This interview is not particularly topical, but lays out some important framework relative to the American empire project...
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Tea and Cantaloupe
It's a perfect example of how government always interferes with the sacred market forces that keep us free, happy and doctrinally pure. That OBAHma has gone after the free and holy food producers, using that Communist agency the FDA to keep infected cantaloupes off the market -- a market that would, sayeth the Rand, regulate itself after enough people die, by scaring the survivors into staying away from fruit and eating the sanctioned BurgerfriesCoke meal like real Americans. Can you imagine? (Would you like to supersize your fries?)
I mean what greater freedom can we have than freedom from the knowledge of good and bad food and if OBAHma can tell us what to eat, he can tell us anything, that tyrant. And where does the money wasted on things like the FDA and FEMA and the FAA come from? TAXES, that's right, those fruits of our own unassisted labor of which we owe no portion to anyone much less those Commie bastards in Washington who want to give MY MONEY away to those undeserving leeches who won't work for less than minimum wage and have the effrontery to vote for Democrats.
No sir, I don't want those government schools brainwashing my kids with math and science and economics and twisted history. People are poor because they are lazy and because God put them here as an example to us, the elect and we don't need those America-hating Godless, OBAHma loving liberals telling us otherwise. No sir, my house isn't going to blow down or get washed away or burned by a brushfire and if yours does, it's not my fault or responsibility. If the roads and bridges wash out, you can fix them yourself, you lazy, tax loving bums. I mean I worked hard for everything I got and I don't owe you shit.
God Bless America.
I mean what greater freedom can we have than freedom from the knowledge of good and bad food and if OBAHma can tell us what to eat, he can tell us anything, that tyrant. And where does the money wasted on things like the FDA and FEMA and the FAA come from? TAXES, that's right, those fruits of our own unassisted labor of which we owe no portion to anyone much less those Commie bastards in Washington who want to give MY MONEY away to those undeserving leeches who won't work for less than minimum wage and have the effrontery to vote for Democrats.
No sir, I don't want those government schools brainwashing my kids with math and science and economics and twisted history. People are poor because they are lazy and because God put them here as an example to us, the elect and we don't need those America-hating Godless, OBAHma loving liberals telling us otherwise. No sir, my house isn't going to blow down or get washed away or burned by a brushfire and if yours does, it's not my fault or responsibility. If the roads and bridges wash out, you can fix them yourself, you lazy, tax loving bums. I mean I worked hard for everything I got and I don't owe you shit.
God Bless America.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
A Response to Keli Goff's Article, "Is Racism Actually Worse in the Age of Obama?"
The substance of Keli Goff's HuffPo article of September 26, 2011 is that at the present time, she and other African Americans are often confronted with what critic Toure calls "the unknowable" – a sense that one is being treated differently and not quite appropriately due to race, but one that is not backable with hard proof because, obviously, the other party isn't going to 'fess up to any misdeeds or bad intentions or bias, etc. I think the point is that while this sort of thing ranges from the silly to the serious (like losing out on a good job or not getting a home loan), the nagging suspicion it engenders takes a toll on a person's well-being.
I'd suggest that we (including our assumptions and sensibilities) are more or less a product of the generation or two preceding us. I have some affinity with the WWII / Depression generation – probably more affinity than I feel with my own – because of the stories and insights my parents passed on to me. Both of them were products of those times. I'm not African American or any other ethnic minority, so I don't experience the contemporary racial "unknowable" that the writer references to Toure – i.e. "am I really being treated differently in this instance, or am I making unfair assumptions about others?" But it's perfectly reasonable, I think, to feel this way – if you're black, you're dealing not only with the present (which may well hit you with racist moments of its own, and ambiguous or ambivalent moments that are impossible to decide and make you feel sort of like Larry David in one of those ridiculous "WTF" situations he gets into on Curb Your Enthusiasm) but also with the blatant and dreadful insults and material injuries that may be part of your family's past and that is definitely part of black people's collective past. We most certainly do not live in a post-racial society, and the past is still embedded in present consciousness to some extent.
