Table of Contents

There are 16 chapters in this eBook

About BlackCommentator.com

Cover Story - Violence Begets Violence in America - Color of Law By David A. Love, JD, BC Executive Editor

Guns for Teachers - Political Cartoon By Mark Hurwitt

Killing For A Promotion: Military Women Now Able To Serve In Combat - A View from the Battlefield By Jamala Rogers, BC Editorial Board

If You Can't Win Fair and Square, Cheat By Larry Matthews, BC Guest Commentator

Mali: Neo-Colonialism Meets Islamic Fundamentalism... and the People Suffer - The African World - By Bill Fletcher, Jr. - BC Editorial Board

China: More Than a Country of Millions of Low Wage Workers - Solidarity America - By John Funiciello - BC Columnist

Camaraderie Does NOT Build Real Community - Nafsi ya Jamii - By Wilson Riles - BC Columnist

Aaron Swartz: Political Cartoon - Aaron Swartz By Eric Garcia, Chicago IL

Change Your Mind, Not Your Tune - The Other Side of the Tracks - By Perry Redd - BC Columnist

Why the Time is Now for Immigration Reform - Between The Lines - By Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad, PhD, BC Columnist

MLK Day Reflection on LGBTQ Justice - Inclusion - By The Reverend Irene Monroe - BC Editorial Board

The Legitimate Rage of the People Cannot Forever Be Denied - Keeping it Real By Larry Pinkney, BC Editorial Board

Stand and Launch - Political Cartoon By Mark Fiore, San Francisco CA

Art: We Own the Future By Shepard Fairey, Los Angeles CA

Quote to Ponder: "So, when people ask me if I am prejudiced. I have to be honest..." - Joe Navarro, 21st century Chicano activist, teacher, poet and BC Guest Commentator

This is an eBook version of BlackCommentator.com - An independent weekly internet magazine dedicated to the movement for economic justice, social justice and peace.

BC Provides commentary, analysis and investigations on issues affecting African Americans and the African world.

BC was established April 5, 2002 and is published weekly on Thursday.

Executive Editor: David A. Love, JD - Managing Editor: Nancy Littlefield, MBA - Publisher: Peter Gamble

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

Cover Story

Violence Begets Violence in America

So, what do you make of a country where a third grader brings a gun to school to ward off bullies?

In Inkster, Michigan an 8-year old boy brought a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun to his elementary school two days in a row for protection, and to scare off three girls who were bullying him. The weapon was in the boy’s backpack and belonged to a relative. And surely somewhere in this nation of unacceptable levels of violence and gun worship, there are those who think that is a good thing, to arm children to protect themselves. More guns will make us all safer, right?

After the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, America, it seems, is waking up to the need to stem the tide of violence in this country. But there is nothing new here. Whether we look at the shooting sprees and mass murder of young white men in the affluent suburbs or rural areas, or the epidemic of gun violence in communities of color in Chicago and elsewhere, violence is part of the fabric of America.

From the beginning, this country has used violence to solve its problems. Years of dehumanization of others will do that to you. And this was always the case, from the enslavement of Africans to the genocide of the indigenous population, and from the regime of lynching in the Jim Crow South and elsewhere, to the acts of terror waged against civil rights workers, antiwar protestors and organized labor.

Speaking out against the Vietnam War in 1967, Martin Luther King said “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.” Dr. King’s words are even more relevant today than when he spoke over four decades ago.

The U.S. has the most powerful army, accounting for 58 percent of the military expenditures made by the top 10 military powers. With high gun accessibility and the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, America leads in deadly gun violence. Nearly 70 percent of U.S. homicides are committed with guns, and 70 percent of the weapons seized in drug war-ravaged Mexico are traced back to the U.S. Gun proliferation is bolstered by an anachronistic and obsolete Second Amendment, and promoted by gun manufacturers, who bribe lawmakers and hold the public hostage in the process.

Further, America’s love affair with violence extends to its overly-punitive, disproportionate system of justice. With one quarter of the world’s prisoners, the U.S. is the largest jailer in the world. Prisons are the largest repository for the mentally ill, with more people receiving mental health treatment behind bars than in hospitals or treatment centers. As budgets for education and social services are slashed and jobs are scarce, the American way is to lock up and even kill our perceived problems rather than to build up people and rehabilitate them.

Moreover, our continued reliance on the death penalty in the U.S. is a prime example of what happens when a society perpetuates a vicious circle of violence. While capital punishment was long cast aside in Europe, Canada, Australia and elsewhere, the barbaric practice still finds a welcome home in America - at least for now. The U.S. is part of an unsavory alliance of nations who lead the world in executions - including China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. But the winds of change are blowing.

For a nation conditioned by violence, it is hard to breakextremely old and equally bad habits. After all, people are comfortable withwhat they know, comfortable with what they were raised on. America canbreak the cycle of violence - however normalized it has become - and yet itmust if it wants to break from its troubling past and become better than it was.

BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor andColumnist, David A. Love, JD, is the ExecutiveDirector of Witness to Innocence, a national nonprofit organization thatempowers exonerated death row prisoners and their family members to becomeeffective leaders in the movement to abolish the death penalty. He is, is a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. and a contributor to The Huffington Post, the Grio, The Progressive MediaProject, McClatchy-Tribune News Service, In These Times and Philadelphia Independent Media Center. He also blogs at davidalove.com, NewsOne, Daily Kos, and Open Salon. Click here to contact Mr. Love.

Jan 31, 2013 -Issue 502

Guns for Teachers

Political Cartoon

By Mark Hurwitt, Brooklyn NY

Mark Hurwitt is an Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer, Writer and Teacher

residing in Brooklyn New York

His website is HurwittGraphics.com

Click here to contact Mark

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

Killing For A Promotion:
Military Women Now Able To Serve In Combat

I did not pop any champagne corks when I heard the announcement by formerDefense Secretary Leon Panetta that lifted a 1994 ban on women servingin combat by 2016. Women having the opportunity to die in U.S. endlesswars is not my idea for a big celebration - especially when one out ofthree women soldiers are sexually assaulted.

It appears that the push to lift the long-standing ban against women incombat has come from the inside - from women themselves. Apparentlygetting combat experience opens up promotions to higher service grades.In short, women must be willing to kill (literally) for more rank,higher salaries and bigger pensions.

I am unapologetically in the minority on this issue. According to arecent Gallop poll, nearly three-quarters of the public supportsallowing women to serve in combat roles. Now women can kill as many ofthe “enemy” as male soldiers. Along the way, people in this countryseemed to have gotten confused about what real equality is. I saw thisconfusion when women started fighting against sexually exploitation oftheir bodies. The industry said, “No problem, we can exploit men too.”Now we have equal opportunity exploitation of both sexes.

My opposition to imperialist wars is a long held view and my oppositionto black folks in the military is no secret. It is the ultimatehypocrisy for citizens who don't have full civil and human rights to berequired to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Yet peopleof color, women and gays are forever trying to prove their allegianceto the flag, and therefore, their right to full citizenship.

Women, like African Americans, have been in U.S wars since thebeginning. You may remember that Crispus Attucks, a black seaman, wasthe first person to be killed in the Boston Massacre in 1770. In 1775,a group of Groton, MA women put on their husbands' clothing anddefended the Nashua River Bridge with muskets and pitchforks. Bothblacks and women have been fighting for this country ever since -although not exactly with open arms by military leadership.

