Is America Ready?

For the past week I have been preparing a special post for this blog that is almost finished, but before posting that I must post this, inspired by something that I found at BlondeSense. Of course, I should not be at all surprised by what is contained within the short video, but it is nonetheless disheartening to hear so many examples of neo-conservative thinking that simply defies logic. But I am getting ahead of myself … you don’t know what I am talking about if you have not watched the video that is just below this paragraph. Go ahead … I’ll be patient for the few minutes it will take … it is worth your time to watch the video, and you will not regret taking the time. You may need to lean close to your monitor to read all of the quotations.

There you go ... pretty horrible, right? Well, welcome back.

Before this presidential race began, so many months ago, the question as to whether America was “ready” for a woman president or an African-American president seemed to be on the lips of everyone and their dog. The arguments were impassioned, vexatious, and mostly spurious; an individuals qualification for political office has nothing to do with the colour of their skin or of whether they sit down or stand up while going to the washroom. What qualifies someone is their mind, their ideas and ideals, and whether there are enough other like-minded people around who are willing to support them in their run for that office. That is the ultimate qualification for the job, not their colour or sex.

Of course, many elements in the media did not get that memo. While the leering eye of Chris Matthews is sadly pathetic, as are his comments from the debate regarding how important cosmetics will be, the comments from the representatives of “Fixed Noise”, which is also known to some as “Fox News” seemed to have a stranglehold on the best of the worst comments, something that is best represented by their flagship personalities: Bill O’Reilly, Hannity & Colmes.

That the United States is 68^th in the WORLD when it comes to female political representation should not surprise; in a nation that allowed 20,000 Florida voters to be disenfranchised (in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment AND the 15^th Amendment of the United States Constitution) there should be no surprise when the majority of the population receives the least amount of representation from their government, nor that they are routinely treated as second-class citizens.

The “downside” of having a woman in the White House? one “man” is asked: “… the PMS and mood swings?” How much more of a cheap, gutless attack could you make at someone? This is the heart of the ad hominem attack, a device used by people in an argument who have reached a point where they are unable to come up with anything relevant with which to support their point thus forcing them to rely on personal attacks and fictionalising. It is a sign of desperation and usually indicates that the individual has conceded the argument insofar as their ability to continue shall only last for as long as they are able to invent more lies and unrelated mudslinging.

How is being a woman any less of a disadvantage to being a male senior citizen (one who has, by the way, been demonstrating some serious cognitive impairments while delivering his prepared remarks … something that would seriously concern me if I was a supporter of said septuagenarian)? Arguing that the voice of the candidate reminds men of their wives, that it makes one fear for their privates (that was Hannity of FN), that everything she wears is calculated for effect, all perpetuates the myths that men are so easily ensnared – that she is something of a Jezebel seeking “our power”.

Hilary Clinton did not become a Senator because her husband had an affair. She became a Senator because she wanted to [eventually] run for the office of the president of the United States. For Chris Matthews to suggest otherwise is not only pathetic, it belies his political astuteness that is, quite honestly, something that I ordinarily have a great amount of respect for. One does not make a run for the office of the nation’s Chief Executive without having first been proven in another branch of the government; after all, her husband had been the Governor of some hick state, no? The reason Hillary chose to run for the New York Senate seat should be well known to Matthews: Daniel Patrick Moynihan had announced his retirement in 1998 after serving as the Senator from NY from 1977 (his term ended in 2001). Many prominent figures in the Democratic Party urged the former First Lady to enter the race, so the Clintons purchased a home in Chappaqua, New York, in 1999, establishing her legal residence requirement to run for office.

To imply anything else diminishes the entire Senate as an institution, not to mention Chris Matthews and his network’s credibility for allowing such libelous ideas to be broadcast without being taken to task.

This is not journalism, it is the blatant smearing of women, not just Hillary Clinton; it is violence against women, all women. This is the worst sort of male chauvinism and only serves to remind us that, more than anything else, America is in desperate need of real change; not just of its political leadership, but of its fundamental attitudes.

America, we have seen what you really believe in your heart, we have heard your opinions and have been exposed to the vitriol and the fear you harbour at losing control, of losing power, and it is an ugliness that defies comprehension; an ugliness that defies definition, and yet it defines so many who call themselves “American”.

Is America ready for change after the end of George W. Bush’s second term as president? Judging by the comments in that video, they deserve whatever change they get, but that is not really what I wanted to say; my first response had been … and, alas, still is, that (after watching the miserable excuses of men that could not keep their idiocy to themselves) I feel ashamed to be a man. If that is the perception of how “real men” think, then yes, I am ashamed; ashamed that more people do not have an opportunity to hear real, enlightened opinions on these matters, ashamed that the only voices that seem to get heard are the most asinine rather than the reasonable and responsible.

I feel ashamed because it becomes too easy to sit back and let others carry the banners while these frauds continue to spread their lies without any opposition. But, now that I have shared this, that shame is somewhat mitigated and I feel slightly more proud to say that I am a man and that real men would not speak that way about women.