The Obama presidency has really called out the full-on racists from under whatever rock they'd been hiding for a few decades, and on rare occasions when I allow myself to read a major newspaper comments section, it's pretty clear that these guys spend ALL their time tapping out racist garbage on their keyboards at five in the morning. They hate Obama for so many manufactured unreasons that they've lost count of them. Apparently, it's hard to keep track of all the people feeding us our unreasons these days. Blink, and we miss ten of them…. But seriously, one can only hope that this kind of blatant, open contempt for a president of African descent marks the last gasp of the Old White Guard: you know how it goes – progress always calls forth a backlash, just as MLK Jr. would tell you. Only when certain people feel threatened do they get downright ugly, and when they do, you know you're making progress. The Obama presidency has been painful at times because of the vileness of the opposition, but who really should have thought it wouldn't be? A smooth ride was never in the cards.
But here's a thought – a conservative columnist in one of the papers I occasionally read seems quite taken with President Obama's gaffes – stuff like "the intercontinental railroad" (I actually like that one! All aboard the Kansas City to London Express!) and other verbal slipups that most presidents make simply because they have to go around the country talking a lot. Someone might say, "liberals made fun of GWB's silly remarks and Reagan's fact-challenged gems, so how's this different?" They have a point. But still, what I take to be the disrespectful manner of the columnist in question makes me suspicious, and perhaps this feeling approximates an instance of what Keli Goff and Toure would call an "unknowable," even though I'm not African American and don't experience the full force of what they're talking about. Might there be some hint, in other words, of playing to those who just can't abide the president's skin color and consider it high time that we take all that power out of his supposedly incapable black hands and give it back to a white guy where it belongs? Maybe even to a white guy who drips with ignorant scorn for the scientific method and has no idea how a modern economy works? In sum, I think a fair amount of the criticism launched against the current president is a product of racial contempt, acknowledged or otherwise. Not all of it, of course, but enough to deserve serious consideration.
I'd suggest that we (including our assumptions and sensibilities) are more or less a product of the generation or two preceding us. I have some affinity with the WWII / Depression generation – probably more affinity than I feel with my own – because of the stories and insights my parents passed on to me. Both of them were products of those times. I'm not African American or any other ethnic minority, so I don't experience the contemporary racial "unknowable" that the writer references to Toure – i.e. "am I really being treated differently in this instance, or am I making unfair assumptions about others?" But it's perfectly reasonable, I think, to feel this way – if you're black, you're dealing not only with the present (which may well hit you with racist moments of its own, and ambiguous or ambivalent moments that are impossible to decide and make you feel sort of like Larry David in one of those ridiculous "WTF" situations he gets into on Curb Your Enthusiasm) but also with the blatant and dreadful insults and material injuries that may be part of your family's past and that is definitely part of black people's collective past. We most certainly do not live in a post-racial society, and the past is still embedded in present consciousness to some extent.
The Obama presidency has really called out the full-on racists from under whatever rock they'd been hiding for a few decades, and on rare occasions when I allow myself to read a major newspaper comments section, it's pretty clear that these guys spend ALL their time tapping out racist garbage on their keyboards at five in the morning. They hate Obama for so many manufactured unreasons that they've lost count of them. Apparently, it's hard to keep track of all the people feeding us our unreasons these days. Blink, and we miss ten of them…. But seriously, one can only hope that this kind of blatant, open contempt for a president of African descent marks the last gasp of the Old White Guard: you know how it goes – progress always calls forth a backlash, just as MLK Jr. would tell you. Only when certain people feel threatened do they get downright ugly, and when they do, you know you're making progress. The Obama presidency has been painful at times because of the vileness of the opposition, but who really should have thought it wouldn't be? A smooth ride was never in the cards.
