A+ R A-

More Commentary

Pressuring Us Towards War

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) I never cease to be surprised by the racist audacity of the Republicans in Congress. In clear violation of international protocol, they arranged for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak before Congress. The established practice has been that this is done always in consultation with the Executive Branch. This time the Republicans decided to snub that branch.

Wonders never cease. Forty-seven Republican Senators then signed onto one of the strangest letters in the history of international relations. The letter is addressed to the leadership of Iran and, in essence, says that whatever agreement Iran comes to with the Obama administration will be voided by the next President of the United States. This is remarkable on so many levels, not the least being that no agreement has been reached–at the time of this writing–and that the Republicans are telling another country that there is no point in their negotiating with the incumbent administration.

Like many people, I have been curious as to whether these Senators actually broke a law. I am hoping that this can be quickly clarified. Deciding that they are appendages of the Israeli state instead of representatives of the people of the United States, the Republicans are suggesting that if Iran does not surrender to the terms established by Israel that there will be war. Yes, Netanyahu and his sycophants in Congress do not use the term “war.” They speak of increasing sanctions and other pressure, but most knowledgeable observers recognize that the intent is to create a military crisis that will result in actions being taken by the United States against Iran. The results would probably be catastrophic.

Let us all remember that it was Prime Minister Netanyahu who sought to assure the people of the USA that by attacking Iraq in 2003 that it would change the region for the better. Netanyahu was, of course, half right: the region has changed. He got the second part wrong, however: it changed for the worse, with the spread of Al Qaeda and, more recently, the Islamic State, and with the corresponding instability.

There are questions that need to be asked of these Republican members of Congress. Let’s start with the matter of war. Are they prepared for yet another war? These are the same people who are insisting on cutting the budget and not taxing the rich, so where do the resources come from for a war? And, of course, what happens if the Iranians, attacked by the US and Israel, shut the Straits of Hormuz where so much of the world’s oil travels? What is the Republican answer?

The answer for the Republicans seems to always be the same. Bully until you win…or until someone stands firm…and then start alleging anything that will discredit that government or social movement as supposedly standing in the way of peace. The longer that this goes on, the more that this feels like we are living George Orwell’s “1984”, where there is eternal war and that eternal war is considered peace.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global African on Telesur-English. He is a racial justice, labor and global justice activist and writer. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

When the GOP Had Integrity

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) One of the many questions provoked by the “open letter” 47 Republican Senators published last week to try to wreck the multinational effort led by the Obama administration to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is this:

Do they understand their obligation to the rule of law?

As scholar Daniel W. Drezner of Tufts University and other commentators quickly pointed out in an article in the Washington Post, the administration is the lead negotiator of a coalition involving the four other members of the United Nations Security Council—Britain, China, France, and Russia—as well as Germany. So, Drezner wrote, “If a deal is reached, it’s a deal that has the support of all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.”

That means Congress could not alter any resulting agreement in any way without violating international law by committing “a material breach of U.S. obligations.”

Of course, the real purpose of the letter was to further pander to the deranged anti-Obama passions of the GOP base, and to be the political coming-out of the letter cabal’s ringleader, frosh Senator Tom Cotton, of Arkansas. Indeed, no sooner had it appeared than Cotton supporters let it be known he’s eyeing a run for the Presidency in 2020.

Pardon me, but haven’t we seen this “reality show” in the Senate before—with Kentucky’s Rand Paul, and then Texas’ Ted Cruz in the starring role? What does it say about the GOP that it’s now continually producing these new-kid-on-the-block types for Congress’ once-hallowed upper chamber who ostentatiously smash protocol and tradition in order to alert the far-right of their goal of running for President?

Against that tawdry backdrop, the March 10th memorial service in Washington, D.C. for former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, who died in January, was like a flash of lightning illuminating a nighttime landscape. Brooke’s two terms in the Senate, from 1967 to 1979 marked a time when it wasn’t rare for Republicans inside and outside of Congress to show that political conservatism and political integrity weren’t mutually exclusive elements and that there was room in the party for centrist-conservatives like Brooke.