I’m pretty sure that LGBTQ people have proudly served as long as blacksand women; the historical documentation is just lacking to back it up.Up until last year gays had to stay in the closet in order to don amilitary uniform.

While there are some who were patriotic in their sentiments about themilitary, over time serving in the military came to be a rung in theladder of economic mobility. The GI B bill of 1944 provided a range ofbenefits for World War II vets including low-cost mortgages,low-interest loans to start a business or farm, cash payments oftuition and living expenses to attend college, high school orvocational education. Vets were able to buy a house and to get acollege degree or training that got them a good-paying job to ensure asolid place in the middle class.

The benefits of military service don’t always stack up against the uglyrealities facing current personnel and vets. According to the Pentagon,last year the suicide rate among the nation’s active-duty militarypersonnel surpassed the number of troops being killed in battle. Inaddition to the skyrocketing suicide rates, post traumatic stress andneurological effects are epidemic. The state of their mental healthputs veterans at risk of being homeless.

It doesn’t seen like a righteous career path to me so I wonder how themilitary will market their new and improved program to women: “Kill to Climb” or “Success comes in Numbers - How many can you killtoday?” The new policy forces women to take on aggressive, machobehavior in order to be recognized and promoted. This iscounterintuitive and anti-feminist.

I’m saddened that any woman would join the U.S. military where a femalesoldier is more likely to be sexually attacked by a fellow soldier thankilled by enemy fire. Maybe the sight of a female soldier with anautomatic weapon on her shoulder will be a deterrent to military rape.

BlackCommentator.com EditorialBoard member and Columnist, Jamala Rogers, is the leader of the Organizationfor Black Struggle in St.Louis andthe BlackRadicalCongress NationalOrganizer.Additionally, she is an Alston-BannermanFellow. She is the author of The Best of the Way I See It – A Chronicle of Struggle. Clickhere to contact Ms.Rogers.

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

If You Can’t Win Fair and Square, Cheat

By Larry Matthews

The Republican brand, as we are so often reminded these days, is tarnished to a point where even Republicans are worried. It is clear that most Americans reject the far right’s plans to tear down one hundred years of social progress by regressing into a semi-feudal system of a few haves telling millions of half-nots to stop whining and eat their gruel.

Logic would suggest that the proper response would be for the Republicans to examine their message and excise what isn’t selling at the polls. After all, If you are assuming that the Republicans are getting the message you would be wrong. Instead, they are going with the Lance Armstrong strategy. They want to cheat.

The GOP is excited about an idea that would, in effect, give the White House to the candidate who wins the most votes in the House of Representatives, now solidly in the hands of Republicans and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future because of gerrymandering of Congressional districts.

Here’s now the scheme would work: Instead of giving a state’s Electoral College votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the most votes in the state, the Electoral College votes would be apportioned by Congressional districts. Win the district, win the vote. The idea has Republicans in Virginia so excited they’ve put it on the fast track. You can just see them smacking their foreheads and shouting, “Why didn’t we think of this earlier?”

According to the Washington Post, the scheme would have given President Obama only two of the state’s thirteen electoral votes last November. Under the current system, he won them all. That’s because Virginia’s Congressional delegation is mostly Republican. That, in turn, is due to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts into “safe” seats for the party in power. This isn’t a problem unique to Virginia. Nearly every state legislature uses Census numbers to create districts that reflect current party power, Republican or Democrat.

And Virginia isn’t the first state to attempt to gerrymander the Electoral College. Maine and Nebraska already have such systems. Supporters claim it is “fairer” because it gives less populated areas a bigger role in choosing the President. In Virginia, for instance, the densely populated Washington suburbs went for Obama while the rural areas supported Romney. In a sense, this issue was resolved by the Supreme Court in the 1960s in its “One man, one vote,” ruling that population was more important than geography in apportioning Congressional seats. This new scheme will test that.

By the way, a casual observation shows that the faces of those who are supporting this plan are white, male, and straight (it appears). Not one of them is saying the plan is designed to benefit the black, the poor, the disadvantaged.

If this latest attempt by Republicans to turn Presidential elections into 435 individual races for the White House succeeds, it will change the political dynamic of the entire nation. The bitter divisions we see between red and blue states will turn into political battles within states and that will likely produce ever more radical positions on both sides.

The Republican plan is, simply, a scheme to steal the country from voters by rigging elections. They’ve learned that they can’t win with their message, so they’ll game the system and see how that works for them. The legendary House Speaker Tip O’Neil’s observation that “All politics is local” is even truer today than it was when he said it decades back. What is happening down the block and in the State House will determine the future of America.

Don’t let them get away with it. Call, phone, raise hell.

BlackCommentator.com Guest Commentator, Larry Matthews, is a veteran broadcast journalist.He is the recipient of The George Foster Peabody Award for Excellencein Broadcast for his reporting on Vietnam veterans. He is also therecipient of a Columbia/DuPont Citation, Society of ProfessionalJournalists, Associated Press, and other awards for investigativereporting. He is the author of five books including, I Used To Be In Radio: a Memoir. Click here to reach Mr. Matthews.

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

Mali: Neo-Colonialism

Meets Islamic Fundamentalism…

and the People Suffer

The entrance of the French military into the Malian civil war further complicates a descent into hell which that country has been experiencing for the last two years. Mainstream media attention has largely focused on the emergence of right-wing Islamists associated with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and the threat that this poses to the culture and people of Mali. Yet little background is presented regarding the whole conflict, particularly the circumstances that resulted in the unfolding disaster.

Up to the precipice

The country known as Mali was carved out of what was once known as “French West Africa.” Named after the famous empire of Mali (roughly 1200-1600 AD), Mali included various ethnicities, much like other former European colonies in Africa. In many cases, these ethnicities had little in common, a fact that became particularly important with regard to the Tuareg people in the northern part of the country.

The Tuareg, part of the larger so-called Berber population of northern Africa, engaged in non-violent and violent confrontations with the Malian state almost from the time of independence, in search of greater autonomy. This has been a source of constant instability.

Like most of the former French colonies, Mali remained of interest to France. During the years of Malian President Modibo Keita, efforts at genuine national sovereignty were pursued, but with the overthrow of Keita, French neo-colonial involvement regained the initiative. Mali, a country rich in natural resources, including gold and uranium, has remained important to global capitalism.

Algeria, Libya and “unintended consequences”

The Algerian civil war of the 1990s, along with the Libyan uprising (hijacked by the NATO intervention), had a direct impact on Mali. The Algerian civil war, which counterposed the military government against right-wing Islamists, was filled with atrocities committed by both sides, including atrocities attributed to the fundamentalists actually carried out by forces linked with the government. In the wake of the military defeat of the fundamentalists, a politico-military realignment took place in the camp of the right-wing Islamists and with it, the creation of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). AQIM has become one of the more successful and well-resourced of fundamentalist/terrorist organizations in Africa. But more importantly, its rise has been used as a pretext by the USA, starting some years ago, for greater US military involvement in the Sahel region of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism.