But here's a thought – a conservative columnist in one of the papers I occasionally read seems quite taken with President Obama's gaffes – stuff like "the intercontinental railroad" (I actually like that one! All aboard the Kansas City to London Express!) and other verbal slipups that most presidents make simply because they have to go around the country talking a lot. Someone might say, "liberals made fun of GWB's silly remarks and Reagan's fact-challenged gems, so how's this different?" They have a point. But still, what I take to be the disrespectful manner of the columnist in question makes me suspicious, and perhaps this feeling approximates an instance of what Keli Goff and Toure would call an "unknowable," even though I'm not African American and don't experience the full force of what they're talking about. Might there be some hint, in other words, of playing to those who just can't abide the president's skin color and consider it high time that we take all that power out of his supposedly incapable black hands and give it back to a white guy where it belongs? Maybe even to a white guy who drips with ignorant scorn for the scientific method and has no idea how a modern economy works? In sum, I think a fair amount of the criticism launched against the current president is a product of racial contempt, acknowledged or otherwise. Not all of it, of course, but enough to deserve serious consideration.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The hollow man
Herman Cain won the Florida Republican Straw poll yesterday, not that any of my Floridian friends or neighbors seem to have taken notice. The straw poll probably means as much as any other straw-stuffed bundle such as one might find on a pole in a corn field amusing the crows. I'm not sure how many Florida Republicans would actually have chosen him out of a line-up to be the Republican champion, even a line-up as motley and miserable as we're given to choose from at the moment, but he's preferable to Perry in a state still jealous for only being able to brag about Jeb Bush instead of his idiot brother from Texas.
But really, he might just be ideal. The perfect man to deflect the charges of racism Republicans face when making racist statements about Obama, would be the man who accused Jon Stewart of attacking Cain for racist reasons. Rovian tactics have rarely deviated from accusing the opponent of one's own glaring misdeeds, so who better to allow them to say: "you're against Cain because he's black" and "Liberals are racists."
He's just the sort of spontaneously and unwittingly hilarious clown Republicans love to vote for because what they say isn't what they said they said and so they've been for and against anything as suits the argument of the moment. "Reporters who quote me are stupid" and "compromise is killing this country" are the kinds of statements stupid and uncompromising people praise when sitting around the table, taking tea.
And of course he's made money in business, which leaves him immune to the jabs of Republican picadors such as Romney's assertion that Obama has never run a business and has spent his career in public service so he's not fit to serve the public which was asserted despite any clear indication that having been a businessman makes for a good president ( and much that says it isn't.)
And of course, the whole tea-brained idea of prosperity through parsimony is served well by recycling all that old McCain campaign material simply by painting over the
Mc and re-enlisting the delightful Mrs. Palin to distract from his unsuitability by flaunting hers. Think of the savings.
But really, he might just be ideal. The perfect man to deflect the charges of racism Republicans face when making racist statements about Obama, would be the man who accused Jon Stewart of attacking Cain for racist reasons. Rovian tactics have rarely deviated from accusing the opponent of one's own glaring misdeeds, so who better to allow them to say: "you're against Cain because he's black" and "Liberals are racists."
He's just the sort of spontaneously and unwittingly hilarious clown Republicans love to vote for because what they say isn't what they said they said and so they've been for and against anything as suits the argument of the moment. "Reporters who quote me are stupid" and "compromise is killing this country" are the kinds of statements stupid and uncompromising people praise when sitting around the table, taking tea.
And of course he's made money in business, which leaves him immune to the jabs of Republican picadors such as Romney's assertion that Obama has never run a business and has spent his career in public service so he's not fit to serve the public which was asserted despite any clear indication that having been a businessman makes for a good president ( and much that says it isn't.)
And of course, the whole tea-brained idea of prosperity through parsimony is served well by recycling all that old McCain campaign material simply by painting over the
Mc and re-enlisting the delightful Mrs. Palin to distract from his unsuitability by flaunting hers. Think of the savings.
