In response to TEARS FOR A KING

In her column yesterday reflecting on the meaning of celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, Tears for a King, Michelle Dianne asked some pointed questions.

"We’re celebrating? From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire to the molehills of Mississippi, freedom still fails to ring for millions of Americans and we’re celebrating?"

Michelle Dianne
17 January 2011

Let's define celebrate: to observe or commemorate, typically but not necessarily in a public way, an event, drawing attention to remind others what matters.

The quintessential example is likely "personal" non-holiday birthdays, which rarely (if ever) focus on the woman who gave birth, but instead serve as a reason to express affection, or at least acceptance, without eliciting suspicion of an agenda: we can say, or hear, "Happy Birthday" without looking for motivation beyond "You're OK in my reckoning," even between near strangers. It's a low-cost, low-risk social exchange.

Celebration takes on another dimension altogether when we celebrate an official holiday - when we observe the birthday of a political or religious figure that choice conveys our recognition of their enduring impact - the significance of their contributions to many lives.

In that sense King's holiday is celebration-worthy and, though I might sooner have chosen the anniversary of an event, I accept that his accomplishment went well beyond any one appearance or speech; for all he brought to the consciousness of both oppressed people and those who chose to look the other way, I applaud the Powers That Be (or, that "were" in this case) for ensuring we officially, collectively reflect on and commemorate the impact and importance of his philosophy, commitment, and courage.

It is right, in other words, that children in the United States in particular -- children who might otherwise never so much as hear King's name -- have reason in every school in the nation to learn how awful and un-equal things really were despite the lofty language in our Constitution and the so-called integration of our Armed Forces. History doesn't repeat itself, but people who don't know history may well repeat some mistakes rather than learn from them.

"The other day R. Lee Gordon asked the African American community on Facebook what it will take to put the “B” back in *Lack Unity; the brother got only two responses. Think about that and answer me this: What are we celebrating?"

Michelle Dianne
17 January 2011

I'm fervently in favor of celebrating King's life and the changes his actions stimulated; marking his birthday spreads the awareness, it keeps us from glossing over the past, and conveys that he's as relevant to our story as the officially-most-revered of our Presidents. What we celebrate is that the courage and certainty of King's actions moved us farther, faster in a critical direction than we'd have made it without him. King's holiday is an affirmation of our "all men are created equal" aspiration, and the power of people to grow and improve.

So while her closing question implying we may be making a mistake -- implying the need to think more about the meaning of the day -- was a good one, with much yet unaccomplished, with miles to go and promises of our founding fathers still un-met this cold, snowy January, I submit it is more important to ask routinely either, "How can/does our celebration inspire continuation of the progress toward true equality?" or, "What would Martin do?"

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Robert Frost

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Lock & Load: Violence in the Crosshairs

In the aftermath of the shooting in Tuscon the irony looms: those who tout the 2nd Amendment usually insist that ready access to handguns, possibly concealed, will limit the probability of gun violence. A Second Amendment "solution" yesterday would have meant a crowd armed and hair-triggered enough to be ready to defend the Congresswoman when her assailant aimed at her - as the pro-gun pundits vociferously insisted might have prevented deaths in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, for example. One could only hope they'd all have the talent to aim very carefully in such crowded conditions that even a trained sharp-shooter might feel tested, since the deaths and injuries at a grocery store in Tuscon were arguably incited by the implied acceptability of such "2nd Amendment solutions."

I'd surely hate to be Jesse Kelly, Gifford's opponent in the recent election who tied defeating her to coming to shoot a "fully automatic M-16" to remove her from office, or Sarah Palin (who used a gun-sight rendering to target 20 candidates she wanted defeated, including Giffords) right now. It must be distracting for them both to work out ways to not feel guilty about this travesty.

So, while it's true that guns don't kill people, (people kill people) it does behoove us to consider culpability for incitement; there's more to being an American patriot than whipping up media ratings in support of your particular political agenda - or at the very least, we should agree that their ought to be. If we can agree that yelling fire in a crowded, darkened theater is unacceptable, then surely we can agree that inciting to violence is not responsible public discourse, much less a valid means to attain elected office.

This was an assault on the best system of government the world has ever brought to life. With all due respect to the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, violence is not a solution - it's a symptom. If you don't like how our system works, that's fine with me - feel free to move to Somalia, or anywhere else that doesn't use elections to determine what the government can do and who represents us. If you're staying, though, buy in.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Tom Hayes: Is Gary Hart downplaying the threat?