The trajectory of the Libyan uprising, which began as a non-violent protest and then escalated into a full-blown civil war in the aftermath of repression by the Qaddafi regime, provided a basis for further instability in the region. In the aftermath of the NATO intervention, which derailed efforts at justice and national sovereignty, the situation in northwest Africa became increasingly unsettled. The source of that instability was the combination of armaments possessed by the now fallen Qaddafi regime that ended up flooding northwest Africa, along with the exit from Libya of many of the late Qaddafi’s former African allies. AQIM, along with dissidents in northern Mali, were major beneficiaries of this flood of arms.

The revolt

Taking advantage of a weak Malian government and the arms they obtained in Libya, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA - the French acronym; Azawad is the name given by the Tuareg to the region), launched an uprising. Better organized than the Malian army, they quickly moved to victory, largely seizing northern Mali. Joining in this uprising, however, were various right-wing Islamist groups, including those with ties with Al Qaeda.

The Malian army, finding itself repeatedly defeated by the MNLA, turned against the recognized Malian government and launched a coup d’état. This illegal act was broadly condemned in the international community and did nothing to garner real support for a termination of the conflict with the Tuareg.

In the north of Mali, events shifted unexpectedly. Right-wing Islamists, who had allied with the MNLA, now turned on them. It quickly became clear that their objectives for the uprising in northern Mali clashed with those of the MNLA (the latter seeking an independent northern Mali or “Azawad”). Despite the fact that the MNLA had organized and led the uprising, an alliance of right-wing Islamists revolted against the MNLA and took control of northern Mali. The right-wing Islamists, including but not limited to the AQIM, continued the war with the Malian government, pushing south. As things unraveled for the Malian government, the West African community (ECOWAS) became increasingly concerned about ‘spill-over’ into neighboring countries, including both an expanded Tuareg uprising as well as right-wing Islamist terrorism.

The moment

The Malian government, which has proven unstable, corrupt and with little credibility, has found itself unable to defeat the right-wing Islamists. Its cry for help resulted first in discussions about an ECOWAS military intervention in order to stabilize the situation, and, ultimately, to the French intervention with ground troops and aircraft. A new twist is that the MNLA, based in Niger, announced on January 20th that they were prepared to join in the struggle against the right-wing Islamists.

The Malian civil war(s) contains within it sources of profound regional instability. Despite the domination of the right-wing Islamists in northern Mali, the underlying issue is political. Specifically, without addressing the historic demands of the Tuareg population of northern Mali, irrespective of the right-wing Islamists, in addition to the on-going tensions between the Tuareg and ethnic groups in the south of the country, Mali will gain no stability. For that reason alone the French intervention, rather than helping to bring about a resolution to the conflict, may very well extend and expand the conflict.

A second point of note is that the fragile condition of too many African nation-states leaves them incapable of standing up to both corruption and neo-colonialism, not to mention varying forms of fundamentalism (Christian, Muslim, ethnic, etc.). While this is a legacy of colonial rule and the, often, bizarre national borders created at the time of independence and the lack of real economic independence, this situation will not be resolved by anyone but Africans. The involvement of the African Union and ECOWAS can be positive, but only to the extent to which it advances national sovereignty, peace, justice and African unity. Insofar as either of these institutions is perceived as an agent of outside-imperial-interests, they cannot fulfill this historic task.

A third point is that it is not possible to ignore right-wing Islamism, and specifically, right-wing Islamist terrorism. The objectives of the right-wing Islamists, e.g., AQIM, are thoroughly reactionary and destructive, as can be seen by the reign of terror that they have wrought in northern Mali. Their political misogynism along with their fixation on a mythical Islamic past, do not serve the cause of economic and social justice, not to mention African unity. Though they claim the banner of “anti-imperialism,” they are no more genuine anti-imperialist than were the Japanese fascists in World War II who claimed to be fighting for “Asia for the Asians,” while instead advancing their reactionary aims. About this point, one cannot afford any confusion.

In this situation, the USA must desist from its manipulative and provocative role. Beginning during the George W. Bush administration, in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US escalated its military presence in the Sahel region of Africa. Though terrorism-Muslim and/or non-Muslim was not the major threat to Africa (whereas, civil wars, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and imperial robbery were), the US insisted on a militarization of the region, including close collaboration with undemocratic regimes. This involvement did not advance democracy, and it certainly did not stop the advance of terrorism. Rather, this irresponsible interventionism coupled with the NATO hijacking of the Libyan uprising, has resulted in exactly the opposite.

A political settlement must be brought about in Mali. This must include the full and unconditional reinstatement of democratic rule in the country. The military must return to the barracks. The French military must also return to their bases…in France, and withdraw from this conflict. ECOWAS and the African Union, however, have a different role. They must step up to the plate and provide multiple levels of support to a process of democratization and stabilization. They are needed as intermediaries in settling the military conflict. They must bring the right amount of pressure to bear on the Malian military to return legitimate political rule to the country. They must help the people of Mali sort out the real and perceived ethnic conflicts that have divided the country. This includes, but is not limited to, the question of the Tuareg.

The role of the African Union and ECOWAS is not, primarily, a military role. Though legitimate authorities in Mali may, at some point, need military assistance as part of the process of stabilization, such a move must be made by the people of Mali rather than the French, the USA, or for that matter, any of the agents of global capitalism within the various African ruling elites. This role for ECOWAS and the African Union must be respected and supported by the United States, rather than undermined and subverted in order to advance the interests of US hegemony and global capitalism.

It is up to the people of the United States of America, particularly, but not exclusively, those of us of African descent, to take a stand on this matter and show real solidarity with the people of Mali rather than fall prey to the demagoguery and misinformation that dominates the mainstream airwaves.

Silence is not an option.

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board memberand Columnist, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is aSenior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfricaForum, and the author of “They’reBankrupting Us” - And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. He is also the co-author of SolidarityDivided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice, which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

China: More Than a Country
Of Millions of Low Wage Workers

Most Americans have been fed a (sparse) diet of news about the most populous nation on the planet that consists largely of stories about what they produce for the American market in the way of electronic gadgetry, toys and clothing.

And, they produce these goods, so we are led to understand, at the cheapest rates of pay possible, with the exception of a few other Asian countries, like Vietnam, but that’s not the whole story.

For many in China, their industrial development is a sign of their country’s advance into the 21st Century and they believe that it is a signal that they are taking the lead from the “developed” or “industrialized” nations. On its way to becoming the manufacturing and economic powerhouse of the world, Chinese leaders are causing some of the world’s most serious environmental damage. A large part of the reason is that they are willing to burn coal and any fossil fuel to maintain their rapid growth rate. Not unlike other countries, they seem to believe that public health is the price to be paid for economic preeminence.

A few years ago, the average wage in China was 57 cents per hour. Considering the numbers of millionaires that have been created in the past 20 years, and the middle class that has developed, it has taken untold millions of workers who are paid 20-30 cents an hour to bring that average wage down to 57 cents. How is the middle class growing, so that it is nearly equal to the entire population of the U.S.? The answer is simply that they have a huge amount of our money and our wealth.

