When The People Have Had Enough

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Everyone knows that Dr. King not only talked the talk, but he also walked the walk. His dedication to championing the concepts of justice and equality was surpassed only by his courage, which he punctuated profoundly when he stated that “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live.” Dr. King was clearly a man who was willing to die for what he believed in because he could not live with the way things were.

It appears that the wave of protest and revolt that is currently surging across the Middle East was triggered by the supremely sacrificial act of a man who was willing to die because he could not live with the way things are in his beloved country Tunisia. I don’t know exactly what 26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi believed in, but I believe that it’s safe to say that he had had enough.

Mohamed Bouazizi had a university degree but was unemployed. To make a living he sold fruit and vegetables, basically trying to survive as an unlicensed street vendor. One day the authorities in the small city of Sidi Bouzid where Mohamed lived seized his produce cart, essentially taking away his livelihood, his means of survival. It’s been reported that Mohamed became so angry that he set himself on fire. He died a couple of weeks later.

But the impact of his act was instantaneous. The incident enraged witnesses and rioting quickly spread throughout the town. Reuters reported that “Riots are extremely rare for Tunisia, a north African country of about 10 million people which is one of the most prosperous and stable in the region.” I guess the obvious question would be “prosperous and stable” for whom? A relative of Mohamed was quoted as saying, “People are angry at the case of Mohamed and the deterioration of unemployment in the region.”

The majority of Americans have absolutely no knowledge of the social, economic and political dynamics at the root of what is currently taking place in the Middle East, but there are millions of Americans who do know a little something about unemployment in a country that is “prosperous and stable” for a select few.

As a recent commentary in The Nation pointed out, “While 22 million were searching for jobs in the US this week, Goldman Sachs tripled Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein’s base salary and awarded him $12.6 million of stock, a 42 percent increase from ’09.”

Laura Flanders, who wrote the commentary, takes the position that it is the income inequality that exists in Egypt that has compelled people to take to the streets, pointing out that, “As in Tunisia, the protesters are driven by fury at poverty, lack of options and the looting of their state by the super-powerful.”

The income inequality that exists in America has been receiving major attention lately, especially during the recent tax cut spectacle. But what’s incredibly shocking and perverse in the comparison between the US and Egypt is that, as Ms. Flanders writes, “…the US actually has much greater inequality than Egypt—or Tunisia, or Yemen.”

That’s right, the income inequality in the most powerful nation in the world is worse than that of Egypt, Tunisia, or Yemen– countries located in a region of the world that at this very moment is being transformed by an unrelenting demand for the end of tyranny and the establishment of governments that are dedicated to the well-being of all citizens.

After hammering home the facts that the income disparity between the rich and the poor in this country is “anti-democratic” and that American democracy is “suffering,” Ms. Flanders concludes with the question, “What are we going to do about it?” For me the most significant question is: When will the people decide that they have had enough?

Utter Hypocrisy: The tax cut spectacle

And to think there are some people who actually wonder why so many people don’t vote. As far as I’m concerned the tortuous discourse and analysis that took place recently regarding the tax cuts demonstrated just how wide the chasm is between many of the politicians in Washington and the people they are supposed to represent.

I came across an essay a while back that pointed out one of the problems with representative democracy, which is essentially what we have here in America. The author of the essay- Stephen Shalom, who teaches political science at William Paterson University in New Jersey- wrote that one of the problems with representative democracy is that “…representatives, for many reasons, don’t, in fact, represent their constituents. Representatives say one thing to get elected and then change their positions once in office. They have no real connection to the hundreds of thousands of people they represent. Their different life circumstances lead them to develop different interests from those of their constituents.”

One of the life circumstance changes that takes place is that prior to being elected the representatives say and do what they have to do to get elected, and then once elected, they say and do what they have to do to stay in office. In an article titled Obama Caves on Tax Cuts, Endorses ‘Bush-McCain Philosophy,’ Ari Berman, a contributing writer for The Nation magazine, points out:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said over and over that he was running to “put an end to the Bush-McCain philosophy.” Campaigning in Colorado just days before the election…Obama clearly stated his opposition to Bush-era economic policies and ridiculed the idea that “we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that it trickles down on everybody else. It’s a philosophy that gives tax breaks to wealthy CEOs and to corporations that ship jobs overseas while hundreds of thousands of jobs are disappearing here at home.” 

Some argue that President Obama’s compromise on the tax cuts could turn out to be political suicide while some argue that the compromise could turn out to be political salvation. Political realties change, sometimes overnight. What doesn’t appear to change so quickly is the powerlessness of the electorate to affect real change. There’s a difference between having the power to put people in and out of office and the power to truly influence policy. 

