Billo Needs Educating on Definition of Racism

Good article today at Crooks and Liars regarding racism - what it is and what it isn't. As a sociologist, it's a subject I have studied in depth and watched in the media with great frustration. My favorite quote from this post is Hilary Shelton of the NAACP responding to Bill O'Reilly's attempt at a gotcha. O'Reilly had said, referring to Reverend Wright in a discussion of racism, claiming:

"...that Wright was a racist -- based on his belief that the federal government had created the HIV virus as a way to harm black men. This, BillO claimed, was "hate speech."

Shelton then responded by saying:

"Bill, I think you should look up the definition of the word "racist." It might help you understand what is racism and what is not."

As pointed out in the article, the conservative perspective of racism is that it is "the outright hatred of people of other races" which allows them to attack any and all for whatever they choose to see as "racist" behavior.

What happens, is that a member of a marginalized group such as women, persons of color, immigrants, the elderly, the poor, and others with limited voice in our society, are accused of racism or "reverse" racism when they attempt to stand up for themselves.

From a sociological perspective, racism is institutional and is not based on a particular situation or individual (although it can be demonstrated by such), but is a belief that the inherent characteristics that place an individual within their group make them less than the dominant culture. These characteristics are features that are inherent, or present from birth and something that cannot be changed. Poverty is probably the only characteristic that can be altered, but the fact of it cannot. An individual may move out of poverty, but their membership in that group at some point in their life - usually childhood - is a fact and the need to overcome the lack of social capital has had a profound effect on his or her life.

For others, color and gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin are inherent. In the dominant culture, hundreds of years of white, male supremacy cannot be overcome by a few years of legislated equality no matter how much we would like it so. It is a fact as well, that in many countries of color that the "advanced" countries of the world and their colonialism of the third world has spread this attitude of white paternalism to the point that even in those countries, skin color is a significant factor in an individuals' success in life.

A close friend several years ago shared her experience growing up in rural Mexico and how those with lighter skin fared compared to those with darker skin - a conversation later confirmed by those from other countries. Just spend a little time watching Univision or another Spanish language station - most of the news anchors or TV stars have blond hair and light skin.

While today it is those from the Middle East who are feared and hated, and those from Mexico who are attacked for the illegality of their presence here, earlier in the 20th century it was those from southern Europe who were considered "less than" and restricted in their access to this country. Prior to that, it was the Irish and the Germans, and not so many years ago that a Presidential candidate was attacked for his Catholicism.

There is always a group that is feared and hated and considered to be the interloper here. We bring them in for our own needs, then blame them for all our own ills when they decide to stay. We brought the Chinese to build the railroads, the Mexicans to work the fields, and somehow thought that "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..." only applied to white, northern Europeans and then wanted to send them home when we were done with them.

Now, we use Iraqi and Afghani citizens to help our troops as translators, guides, and service workers. We know that just being seen talking to Americans by the wrong person can label them collaborators and put their lives and those of their families at risk to the point that the American government has instituted a plan to allow Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have aided our troops to relocate to the U.S. We bring them here (in numbers far fewer than we should, by the way) as thanks for risking their lives on our behalf, and deny them safety and the right to practice their religion not because of who they are, but what they are.

"O'Reilly, it seems, wants to define racism as "inflammatory remarks based on cockamamie conspiracy theories." Another example of the right-wing extremists creating their own reality to sell to the ignorant.

That, is racism.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Malkin's Faux Outrage - Palin's Demand for "Refudiation"

Sarah Palin has been all over President Obama for his racism as she demanded that he "refudiate" his remarks made regarding the NAACP's decision to condemn the Teaparty movement for their racism. Refudiate? I've heard of conflating issues, but words? Now Michelle Malkin and others at Faux are on board as well.



President Obama's words that were particularly offensive to Malkin et al., included;

"Radical Islamists in Africa, believe any efforts to modernize, any efforts to provide basic human rights, any efforts to democratize are somehow anti-Islam."
"And what you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself," Mr. Obama added. "They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains."

As commenter tbone at Media Matters said in response to this exchange,

"African audience - "African" adjective. If this has occurred in Norway, he could have said "Norwegian". When we speak of 9/11, the phrase "American lives" or "they want to kill Americans" is and has been used repetitively notwithstanding that they do want to kill the infidels.