That middle class is growing rapidly and now, it is said to be about 300 million, in a nation of 1.3 billion. Those in the Chinese middle class shop in the same kinds of malls that Americans shop in and they want to live in the same style, albeit on a less ostentatious scale for now. But, that’s a lot of consumption. What of those at the bottom of the wage and income scale? They are the ones who do the wage slave work which supplies America’s (and other nations’) giant corporations, especially the retailers.

Even though China has not reached the automobile production, per capita, that the U.S. has, it is moving fast toward a public transit system that will likely tend to curb the use of automobiles for virtually every activity. With an eye toward reducing fossil fuel consumption for transit, China has been developing a rail system, which is far ahead of what the U.S. has done. Making the rounds on the Internet now is a series of pictures of Beijing’s passenger rail station and the trains it serves. The station itself resembles a giant flying saucer that might take up several city blocks and myriad sets of tracks bringing in trains that look as if they would be more at home in space, than on a set of tracks on the ground.

The trains move people from Beijing to Shanghai at 350 kilometers per hour, or 217.5 miles per hour. The train can cover the 802-mile trip in just under 3 hours and 45 minutes. That would be the equivalent of traveling from New York City to Savannah, Ga., in a few minutes more than the Beijing-Shanghai trip. On board the trains, there are amenities of which any top-flight U.S. airline would be envious.

Such a rail system is in sharp contrast with what we Americans understand as China’s best-known product: cheap labor and cheap consumer goods. The U.S. has a minimum wage, so the average pay of American workers would not drop to the starvation wage of 57 cents an hour, or less. The U.S. has millions of workers who are working at much less than their pay at their former jobs and, of course, there are those who have stopped looking for work. China does not seem to be uncomfortable with so many abjectly poor workers, because it attracts investment from transnational corporations from the rich countries, and that brings in capital to its coffers. It’s why they hold so much of our wealth.

The rail system in question did not spring whole from the mind of one of the leaders of the Chinese economy. It was planned long in advance, probably decades. For a Communist Party-controlled, central-command system, they certainly do capitalism well.

By contrast, from Feb. 11-13, there will be a high-level transportation summit in Washington, D.C., to discuss, among other things, high-speed rail. The list of speakers does not at this time include anyone from China, who might explain how they did it. But, the contrast is crystal clear: The U.S. is now discussing how it is going to plan for what they at the conference call “transit oriented development.” We can assume that this means that any future development would place transportation as the first consideration. If things go as they usually do in the U.S., we might have a usable public transportation system by the time China decides that its current rail system is old and needs to be replaced.

This happened with what was to have become a premier new “green” industry in the U.S., the use of solar power, which calls for development of cutting edge solar panels and collectors, a method of storage, and inclusion of that power into the grid. A great uproar was provoked among the political right wing, when Solyndra, the solar industry firm went belly up, after the Obama Administration gave it $500 million. As was pointed out by analysts, assisting Solyndra was too little, too late. The Chinese already had developed cheaper solar panels and their solar industry was far ahead of America’s. Solyndra just could not compete with imported Chinese solar panels. China’s success and scale of production of the panels outstripped the market and their losses in that industry have been increasing.

The cry that went up from Republicans and the folks on the right about Solyndra was a direct result of their unwillingness to invest much in alternative energy and just kept plowing money into the fossil fuel industry, which heavily funds political campaigns for national office. Meanwhile, they are willing to give the fossil fuel industry many billions of dollars per year, without giving it a thought.

Not only is something wrong with this picture, it makes U.S. lag behind any country that is willing to spend the money to find other ways to fuel its economy. Despite their wholehearted use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, the Chinese have an eye on the future for a green economy. If, in the process of selling alternative energy systems to the rest of the world, China provides its people with a cleaner environment, that’s an added benefit to them. Of primary concern for them, though, is the race to become the world’s biggest producer of consumer goods and, possibly, industrial goods as well.

Politicians express concern about the imbalance in trade, but most do not know what to do. Last July, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman went to China, leading a trade mission and hoping to convince the Chinese to buy more of his state’s export goods, and he hoped to get the Chinese to invest more in his state. The Republican governor traveled to China hoping to come back with some assurances that his state will develop strong economic relations with China. This, even though Nebraska has suffered along with other states in the loss of a national total of 2.7 million jobs to China in the past 10 years.

Heineman, as do most Republicans, will take any kind of energy that he can get and, just recently, he announced his approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will bring a toxic brew all the way from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast, where it would be refined. Environmentalists and others concerned about the water sources and the people all along the 1,700-mile line say that the toxic chemicals that the pipeline would carry will leak and that it’s not a question of whether, but when.

Alternative energy is not being debated by American politicians to any great extent. In fact, the few that have made it a major issue in their campaigns have been marginalized to the extent possible, through derision, lobbying, public relations, and propaganda by the powerful oil and gas industry. The move toward public or mass transit is the way to get the largest number of cars off the roads. But, right wing politicians deny that there is a problem (just drill more wells, they say) and they have intimidated the rest of their colleagues into backing off on alternative energy.

The U.S. is losing ground and the nation does not have people of vision in charge. Rather, we have people who vehemently deny climate change and are strongly opposed to consideration of alternative energy sources. Where do we go from here?

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, John Funiciello,is a long-time former newspaper reporter and labor organizer, who livesin the Mohawk Valleyof New YorkState. Inaddition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as theystruggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory foodproducers and land developers. Click here to contact Mr. Funiciello.

Jan 24, 2013 - Issue 502

Camaraderie Does NOT Build Real Community

At the military inaugural ball, the Commander in Chief’s Ball, President Obama invited the audience to clap for their “comrades” who were on a viewing screen televised from Afghanistan. There was a small twitch that flashed across his face and that was recognizable in his voice as he used the term. “Comrades” is a term associated with both Communism and with the camaraderie that soldiers experience in battle. I am sure that this President, who has been falsely called a socialist and a communist, was struck with the thought that the video of his use of that term might “come back to haunt him” in a future round of partisan false mislabeling. It was, though, only a flash of a thought that caused the twitch, since he was clearly surrounded and embedded in a context at a military ball where the word “comrades” could only logically be considered in its military sense - in the sense of “comrades in arms.”

Obama received a rousing welcome and his presentation was frequently punctuated with exuberant vocal hurrahs, the loudest voices being decidedly female. It is my guess that most of what we were seeing and hearing was the result of the work that Michelle Obama has been doing with military families and wives. This was confirmed for me when Barack introduced Michelle and she got a louder welcome than he did as they took the spotlight for the first dance to Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together,” performed by Jennifer Hudson, before switching dance partners with members of the military, before other couples joined them on the dance floor. I was roiling with mixed emotions.

My antipathy to that which smacks of militarism was mixed with the joy that most folks feel when they see Barack and Michelle together, unable to hide their obvious love for each other. Add to that my understanding and sympathy for the tremendous stress this country unfairly places on military families, particularly children and wives, and, therefore, the importance of the work the First Lady is doing advocating for and supporting them. Next, mix in my complete revulsion of the President’s continued use of assassinations, drones that kill the innocent including children, the failure to prosecute torturers, the failure to curtail the security state apparatus and the failure of these policies to give the President any surcease from attacks from the political right for being “soft” or “weak” on national security.