Friday, September 23, 2011
That Four Letter Word Again
Two days ago I read an article that I found of interest, "Black President, Double Standard: Why Liberals Are Abandoning Obama." (Melissa Harris-Perry, The Nation, October 10, 2011). Desiring to share the piece with others, I posted it to my Facebook Wall a day ago. Forty comments and a few attacks later, I've decided to further share my thoughts via blogging.
Some of those who read the article took offense at their perception that the author was labeling all white liberals who don't support Obama as racists. Regrettably, they were unable to get beyond protesting loudly, "I am not a racist." Hush, no one said that you were.
The thesis of the piece is not that white liberals who question Obama's policies are racists. It fascinates me that when the term racism appears in any piece of writing, particularly by a black person, that the immediate reaction of so many whites is to become indignant at being called a racist. Makes it sort of difficult to get to the heart of the matter being discussed.
Harris-Perry's essential point can be summed up in these lines:
She then tackles the issue of the criticism of Obama, who has actually accomplished a great deal, and how the liberal base appears to hold Obama to a far higher standard than the most recent Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Essentially, Perry's discussion is informed by the noble savage archetype that has characterized much of the European interaction with indigenous peoples or with those of African ancestry for generations. (See for example: Noble Savage, Magical Negro, or On Being a Noble Savage) Essential to this archetype is elevating the non-white to a favored status as noble and honest, an admirable race in spite of its oppressed status. This archetypal pattern is particularly seen in American culture, indeed it is promoted in much of early American literature in works such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "The Last of the Mohicans." These unrealistic portraits lead to expectations that are based on a glorified and mythological image rather than the realities of the people of color.
Perry questions whether those archetypal patterns are informing the differing expectations that generate what she labels electoral racism in which some liberals held such unrealistic expectations of Obama that they were bound to be disappointed with the reality of his presidency. In simplistic terms, take Bill Maher's comment, repeated with approval by Michael Moore in which Maher asserts that he voted for the black guy but got the white guy. (See clip from The View) In other commentary, Maher laments that Obama is too professorial and not a real black president, "the kind that lifts up his shirt so that you can see the gun in his pants." (Frances Martel, Bill Maher Disappointed that Obama Isn't a Real Black President, 5/29/2010)
I don't suggest that Maher is a card carrying racist but there is inherent unrealized racism in his observation. What is Maher's definition of blackness? What is there about Obama that's not black enough for him? What is there in Obama's demeanor that makes Maher define him as acting white? Who is Bill Maher to define what it means to be black? A similar observation with regards to unrealized racism is asserting that, "All Asians are good at math." It doesn't have to be a negative observation, but simply a sweeping generalization that presumes to define an entire group based on a perceived characteristic.
The animosity against Obama is couched in very personal terms. Some accuse him of intentionally betraying liberal or progressive causes, of being a sellout who has turned to the dark side and abandoned all progressive goals. That goes far beyond being disappointed and desiring a change in his policies. It's the worst type of character assassination. Perry raises the question as to why so much vitriol is directed towards Obama on this very personal level when in comparison with Bill Clinton, he has accomplished as much and in many cases more than Clinton. I recall when Clinton signed DADT into law; he didn't get nearly the attacks from the left for signing the bigoted law as Obama has received for not fighting for an anti-discrimination provision in the bill repealing the law.
Race informs all aspects of life in this country. To pretend that it doesn't is naive and unrealistic. Interestingly, I've seen this same article shared by many of my black Facebook friends. Those who have shared it have found it credible. This doesn't mean that black people are always right; however, it does reflect a difference in perspectives along racial lines. The question to ask yourself is do you use these differences to engage in honest dialogue or do you shut down into a defensive posture in which you deny that there is anything to be discussed? I truly appreciate those of you who have elected the first option. I have found your perspectives affirming and comforting. It is through such honest exchange that we all learn and grow.
Some of those who read the article took offense at their perception that the author was labeling all white liberals who don't support Obama as racists. Regrettably, they were unable to get beyond protesting loudly, "I am not a racist." Hush, no one said that you were.