In a representative democracy the ideal is to influence policy through the folks that we send to Washington or our state capitols to represent us. One of the most disturbing viewpoints that came out of all of the analysis that was taking place was presented by Mr. Berman when he wrote:

Obama and Congressional Democrats bungled the tax debate from the start, even though it was clearly a winning issue for the president and his party. Even though everyone knew the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this year, Democrats failed to develop an overall strategy for this issue last summer or force a vote in the Congress before the election…Democrats refused to put the GOP on the spot or talk about the tax cuts during the campaign, blurring what should have been a core distinction between the parties; Democrats for the middle class, Republicans for the rich. 

This assessment was echoed in a New York Times editorial, dated 12/8/10:

By temporarily extending income tax breaks for the richest Americans, and cutting estate taxes for the ultrawealthy, the deal will redistribute billions of dollars from job creation to people who do not need the money. But the Democrats should vote for this deal, because it is the only one they are going to get. The president, and particularly Congressional Democrats, might not be in this bind if they had fought harder against the high-end tax cuts before the midterm elections.

In other words, according to these assessments, the Americans that President Obama said were being held hostage by the Republicans were in that predicament because he and the Congressional Democrats allowed them to be taken as hostages, which begs the question: How thin is the line between compromise and hypocrisy?

A tale of two economies

“I’m sick and tired of people going to congress in Washington D.C. and making a living out of it while we starve to death.”

Those words were spoken by a resident of Newton Iowa during a segment of CBS’s 60 Minutes titled “Anger in the Land,” which aired on October 31, just days before the 2010 mid-term elections. The words were simple yet as savage as a sledgehammer striking at the foundation of the frustration shared by citizens across the land.

Newton is one of the small towns in America that has been decimated during the Great Recession. The 60 Minutes segment was devoted to capturing the mood in the country just before the elections that would be taking place in the midst of unrelenting economic hardship. A CBS/New York Times poll was cited that revealed that 80 percent of the people polled said they want most incumbents out of Congress regardless of whether that incumbent is a Democrat or Republican.

Though understandable, much can be said about the unsophisticated and suicidal aspects of this sentiment, which speaks to just how deep in the dark the majority of Americans are as it regards the jigsaw puzzle that is governance in this country. But in fairness to those of us who are languishing in the darkness, it’s extremely difficult to connect the pieces when we’re disconnected from the process. Note this exchange that took place during the 60 Minutes segment:

“What’s surprised you the most about this recession?” correspondent Scott Pelley asked business owner David McNeer.

“I think the depth of it, and the length of it. I think what surprised me the most about this one is it doesn’t wanna end,” he replied.

“You know, the economists say that the recession’s over,” Pelley pointed out.

“Really? They should come to Newton, Iowa,” McNeer replied.

But of course they won’t be coming to Newton because the people in Newton really don’t matter. They are no more a part of the economic recovery process that truly matters than they are a part of the political empowerment process that truly matters. And that goes for the majority of us living in America.

Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor under President Clinton, put it this way in a recent article:

There are two American economies. One is on the mend. The other is still coming apart.

The one that’s mending is America’s Big Money economy. It’s composed of Wall Street traders, big investors, and top professionals and corporate executives.

But there’s another American economy, and it’s not on the mend. Call it the Average Worker economy.

Simply put: There’s the American economy that matters to the folks that matter in Washington D.C. That’s the economy that’s composed of those that have the wealth and power to shape policy to their advantage. They are the ones that, for example, rule Wall Street and were able to contribute 15 million dollars to presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign and have the monetary muscle to lobby against any meaningful legislation to regulate the Wall Street investment banks “whose missteps caused a global financial crisis and economic slowdown two years ago,” as pointed out in an article that appeared in Bloomberg.com the other day. These are the people responsible for the economic catastrophe that has produced the suffering that is taking place in Newton IA and throughout the country and the world. 

Then there’s the Average Worker economy. The majority of us are plugged into the one that doesn’t really matter. Well, at least at the moment that’s the case. I’ll simply close with the ominous warning that Mr. Reich issued at the end of his article:

“…if nothing changes in the Average Worker economy, there will be hell to pay.”

last night in the vestibule

i was hoping that it was the wind again

pretending to be an old senile actor trying to

carry a message

a warning

between forgotten lines

wanting to be born again

but giving up and dying

in the form of this man

whose features i had often given

to the night

whose voice i had often given

to the darkness

who was at my door…at my door.

he rang the bell as if all of his blood

had surged into the one hand, the one finger

like the one that pokes our chests or our foreheads

after each utterance of why

after each scream of why

like the one that belongs to grandmama, to granddaddy

or their grandchildren who don’t know any better

the finger that seems to always separate the blood

into explanation

blood that was about to be set free

flowing like declared independence

after alley-crack dialogue

filling lies where rock and sand have failed

no, the wind’s freedom is not the same.