Indeed, Brooke’s life and his climb up the political ladder in a state with a miniscule Black population to become the first Black American popularly elected to the U.S. Senate and the first to sit there in nearly a century said something remarkable about him, as well as the state and the nation he represented.

As Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s non-voting delegate to Congress, pointedly noted in her remarks at the Washington National Cathedral, Brooke, a native Washingtonian, grew up in a time when the District—then, as now— did not have the voting rights other American citizens enjoyed. Even if Washington, D.C. had a voting delegate at that time, Black Washingtonians would have been denied their voting rights by the racist code Congress then followed for the jurisdiction.

Brooke’s achievements before and during his Senate career are a testament not only to his value, but also to the immense loss White America imposed on the nation by the regime of official and de facto racism it followed until the 1960s. From the beginning, he made it quite clear he was proud to be a Republican and was not in politics to represent exclusively “Black interests,” but the interests of all the people of his state and the United States. But those beliefs also never prevented him from criticizing his party when he felt it necessary.

For example, in 1964, two years before his Senate victory, Brooke refused to endorse Republican Senator Barry Goldwater’s presidential candidacy (Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964), commenting later, “You can’t say the Negro left the Republican Party; the Negro feels he was evicted from the Republican Party.”

Four decades later, in a 2007 interview for the just-released book, “Memorable Quotations from Edward W. Brooke,” he declared, “Unfortunately the Republican Party has not fared well—it has disintegrated to an extent. Not demised, but certainly has not lived up to its responsibilities to the electorate.”

What would Edward W. Brooke say of the Republican Party now?

Lee A. Daniels is a columnist for the National Newspaper Publishers Association. His essay, “Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Great Provocateur,” appears in Africa’s Peacemakers: Nobel Peace Laureates of African Descent (2014), published by Zed Books. His new collection of columns, Race Forward: Facing America’s Racial Divide in 2014, is available at www.amazon.com

Crossing the Bridge from Selma to Ferguson

E-mail Print PDF

What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this, what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?” -President Barack Obama, Selma, March 7, 2015

President Barack Obama made these poignant remarks standing at the edge of Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge 50 years after “Bloody Sunday,” the day average but committed citizens took a stand and demanded equality, fairness, and the vote. “The Americans who crossed this bridge, they were not physically imposing,” he said. “But they gave courage to millions. They held no elected office. But they led a nation.”

They led with courage.

They led with fearlessness.

And they believed that they had the power to make more perfect a clearly imperfect union.

America will always be a work in progress. There will always be work to do. Last week’s US Justice Department’s (DOJ) report on Ferguson, Missouri’s criminal justice policies and procedures is just one such example. The DOJ’s report accuses Ferguson officials of using the city’s police and court system to generate revenue by disproportionately targeting, fining, or arresting the city’s Black population. Judge Ronald Brockmeyer was named specifically in the report as making up new fees and retaliating against defendants who challenged him. He resigned early this week.

Yesterday Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Russell announced the assignment of Judge Roy Richter to handle Ferguson’s Municipal Court cases, and authorized him to “implement needed reforms to court policies and procedures…to ensure that the rights of defendants are respected.” Chief Justice Russell also announced in the same press release that the “Court also is examining reforms that are needed on a statewide basis.”

While systemic reforms are now being led by the Courts, there is still work that the average citizen can do in order to ensure continued reformation. And that work begins with voting. Take, for example, the way the Ferguson Municipal Court judge accused of much of the malfeasance was appointed to his position. According to the New York Times, Judge Brockmeyer was recommended by the Ferguson city manager, and his appointment was approved by the city council in 2003. The city manager was hired by the city council. And the city council was elected by the citizens who voted.