The thesis of the piece is not that white liberals who question Obama's policies are racists. It fascinates me that when the term racism appears in any piece of writing, particularly by a black person, that the immediate reaction of so many whites is to become indignant at being called a racist. Makes it sort of difficult to get to the heart of the matter being discussed.
Harris-Perry's essential point can be summed up in these lines:
The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors. (The Nation)Harris-Perry only arrives at this point after carefully explaining the concept of electoral racism: Electoral racism in its most naked, egregious and aggressive form is the unwillingness of white Americans to vote for a black candidate regardless of the candidate’s qualifications, ideology or party. Harris-Perry is also careful to affirm that positive movement has been made beyond such electoral racism in its most blatant form.
She then tackles the issue of the criticism of Obama, who has actually accomplished a great deal, and how the liberal base appears to hold Obama to a far higher standard than the most recent Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Essentially, Perry's discussion is informed by the noble savage archetype that has characterized much of the European interaction with indigenous peoples or with those of African ancestry for generations. (See for example: Noble Savage, Magical Negro, or On Being a Noble Savage) Essential to this archetype is elevating the non-white to a favored status as noble and honest, an admirable race in spite of its oppressed status. This archetypal pattern is particularly seen in American culture, indeed it is promoted in much of early American literature in works such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "The Last of the Mohicans." These unrealistic portraits lead to expectations that are based on a glorified and mythological image rather than the realities of the people of color.
Perry questions whether those archetypal patterns are informing the differing expectations that generate what she labels electoral racism in which some liberals held such unrealistic expectations of Obama that they were bound to be disappointed with the reality of his presidency. In simplistic terms, take Bill Maher's comment, repeated with approval by Michael Moore in which Maher asserts that he voted for the black guy but got the white guy. (See clip from The View) In other commentary, Maher laments that Obama is too professorial and not a real black president, "the kind that lifts up his shirt so that you can see the gun in his pants." (Frances Martel, Bill Maher Disappointed that Obama Isn't a Real Black President, 5/29/2010)
I don't suggest that Maher is a card carrying racist but there is inherent unrealized racism in his observation. What is Maher's definition of blackness? What is there about Obama that's not black enough for him? What is there in Obama's demeanor that makes Maher define him as acting white? Who is Bill Maher to define what it means to be black? A similar observation with regards to unrealized racism is asserting that, "All Asians are good at math." It doesn't have to be a negative observation, but simply a sweeping generalization that presumes to define an entire group based on a perceived characteristic.
The animosity against Obama is couched in very personal terms. Some accuse him of intentionally betraying liberal or progressive causes, of being a sellout who has turned to the dark side and abandoned all progressive goals. That goes far beyond being disappointed and desiring a change in his policies. It's the worst type of character assassination. Perry raises the question as to why so much vitriol is directed towards Obama on this very personal level when in comparison with Bill Clinton, he has accomplished as much and in many cases more than Clinton. I recall when Clinton signed DADT into law; he didn't get nearly the attacks from the left for signing the bigoted law as Obama has received for not fighting for an anti-discrimination provision in the bill repealing the law.
Race informs all aspects of life in this country. To pretend that it doesn't is naive and unrealistic. Interestingly, I've seen this same article shared by many of my black Facebook friends. Those who have shared it have found it credible. This doesn't mean that black people are always right; however, it does reflect a difference in perspectives along racial lines. The question to ask yourself is do you use these differences to engage in honest dialogue or do you shut down into a defensive posture in which you deny that there is anything to be discussed? I truly appreciate those of you who have elected the first option. I have found your perspectives affirming and comforting. It is through such honest exchange that we all learn and grow.
A quick thought on economics
Conservatives keep trying to claim that we can't increase taxes on rich people, because Obama shouldn't tax "job creators."