Obama has gained very little politically from his pro-military stances and I know that these imperialist approaches are not at all making this country safer. Instead these approaches are bankrupting the government, continuing a tragic, long history of U.S. brutality and discriminatory aggression, and are sowing the “blowback” hate which these military families’ members face in foreign lands. The militarism represented at the ball, in such a genteel fashion - on M. L. King’s birthday - is the exact same militarism Rev, King spoke of in his GREATEST speech when he said, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.” (Beyond Vietnam - Time to Break the Silence) That Obama claims to respect Dr. King’s memory, but besmirches those beliefs with imperialism, is galling.

The loudest hurrah of the evening, with the loudest participation of male voices, was in response to Obama’s call to appreciate the overseas comrades. Males that are teamed in a battle - even if it is only an intense political battle - develop powerful allegiances in the midst of the struggle. There is a depth of commitment to one another’s well being that is palpable. This feeling, akin to intense brotherly love - sacred fellowship -, is what attracts men to and holds them in sports teams, youth groups, criminal gangs, and police forces. Often these allegiances are so strong that they override societal superego controls against immoral and vicious behavior. For some, who find little emotional sustenance outside of conflict, this intense bonding becomes addictive. They seek it out. And they rise exuberantly to recognize and praise those in similar situations even though they might not have any direct experience of those specific people or agreement with what they are doing. Warriors recognize warriors even across racial and cultural differences because memories of “band of brothers” struggles and accomplishments are triggered.

Obama functions from a more individualized social psychological space. This isolated stance is often the stance that black males take when they mature within white Western circumstances and institutions where they will very rarely be accepted into groups in the same way or as fully as are the white males around them. Some black males will even stand apart from the very few other black males that they will run into in those same circumstances; close association with another black male would lessen the individual acceptance that they were able to garner. Black and brown men learn to be comfortable with a type of acceptance and inclusion that is different, filtered through a constant need to either prove oneself in the academic, athletic, or juvenile activity the group is engaged in or having to be otherwise entertaining. It is obvious that Obama has been shaped by such a phenomenon. As the Commander in Chief who released the elite of the military teams, the Seal teams, on Osama Bin Laden, he achieved some degree of acceptance and inclusion in the military crowd; this is enhanced by his charismatic speaking, presidential posturing, and particularly through the work of Michelle. However, I doubt he could achieve the level of top-to-bottom military acceptance as would have a President John McCain. McCain, a wounded prisoner of war, is an elite member of this militaristic gang.

Being a former Ivy League college football player, I know something directly of this phenomenon. I know that it essentially comes to an end when you leave “the field.” As one of the few blacks on my team, I did not hangout with my white football comrades off the field. Neither did most of the other nonwhite players. People-of-color soldiers return to a very different civilian life in the USA homeland. When the mutual enemy/opposition is no longer present, most of what forged the “band of brothers” relationship disappears accept for the rare long term friendship coupling. Camaraderie dissipates into a nostalgia that guides some to glorify and justify militarism and others to seek new enemies to fight to rekindle those unique moments in their lives. Senator John McCain does just that.

The question is why this born-in-war, close, intense relationship doesn’t lead to the forging of an inclusive, integrated society? I think I know. First of all, those experiences tend to be male and demanding of much less than a whole human response; there is little demand for thinking or tenderness. Second, camaraderie, almost by definition, requires something to be against. In these situations that breed camaraderie, participants are generally “fighting for” the team, for country, for democracy, for socialism even, with very shallow understanding of what that means. What holds them together is what they are against - the enemy.

Community is an expression of what you stand for. No matter how many times blacks have fought in US wars - from the Revolutionary War to Afghanistan today - it has meant little to full inclusion of blacks into the US community. The military institutions have been and continue to become the most nondiscriminatory institutions in US society for the sake of the fight, yet little of that will influence the discriminatory stances of nonmilitary institutions. Often, even in those militaristic institutions, such as police departments, having to depend on those of a different race and ethnicity for life and limb does not even influence the internal discrimination or the external prejudice that that institution visits on the community in which it operates. Camaraderie does NOT build real community.

Activists on the left are no different in regards to this phenomenon. Folks of different races, genders, and ethnicities build strong relationships in the midst of struggle against a mutually agreed on opposition whether violent or not. Afterward, no matter the outcome, most relationships dissipate.

In our struggles for justice it is most important that we build a consensus detailing what we are for not just what we are against. It is often crystal clear about what we are against but when that changes or disappears, there is little to hold us together unless we reach out again and define another bogyman. That is how we end up in endless wars and broken communities. When we work together for the beloved community as articulated by Martin and that we are mutually defining and shaping as we step forward, relationships are built and maintained; community is strengthened.

Michelle Obama, theFirst Lady, is defining a community that includes military families; that isthe meaning of the term comrade that includes long-termfellowship. As Al Green said, “Let’sStay Together” beyond this brief coupling. Let’s staytogether “…Whether times are good or bad, happy or sad” denotes a un-conditionalitythat does not necessitate opposition to anything else. This is when a person’s definition of self in all circumstances - notjust the fighting ones - includes the other human being inall that they are. It is a condition where we celebrate those who sacrifice andrisk building up as much, if not more, than we celebrate those who violentlytear down. Barack is trying to prove himself to the fighting force; he will beleft with the same old lack of community that all such approaches leave intheir wake.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, Wilson Riles, is a former Oakland, CA City Council Member. Click here to contact Mr.Riles.

Jan 31, 2013 -Issue 502

Aaron Swartz
Political Cartoon
By Eric Garcia, Chicago IL

BlackCommentator.com cartoonist/artist Eric Garcia produces historically based, politicallycharged criticism, with the goal of creating dialogue about thecontemporary issues”. That’s how Garcia describes his artwork. Aversatile artist working in an assortment of media, from paintings, tohand-printed posters, to sculpture installations, Garcia’s art has acommon goal of educating and challenging. Click hereto contact brother Eric. His website is southvalleyart.com. Follow Eric on twitter garciaink@twitter.com or friend Eric J. Garcia on facebook.

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

Change Your Mind, Not Your Tune

It’s been well documented that “Republican Principles” have become the undoing of the contemporary Republican Party…but Party member don’t seem to think so. They are in serious deliberations on whether the Party needs to take a new direction or just re-paint the house. After losing four of the last five congressional elections, Republicans are in disarray - and rightfully so.

During my lifetime, I’ve watched Republicans destroy the middle class, erode civil rights and liberties, stoke the coals of racism and create a myriad divisions in society. Every social gain that has been made in the past 25 years has always been a diversion from a Republican position. Thank God for Liberals…

Like anyone, Republicans don’t like losing; they just take it harder. The Ayn Rand “win-at-all-costs” philosophy has become transparent to the American populace, and what used to look like hard-nosed politics, has revealed itself as a cheating, lying and stealing M.O. I am overjoyed that American society has called for a change - even if the Republican Party doesn’t want to.

We’ve been saturated with lies from the Republican Right: workers are happy with the wages they earn; Americans don’t want businesses regulated; guns are good for us; Liberals want abortions; and America is a Christian nation - among other myths. This is change on the horizon, and some Republicans see that they’ve fallen behind the curve. Isn’t it great that we’ll someday get old and die?