Real men would not show such disrespect to women, after all, our mothers are women and to disrespect your mother is an act too despicable to contemplate. When men disrespect women they demonstrate that they are small-minded, impotent, weak-willed creatures that are incapable of carrying out healthy, loving relationships. Their lack of respect is emblematic of the psychological scars that prevent them from developing normal relationships with women and, subsequently, they lash out at them either verbally or worse, with violence.

It is time for all the real men to take a stand and say they are not afraid of standing up against the sexism being perpetrated against women in the media. These misogynistic acts must be stopped and they can be, if enough viewers demand that the stations broadcasting this trash change their broadcast standards. This is not about censorship; it is about the freedom to be who you were born to be, it is about the freedom to be a man or a woman and to celebrate the differences. Is America ready for that?

The Dream Lives On: 40 After MLK

While I do not usually post articles so quickly after such a lengthy post, this is a special case as this is a special day. On this day, forty years ago, one of the greatest humans to have walked the face of the earth, the Reverend Martin Luther King Junior, had his life snuffed out by the callous act of assassination; an act that, to this day, remains in the minds of many an act as unresolved as the assassination of that other icon of the 1960’s, JFK. The death of this great man came only a few short months before my birth, in August 1968, and I grew up with the collective memories of my parents and their experiences with MLK being recounted to me virtually from the day I was born.

“I have a dream,” was not something that I heard repeated as only a detached phrase, as something without meaning or context. My parents were careful to explain the importance of this “dream”; they took great pains to instil in me a respect for my fellow man, regardless of their race, religion, sex, or any other consideration. Colour blindness was something to be proud of in our house as it was evidence that we looked at the world the way it should truly be seen; looking at people the only way they should be seen, without regard for their race or religion.

The dream of Martin Luther King became something that, as I grew up, I longed for as well; longing to see a day when peoples in countries like South Africa, Chile, Israel, China, the Soviet Union, and the United States could live in true freedom, not just the surface freedoms spoken of by the talking heads that spoke for their governments. It amazed me to see, as a child, how black people in South Africa and America shared so much in common; both peoples living in a state of apartheid, though one was technically ended by Lyndon Johnson when he ended segregation and passed the Civil Rights Act.

Learning about the legacy of Martin Luther King, as a child, was something that was as normal for me as was learning about the other important things in life; the idea of how important it was to not use violence for the furtherance of one’s goal was not merely King’s message, it was the message, and yet, how much has that message been heeded? After forty years how much more is needed before that dream is realized?

Illustration © by Ben Heine

In the United States, some would say, this is the year of a dream, the year in which a woman and a black man are contending for the opportunity to contend for the highest office in the land. At the same time the very fact that I have identified one of the candidates as a black man has done a great injustice to that man, a man who is far more than an “African-American”, or anything else anyone may want to call him in an attempt to diminish what Barack Obama stands for. An article that appeared on Ben Heine’s excellent site poignantly expressed this issue in a way that far exceeds that I could hope to, so I shall direct you there (please come back!). Remember, we are more than the sum of our parts, we are more than anything that can identify us as being simply “black” or “white”, as being “Jews” or “Palestinians”; we are the culmination of all the experiences that have gone into developing our character, and it is our choice as to what that character is going to look like to the rest of the world when we are faced with adversity. Are we strong enough to follow King’s dream?

So, in the words of the Reverend King, just how far is the United States from having that “dream” of his from coming to fruition? The very fact that the remaining two candidates for the Democratic Party’s nomination for presidential candidate do not fall into the classic model of the American politician would seem to be indicative of the great number of changes that have taken place over the past forty years, but it is barely a beginning. With the signing of the anti-segregationist laws during his term in office Lyndon Johnson galvanized the Southern electoral districts so far away from the Democratic Party that they barely show up on the political radar screens these days. The extreme right, the political extremists, the racists, the “Christian” right and the various other flat-earth mentalists decided that the Republican way better represented their ideals, so long as it kept “them” out of their back yards. Founded in 1973 by conservative minister Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority was born out of the hatred of anti-segregationism, having turned to the likes of Senator Jesse Helms at the beginning of the organization’s history.

More must be done.

The wisdom with which Reverend King spoke transcended his time, and indeed, it has transcended all time. The speech he delivered to so many supporters in Washington is a perfect example of the type of thinking that needs to be echoed, loudly, by today’s leaders, ideas that must never be allowed to be forgotten, and that must be put into practice around the world. Rather than creating strife by focusing on race it is time to forget the colour of the individual standing – or living – next to us. Their struggle is, truly, our struggle, regardless of the backgrounds that make one person so different from another.

“We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.” (Complete speech here)

One short paragraph from a long speech, and yet it speaks volumes: whites were there with the blacks, side by side. They understood that the struggle for equality was one that was not borne alone by the black man, but a shared burden; so long as the black man was persecuted in America no one was free. No one is free.

If there is one thing that Americans love to talk about more than anything else it is “freedom” and the “price” of said freedom. They love to invoke the blood shed for their right to live in America and all that other jingoistic stuff that ignores the most essential facts regarding the history of the violation of rights that has taken place in the past and is currently taking place under the umbrella of “national security”. For the first time in American history the black man is probably marginally less maligned in the eyes of the institution for the sole reason that the post 9/11 racial profile doesn’t include anyone wearing an afro.