I disagree that the tea-baggers and others referred to in Hart's Huffington Post OpEd today, "Getting the Government We Seem to Want," hurt only themselves - by acting to disrupt civil discourse and undermine the effectiveness of our government they drag the country toward a path that will parallel the outcomes of "no taxes but no government" as currently practiced in Somalia.

"...the cynics and trolls who scream like banshees at town hall meetings and scan the blogosphere to post cynical put-downs of their country's government are hurting no one but themselves."

I'm forced to disagree: They hurt me. They hurt everyone else living in the U.S. In fact, it goes beyond today; such actions threaten the well-being, liberty, standard of living, and the intent of the founding fathers when they inserted the language pertaining to "pursuit of happiness" for my descendants (and yours, and theirs.)

I do share Hart's concern that, "the most qualified Americans will continue to choose not to serve their country and we will continue to be weaker for it."

Under the adopted camouflage of the Boston Tea Party, which was about the unfair nature of being taxed without representation not anarchy, these short-sighted, loud-mouthed, anti-government anarchists threaten the values predicating, and described in, the Constitution of The United States.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Closing tax loopholes is "robbing Peter to pay Paul"? Hardly!

If paying taxes to support our military, the interstate highway system, the FAA, satellites, and a Medicare system that insures senior citizens can afford health coverage, etc., offends your sense of fair play, you’re living in the wrong country. You want tax havens? Move to Somalia, my friend, while real patriots pay their fair share in the USA!

Closing loopholes that reward wealth instead of work is fine with me. I've had enough of special interests inserting ways to keep big business from paying taxes. Any tax incentives ought to discourage outsourcing, not promote it!

On the other hand, if you like the constitution, and want the government to "provide for the common defense" then a system that makes the rich and the mega corporations contribute their fair share is just basic old-fashioned patriotitism.

I guess that's parallel to what puzzles me about talk of Texas seceding. They wanted the benefits - so, if they go can we bill them for their interstates and the big ol' wall?

read more | digg story

Crisis of Faith on U.S. Supreme Court: Habeas Corpus 2008

If you read Justice Kennedy’s Majority opinion in the Gitmo/habeas corpus decision, you’ll discover that the ruling is in line with all of the principles the Catholic Church mandates. If you're not familiar with those particular teachings, here's further reading.

What do the four Justices who dissented have in common beyond a lack of faith in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution as ways to spread democracy and limit repression which we can see leads to recruiting terrorists? They are each Catholics appointed by Republican Presidents; Supreme Court justices who can’t be bothered to do more than pay lip service to their professed faith.

read more | digg story

Religious intolerance is alive and well in the USA

"Muslim!" Now Available In Insult Form:

In a 2004 survey by Cornell university, almost half of the national respondents favored curtailing the civil liberties of Muslims. 40 percent of Republicans wanted American Muslims to register their whereabouts. There are some Americans who recognize the demonization for what it is... but we all need to look fairly at religious discrimination.

As Ali Eteraz's article points out, even Mitt Romney, a Presidential candidate who comes from a marginalized religious background, cannot accept the idea of a Muslim in the cabinet. Why? There is resistance among many Americans to the obvious truth that Muslims are a diverse group: 1.2 billion humans, living in virtually every nation on the planet cannot possibly be less diverse than, say, the registered Republicans in the USA. When all Republicans can agree on an issue then we can ask the question again.

Meanwhile, Congressman Keith Ellison's faith raises eyebrows (except in his Minnesota district, that is, where he is highly regarded,) and the suggestion that Illinois Senator Barack Obama who has attended a Christian church for decades might be a Muslim is circulated as a smear - the very fact that this can be seen as a potential way to undermine his bid for the Democrats nomination to run for the Presidency of the U.S.A. speaks volumes about the mindset of those who repeat it (never mind those who generated the emails.) Who is the real Barack Obama - and why in a country founded in part to insure religious freedom for its citizens should it even matter what faith he - or anyone else - practices?

"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."

Those words are attributed to Reverend Martin Niemoeller, who had been a German U-boat commander in the first World War. They were his explanation of why he spoke out against the Nazis. He spent eight years in concentration camps for leading Protestant church opposition to Adolph Hitler. The Nazis imprisoned him at Sachsenhausen in 1937 for criticizing the Third Reich. He was freed from Dachau in 1945 by US troops. He died at the age of 92 on March 6, 1984.

The very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbade, expressly, government interference in matters religious:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Can we, the people of the United States of America, now hold ourselves to a lower standard? Can we accept religious intolerance? If we let them come for the Muslims, if we let it happen here, now, as it did in Germany decades ago, who will be there to protect our rights when they come, at last, for us?

read more | digg story