|
|||
Printer Friendly Version
Senator
Joseph McCarthy’s career as mega-liar and illusionist began to definitively
unravel on June 9, 1954, when an attorney for the U.S. Army, Joseph
Welch, pressed the indignant question: “Have
you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense
of decency?”
The
name Condoleezza Rice should evoke indignation and disgust for as
long as decent people remember the four victims of the Sixteenth Street
Baptist Church bombing, in Birmingham, 1963. Rice’s obscene attempt
to conflate Black Birmingham’s pain and the U.S. invasion and occupation
of Iraq places her beyond the pale of decency. As we wrote in last
week’s e-Mailbox column, “Rice has crossed the line from sycophancy
to blasphemy.”
Although
Rice’s NABJ speech was a singular assault on the collective, sacred
memories of African Americans, when viewed in the context of the administration
she serves, her remarks are just more dung on the pile. New York City
writer Margaret Kimberley stepped away from the stench for a wider
political view, in her August 14 commentary, Condoleezza Rice
and the Birmingham Bombing Victims.”
I
was initially dismayed at Rice’s attempt to link American imperialism
with the human rights struggles of this country, but upon further
reflection I was not at all surprised. The modus operandi of George
W. Bush has always been to use black people at the most opportune
moments. Are poll numbers falling? Bring Ugandan AIDS orphans to the
White House. Is there a need to fool moderates into believing that
you are indeed the compassionate conservative? Hold a Republican Party
convention that features T.D. Jakes and Chaka Khan. What to do on
those all too rare occasions when the Democrats find it within themselves
to speak out against the administration? Visit a black church, school
or community organization and create yet another photo opportunity
with brown faces….
While
Rice’s comments were not a surprise to Bush watchers they should not
go unchallenged. Does she really believe that those who opposed the
war in Iraq are comparable to those who kill innocent children to
further the cause of white supremacy? I
have a quick thought about Condoleezza Rice's comparison between Iraq
and “Bombingham.” We
also took issue with those who insist that, her evil mission and mangled
morals notwithstanding, it must be granted that Dr. Rice is one smart,
ladder-climbing cookie. We disagree, based on the assumption that
even Lucifer did not intend to fall into everlasting Hellfire, disgraced
beyond redemption. “The White House National Security Advisor
is a fool and a fake intellectual,” we wrote.
Our
belittling of Rice’s intellect struck a wrong chord with Michael S.
Coray, Ph.D., Special Assistant to the President for Diversity,
University of Nevada. Some of the commentary regarding Dr. Rice is, in my view, entirely off base. She is an extremely intelligent scholar, and has been a proven administrator in the higher education setting. She is also a leading neocon, an architect of neocon foreign and domestic policy, tutor to the president, and keeper of the codes that must be used to get to a “face-to-face” with the president. Many of us may not like her politics or her pandering – but she exhibits the typical style of neocon arrogance, denial of responsibility, and the shaping of historical arguments to fit the expedients of perceived realities and audiences – however banal that practice might be. Why is it so difficult to accept the simple premise that some of the black folks entrenched in this administration are as truly dangerous as the whites who head it? They are intelligent ideologues, capable of mounting their own agendas under the rubric of a political philosophy with which they are in accord. Linking Baghdad and Birmingham might, at first glance, be shocking.
But doing so is not surprising. Rather, it is simply confirmation
of neocon duplicity.
’s
reply to Dr. Coray: There are many kinds of intelligence, and none of us possess the full
quota in any category. It is obvious that Dr. Rice has learned
well the language, thought processes and "codes" of the
class she serves – evidence of a certain kind of intelligence.
But her political barometers do not function in an African American environment.
She would have better served her masters and herself by refusing to
dabble in grotesque civil rights revisionism, at the NABJ convention.
Her remarks were an insult to Black sensibilities, and were generally
received as such. Not a smart move. She and her bosses badly
misperceived the audience (if, indeed, Blacks were the primary
audience for her speech). Outside of her corporate, neo-con circle,
Rice rates a very low political I.Q.
New York
City reader Paula M writes:
Having
just watched an ABC special last night, commemorating the 40th anniversary
of Dr. Martin Luther King's Washington DC speech, and re-experiencing
the horror and shame I felt as a teenager when viewing the despicable
actions of Montgomery, Alabama officials, I applaud Ms. Kimberley's
clear-eyed and brutally honest piece about Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
Forty years have passed, and now we have Black Americans in positions
of "power" – the White House, the Supreme Court, etc., etc.
"Power" as long as they are also puppets of our current
administration and its nefarious hypocrisy and lies.
Charles
I. Cross, of Michigan, offers an even more blunt assessment of Dr.
Rice. I have long maintained that her name is really Condosleezy Lice!! Given the way she slavishly looks at King Gorge
IV, no other name fits her.