It is good that old values fade into the sunset. That’s not to say that new and emerging values are perfect or even right, but that new and emerging values address the conditions on the ground. In a modern and sophisticated world, we should be beyond the guillotine and catapult. This incessant desire to be our grandfathers has kept Americans at war with each other.

Because our grandfathers settled their differences with guns, Republicans have told us that we need be “Hatfields and McCoys.” Those of us on the Left know that humans have an innate ability to negotiate settlements between us. No matter how uncomfortable, we have the desire to live and let live. Republicans have to come to that conclusion… someday.

The idea that, “when following the rules doesn’t work to your advantage, you just change the rules,” is only good when all parties agree to it. A proposal under consideration in Virginia’s Republican-led state legislature would change how the commonwealth allocates its 13 electoral votes in the wake of Democratic President Barack Obama’s re-election last November. The Republicans refuse to face the fact that their principles go against common sense and intellectual convention. Obama won the popular vote in the crucial battleground state and won all 13 electoral votes, although his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, won in seven of the 11 congressional districts.

Under the proposed alternative system, electoral votes would be awarded by congressional districts won. In addition, Virginia’s two other electoral votes -- one for each U.S. Senate seat -- would go to the candidate who won the most congressional districts. If that district-based system had been in effect in Virginia for the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have won nine electoral votes to four for Obama. Just imagine where we’d be today…

In the face of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal calling for Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and taking outlandish positions that alienate and disenfranchise Americans other than old, white men, some in the GOP are preferring a “change in tone.” They are gravitating toward “smiling when you talk,” as opposed to re-vamping broken policy positions. See? That confirms my suspicions: Republicans are stupid.

Their chairman, Rence Priebus, proposed instituting a penalty system in which candidates for the nomination would lose a percentage of delegates if they participated in a debate not sanctioned by the RNC. What? The RNC (and I guess that might apply to the DNC also) is making the conscious decision to cut its candidates off from the rest of the world. Inquiring minds want to know, and the RNC would hand-pick questions - ones for which we already know Republicans’ answers. They find any way to cheat - not only themselves but the American people.

The Party did poorly among Hispanics and clearly damaged national Republicans last year. They were forced to answer for hard-line immigration positions from prominent Conservative figures, including the Party’s own Presidential nominee. My grandmother used to say, “A hard head makes a soft behind.” The Republicans got their behind spanked! Obama won with 71% of the Hispanic vote, according to national exit polls.

We saw Republicans try to disenfranchise Blacks and suppress voter turnout in the last election through voter ID laws. How can they think they could ever endear themselves to that constituency? They still haven’t figured that one out yet.

What I know is,the Republican Party needs to do more than change its tune. Party members needto change their minds.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, Perry Redd, is the former ExecutiveDirector ofthe workers rights advocacy, Sincere Seven, and author of the on-linecommentary, “The Other Side of the Tracks.” He is the host of theinternet-basedtalk radio show, Socially Speaking in Washington, DC. Click here to contact Mr. Redd.

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

Why the Time is Now for Immigration Reform

President Obama called this week for the Congress to deal with Immigration reform as a high priority for this year’s legislative agenda. He said, “The time is now for immigration reform.” The time’s been now for immigration reform. Nobody had the courage to take it on.

What makes “now” the time? Political reality for the Republicans. political insurance for the Democrats. Immigration reform is going to be an ugly fight, particularly during the discussion as to what should come first, the chicken or the egg. The chicken is twelve million immigrants that are already here and who will have to get in line, pay fines and demonstrate civility in order to stay here. The egg will be the roping off of the border to stop the rush of immigrants looking to get here before the immigration deal gets on. Twelve million could be 20 million before the legislation is passed. Republicans want to build the wall first. Democrats want to tweak the rules first (reform immigration policy). There is a clear political and policy divide, as the recognition becomes even clearer that this is no longer a nation just for “old white men.” It doesn’t stop there.

The politics turn this Latino empowerment agenda negative, less sophisticated, and more territorial, as poor immigrants seek to carve out social spaces for themselves. This is where it gets damn near hypocritical as migrants, many who ain’t supposed to be here anyway - according to the law - try to tell other people they can’t live someplace. And suddenly Compton, a recently black enclave (Compton was white 50 years ago in the 1960s), has now become Howard Beach or Bensonhurst, where ethnic shifts are producing conflict. Those once “straight outta’ Compton,” are now threatened with being run outta’ Compton. It ain’t gonna happen, but the conflicts of migration shifts just got real for this black community, and other black communities nationwide. African Americans have long grumbled, underneath their proverbial breaths, about the negative effects Latino (and Asian) migration shifts have had on their communities.

Competition for jobs, houses, schools and business have made living in low and moderate income geographies somewhat complicated. The economic realities of shared demography in the last two decades have worn on the black community. Illegal immigration wasn’t really an issue for white people as long as immigrants could be exploited for their labor, providing a cultural contrast to African Americans. The identity politics of each group notwithstanding, neither posed any real threat to the political and economic status quo of this country - at least, not until the last two elections.

In 2008, it was difficult to separate identity politics in the excitement and emotionalism of the moment. History was being made, and the election of Barack Obama was being painted as a fluke of history… a combination of anti-intellectualism fatigue, mastery of technology social media and mistakes of the frontrunners that opened the door to a once-in-a-lifetime political phenomenon. However, when it happened again in 2012, the “powers that be” (and have been for over 200 years) realized that it wasn’t a fluke. Just as when Muhammad Ali beat Sonny Liston the second time, the second time was easier than the first and the knockout came a lot quicker. People couldn’t believe it. Mitt Romney still can’t believe, but reality has set in.

The world has changed and two decades of unconstrained immigration has taken its toll on the political system. Immigrating populations now represent the “tipping point” and America’s political future couldn’t be clearer. The legitimization of resident alien illegitimacy, the impetus for much of the election and voter reform that had taken place in the years since the election of Obama, cemented the fate of racial ideologues in this country. So now immigration reform is a high priority, but only as a political stopgap to the potential hazards of the mid-term elections of 2014 and, of course, the Presidential election of 2016.

What is real is that the pawns in the game can’t be engaged in the mass distractions of racial conflict while the political board is reset. Black racists have never been any better than white racists, and now we see Latino racists are not any better than the racists that preceded them. Racism has always complicated political reality in America. It complicated public policy as well (see the Brown decision). Immigration reform will not be just for the benefit of a new demography. It is the start of a new political agenda that will compete for Latinos and Asians, concede African Americans (as long as they are willing to be conceded to one party) and reconstruct political reality in America, hopefully in the favor of those who have always held it. And it will be that way, if we’re distracted, and play blind and foolish. Latinos could learn from the lessons of African Americans as being a target (or targeted) population in America.

Thenegative politics of migrant shifts can’t be the grand distraction thatdistorts what the grand play is here. The Black-Brown racial conflict can’t bethe manipulator that makes us all pawns in the game. Immigration reform is agreat opportunity to talk about race relations reform in America. Thepolitics of immigration reform doesn’t all have to be a negative conversationabout who lives where and who gets what, when and how. However, it will be, ifwe’re not smart about it.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist,Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad,is a national columnist, managing director of the UrbanIssues Forumand authorof SavingThe Race: Empowerment Through Wisdom. His Website is AnthonySamad.com. Twitter @dranthonysamad. Click here to contact Dr. Samad.