Only in the Faux-Bot mind does an adjective for nationality immediately become one for ethnicity. "

The Republicans can't get any traction from the economy or healthcare reform, their apologies to BP and support of the oil companies are drawing the wrong kind of attention, and according to a poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project, 74% of Americans would prefer that Congress extend unemployment benefits and payments for health insurance subsidies than worry about the deficit.

Immigration reform may play well on the news, but the more experienced Republicans know that, especially in the border states, alienating the Hispanic voters is a good way to lose elections. It may be politic to jump on the teabag bandwagon and behave as if Rush Limbaugh were their BFF, but in their heart of hearts, most Republicans who have been around for any period of time know that true party purity and adherence to the teabag values would be disastrous to the country and to their party.

So, what do they do? Racism is no longer taboo, it's out of the closet since President Obama's speech during the campaign. Too many people don't understand that racism is insidious and just as sexism is more than overt harassment, racism is more than using the "n" word. An organization can claim to be without racism, to welcome all comers, to be diverse, but the proof is in the actual makeup and actions of the organization itself. Thus, completely missing the point, the Republicans have chosen racism as their cause celebre. Unfortunately, they seem not to understand that racism towards Hispanics is still racism.

During the time of Affirmative Action, many believed that it was about quotas and that it was totally unfair to whites - a kind of reverse racism if you will. To this day, many do not understand that opening the doors of opportunity does not reverse hundreds of years of institutional thinking. Social capital (that intangible something necessary to overcome institutional racism) is built out of many things, including a family's position in society, the educational achievements of the parents, and something as simple as whether or not the parents value reading. Because there is so much ignorance over what exactly racism is, and isn't, people are afraid to discuss it and are terrified that by doing so, they may open themselves to accusations of racism.

Racism is when Sarah Palin refers to our president as "half-white" and sees nothing wrong with that comment. Racism is when, because we have an African-American president, that everything is viewed through a racial lens. Racism is when it is still okay for our politicians to say that the "papers please" law in Arizona is okay and that it is not racial profiling and that even if it is, so what. Racism is when members of Congress are spat upon as they walk into the Senate and members of the media say, "there's no video, so it didn't happen," rather than taking the word of the members who were there and saw it happen. Racism is distributing photos of the President wearing African tribal garb or in white-face and thinking that it is okay.

PHOTO: Zina Saunders

A national journalist shows a photo of Sarah Palin that was photo-shopped and goes on air to apologize. President Obama is vilified daily and photos of him as Hitler or in other demeaning ways are shown on national networks and it's business as usual. That is racism. Not only are many of the Republicans racist, they're dinosaurs. They want to return to attitudes and policies of the past that enriched their bank accounts but contributed to the mess this country is in. Half-governor Palin inserts herself into every conversation of the day, has advise for the president at every turn, and now has the gall to tell him that he is a racist because Faux News and Michelle Malkin say so. As commenter tbone said above, were he in America, President Obama would have referred to Americans, if in Norway, Norwegians. How many times does Sarah Palin refer to Alaskans as if they were God's chosen people (no wait, that's Israel)?

Just as with the healthcare reform debates, conversation normally helps more than it hurts. The fear and anger that was generated by the misinformation disseminated by the insurance industries and their lackeys played to people's emotions and when emotion is involved, decisions are based not on logic, but on fear. When every decision the President makes or comment that is heard is viewed through the lens of racism, people respond emotionally.

Decisions made (and votes cast) based on emotion are rarely the right ones. Even votes cast for hope leave us open to turning on (in this case President Obama) him when he inevitably disappoints us when he makes decisions we don't like. We can't ignore our emotions, but we can recognize when our leaders and our media are manipulating us (or trying to) in order to use our emotions to generate anger and fear so that we act in the ways that they choose for us to act.

What do you think? Is it okay for the President to call out others for their racism? What about Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin?  Do they even understand what racism is? Do they care or are they just trying to get attention?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tea Party Protests and A Birth of A Nation: Melissa Harris-Lacewell Explains

Photo: D.W. Griffith "The Birth of A Nation"

In an essay published in The Nation magazine, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, Melissa Harris-Lacewell has written of the actions of the Tea Party protesters this past weekend on the Capital Mall as the attacked members of Congress. During their passage between the House and the White House, members were called racial and homophobic pejoratives and even spat upon. One of the valley's members, Devin Nunez, responded by saying that people were so angry at the tyranny of the Democratic Party...a statement that I know will surely come back to haunt him. Liberal commentators have linked the actions of the protesters to the Civil Rights protesters of the 1960's, something that Harris-Lacewell cautions against, saying that:

"Crafting a metaphor that connects the civil rights movement and the bigoted language of this weekend's protesters is seductive. It seems so obvious given that Representative John Lewis plays a critical role in both."
[...]
"In 1965 Lewis was a disenfranchised protester fighting to be recognized as a full citizen. When he was beaten by the police, he was being attacked by the state. In 2010 Lewis is a long time, elected representative. When he is attacked by protesters, he is himself an agent of the state. This difference is critically important; not because it changes the fact that racism is present in both moments, but because it radically alters the way we should understand the meaning of power, protest and race."
[...]
"The state is the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, force and coercion. If an individual travels to another country and kills its citizens, we call it terrorism. If the state does it, we call it war. If a man kills his neighbor it is murder; if the state does it is the death penalty. If an individual takes his neighbor's money, it is theft; if the state does it, it is taxation."

She raises the point that Congressman Lewis as an agent of the state, changes completely the dynamics of race in this issue. The Tea Party and other protesters are in effect saying that our government has no right to do what it is doing. According to Harris-Lacewell, they are saying that:

"This 1915 film [The Birth of A Nation] depicts the racist imagination currently at work in our nation as a black president first appoints a Latina Supreme Court Justice and then works with a woman Speaker of the House to pass sweeping national legislation. This bigotry assumes no such government could possibly be legitimate and therefore frames resistance against this government as a patriotic responsibility."

Again, I am always struck by the comments, and include several posted in response to her essay. The first, was breathtaking in displaying the individual's ignorance as he or she said

I'm not surprised that the reverse racist Ms Harris-Lacewell has it completely backwards.It was Obama and the Democrats that staged a coup last night against the constitution.

We are those who love our country and wish to restore the constitution that was trampled on last night.

The racism charges are a red herring designed to keep ignorant Americans unaware of what these Stalinists did last night.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/22/2010 @ 10:23pm

***

Bigotry lies at the heart of GOP politics for the past 42 years. Newt Gingrich as much as admitted this when he compared the passing of HCR to the passing of LBJ's '65 Civil Rights legislation, the seed for Nixon's southern strategy, i.e. the continuing GOP coded appeal to racism. The teabaggers are yet another good example of the corporate GOP's targets for appeals to bigotry when furthering aims inimical to the targets' real interests. Bigotry clouds judgment, that's the GOP's game, and what progressive critics are noting once again.

Posted by sloper at 03/22/2010 @ 10:45pm

***

Lacewell, "The Tea Party is a challenge to the legitimacy of the U.S. state. When Tea Party participants charge the current administration with various forms of totalitarianism, they are arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy. Many GOP elected officials offered nearly secessionist rhetoric from the floor of Congress this weekend. They joined as co-conspirators with the Tea Party protesters by arguing that this government has no monopoly on legitimacy."
The Tea Party is challenging the legitimacy of a Congress that would go against the wishes of the majority of Americans and ram an unwanted bill down their throats without the benefit of one republican vote. That says it all. There has never been a bill with such sweeping reform passed without a single opposition vote.
The Tea Party takes it's name from another rebellion against tyranny in Boston at the birth of our nation. This is no different.

The real conspirators this weekend were the union thugs who infiltrated the Tea Party ranks and shouted those slurs at the Congressmen. Even if it were actual Tea Partyers, they are to be condemned for those rants. There is no place in America for such language.
The very tone of your piece seems to laud a self-aggrandized ending of the so-called struggle of blacks since the Emancipation. When will be enough for you before the entire republic collapses?
Ms. Lacewell, your people will not be able to advance in this country on the scale that you would desire until they start to reject government largess and handouts in the name of phony repartions. The debt has been paid. The country is going bankrupt. The party is over. Encourage your people to develop a sense of responsibility and to stop having babies they can't pay for.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 03/23/2010 @ 12:57am

Most of the comments were supportive, but there were many like antisocial and gunslinger1 (do they realize what they say about themselves by the screen name they choose?). I included the comment by sloper as the media seem to be ignoring Newt Gingrich's equating health care reform to passage of the Civil Rights Act--both (in his mind) equally bad, no matter how much he has tried to walk it back since his initial comments.