We can
I.D. with that. New phase in Iraq The Pirates have not penetrated one inch into Iraqi civil
society. U.S. recruitment of Saddam’s former secret police (see Washington
Post, August 24) is proof that occupation authorities feel surrounded
and helpless against the popular forces that have been set in motion
in Iraq, and will soon abandon a policy of co-optation in favor of
assassination and fomenting civil war. The final nail will be driven
into the coffin of the corporate “transformation” of Iraq, and events
will unfold along the more familiar paths of national resistance to
occupation.
is published on Thursdays. On Friday, August 29, the mosque in Najaf
was bombed, and this letter arrived from reader Susan Balmer. I loved the article and it does seem the author is "clairvoyant.”
Under the subtitle "Lost Cause" he/she mentioned "fomenting
civil war." Given today's bomb exploding in Iraq, one has
to wonder.
The U.S. and its agents are absent from the long list of “suspects” obediently bandied about by the U.S. corporate media. Yet the U.S. was implicated in a very similar bombing in a similarly chaotic Arab place – Lebanon – in 1985. At the time, the Reagan regime was desperately seeking revenge for a series of horrific attacks, including the 1983 Marine barracks bombing (242 dead). A truck bomb at a U.S. Embassy annex near Beirut killed 24 people, including two Americans, in September, 1984 – apparently setting U.S. covert agents on a car bombing mission of their own. Here’s a report from to PBS Frontline. The
U.S. mounted no military response to the embassy annex bombing, but
it did begin to explore covert operations in Lebanon. Investigative
journalist Bob Woodward says that the CIA trained foreign intelligence
agents to act as "hit teams" designed to destroy the terrorists'
operations. Ambassador Robert Oakley says the U.S. merely attempted
to set up a "protective unit," a Lebanese counterterrorist
strike force. President
Reagan and the CIA called off covert operations when Lebanese intelligence
operatives -- some allegedly trained by the U.S. -- set off a car
bomb on March 8, 1985, in an attempted murder
of Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the Shiite Muslim cleric who
some believed to be the spiritual leader of Hezbollah. Over 80 people
were killed in the attack near a Beirut mosque. Fadlallah survived.
Many
blamed the CIA for the attack, saying it had directed the intelligence
operatives to carry it out. Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's national
security adviser, says that the operatives who carried out the attack
on Fadlallah may have been trained by the U.S., but the individuals
who carried it out were "rogue operative[s]," and the CIA
in no way sanctioned or supported the attack. Whether
the U.S. had a hand in last week’s Najaf bombing or not, it is a fool’s
(or liar’s) game to leave the Americans off the list of “usual suspects”
– especially in light of their policy of hiring Saddam Hussein’s former
secret police, one of many ready-made crews of “rogue operatives.”
To this number one should add the hundreds of exile mercenaries brought
into Iraq to accompany Pentagon darling Ahmad Chalabi, as well as
the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, Iranian rebels cultivated by both Hussein
and the U.S.
Alas,
complicated thoughts are beyond the capacities of the corporate media.
Per Fagereng, of Portland,
Oregon, writes: That was an excellent article on the empire's strategies. It tells me that the empire is finished, which
other commentators have
said but not always so clearly.
replied: Yes, we can finally see the broad outlines of the end. The impossible
task is to put together scenarios in which the empire's back is not
broken. The Pirates truly need the anesthetic of their delusions to
maintain their morale, since objective reality is definitely not on
their side. Trojan Horse Watch [T]hese
good ol’ boy strategists set about to find a Trojan Horse. And
this time, they hit upon what they considered to be a winner: in my
case, another black woman who would in actuality be one of them.
Imagine it. Good ol’ boys from the bad ol’ days making bad ol’
girls for today.
Now
legend has it, that for ten years the Greeks laid siege on Troy and
for ten years they couldn’t get through. But only when they
decided to fool the people of Troy, and send in an offensive war machine
cloaked in a peace offering did they project themselves past a stiff
Troy defense.
Meanwhile,
Troy believes that because it’s won every battle for the past ten
years that it has defeated the Greeks. Troy didn’t realize that
the Greeks had planned one more battle and that one would win the
war.
So,
in my last election, 48,000 Republicans crossed over and voted in
the Democratic Primary….
But
even as they revel in their successes, I would warn them, Don’t mistake
a mere battle for the war. There’s
no question that McKinney has a national audience. Cynthia Smith comments,
from Allen, Texas.
I
feel uplifted by this speech, full of fire in the face of these brave
women. I believe Congresswoman McKinney brought up the best theory,
that we women have not lost our souls.
Organizers
of 160,000-member ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now, have targeted banking giant Wells Fargo as the predatory
lender most in need of regulation. In last weeks commentary, Predators in the Neighborhood: Brand name lenders
join the bottom feeders,” we explained how the “blue chip gangs
of Wall Street engage in wholesale entrapment to both increase the
number of people that can be charged the highest rates and prevent
them from escaping back to prime territory.” Bad credit risks, the
corporate philosophy goes, are good business. As
if there were not enough truly poor people to exploit, banks steer
customers who should qualify for loans at 6 or 7 percent rates to
their subprime subsidiaries, where the menu starts at 10 or 12 percent
and gets more expensive as the extras are piled on the plate. At a
Wells Fargo office, loans may exceed the value of the customer’s total
equity. “Borrowers who are loaned more than 100% of the value of their
home are effectively trapped in that loan or package of loans, no
matter how detrimental the terms,” said ACORN President Hurd.
