $350 to Whittier court in the paperwork. Logic dictates that Federal Court should override State court. Rock beats Scissors. Well, not exactly as it turned out.

    This past November, after having moved back to the LA area, I was stopped again, this time apparently for Walking While Black!

    If you can believe it - I got a Jay-Walking ticket.

    But the thing is this: I was walking from one corner to another - within the crosswalk - while the light was red and the opposing traffic was stopped and while some cars where attempting to turn left. A few slowed as I approached the half-way point, and I waved them through - which is what got the officer's attention. He crossed into opposing traffic to get ahead of me, called me over to his car, made me sit on the sidewalk, emptied my pockets, called for BACKUP, discovered my age-old warrant and then wrote me up for violating code 21955, before making me spend 6 hours in the local police jail while they did an NCIC search (which turned up nothing else).

    The statute i supposedly violated in order bring this upon myself?

    Crossing Between Controlled Intersections

    1. Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

    Let me repeat - I was IN THE CROSSWALK. Also according to the California Vehicle Code persons in the crosswalk have the right of way over cars turning left.

    1. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

    Of course this isn't absolute.

    (b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

    As I said, I stopped at the halfway point, before I entered the path of the cars turning left. I did show "due care" for my safety and did not "unnecessarily" stop traffic. But these guys acted like they'd just caught Al Capone.

    I knew they thought I was a stereotypical gang-banger or something when they started asking if I had any "Friends in the area".

    Right, I've only lived two blocks away for the last 3-years in a house my mother and I bought together 25 years ago - but I have no friends, because I spend all my time on the computer doing graphic design. Nitwit.

    Ok, what I actually said was "Now, your insulting me." Which they were, what do my supposed "Friends" have to do with how and where I cross the street?

    I will admit that it's technically true that the crossing sign hadn't changed to "Walk" until I reached the halfway point, but it's also true that this particular light will never say "Walk" unless you press the button at the corner. Still he didn't write me up from crossing on the "Don't Walk" which would have been VC 21456 - he wrote me up for Jay-walking, which I simply didn't do.

    On my way walking home from the city jail six hours later I crossed the exact same interesection. I didn't touch the button, and it never did say "Walk". I somehow reached the other side in one piece. I'm so bad, that I stayed within the crosswalk.

    At any rate I was actually relieved to tell you the truth, this all confirmed that the bankruptcy hadn't overridden the pending fine, and gave me an oppurtunity to finally clean the slate.

    The running was over. I might even be able to get my license back again.

And so ends Part 1. In the overall scheme of things I think I've been lucky, at any point this could have been much worse and escalated into something ugly if either I or one of these officers had ever lost their heads.

My point for bringing all of this up is just to illustrate what it's like to live, essentially, in perpetual fear. Not fear of al Qeada, not fear of a natural disaster or health problem, but fully "rational and reasonable" fear of the people who are supposed to be charge with my protection and the protection of my family - fear that at any random moment they just might fuck me over. Again!

Through all of this I've known a lot of police officers, one was even my roomate and one of the ushers at my wedding. But that doesn't mean I actually trust them. Not automatically.

As D'Souza says it's perfectly reasonable to have these fears, based on the facts, based on experience, particularly when it comes to "young black men" - but also it's perfectly reasonable for those black men to have the exact same fear of law enforcement based on the facts. The only way to overcome this, the only way to truly fight racism from either side, is to fight those fears with courage. We have to be willing to take the risk that what we've been told, and what we've previously experienced just might be wrong in a particular case when dealing with an individual.

The problem of course is surviving what happens when those fears are actually justified.

That is a point I'll address next time in Part 2: The Hanging Judge, County Jail and Working for the Man.

Vyan