Can we have a moratorium on the use of the term "job creators" for rich people? Because, at the moment, they are verifiably not creating any fucking jobs. That's like calling somebody a "stamp collector" when they don't buy, sell, or keep any stamps. It's just stupid.
In fact, I'll go one step further. I'll support a tax cut for anybody who creates new jobs, in America, which are held by American citizens. Now, this has to be a net jobs increase - if you fire fifty thousand people, and then hire forty thousand, you don't get congratulated for creating forty thousand jobs - you get yelled at for losing ten thousand.
(Also, any jobs you ship overseas? Yeah, that counts as a job loss.)
And by the way, that whole idea that "lower taxes equal more jobs"? It's stupid. Reagan experienced job growth while he was in office. But only after he raised taxes. Three times.
So, can we have a little honesty up in this bitch? For once?
Can we have a moratorium on the use of the term "job creators" for rich people? Because, at the moment, they are verifiably not creating any fucking jobs. That's like calling somebody a "stamp collector" when they don't buy, sell, or keep any stamps. It's just stupid.
In fact, I'll go one step further. I'll support a tax cut for anybody who creates new jobs, in America, which are held by American citizens. Now, this has to be a net jobs increase - if you fire fifty thousand people, and then hire forty thousand, you don't get congratulated for creating forty thousand jobs - you get yelled at for losing ten thousand.
(Also, any jobs you ship overseas? Yeah, that counts as a job loss.)
And by the way, that whole idea that "lower taxes equal more jobs"? It's stupid. Reagan experienced job growth while he was in office. But only after he raised taxes. Three times.
So, can we have a little honesty up in this bitch? For once?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
DAYS OF RAGE
In Chicago in Oct 1969 three days of demonstrations were planned to protest the war and the condition of the political system in this country. It was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration until the split of the Weathermen organization from the larger SDS. As some of us remember, it turned into a more violent conflict and it received extensive press coverage.
The much more peaceful and widespread Day of Rage of 2011 took place on Sept 17 with hardly a nod from the press. In fact the only coverage I’ve seen was of the Wall St protest that was blocked by police and corralled to a side street. They were there to protest corporate involvement in politics and their undue influence over our government. Hundreds of demonstrators attended.
Hundreds of people participated in related protests in Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle. All of them carrying the same message: The SCOTUS ruling in favor of corporate entities as citizens has taken over our political system and corrupted our government.
Their slogan: One citizen, one dollar, one vote – calling for limits on how much any person (or any corporate citizen) can contribute to a political campaign.
Not surprisingly, all corporate owned MSM outlets pointedly ignored these protests. So thank goodness for the power of the internet where we can still find venues for accurate and pertinent newsworthy happenings in our country and around the globe.
Despite the slow start I'd say the genie is out of the bottle and I believe as more citizens remain unemployed and frustrated we will see more protests that will eventually become impossible to ignore. I just hope we can stay with the ideal of peaceful protest and nonviolent civil disobedience.
The much more peaceful and widespread Day of Rage of 2011 took place on Sept 17 with hardly a nod from the press. In fact the only coverage I’ve seen was of the Wall St protest that was blocked by police and corralled to a side street. They were there to protest corporate involvement in politics and their undue influence over our government. Hundreds of demonstrators attended.
Hundreds of people participated in related protests in Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle. All of them carrying the same message: The SCOTUS ruling in favor of corporate entities as citizens has taken over our political system and corrupted our government.
Their slogan: One citizen, one dollar, one vote – calling for limits on how much any person (or any corporate citizen) can contribute to a political campaign.
Not surprisingly, all corporate owned MSM outlets pointedly ignored these protests. So thank goodness for the power of the internet where we can still find venues for accurate and pertinent newsworthy happenings in our country and around the globe.
Despite the slow start I'd say the genie is out of the bottle and I believe as more citizens remain unemployed and frustrated we will see more protests that will eventually become impossible to ignore. I just hope we can stay with the ideal of peaceful protest and nonviolent civil disobedience.