In any case, an excellent article and one that should be read in its entirety which you can do here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Racist Media Coverage of Haiti Continues. Some History & Taibblog Analyzes Brooks

I've already discussed some of the racism that has occurred in the news coverage of the crisis in Haiti here. There has been a slight amount of push-back against the more virulent words of Limbaugh and others, but what is creeping into the media--tolerated no doubt by the racism that has been rising since the nomination of Barack Obama--is a subtle form of racism couched in terms of economics and caused, as usual, by ignorance.

A google search this morning returned 2 million hits using the keywords Haiti coverage racism, telling me that 1) it is a subject written about at length, and 2) a subject of concern to many. What is unfortunate, is that in 2010, the hits returned listed media from the major broadcast and cable networks, print, and other sources ranked highly enough to appear on the first few pages returned.

Very few Americans know the history of Haiti. They do not know that Haiti is the only country in which the slaves freed themselves, declaring themselves a free nation. At the time, Thomas Jefferson was President and had a secret deal with Napolean, who unknown to Jefferson, planned to establish a French Empire in the "New World" with a base in New Orleans to spread west off the Mississippi. With the loss of Haiti and decimation of his troops, Napolean eventually sold his territories and the "Louisiana Purchase" allowed the United States to double in size and eventually to spread west to the Pacific Ocean and deny France a foothold in the western hemisphere.

Angered at the actions of the Haitian slaves and afraid that the rebellion would move to American slaves, Jefferson embarked on a political and economic embargo that lasted until President Lincoln established diplomatic relations with Haiti forty years later. The murder of their first leader and political infighting within Haiti led to political instability within the new country. This upheaval and the economic chaos caused by the embargo began a pattern of political violence that lasted until recently. The reason for the poverty? The French demanded, and received, reparations for the loss of their sugar plantations after the slaves revolted and freed themselves (never mind such things as wages never paid). Twenty-one billion dollars was paid to France between 1925 and 1946. Troops from Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S. ensured that this money was paid and have remained ever since. The power-brokers in Washington maintained connections with the light-skinned elite in Haiti enabling George Bush the Senior and George Bush the Junior both to oust President Jean-Bertrand Aristide both times he was elected by large margins in national elections. His presidency did not suit the Republican agenda in Washington, as it was Aristide that demanded the money be returned by France in reparation for Haiti's poverty.

So, America owes a big debt to Haiti. Even if we did not, this is a country that has just experienced a disaster of a magnitude that has been mentioned as one of the ten greatest since records have been kept. It is still unknown how many people have died and it said that it is not clear that we will ever know.

At Media Matters, their ongoing monitoring of the media shows that on January 13, Fox News top three rated shows, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck spent a combined total of 7 minutes on earthquake coverage compared to over two hours for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews. 

It was Rush Limbaugh who claimed that President Obama's suggestion that we turn 9/11 into a national day of service was a "left-wing political belief," and has mocked Fox News Shepphard Smith coverage of Hurricane Katrina (Smith being the one reporter on Fox who appears to have some decency left and the ability to occassionally defy his corporate masters).

Then, comes a column by David Brooks in the New York Times. Analyzed by Matt Taibbi here, I cannot even begin to come close to the quality of work Matt has done, so I won't try. As summarized in Taibbi's introduction, the Brooks article illustrates how:

"Not many writers would have the courage to use a tragic event like a 50,000-fatality earthquake to volubly address the problem of nonwhite laziness and why it sometimes makes natural disasters seem timely, but then again, David Brooks isn’t just any writer."

Poverty isn't caused by race, or class, or national origin. Poverty cannot be erased by throwing money at the problem, or building factories (read sweatshops) as was tried in the 1980's and 1990's. When the Haitian people demanded higher wages, saying they could not live on $1 per day, Disney, among others, packed up their factories and moved to China. Poverty ends when those in poverty are given the means to end their situation on their own. 

Yes, money, but also opportunity. Build the factories, but pay decent wages. Help them re-build, but teach them how to build earthquake-safe buildings and provide some of the materials to do so. Educate them in reforestation techniques and send teams to work with them to do so. Don't take over the airport or the rebuilding, but collaborate with them. Instead of saying they have nothing and not government, take what they have and ask what they want and build on it. Don't patronize them as David Brooks has done. Learn the lessons of colonialism and understand that ensure that this rebuilding effort--and that of Iraq and Afghanistan while we're at it--are not perceived as such.