Jan 31, 2013 -Issue 502

MLK Day Reflection on LGBTQ Justice

This year, we marked 27 years of observing Martin Luther King Day. Some states began honoring Dr. King on January 20, 1986.

King would have been eighty-four but he was gunned down on the balcony of the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis by an assassin on April 4, 1968. If he were alive today, he’d see how much has changed in our nation.

Since King’s death, every struggling civil rights group has affixed themselves to his passionate cause for justice.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) communities, in particular, have been reviled for not only naming our struggle as a civil rights issue, but also for naming MLK as one of the civil rights icons that would speak on our behalf.

But would King have spoken on our behalf?

As we celebrated MLK Day, 2013, we no longer had to hold King up to a God-like standard. All the hagiographies written about King immediately following his assassination in the previous century have come under scrutiny as we have come to understand all of King- his greatness as well as his flaws and human foibles.

As I comb through numerous books and essays learning more about King’s philandering, sexist attitude about women at home and in the movement, and his relationship with Bayard Rustin, I am wondering, would King be a public advocate for LGBTQ rights?

James Cone, father of Black Liberation Theology and author of a book and several articles on King states that we must understand King within the historical context of the Black Church. And in so doing, I find it ironic that the public King we witnessed on a national stage talked vociferously about social justice and civil rights for all people and yet his personal life did not reflect the same ethos concerning women and gays. Would the public King have spoken out on LGBTQ justice, risking his already waning popularity with the African American community and President L.B. Johnson?

In an address to the Gill Foundation’s National Outgiving Conference in 2007, I said “If Dr. Martin Luther King were standing up for LGBTQ rights today, the Black community would drop him, too.”

King understood the interconnections of struggles. An example of that understanding is when Martin Luther King said, “The revolution for human rights is opening up unhealthy areas in American life and permitting a new and wholesome healing to take place. Eventually the civil rights movement will have contributed infinitely more to the nation than the eradication of racial justice.”

This statement clearly includes LGBTQ justice but would King have spoken on this subject at that time and even now?

King’s late wife said yes.

In 1998, Coretta Scott King addressed the LGBT group Lambda Legal in Chicago. In her speech, she said queer rights and civil rights were the same. “I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King’s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people,” she said.

However, King’s youngest and only living daughter, Rev. Bernice King, thinks otherwise.

Standing at her father’s grave site in 2004 with thousands of protesters denouncing marriage equality, Bernice King, who has been rumored for years to be a lesbian, and her aunt, Alveda King, participated in a march against same-sex marriage in Atlanta. On speculating about her father’s viewpoint on marriage equality, Bernice said, “I know in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

In January 2005, Newsweek asked Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, who has aligned herself with the religious right, lending her family name and voice against LGBTQ rights, if Martin Luther King would be a champion on gay rights. “No, he would champion the word of God,” she said. “If he would have championed gay rights today, he would have done it while he was here. There was ample opportunity for him to champion gay rights during his lifetime, and he did not do so.”

And that might be true. On the national stage, he talked vociferously about social justice and civil rights for all people, and yet his personal life did not reflect that ethos concerning women and gays.

Sadly, Bayard Rustin, the gay man who was chief organizer and strategist for the 1963 March on Washington that further catapulted Martin Luther King onto the world stage, was not the beneficiary of King’s dream.

In the Civil Rights movement Bayard Rustin was always the man behind the scene and a large part of that had to due with the fact that he was gay. Because of their own homophobia, many African American ministers involved in the Civil Right movement would have nothing to do with Rustin, and they intentionally rumored throughout the movement that King was gay because of his close friendship with Rustin.

In a spring 1987 interview with Rustin in “Open Hands,” a resource for ministries affirming the diversity of human sexuality, Rustin recalls that difficult period quite vividly. Rustin stated, “Martin Luther King, with whom I worked very closely, became very distressed when a number of the ministers working for him wanted him to dismiss me from his staff because of my homosexuality. Martin set up a committee to discover what he should do. They said that, despite the fact that I had contributed tremendously to the organization… they thought I should separate myself from Dr. King. This was the time when [Rev. Adam Clayton] Powell threatened to expose my so-called homosexual relationship with Dr. King.”

When Rustin pushed him on the issue to speak up on his behalf, King did not. In John D’Emilo’s book, ***Lost Prophet: The Life and times of Bayard Rustin he wrote the following on the matter:

Rustin offered to resign in the hope that this would force theissue. Much to his chagrin, King did not reject the offer. At the time, Kingwas also involved in a major challenge to the conservative leadership of theNational Baptist convention, and one of his ministerial lieutenants in thefight was also gay.

“Basically, King said I can’t take on two queers at one time,” one of Rustin’s associated recollected later.

When Rustin was asked about MLK’s views on gays in a March 1987 interview with Redvers Jean Marie he stated, “It is difficult for me to know what Dr. King felt about gayness....”

MLK’s popularity was waning before his assassination. For example, many observers argued that the plight of black America was not improving with King’s political ideology of integration. The rising Black Power movement thus challenged his movement of nonviolent direct action.

Followers of King felt he gave more attention to loving the enemy than doing something about the suffering of black people. Young urban black males in particularly felt alienated from the civil rights leadership of King because his nonviolent ideology relied too heavily on the largesse of the white establishment, concentrated too much on eliminating segregation and winning the right to vote in the South, and ignored the economic problems of blacks in the northern urban ghettos.

King’s interpretation of Black Power as “a nihilistic philosophy born out of the conviction that the Negro can’t win” lost him these urban black males as followers when race riots broke out across the country in 128 cities during the period of 1963 to 1968. Disaffected observers identified the causes of the riots as high unemployment, poor schools, inferior living conditions, the disproportionate drafting of black men for the Vietnam War, and the assassination of civil rights activists, none of which they saw addressed by King’s political ideology of nonviolent direct action.

Given MLK’s waning popularity, I am beginning to ponder now if MLK would have really raised his voice on our behalf.

Chatting on this subject with my friend Richard, an LGBTQ ally, online wrote,

“I agree that you have to wonder whether King would support LGBTQ rights today, even if he felt he couldn’t in the 60s. You’d like to think he would given his courageous stands otherwise.”

I now not only believe that King would not have supported LGBTQ rights, but his voice and importance on social issues would have continued to wane considerably. Coretta keeps King’s words, theology and legacy alive by rightly attaching them to present-day contemporary social justice issues.

King’s wordsresonate resoundingly to our cause, and we can take King’s words to march alongside us, I’m not certain we could take the man.

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member and Columnist, the Rev. Irene Monroe, is a religion columnist, theologian, and public speaker. She is the Coordinator of the African-American Roundtable of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry (CLGS) at the Pacific School of Religion. A native of Brooklyn, Rev. Monroe is a graduate from Wellesley College and Union Theological Seminary at Columbia University, and served as a pastor at an African-American church before coming to Harvard Divinity School for her doctorate as a Ford Fellow. She was recently named to MSNBC’s list of 10 Black Women You Should Know. Reverend Monroe is the author of Let Your Light Shine Like a Rainbow Always: Meditations on Bible Prayers for Not’So’Everyday Moments. As an African-American feminist theologian, she speaks for a sector of society that is frequently invisible. Her website is irenemonroe.com. Click here to contact the Rev. Monroe.