Doubt and Death in Georgia: the Troy Davis Execution
At 11:08 p.m., September 21, 2011, the state of Georgia executed a man by the name of Troy Davis via lethal injection. Davis was 42 years old. He had been on death row since his conviction in 1989 for the murder of Mark MacPhail, an off-duty policy officer.
I don't know if Davis was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted but I share the concerns of thousands including the Pope, a former FBI director, and and ex-president of the United States that there were serious doubts as to his guilt.
The prosecutor in the case says that he is certain that Davis was guilty. The lack of any physical evidence linking Davis to the shooting and the recanting of key testimony by alleged witnesses to the crime did nothing to shake the prosecutor's certainty. He suggests that the witnesses lied when they recanted their identification of Davis as the shooter. I wish that I had his certainty.
Instead, I worry that the state of Georgia may have executed a man for a crime which he didn't commit. I worry that the witnesses, who say that their identification of Davis as the shooter was coerced by the police who wanted to be certain of a conviction of someone for killing one of their own, are telling the truth. I worry that the man who conveniently first pinned the shooting on Davis and who has subsequently been identified as the real shooter by an eyewitness, may have had a personal interest in misdirecting police attention to Davis. I worry that the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, the standard in capital cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been disregarded in the state's execution of Troy Davis.
I feel for the MacPhail family, but the repeated assertions by them that Davis has had every opportunity to prove his innocence, gets it all wrong. Criminal prosecution is not about the defendant proving his innocence, it's about the state proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. It's difficult to precisely define what the phrase means, but common law and case law have carved out the following definition:
It's difficult for many of us to imagine lying because you want to escape continued questioning by law enforcement. However, innocent people have confessed to crimes that they did not commit under the stress of police questioning. Did you know that the police are allowed to lie to you while questioning you? Their goal is to get you to admit "the truth."
I don't know what went on when those witnesses were questioned. I don't know if their subsequent recanting of testimony was the truth. What I do know is that no person should be executed by the state if there is any doubt as to that person's guilt.
I admit that I oppose the death penalty in principal. I don't believe that the state should be in the business of taking what it cannot give. In the words of John Donne, "...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind."
Troy Davis died Wednesday night at 11:08 p.m. but we were all diminished by his death.
I don't know if Davis was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted but I share the concerns of thousands including the Pope, a former FBI director, and and ex-president of the United States that there were serious doubts as to his guilt.
The prosecutor in the case says that he is certain that Davis was guilty. The lack of any physical evidence linking Davis to the shooting and the recanting of key testimony by alleged witnesses to the crime did nothing to shake the prosecutor's certainty. He suggests that the witnesses lied when they recanted their identification of Davis as the shooter. I wish that I had his certainty.
Instead, I worry that the state of Georgia may have executed a man for a crime which he didn't commit. I worry that the witnesses, who say that their identification of Davis as the shooter was coerced by the police who wanted to be certain of a conviction of someone for killing one of their own, are telling the truth. I worry that the man who conveniently first pinned the shooting on Davis and who has subsequently been identified as the real shooter by an eyewitness, may have had a personal interest in misdirecting police attention to Davis. I worry that the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, the standard in capital cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been disregarded in the state's execution of Troy Davis.
I feel for the MacPhail family, but the repeated assertions by them that Davis has had every opportunity to prove his innocence, gets it all wrong. Criminal prosecution is not about the defendant proving his innocence, it's about the state proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. It's difficult to precisely define what the phrase means, but common law and case law have carved out the following definition:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.The prosecution stands firm in its belief that a jury of Mr. Davis' peers convicted him based on the the evidence with a certainty that was beyond reasonable doubt. Even accepting that as valid, what does it do to that conviction when the evidence presented by seven of the nine witnesses in that jury trial has been recanted by those witnesses?
It's difficult for many of us to imagine lying because you want to escape continued questioning by law enforcement. However, innocent people have confessed to crimes that they did not commit under the stress of police questioning. Did you know that the police are allowed to lie to you while questioning you? Their goal is to get you to admit "the truth."