When people such as David Brooks talk about the futility of aid, he ignores the responsibility this country has for creating the situations that caused the poverty in the first place. Their situation has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Their is nothing inherently different about the drive or motivation of one person from another except perhaps that if you live in a home where your parents and their parents and all of your cousins, and neighbors, and classmates go to college and have good jobs and can expect certain things out of life, then you probably have the kind of environment in which you can learn. If you have proper nutrition, good medical care, annual dental visits, a safe place to sleep, time to play and exercise instead of having to work or care for siblings while parents work, or scavenge for food every day, then when you go to school, you are better able to pay attention and learn and retain and recall information. 

Just as an example, a study by Hart and Risely (1995, 1999) found that by the age of 3, parents with a professional background had used over 30 million words when talking to their children, while parents with low-incomes had used on average 10 million words. Other studies have found a definite correlation between high linguistic ability early in life with success in school. From a sociologist's standpoint, we also know that when the parents support learning, when the parents read and have books or magazines in the home and read to their children or even when the children observe their parents reading, it reinforces the behavior which translates to improved performance in school. Translated to 3rd world countries, to Haiti, poverty goes far beyond race. 

And before people bitch too loudly about the money spent on Haiti (which I personally think is too little), according to Kiilu Nyashu at OpEd News,

"...Obama threw a party that cost $50 million more than he's sending to Haiti. Yup! He spent $150 million on his Inaugural Ball. We also learned the following:

Top U.S. Firms are on pace to award $148.85 Billion in payouts for 2009, according to a Wall Street Journal Study. Billions with a B!

You can also buy a Beverly Hills mansion, a yacht, or a painting for more than the relatively meager sum Obama is donating. Obviously, we cannot rely on this government to do the right thing by Haitians in their hour of need. It never has."

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k 

Looting? No, Survival. Calling it Looting is Racism.

Spouse was watching ABC News this morning where they reported a completely different set of numbers than those I heard on MSNBC last night, and a totally different slant on the story than that told by the NBC reporters on the ground.

Appalling to me, was that last night, I was told that many of the Haitians were scrambling through the wreckage, focusing on collapsed hotels and grocery stores, knowing that these were the most likely sources of food and water. This is a country that had been in desparate straights prior to the earthquake and as one reporter said, is now, "prostrate." The reporter talking about the survival measures being taken by these Haitians talked about the frustration he felt at seeing the mountains of supplies at the airport that had been there for two days, and the need of the people on the streets who were perfectly aware of what the planes landing were carrying. In the heat, water was essential. People were dying of minor wounds because of its lack. He said that people in Port-Au-Prince bought their food each day because of their poverty and the lack of facilities to keep food properly, so either the earthquake destroyed what supplies they had, or they had none to begin with.

On ABC News this morning, the reporter talked of looting. She stood before a city that was nothing more than a pile of rubble and talked of looting. Do you know what I think of when I think of looting? Images of the inner city of Los Angeles and African-Americans filmed from helicopters as they carried television sets out of storefronts with smashed windows. Images of New Orleans after Katrina when survivors (predominantly African-American) trying to survive after "Heck of a job, Brownie" did such a good job of getting them clean water and food, tried to find their own. Funny, we don't see a lot of images of whites cleaning out grocery stores.

What are these Haitians doing? Surviving. Not looting. This is one of the poorest nations on earth. It is the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. Unfortunately, this image above was shown on MSNBC and depicts young, black men fighting over food. Not all shows on the MSM are equal after all. Presenting this story as looting is racism. Presenting images of young, black men fighting, or marching in the streets carrying machetes as I saw earlier accomplishes what exactly? Raising fear of young black men. Young men who are simply trying to survive, doing what you or I or anyone would do if our world collapsed around us. It has been noted, repeatedly, how civil is the society of Haiti that 3 and 4 days after this disaster.

Check out Bag News Notes for a good discussion of images of the day.

Thanks for stopping by. Don't forget to make your donation to one of the organizations providing help to Haiti. They are many. Come back soon.

k

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License in Louisiana

I am stunned. I had thought we were long past this. Keith Bardwell, a Justice of the Peace in Hammond, Louisiana, denied a marriage license to Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay because,

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Where has he been? He does realize that this is illegal? The ACLU, of course, is on the job.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Source: AP News

Anita Malachowski - The Racism Spreads

This is obscene. Last time, it was a GOP staffer sending out emails with racist Obama messages. This time, it is a police dispatcher from Canton, Ohio, by the name of Anita Malachowski.




She says in her email that she's "sorry...but this is too funny" so has to pass it on.