Subprime
lending is the growth sector of U.S. finance capital – simply because
that’s where the super-profits are. The blue chip gangs of Wall Street
engage in wholesale entrapment to both increase the number of people
that can be charged the highest rates and prevent them from escaping
back to prime territory.
Black
households possess only one-eighth the wealth of whites, most of that
derived directly or indirectly through generations of accrued home
equity. “Although Black home ownership stands at 48 percent
(compared to about three-quarters of whites),” we wrote, “collective
Black equity is eroded by the terms of the predators – a lasting negative
legacy.”
Russell
Camp says the crooks are all wearing suits, these days.
As
usual your article was excellent. It is refreshing to hear that the
propaganda being put forth by the corporate media is not being believed
by everyone. The working poor are always the target of the bottom
feeders. What is different in these times is the fact that the
so-called respectable financial institutions have tossed ethics out
the window in the pursuit of profit at any cost to society. If the
economy was truly in recovery these tactics would not be necessary.
Robin
Simpson has some experience with lenders on the make. A disgraceful view of those "friendly" lenders! May I add the disgraceful tactics of the credit card issuing banks? Twelve years ago I worked for a small bank that issued less than 50,000 credit cards. I learned a lot from that job. They acted fairly and handled disputes and finance charge rates in an honorable fashion. Needless to say, they were bought out by a bigger bank, which in turn merged with an even larger bank and my view of credit cards has changed forever. The so-called low interest rates come with some very fine print rules (or they just send a generic looking letter explaining their rules). One late payment, one over the credit limit error (which conveniently got approved) will drastically increase your finance charges. In 1989 new tax rules forbid credit card interest from being a write-off. Recently Bush implemented a new rule regarding bankruptcies which allows these issuing banks to get their money after a person files bankruptcy. With interest rates averaging in the 20s the amount of revenue is astronomical. As a former (and very brief) collector I learned that the so-called "high risk" involved in extending credit is basically bogus. The banks right off, for tax purposes, a certain percentage of defaults. The money they then collect via outside collection agencies is a pure bonus. Knowing that credit cards are needed in today's society (renting a car, booking a hotel room, establishing a credit history, etc.) they make out like bandits and our wonderful President gives them an added bonus! All of these practices should be stopped. The question is how? And what about the national debt? Bush astonished most Americans with the amazing increase in the deficit budget, yet allows the general public to be penalized for small errors and/or debt problems! What message does he send? That citizens don't matter, just the elite few that happen to contribute to his campaigns. We are under scrutiny of credit checks for not only loans, but employment, insurance, renting an apartment and the list goes on. All Americans need to band together and fight back!
In
defense of (some) “Magic Negro” films Rita Kempley’s
“Magic Negro Saves the
Day – but at the cost of his soul,” reprinted in our July 3 issue
from the Black Filmmakers Foundation-sponsored site, DVRepublic,
caused quite a summer stir. Ms. Kempley’s point about magical Blacks
who redeem white people “isn't that the actors or the roles aren't likable,
valuable or redemptive, but they are without interior lives.” For
example:
Cedric Robinson, author of "Black Marxism" and a colleague of
Bobo's at UCSB, says, "Males, more problematic in the American
imagination, have become ghostly. The black male simply orbits above
the history of white supremacy. He has no roots, no grounding. In
that context, black anger has no legitimacy, no real justification.
The only real characters are white. Blacks are kind of like Tonto,
whose name meant fool." Audiences – black and white – seem to be accepting of these one-note roles,
judging by the financial success of "Bringing Down the House,"
which brought in about $130 million, and "Bruce Almighty,"
which has raked in $149 million and was ranked No. 2 at the box office. And yet other viewers and most critics were appalled by the extreme odd-couple
comedy "Bringing Down the House," in which Charlene (Latifah),
an obnoxious escaped con, invades the staid bourgeois universe of
Peter (Martin), the uptight suburbanite.
Charlene not only shows Peter how to jump, jive and pleasure a woman,
but teaches his son to read (a nudie magazine piques the tyke's interest),
saves his daughter from a date-rapist and then reunites him with his
estranged wife. And she does it all while pretending to be Peter's
maid. Michelle
Lewis came across the Kempley piece, and took offense. She’s a filmmaker
herself, and familiar with the Magic Negro genre.
This is nothing new. This is the case with every Hollywood
film. For the most part, these films are written and directed by non-blacks.
That's why it's so important for black people to support black filmmakers,
but when you give them an opportunity to support a black filmmaker,
(particularly a black female filmmaker), they make up
all kinds of excuses NOT to help. I personally know black women that
will support a black man to tell ‘Her Story’ over another black woman.
Happens all the time. We
hope we’ve had a generally edifying – if not magical – effect upon
our valued readers, this week. Keep
writing.
gratefully acknowledges the following organizations for sending visitors
our way during the past week:
|
|||