I don't know what went on when those witnesses were questioned. I don't know if their subsequent recanting of testimony was the truth. What I do know is that no person should be executed by the state if there is any doubt as to that person's guilt.
I admit that I oppose the death penalty in principal. I don't believe that the state should be in the business of taking what it cannot give. In the words of John Donne, "...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind."
Troy Davis died Wednesday night at 11:08 p.m. but we were all diminished by his death.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
About DADT Damned Time
Well, now he's gone and done it. Obama's just lost the vote of the Religious Right.
(Yeah, I make myself laugh sometimes...)
Starting at midnight Tuesday, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been officially repealed, and homosexuals can now serve openly in the military. We were the last industrialized nation that didn't allow gays to serve openly, until just last night.
I'd like to make a prediction. Approximately one year from today, civilization will not crumble, and the military will be just as good as it is now.
Better, even. The gays in the military (and I knew several) won't have to hide it, won't have to keep lying about what they are (here are some of their stories now). Kevin and Kim's daughter Cat can dance openly in the Officer's Club with her girlfriend. And maybe, for the first time since we went into Iraq, we'll be able to keep some Arabic translators, instead of paying civilian contracting companies millions of dollars every year.
Funny thing about DADT: it was implemented in 1993 as a compromise measure, when Congress (to prevent Clinton from doing what Obama just did) added a requirement to the National Defense Authorization Act which forced commanders to enforce homophobic regulations which stated that homosexuality was incompatible with military service.
At the time, Republicans and other homophobes hated DADT. Odd how they switched to defending it in recent years, huh?
(It's harder to find a copy of that video that you can embed than you'd think...)
I'm going to let my president have the last words here.
(Yeah, I make myself laugh sometimes...)
Starting at midnight Tuesday, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been officially repealed, and homosexuals can now serve openly in the military. We were the last industrialized nation that didn't allow gays to serve openly, until just last night.
I'd like to make a prediction. Approximately one year from today, civilization will not crumble, and the military will be just as good as it is now.
Better, even. The gays in the military (and I knew several) won't have to hide it, won't have to keep lying about what they are (here are some of their stories now). Kevin and Kim's daughter Cat can dance openly in the Officer's Club with her girlfriend. And maybe, for the first time since we went into Iraq, we'll be able to keep some Arabic translators, instead of paying civilian contracting companies millions of dollars every year.
Funny thing about DADT: it was implemented in 1993 as a compromise measure, when Congress (to prevent Clinton from doing what Obama just did) added a requirement to the National Defense Authorization Act which forced commanders to enforce homophobic regulations which stated that homosexuality was incompatible with military service.
At the time, Republicans and other homophobes hated DADT. Odd how they switched to defending it in recent years, huh?
(It's harder to find a copy of that video that you can embed than you'd think...)
I'm going to let my president have the last words here.
Today, the discriminatory law known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is finally and formally repealed. As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love. As of today, our armed forces will no longer lose the extraordinary skills and combat experience of so many gay and lesbian service members. And today, as Commander in Chief, I want those who were discharged under this law to know that your country deeply values your service.
I was proud to sign the Repeal Act into law last December because I knew that it would enhance our national security, increase our military readiness, and bring us closer to the principles of equality and fairness that define us as Americans. Today’s achievement is a tribute to all the patriots who fought and marched for change; to Members of Congress, from both parties, who voted for repeal; to our civilian and military leaders who ensured a smooth transition; and to the professionalism of our men and women in uniform who showed that they were ready to move forward together, as one team, to meet the missions we ask of them.
For more than two centuries, we have worked to extend America’s promise to all our citizens. Our armed forces have been both a mirror and a catalyst of that progress, and our troops, including gays and lesbians, have given their lives to defend the freedoms and liberties that we cherish as Americans. Today, every American can be proud that we have taken another great step toward keeping our military the finest in the world and toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)