According to The Ohio Daily,

"This type of message is offensive coming from anyone, but coming from someone in the position of dispatching police and prioritizing calls, it's downright horrifying."

Going on to say,

"The North Canton police have a hard enough job as it is without rogue dispatchers trying to incite a race riot or stirring tensions during the hot months of summer."

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III, Again

The irony of Senator Sessions being the Minority Leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the confirmation hearings on Judge Sotomayor is breathtaking. Unfortunately, Mr. Sessions does not understand irony any better than he understands the word empathy, although in his pronouncements yesterday in the opening day of the hearings, he found it necessary to instruct Ms. Sotomayor and everyone else present, on the definition, in the dictionary according to Sessions, of empathy. [emphasis added]

"I feel we've reached a fork in the road, I think, and there are stark differences. I want to be clear. I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality toward every person who appears before them."


"And I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against parties before the court."


"In my view such a philosophy is disqualified. Such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law. In truth it's more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom."


"... That is, of course, the logical flaw in the empathy standard. Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another."

Ah, where to begin.

Empathy. As a counselor, one of the first things we are taught is the importance of empathy. Without it, we are told, that connection with our client cannot happen. Studies have shown that it is the relationship between counselor and client - that process of active listening - more than any technique or theoretical training, that provides the atmosphere that enables change.

As counselors, we do not tell our clients what to do. We do not advise, suggest, nor do we soothe or comfort. It is not for me to approve nor disapprove of the choices my client makes, but rather to provide a safe place for the client to explore his or her own feelings about those choices, re-write the story if necessary, and try out different options for the future - or the past. It isn't about me and my values. It isn't about what I think is right and wrong. It isn't about what I feel or think. It is about what the client needs, and wants, and their values and ideas. Empathy is placing myself in their shoes, letting go of my own ego and imagining myself in their life, understanding their pain. Not experiencing their pain: understanding.

I may not understand the experience, but we've all experienced pain, hurt, and anger so can relate to feelings. That is empathy. Finding the common experience, something with which to relate.

Prejudices? We all have them whether we are willing to admit to it or not. I am saddened that now that we have an African-American president, it appears that racism and prejudice seem to be permissible to bring into the open in a way it hasn't been in over 30 years.

Prejudice is judging someone based on their membership in a group. Hating someone because they are a member of a religion, ethnic group, race, political party, social group, or any kind of group. Assigning characteristics to an individual commonly associated with the group to which they belong which may or may not be true. For example; gay men molest little boys (false), democrats are pro abortion (false), republicans are anti abortion (false), Gypsies steal (false), people from the south are all racist (false), all Catholics are Christian (true), all Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God (false) and all Christians believe the same thing (false).

Racism is a unique prejudice that believes that all people of a race different than one's own are inferior. Interestingly, many racists are also devout Christians, or express deep religiosity in some other religion and as such, are less concerned with science. If they were, they would understand that there is no real genetic difference between races, and in fact, there is only about 1% genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. So, it makes just as much sense to judge others on the color of their skin as it does to judge them on the color of their eyes, or hair, or their height (although I guess we do that, too).

And sympathy? Many, many people mistake sympathy for empathy. We all hate sympathy - or at least being the recipient of sympathy unless you enjoy being the victim. Sympathy is cloying, patronizing, and implies that you need someone to take care of you - that you are needy and dependent. We can feel sympathy for someone who has experienced serious illness or tragedy, but we also expect that over time they will move on and need less and less of our support and begin to recover from their dependency. There is always a point when sympathy becomes frustrating and debilitating and turns into a negative for at least one of the parties involved.

Empathy? It is always positive. We don't feel the pain, the tragedy, the anger. We understand it. We recognize it but we don't internalize it because to do so would be to minimize our ability to help, encourage victimhood, and weaken ourselves and cause burnout. Empathy is simply a way to connect with each other, to acknowledge how we are alike rather than emphasizing how we are different.

So the use of empathy in law, in politics? I don't see how anyone can govern effectively or rule wisely without it. One of the main problems in Washington today - and for a long time now - is the total disconnect from the real world. Our politicians and judges have no real contact with real people outside the beltway and without empathy, make decisions based on what is best for them and their insular world, rather than what is best for the country and the majority of the people, so yes, empathy is mandatory.