Given the number of individuals that have been detained, sometimes for months or even years, merely because they were travelling on a passport from a “suspect” nation, or they “looked” suspicious (read: they were wearing traditional Arab dress, were reading a Qu’ran, were praying, or conducting themselves in any number of other overtly threatening ways), it would seem that the “dream” has a long way to go before it is fully realized.

We can do more. We cannot walk alone.

The New Face of Terror

In a speech that has been described as a mini “throne speech” by many in the political world, Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper of the (neo)Conservative Party has launched a new series of attacks against his political opponents. Rather than criticising them for their stances on issues relating to social policies or things that have supposedly been on the top of the Canadian consciousness lately (the environment of all things … yes, the world is killing itself … literally, and Canadians have their collective heads buried up their asses in an orgy of earth-hugging … Ok … that rant is over … for now) the Prime Minister decided to go after their stance on Israel.

Israel. Yes, my friends, the Prime Minister of Canada is saying that he is a better supporter of Israel than the other politicos in Canada, and that is something that he should be applauded for: he is not a “fair weather friend”, Harper says, he unequivocally supported the month-long war waged against the civilians of Lebanon this past summer while Israel conducted its own hunt for Hezbollah, in the style that the United States has developed in their search for Osama bin Laden (bomb the hell out of half of the middle east in search of one man … right).

So, if I am getting this straight, because the (neo)Conservatives are supportive of war crimes and the senseless killing of innocent civilians, they deserve to be in office? I see … NOT.

In case you haven’t noticed, this is not how you impress people, Mr Harper. Bombing innocent people is not acceptable, even if there is a “terrorist” hiding amongst them. It is not acceptable to kill ten innocent in order to kill one “evil doer”, to use the term of the Master. But, we must also consider that this is an individual who has suckled at the teat of the southern mutt bitch residing in the doghouse across the border, a pit bull without a shred of conscience or decency, guided only by their base desire to taste blood and win a fight at all costs.

After all, if the momma dog is willing to send another 35,000 of her pups into harms way, why shouldn’t her protégé be equally willing to support a murderous regime across the ocean?

Harper © by Fewings
In the end it comes down to a willingness to permit this fool and his band of idiots to continue their charade that they insist on calling “governing”. While it is true that minority governments are able to accomplish things given the precarious nature of their existence, it is equally true that the compromises they are forced to make in order to survive often results in watered-down legislations that are essentially nothing more than window-dressing, mere representations of what could have been had the politicians allowed themselves to be freed of the constraints set by the special interest groups that whisper into their ears, setting their agendas according to their flow of dollars and cents.

The very fact that the Canadian Parliament held a vote on adhering the terms of the Kyoto accord, a treaty that Canada ratified years ago, demonstrates how out of touch with reality this Prime Minister and his (neo)Conservative government is with reality. They have been trying to prove that they are “environmentally” minded (emphasis on the “mental” in “environmental”), and yet none of their ideas are original. Instead of deciding to adhere to an accord that is set to expire in a few years, why not take a radical stance and exceed the terms outlined in the accord? The reason they haven’t done this is quite simple: it would create a demand on big businesses to curb their emissions to a point that might cut into their precious profit margins … and we can’t have that now, can we?

After all, the environment may be on the verge of collapse, but God forbid, if the stock market should happen to dip one point as a result of the actions of the political party. Suffice it to say, to borrow the term that the (neo)Conservatives have been using in their recent attack ads against Stephane Dion, the new Liberal party leader: Mr Harper, you are no leader.

If being a friend of Israel is what qualifies you to be our Prime Minister, Mr Harper, you are no leader. If being a myopic environmentalist who is only able to reiterate material that is hopelessly out of date, Mr Harper, you are no leader. If your idea of being Prime Minister, Mr Harper, means that you can obfuscate to your heart’s content and not worry about whether or not other Canadians care, then, with all due respect Mr Harper, you are no leader and it is high time to let someone else show you how it’s supposed to be done.

In the end, Mr Harper, there is no alternative to peace and the true benefits that would flow from such a situation. It is not possible to have a true peace in the middle east so long as there are those who blindly adhere to the Zionist-fascist ideologies merely because it is economically expedient to do so. Unilateral change will not result in a lasting peace: only a bilateral change, a change that includes both the education of the young and the economic rebirth of the Palestinian areas will result in something that resembles the beginnings of peace, but as long as Israel is a nation of “them and us”, or the “haves and the have-nots”, there will be the risk of armed conflict.

Blindly supporting Israel as they strike out against their “enemies” in this unending battle is hubris, and clearly demonstrates that emotions are leading rather than informed thoughts … unless it is possible to honestly accept that the slaughtering of civilians with precision guided munitions is an acceptable tactic in a war against terrorists.

Oh … of course it is … Bush … Harper … Harper … Bush … Harperbush … Bushharper … hmm … makes one wonder.