Which takes us back to Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge 50 years ago. A group of reformers fighting for the right to vote are attacked and beaten by those who should have been there to protect and serve. The reformers didn’t just protest. They sacrificed with their bodies. The right to vote secured with torn flesh and broken bones. “What’s our excuse today for not voting?” President Obama asked. “How do we so casually discard the right for which so many fought? How do we fully give away our power, our voice…”

In America’s ongoing saga for equality the people of Ferguson must remember the power they have as voters. And instead of just seeing the commemoration on the 50th anniversary of the march across the bridge as a day of celebration and remembrance, they become inspired to take back their power and their voices by exercising the right to vote. That would truly be honoring the legacy of the Selma marchers.

Paulette Brown-Hinds, PhD is Publisher of Black Voice News and The IE Voice.

Is Gender Equality, Equal Pay for Women Falling on Deaf Ears?

E-mail Print PDF

I’ve never seen an image more iconic and telling of the evolution of women’s role in society than the “We Can Do It!” poster created by Howard J. Miller in 1943. As husbands and fathers defended the U.S. during wartime, women were left to fill traditional male-designated roles. This poster, which features a character called “Rosie the Riveter”, was symbolic of female empowerment for many women in the U.S. and beyond. It’s hard not to be awestruck by the poster as the woman stares back with piercing eyes, a steel smile, brimming with confidence because there's no task she can’t overcome. But for all the things women like her could accomplish on their own 70 years ago, today, tough ladies of that bravado haven’t earned a fair share for their efforts. In fact, these absolute and determined women are stifled, using their brawn to chip away at a glass ceiling while too many men sit back and idly watch.

The disparities and discrimination women endure in the workplace are quite real, distressing and staggering to say the least. In a report titled “The Gender Wage Gap: 2013”, data indicated that the ratio of a woman’s weekly full-time earnings compared to a man’s was 82.1 percent. The report, which was published by the Institute for Women and Research Policy, also showed those previous wages were just one percent lower in 2012. Some sections of academia may have issues as well. A UC campus study released this year found that women and ethnic minority faculty earned a little less than in salaries than the non-minority males.

And for those women worried about how their appearance impacts their careers, there may be something to think about. A different study conducted by Jennifer Bennett Shinall, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School, in part, showed that the more a woman weighed, the smaller the chances she would work in a job that involved personal interaction. Yet, there was no difference among obese men in any field.

Increasingly, entertainment awards season means recipients will dig deep and give recognition to a social cause, without or without relationship to their award. Last month, Patricia Arquette’s Oscar speech could have been simply noted and filed away -- there are arguably many pressing issues concerning women. Arquette commanded a moment and urged, “It's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” The industry was abuzz after her speech because the timing of her remarks comes during a period when we are all checking ourselves to ask if we are giving women enough respect. The news stories about domestic and sexual violence against women have been pervasive since last year. To correct these unfortunate tragedies, it really starts with confronting the core issues. The answer is more than simply “don’t harm women”, it begins with respecting women on fundamental levels. If we walk backwards from the moment when a woman is struck, before she is violated, or verbally berated, it all began with a lack of respect and parity. We have shaped a society today that directly and indirectly says that allowing a “Mad Men” culture of relegating women is, to some degree, acceptable.

That has to change.

On March 2, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hit the nail on the head as they introduced a new global initiative to bolter education of girls and young women who have little or no access to education. (We’re not even talking about quality education here, just an education). The initiative is aimed at helping girls overcome “barriers, large and small.” During his speech, Obama got it right: “Even today, in some parts of the world, girls are valued more for their bodies than their minds”. It’s true in developing nations, and to some degree, it is a persistent reality for girls and women in America.

President Obama has been on to this for quite a while, long before his March 2 announcement or his unforgettable speech about violence against women during this year’s Grammy Awards. The first bill he enacted was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, to help address unfair wage gaps between women and men. How much progress is being made since the enactment is still in question.

As a man, I cannot relate to some of the pressures that a woman has to consider in the workplace, like “Was my demeanor too tough during my evaluation?”, “Will I still have a job after my maternity leave?”, “Can I still make partner if I get married?”. For as many women as there are working in male-dominated industries, there are a slew of women in industries perpetuated as “female oriented”. The only women in my life gravitated towards professions where there was a strong support system of fellow women -- my mother was a nurse and my sister a social worker. But did they dare to dream they could thrive elsewhere if they chose a different path? It’s hard to avoid these questions because we, as men, have fostered and cultivated this type of environment -- and it impacts all of us, our families, our daughters, and our sisters.