And the role of Mr. Sessions in all of this? Here's where we come to irony. From the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:

Irony -

1: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony

2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance

3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

Mr. Sessions last sat before this very committee, before many of these same members as a supplicant for a judgeship in his own right. Not a Supreme Court judgeship, just a federal one, for which he was (very rightly) rejected. Losing out on that dream, he went into politics and now sits in judgement of Judge Sotomayor. The cause of his rejection? Racism. What he chooses to focus on in his interrogations of Judge Sotomayor? Racism. Why? Because she said that her experience as a Latina woman gave her the life experience to empathize with those before her. To understand the lives of those whose rulings came before her and that this worldview enabled her to have the perspective to look at the law with an understanding of its real world effects. Every Republican on the Committee yesterday referenced her "Wise Latina woman" comment in their opening remarks and intends to question her about it. You will note, not one of them, nor the mainstream media, has seen fit to quote the entire context of that remark. Fortunately, the Democratic Senators have and will see to that.

Chairmanships in the House and Senate are gained by seniority. Mr. Sessions was not next in line for his. When Arlen Spector move across the aisle to become a Democrat, it opened up the spot for Minority Chair of the Judicial Committee. Knowing full well the (racist) history of Mr. Sessions, knowing the points they had decided to use to attack Ms. Sotomayor (even knowing she would be confirmed regardless), the Republican leadership jumped Mr. Sessions to the head of the line and named him to the position. Why? That's an interesting question. So far, all the strategy devised by the Republicans so far has failed, so it will be interesting as this confirmation process moves forward to see how this one plays out.

To find out more about Jeff Sessions own history with the Judiciary Committee and his failed bid for a judicial nomination, go here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

GOP Staffer Mails Racist Obama Photo

Sherri Goforth, an executive assistant for Tennessee State Rep. Diane Black (R-Gallatin), sent this picture out to other legislative staffers headlined "Historical Keepsake Photo."



One of the staffers who received it wasn't impressed. In fact, she and her representative boss were appalled. She said of the photo:

"I was going to post it last week but there was a death in my family and I had to think about it. Because it made me mad. But, you know, people need to know that this stuff is going on. I would be just as angry if a Democratic staffer had sent it. Dammit, Tennessee, haven't we moved past this kind of crap? I'm serious."

Ms. Goforth said that she did send the email, but then stated that:

"I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button," Goforth said. "I'm very sick about it, and it's one of those things I can't change or take back."

You'll notice that she's not sick about sending the picture. She's not sick about the content of the picture. Her employer hasn't said a word (and so far, she's still employed). She's sick that she sent it to the wrong email list. That's sick all right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Race to the Bottom

What a bunch of white men (and one white woman) are saying about Judge Sotomayor.



The oppressed class, gender, or race cannot be accused of the "ism" that has been perpetrated on them. It is a fallacy and a way for the (in this case) racist to continue being a racist. By accusing Judge Sotomayor of being a racist, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et. al., continue to inject race into the discussion and in fact make race the discussion and avoid any substantive conversation or having to back up any of their claims.

Fortunately, they are making a terrible mistake and (finally) the Republican leadership is beginning to realize that enough is enough. Today, John Cornyn, Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said, "I think it's terrible... This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent."

Perhaps others will begin to listen to Senator Cornyn. Or, as is more usual, we will hear Senator Cornyn begin to take that back in about 1-2 days or face attacks by Rush.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Intersection of Racism and Politics

Newt Gingrich is in Poland filming "9 Days that Changed the World" about Pope John Paul II's trip to Poland in 1979. I refuse to go into any more detail or discussion about anything Newt is promoting or to appear as if I am promoting him. If interested, Google him. What I find exceptionally disturbing is that Newt is in Poland to do a documentary about one of the leading religious figures of the 20th century. He is touring Auschwitz today (perhaps as he discusses the Pope's boyhood in Nazi Poland, he should include a chapter on the Catholic Church's complicity in the rise of the Nazi Party? just sayin).

Anyway. At Auschwitz, the ultimate expression of racism, Newt is twittering away and sends out this tweet:

"We just went through a gas chamber & crematorium at auschwitz. Everyone should see it and think of the evil which stalks the world today ..."

and a bit later:

"Imagine a judicial nominee said "my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman" new racism is no better than old racism..."

and then:

"White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw..."