maybe his blood was Ashanti…as mine became Dogon…

there were shadows standing along the drawn-up boundary

hearts beating like hands against a hollow log

he was a wanderer seeking refuge from the shadows

like an unplanted seed needing one last embrace from the sun

not caring to take root beneath infertile rhetoric.

he was a stranger

seeking refuge in a vestibule…in a village

Senufo…Bateke…no…yes…no…we were both african

but he could be conquered

his hand fumbling through the boot-legged images

that could bring death from the shadows

that could conceal death

but he could be conquered.

hearts beating like hands against a hollow log

a shared dialect heard above the babble

of fading shadows

…Ibibio…Yoruba…no…we were both african

i could feel it in the wind.

Winter in America

It’s winter…winter in America…and ain’t nobody fighting, ’cause nobody knows what to save.

From the song “Winter in America” by Gil Scott Heron/Brian Jackson

Nowadays when I reminisce about being young and black in America back in the early 70’s I see it as a special time, a transitional period in different ways, on different levels. Personally I had successfully made the leap from grade school to high school and was reveling in my passage into the teenage years,  bolstered by the belief that manhood was just around the corner. 

But things were drastically changing in the world at large as well. Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, and I remember standing on the back porch on the second floor of the apartment building that we lived in and watching the sky turn reddish-orange and black from the flames and smoke during the riots that had broken out. Then a couple of months later I sat in front of our black and white television mesmerized by the news coverage of the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

From what I was told these were good men that stood for what was right and wanted to help make this society, this world, a better place for all people. The fact that they were killed because of their benevolent beliefs was a signal to my young mind that this world was not as nice a place as I thought it was. I guess that it can be said that I had developed a higher level of consciousness about people and the society that I lived in.   

 

Then there was the music. The songs began to reflect the prevailing spirit of the times, questioning and outright challenging long-held notions and beliefs about America and it’s commitment to the principles of justice and equality.

One of my all-time favorite songs of this genre of music is Winter in America, by Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson. Released in 1974, the song still powerfully speaks to the pain and disillusionment that stems from decimated dreams and perverted promises and the spiritual toll of struggling against complex forces that suppress and oppress.

One can only hope and pray that there will always be those that will never stop believing in and working towards a changing of the season that leads to the realization of the highest of American ideals…

Money in Politics: The High Price of Democracy

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.  ~Oscar Ameringer

After witnessing the 2010 mid-term campaigns I seriously doubt that any sane observer would describe politics as a “gentle art.” And according to a recent article in the Washington Post, getting votes from the poor these days is an art form that has gone the way of participatory democracy in this country.

In the Post article Deborah Weinstein, executive director of the Coalition on Human Needs, an alliance of national organizations that advocates for the poor, commented on the reluctance on Capitol Hill to address the issue of poverty in this country, which she says is “a national emergency.” 

Weinstein noted that there are people in Washington who realize that “…poverty is important and is a blight on our nation.” She goes on to say, “But we are also up against a general recognition that poor people don’t vote in great numbers. And they certainly aren’t going to be making campaign contributions. That definitely puts them behind many other people and interests when decisions are being made around here.”

Which leads me to the video clip featuring Robert Kaiser, who coincidently is associate editor and senior correspondent of the Washington Post. Mr. Kaiser was on tour, promoting his book titled So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and The Corrosion of American Government.

During his talk Mr. Kaiser makes several points that pretty much echo what Ms. Weinstein said as it concerns the lack of representation for the poor on Capitol Hill. But there was one particular point that he made which was staggering in its summation of just how much of a factor money has become in politics. Kaiser said that in 1974 the average winning Senate campaign cost $450,000. In 2008 the average cost of a winning Senate campaign had risen to approximately $10,000,000.

What that suggests to me is that not only the poor, but every other economic class except for the wealthy has pretty much been priced out of what we have been made to believe is the premier model of democracy in the world and it’s a price tag that both major political parties are responsible for attaching to the system of government that impacts our lives from the cradle to the grave. It’s no wonder that we have the level of disillusionment and rage that we have among the electorate in this country…

Obama: The complexity of hope



This video features some searing commentary from Cornel West, esteemed University Professor at Princeton University, who teaches in the Center for African-American Studies and also the Department of Religion.

Although the interview took place almost a year ago I doubt that any reasonable person will challenge its relevance to the conditions that exist today, particularly as it concerns the level of unemployment that exists among African-Americans.