No woman is a second-class citizen -- and it’s only a matter of time before the “We Can Do It!” women of the world prove that point.

Corey Arvin is a Contributing Editor for Black Voice News and a winner of the national Scripps Howard Award for Web Reporting. Follow him on Twitter @coreyarvin or email Corey[at]Blackvoicenews.com .

Giuliani's Words Do More than Hurt – They Divide

E-mail Print PDF

“A new expression has entered the Westminster lexicon: dog-whistle politics. It means putting out a message that, like a high-pitched dog-whistle, is only fully audible to those at whom it is directly aimed. The intention is to make potential supporters sit up and take notice while avoiding offending those to whom the message will not appeal.” – The Economist, March 2005

(NNPA) After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City, I brought a delegation of mayors to meet with the city’s then-mayor, Rudolph Giuliani. The delegation’s goal was to help restore confidence in the still-traumatized city and help rebuild what had been so inhumanly destroyed. At the time, I was mayor of New Orleans and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and Giuliani – widely acknowledged and praised for his leadership after the attacks – catapulted onto the national stage to become “America’s Mayor.”

How times have changed.

During a private New York fundraising dinner for Republican presidential candidate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Giuliani popped onto the national stage yet again – not for the qualities he displayed as “America’s Mayor,” but for the unfounded accusation that President Obama does not love America.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said in response to a question about the president’s foreign policy and counter-terrorism strategies. He added, “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.”

Speaking in front of a 2016 Republican presidential contender and a mixed crowd of conservatives and business executives, Giuliani – who failed to win the 2008 GOP presidential nomination – attacked the patriotism of our nation’s president, a man whose grandfather served in World War II, whose grand-uncle helped liberate the Nazi death camp at Buchenwald and who was the chief executive behind the operation to kill 9/11’s mastermind, Osama Bin Laden.

Questioning the president’s patriotism isn’t just inappropriate; it demonstrates a complete lack of respect. It begs the question that as Giuliani continues to seek a prominent role on the national political stage: Will he choose to rehearse only in the Theater of the Absurd?

Giuliani’s response was neither an honest critique of the president’s foreign policy, nor was it a considered analysis of our nation’s ongoing discussion on how to combat terrorism.

It was, however, a veiled attack on the character of our president. It was a better-left-buried relic from 2008 when candidates – including Giuliani – purposely appealed to a particular strain of the GOP base who viewed Obama, the Harvard-educated Black man raised by his White family in Hawaii, as “the other” and “not like us.” It was a rehearsal of the kind of divisive rhetoric that has no place in the 2016 race for the White House.

I am the first to assert that honest critiques of any president, administration and its policies are critical in a functioning democracy. But in this case, there is nothing constructive or relevant in maligning a man because of the way he was raised. Further, Giuliani has yet to explain how the president’s upbringing jeopardizes the national security of our nation. How can personal attacks ever have a constructive place in our conversations about degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL or creating jobs or energy independence?

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “It is sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain level of public stature and even admiration tarnishes that legacy so thoroughly.”

Without hesitation, I can say that the Giuliani I met with that mayors’ delegation in the smoldering aftermath of the terror attacks – a bridge-builder, a reconciler and a healer – was not the Giuliani I heard last week. It is quite unfortunate that his reappearance on the national stage recasts and squanders that legacy for a new one that limits him to catering to groups animated by the rhetoric of division at best, and veiled hatemongering at worst.

If I agreed with anything in Giuliani’s statement, it is that, yes, it was a horrible thing to say on many levels. I would add, in a word of advice to the former mayor of New York, that whenever you feel compelled to preface a comment with “I know this is a horrible thing to say,” it is likely a comment better left unsaid.

Marc H. Morial, former mayor of New Orleans, is president and CEO of the National Urban League.

Page 1 of 97

BVN National News Wire