This man calls himself an educator. He writes books. He needs to educate himself about racism, although, I think it's not a matter of education, I think it's a matter of politics. Discrimination is when one group oppresses another group because they can, and they can because of their position of power. Systemic, institutionalized racism occurs when the group in power oppresses and marginalizes those without power. Although there may be minor shifts in power over time, the overarching power is held by the dominant group - in this case, white men. Therefore, accusations of racism and/or discrimination by white men towards those who are historically oppressed, i.e., African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, women, etc., are disingenuous.

Certainly African-Americans or Hispanics may say they don't like whites, but rather than being a form of racism, it is instead, a response to hundreds of years of systemic oppression and is not because of race per se, but because of the oppression and treatment received because of the oppressed individuals' membership in the oppressed group. See the distinction? There is one.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III

Well aren't we lucky. We've increased the number of (supposedly) Democratic senators by one, and in exchange, have gotten Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not only does this committee hold hearings to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice now that Justice Souter has retired, but it also is responsible for civil rights cases. Joy.

Why do I say supposedly when referring to Arlen Specter, our newest Democratic senator? After crossing the aisle last week to join the Democrats, Mr. Specter was reported to have told President Obama that he was a loyal Democrat. This was reported by the Washington Post and by George Stephanopolous. Four days later (an extraordinary amount of time to let such a statement go unchallenged in Washington) Mr. Specter appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday claiming "I did not say that. I did not say that I was a loyal Democrat." hmmmm. I see problems ahead. Where does that fit into this post? We'll get to that.

Anyhoo. Mr. Sessions. Twenty-three years ago, Sessions appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as an appointee to a Federal Judgeship under President Reagan. Unfortunately for Mr. Sessions (extremely fortunately for the rest of us as these judgeships are lifetime appointments - think Jay Bybee) he was not confirmed.

Sort of an interesting turn of the circle that Sessions went on to become a Senator and then this week to be appointed to this committee, right? Actually, although committee assignments are all about seniority, this one is all about history. The Republican leadership received a massive amount of pressure (although they certainly didn't need it - they saw the exquisite irony of this appointment) to appoint Sessions to the Senate Judiciary Committee, so they did. The deal? He sits on the committee until 2010, at which time he gives up the seat to Chuck Grassley who would normally have taken the seat. Neat huh? Just long enough to seat a new Supreme. And Specter? At some point, the full Senate votes on whomever the Committee has confirmed. So, will Specter be a Democrat or a Republican?

So why wasn't Sessions confirmed as a Federal Judge? Think racist. Extreme racist. His issue (they all have an issue) was voting rights. At the time, he had prosecuted 3 men for voter fraud in the 1984 election - 1 of whom had been an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. This after finding 14 possibly fraudulent ballots (out of 1.7 million cast) and hours spent interviewing black voters in predominantly black counties. (By the way, all three were acquitted after 4 hours deliberation - that jury wasn't stupid. They knew how hard he had to search to dummy up a case). He referred to an African American Assistant US Attorney as "boy." He claimed that the NAACP was un-American and communist inspired. He called a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race" for litigating civil rights cases (remember, the Senate Judiciary Committee is responsible for civil rights cases). I could go on, but I have other stuff to do this week.

A couple of interesting points. Many articles are being written all over the blogosphere and in the mainstream press (and the not so mainstream press) about who President Obama might choose to replace Justice Souter. Many articles are being written about Senator Sessions and many, many talk shows are discussing both of these issues. You have to do a little digging to find out the details of Session's history.

MSNBC's "First Read" penned by White House political reporters including Chuck Todd would - you would expect - go into some depth, right? Today, the article posted is called SCOTUS POLITICS: Meet Jeff Sessions which you can read here which barely references this controversy, simply stating that "...Sessions had once called the NAACP an ‘un-American’ group, while another raised issues about remarks Sessions made about the Ku Klux Klan.” Not a thing about his direct, racist comments to others which are a little more potent than third hand, watered down remarks that really don't give any depth to the issue of his racism.

As a senator, Sessions was one of only nine to oppose Senator McCain's anti-torture amendment. He supported Vice-President Cheney's proposal to exempt the CIA from any anti-torture legislation. When the bill to repeal the estate tax was failing, he wanted to use Hurricane Katrina as a push-back, saying that businesses who had had a death might now be more likely to support the bill. What a delightful guy. He scores the lowest on immigration, environmental protection, global warming, and of course, civil rights. When the Republican party in the form of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk about the purity of the party, this is who they mean.

Want to find out more? Here are some links.
The Senator Who's Worse Than Lott
Profile of Sessions by CQ Politics
Looking for a Corpse to Make a Case

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k