Professor West is providing the type of sophisticated, straight-with-no-chaser analysis that is needed and that will challenge Obama supporters to embrace the complexity of hope as fervently as they embraced the audacity of hope.

This is not to discourage participation in the democratic process; it’s just reminder of how extraordinarily difficult it is to bring about meaningful, fundamental change in this country…

From www.thegrio.com on Dec 1, 2009

Educator Cornel West sat down with theGrio to discuss how unemployment is affecting African-Americans.

TheGrio asked West about national unemployment trends for African-Americans. He called on President Barack Obama to implement a comprehensive jobs policy — a program that would mirror former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, and focus primarily on creating jobs for people without a college education.

“[It’s] the same way we had an investment banker policy when they were in trouble,” West said of what he views as a double-standard in current economic policy. “All AIG needed was a push. So let’s help push these poor people, these working people into jobs with a living wage.”

West, who has been outspoken in both his support and criticism of Obama, said the current administration has not made poor people a priority.

“Obama has an economic team that’s composed of persons who have no history whatsoever of being concerned about poor people,” West said. “Obama’s been doing a good job of reassuring the establishment. But there’s many of us who believe the establishment is on our necks.”

The Princeton University professor is busy promoting his new book, Brother West: Living and Loving Out Loud. The memoir is a departure from West’s previous books, where he focused primarily on issues such as race and social justice.



the afterparty (…an interpretation featuring tupac…)

born of a panther

this rhythm cry will never end:

its volume is an eternal dance.

life-steps

that fall in time as

the soil inhales and exhales.

life-movements

that flow from the soil.

not to be mistaken for loose dirt

that swirls across vacant lots

during a changing wind’s last sigh. emulating

something natural, disastrous. exposing

tracks that lead to and from where panthers

give birth.

this rhythm cry cannot end, because

there is no end to be seen.

breathing life into a slowly dying

struggle. blasphemous to some, the

breathing is the religion, heresy is

the dance.

a manifesto is each motion.

see me. feel me. touch me. i am here.

this is my space. thumping, bumping

space. as narrow as a needle with no eye.

celebrating a moon that sits

in the sky of a hot july afternoon.

jumping up and down, pumping

fists into the air.

not moving.

Welcome to the Circus: Jimmy McMillan

Even a circus has its serious moments, where the entertainment is underlined by the dangers associated with acts that thrill and excite us. I have no idea who this guy is, where his candidacy is going, or what may be revealed about him down the road.

But I do know that the danger underlying this latest viral sensation is that the issues that he is bringing up, the issues that really matter to everyday people whose voices are being drowned out and who are also dying from the condition of being unheard, will merely continue to serve as props for the same old tired acts…

a garden segue

In the beginning there was…

i can’t imagine

asking the sea to accept me

as it’s kin

to reach out and embrace me

like the framed blackness

that lies before my

baptized eyes

as I peep through this

window of smoked pain

watching finales exchange

cold and ashy hands

that are wrinkled like

the breath that is vapor

like exhaust

from rattling machinations

or maybe even

emissions

from virgin serpents

…even eternity

had to start

somewhere.

El Chorrillo

 

your tears are felt

like polluted drops from the dark pillows

of that which seems to be sleeping

you scream to awaken it

you scream to be heard

by those afraid to hear

by those who do not want to hear

who do not want your mouths too close to their ears

they could then feel the breath that is fading

they could then feel the breath that has stopped

they were not there

when it seemed as if the kingdom had collapsed

and was falling from the sky

as shrapnel flew from thunder

louder than the command that banished the angel

so many hopes and prayers ago

as sleek savage birds chirped a horrific awakening:

your freedom is not yours

your lives are not yours.

before coffee

a man cries. a father cries.

he can no longer shield them from the devastation: he never could.

he can feel the avalanche, he can feel the mountaintop crumbling.

the rumbling resonates inside of his head like powerful speeches inside of empty arenas.

but it is a negotiated peace that has crushed him, his bones reduced to powder, in danger of being bagged and sold.

he ponders his street value, more naive than a pimp’s fresh meat.

an auction block is preferred…anything that simplifies.

the dawn’s mirror finds him fading with the night…

the villas near the caspian

their faces seem to say that morning whispers

like a stranger each time it greets them

but they speak back to it nonetheless

their lives hidden

inside of nuts and apples that mask the market

but death is no fool.

exotic is the foreigner’s daily eye

exotic are the foreigner’s deadly faces

exotic is the way that greed weeps

for those that it buries.

paradise becomes a blemish

a sore from a salve that arabs once used

for healing.

war becomes the salve of the consortium

oozing from the pores of men

whose countenance is dead earth

who gaze out of the windows of the villas near the caspian

and curse the waters that christen the oily rocks.