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

The Legitimate Rage of the People
Cannot Forever Be Denied

“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressors and those who do the the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice, and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don't believe it will be based on the color of the skin...”

- Malcolm X [el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz]

Due to the hypocrisy, subterfuge, and economic & political oppression by the U.S. corporate-owned government – which is consistently aided and abetted by the U.S. corporate-stream media – the human rights and civil liberties of everyday ordinary Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people in this nation and around the world are being systematically trampled on a scale never before witnessed in this 21st century.

The brutality of corporate domination, home foreclosures, homelessness, judicial injustice, mass incarceration at home, and perpetual U.S. wars of terror abroad have increased to a fever pitch in this year of 2013. The terrorist U.S. prison gulag known as Guantanamo continues functioning unabated under the leadership of the NDAA signing, 'Kill List,' predator-drone missile U.S. president, Barack Obama. The police departments throughout the United States are being increasingly militarized, and the everyday people increasingly brutalized. As the avaricious Wall Street corporate elite (under the leadership of its Trojan Horse head of the U.S. Empire) grows richer the everyday people grow poorer and more trodden upon economically, politically and socially. This of course is by systemic design not coincidence.

Despite the constant subterfuge, distractions, and obfuscation by the corporate-stream media and the systemic gatekeepers of this corrupt corporate-owned political system, the pain and legitimate rage of struggling everyday people increases exponentially. An example of this legitimate pain and rage on the part of ordinary people in this nation is amply demonstrated in the short May 23, 2012 video from Oakland, California (titled 'BellaEiko speaks truth, pain, and rage to power') which expresses the growing unwillingness on the part of everyday people to accept the callousness, subterfuge, hypocrisy, and oppression of this rotten and corrupt U.S. political system. Though the corporate-stream media will not honestly or forthrightly inform you of this increasing legitimate rage, the fact is that ordinary people of all colors and both genders are becoming increasingly fed-up with both the veiled and overt repression by this corporate-owned U.S. political system. The legitimate rage of the people will not be denied!

The systematically-adorned gatekeepers of both the Democrat and Republican parties - including some so-called anti-war 'peace' activists and organizations in this nation - continue to support the bloody outrages of Barack Obama and his ilk, even as they make high-sounding speeches and sell their books – which serve to distract and pimp the terrible pain of everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people. These persons (irrespective of their color or gender) have a de facto vested interest in the continuation of what Malcolm X referred to as “the system of exploitation.”

It is of enormous significance that Ppnews (Political Prisoner News) in a recent statement under the heading, Obama Shuts Down Office In Charge of Guantanamo Resettlement Efforts, noted, in relevant part, the following:

“The office of the special envoy in charge of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay has been shut down, the Obama administration has announced. Coming almost exactly four years after the President promised to close the prison within a year, this move effectively signals the end of Obama's attempts to help with resettlement of those men still held.

A statement quietly released on Friday [January 25th] afternoon by the State Department stated that special envoy Daniel Fried had been reassigned, his office closed, and his responsibilities around Guantanamo given to the already overstretched State Department legal adviser...

Hilary Stauffer, Reprieve’s Deputy Legal Director, said: “Yunnus Chekkouri, Abu Wa’el Dhiab, Nabil Hadjarab and all the other men who are being held with neither charge nor trial have just been completely abandoned by the Obama administration. By closing Ambassador Fried’s office the President has broken his promise to close the prison and shattered the hope that these men might ever be able to leave. Government resources necessary for closing Guantanamo must be in place and have the authority to negotiate transfers with potential host governments.”

This is yet another indication that Obama and the corporate-owned U.S. government's so-called 'war on terror' is in reality a war of terror being carried out by the U.S. corporate/military elite against the people of this nation and world. It is also a clear signal to people throughout Mother Earth that the U.S. government has no genuine commitment to human rights at home or abroad. Obama – the Trojan Horse – strikes yet again and people in this nation and around the world have, of necessity, every right to legitimate rage.

The aspirations, needs, and will of everyday people cannot be forever stifled. They cannot forever be deferred and denied! The numerous political prisoners, including Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Lynne Stewart and so very many others being held right here in the prison gulags inside the United States are reminders of the fact that this government (and its organizational and individual accomplices) will utilize any and every dastardly tactic to viciously frame, discredit imprison and/or kill those who stand up to, and seek to expose, its hypocrisy and injustice. Nevertheless, we the people have the power of the truth of millions upon millions of everyday people on our side. In the words of the late poet Langston Hughes, “What happens to a dream deferred?” Ultimately, the legitimate rage and power of the people will “explode” and bring about a new, more humane and just model of human interaction. This is what this long and protracted people's struggle is really all about. And this is what will, in the final analysis, prevail.

So remember: Each one, reach one. Each one, teach one. Despite the formidable obstacles, all justice and peace-loving people are in this struggle TOGETHER! Onward, then, my sisters and brothers. Onward – towards a new day!

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member and Columnist, Larry Pinkney, is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil / political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In connection with his political organizing activities in opposition to voter suppression, etc., Pinkney was interviewed in 1988 on the nationally televised PBS News Hour, formerly known as The MacNeil / Lehrer News Hour. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker, by William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn]. (Click here to read excerpts from the book.) Click here to view Larry’s interview of October 26, 2012. Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.

Jan 31, 2013 -Issue 502

Stand and Launch

Political Cartoon

By Mark Fiore, San Francisco CA

Click here to view the animation

PulitzerPrize-winner, Mark Fiore, who the Wall Street Journal has called “theundisputed guru of the form,” creates animated political cartoons inSan Francisco, where his work has been featured on the San FranciscoChronicle’s web site, SFGate.com, for over ten years. His work alsoappears on Newsweek.com, Slate.com, CBSNews.com, MotherJones.com andNPR’s web site. Fiore’s political animation has appeared on CNN,Frontline, Bill Moyers Journal, Salon.com and cable and broadcastoutlets across the globe.

Click here to contact Mark

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

We Own the Future

Art

By Shepard Fairey, Los Angeles CA

Poster- 18 x 24 inch screen print. Signed by Shepard Fairey andAntonino D’Ambrosio. Release Date: 1/31/2013. Edition of450. $55. Purchase limit: 1 perperson/household. Proceeds from the print go to the La LuttaCreative Response Think Tank.

Shepard made the “We Own The Future” print as a variation on the cover he designed for the issue of The Nation Magazine that was guest edited by Antonino.

Shepard Fairey is a contemporary artist, graphic designer, and illustrator. He firstbecame known for his "André the Giant Has a Posse" sticker campaign, inwhich he appropriated images from the comedic super market tabloidWeekly World News. His work became more widely known in the 2008 U.S.presidential election, specifically his Barack Obama "HOPE" poster. TheInstitute of Contemporary Art, Boston calls him one of today's bestknown and most influential street artists. His work is included in thecollections at The Smithsonian, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art,the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and the Victoria and AlbertMuseum in London. Click here to contact Mr. Fairey.

Jan 31, 2013 - Issue 502

Quote to Ponder

Click here for moreabout Joe Navarro