What would King make of Obama?

·

By Alan Bean

Casey Sigal is an unsentimental Englishman who worked the civil rights beat in the early 1960s.  This piece in The Guardian touches on themes often ignored in mainstream reporting of this  week’s commemoration of the March on Washington.

The march, Sigal reminds us, unfolded against a backdrop of fear bordering on dread.   Prisons had been emptied to make room for the scores of people sure to be arrested.  This is the way official Washington still looked at Negroes in the summer of 1963.

Moreover, the movement itself was sadly divided over tactics.  If Martin Luther King Jr. is the man most of us associate with the March on Washington it was probably because of his unique ability to maintain dialogue with the old civil rights establishment, the young firebrands associated with SNCC, and the incendiary leadership of Malcolm X.  All sides grudgingly agreed to let King take center stage because they knew he understood where they were coming from even if he couldn’t always agree with their conclusions.

King was a feared man in 1963.  He came preaching peace and forgiveness, but John and Bobby Kennedy knew they couldn’t embrace King’s message without kissing the Dixiecrat South goodbye.  John Kennedy died a few weeks later because his heart, if not his head, was with the civil rights movement and everyone in the South knew it.   King was willing to whittle down white fear to a manageable size, but he made no attempt to placate it altogether.  White racism was, and remains, an irrational, some would say demonic reality that must be rejected without reservation.

It is the question that introduces and concludes this piece that really intrigues me: what would MLK make of president Barack Obama?  Sigal doesn’t think the civil rights giant would be too impressed.  What do you think?

Remembering my time at the 1963 March on Washington

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary, we must ask: what would the Rev Martin Luther King think of Obama’s presidency?

By Casey Sigal

Saturday 24 August 2013 07.00 EDT

March on Washington

Crowds in front of the Washington Monument at the March on Washington. Photograph: Bruce Davidson/Magnum Photos

In 1963, a teenage woman civil rights worker in Albany, Georgia, said, “If you’re not prepared to die here then you’re not facing reality”.

Any of us who participated in the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom will celebrate its 50th anniversary with a combination of sweet nostalgia and mixed feelings about its “legacy”. For me, and so many others, the event itself was redemptive and personally transforming. It had been a terrible year for African Americans and civil rights activists, a blood-drenched inventory of violence that included the jail beating of Fannie Lou Hamer and assassination of Medgar Evers. So on that Wednesday, 28 August, when 300,000 Americans from right across what I call the “decency spectrum” descended on an almost deserted Washington, it was as if a Norman Rockwell painting had come alive. (more…)

Is a war on the undocumented replacing the war on drugs?

· 2 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

It was refreshing to hear AG Eric Holder (and a swelling chorus of conservative critics) denouncing the folly of the war on drugs and the bloated prison population that followed in its wake.  Hopefully, the president’s use of the pardon will reflect this perspective.  But while the ranks of narcotics defendants have begun a slow but steady decline, America’s war on immigrants is quickly filling the void.

In uncluttered and accessible prose, Chris Kirkham reveals a disturbing world that is unfamiliar to most Americans.  It is just as foolhardy and counterproductive as the war on drugs, but the military-industrial complex (desperate for new sources of revenue) and the private prison industry (which would be ruined by a full-scale retreat from the war on drugs) are thrilled by recent federal policy decisions.  If the Senate immigration bill is adopted without major alteration, these folks will experience a windfall beyond their wildest imaginings.

War On Undocumented Immigrants Threatens To Swell U.S. Prison Population


kirkham@huffingtonpost.com

Posted: 08/23/2013

undocumented immigrants prison
For decades, drug crimes contributed to an explosion in the size of the federal prison system, far outpacing any other charges brought by prosecutors.

Now, just as the federal government has pulled back the throttle on the drug war, it is embarking on an unprecedented campaign to criminally prosecute undocumented immigrants crossing the border. The result: A new wave of non-violent offenders are flooding the nation’s prisons.

“This is the crime du jour,” said Judith Greene, director of the nonprofit Justice Strategies, which has focused on the private prison industry’s growing reliance on incarcerating undocumented immigrants. “It’s the drug war all over again. It’s what’s driving the market in federal prisons.”

Immigration offenders represent one of the fastest-growing segments of the federal prison population, providing a lucrative market for private prison corporations that largely control these inmates in the system. Over the last decade, revenue from the federal prison system has more than tripled for the GEO Group and nearly doubled for Corrections Corp. of America — the two companies that dominate the private prison industry. (more…)

A study in civic priorities, by state

· 4 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

This map gives us the highest paid public employees by state.  I would have thought social workers or school teachers would win the prize in at least one state.  Sadly, no.

On first glance, it appears that Blue states tend to favor basketball coaches while Red states lean toward football coaches.  But that theory breaks down under close examination.  Northern states, Blue and Red, are more likely to pay academics more than coaches.  Must be the influence of that cool Canadian air.  Vermont pays the big bucks to hockey coaches (another Canadian influence, obviously) but I bet they don’t get paid as well as the football and basketball gods.

Fred Clark: Victor Hugo’s theory for why the rich resent the poor

· 1 Comment ·

Victor Hugo’s theory for why the rich resent the poor

Posted: 17 Aug 2013 11:17 PM PDT

Chris Hedges sent me looking for this, from Victor Hugo in Les Miserables:

On the part of the selfish, the prejudices, shadows of costly education, appetite increasing through intoxication, a giddiness of prosperity which dulls, a fear of suffering which, in some, goes as far as an aversion for the suffering, an implacable satisfaction, the I so swollen that it bars the soul . . .

That’s harsh. It’s particularly harsh because it’s so precisely accurate.

“A fear of suffering which, in some, goes as far as an aversion for the suffering” diagnoses the disease now afflicting American politics. Whether it’s food stamps or gun safety, lead and mercury poisoning or substandard schools, access to health care or the dual mandate of the Fed, this is what shapes our discourse.

This accounts for the great mystery at the heart of American politics — the backwards flow of resentment. In America, the wealthy resent the poor, the powerful resent the powerless, the well-fed resent the hungry, leaders of the dominant religion resent religious minorities, privileged whites resent people of color, privileged men resent women.

This is an enigma. It seems impossible. The poor do not deprive the rich, so how is it even possible for the rich to resent them? We can understand how the downtrodden might resent those who have beaten them down, but what possible reason could there be for those at the top to resent those they grind beneath them? There is no rational basis for this resentment — no way of explaining it.

Hugo offers a theory: The fear of suffering can fester into an aversion for all who suffer. Those who suffer are a reminder of the thing we fear. And so we come to resent those who suffer, and therefore we seek to punish them.

That fits the confounding facts. It helps us to understand the disgraceful, gravity-defying miracle of reverse resentment.

Concern over NSA violations is growing

·
By Alan Bean

Are Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden heroes or traitors?  Your answer to that question likely depends on whether you think it is more important for the federal government to investigate terrorism or to respect the civil rights of Americans.

I have always inclined toward the latter view priority.  This is partly because I’m convinced the Bean family phone was tapped in the midst of our advocacy on behalf of 47 wrongfully convicted drug defendants in Tulia, Texas between 1999 and 2003.  Shortly thereafter, I applied for American citizenship, a process that was repeatedly stalled because of security concerns.

Experiences like that make you suspicious of government eavesdropping.  We weren’t breaking any laws.  In fact, we were standing up for the constitutional rights of America citizens–which is supposed to be a good thing, right.  And yet the federal government found our advocacy work suspicious, even threatening.

I could be wrong about all of this, of course.  But I’m convinced that my concerns are legitimate and it is that conviction that drives my emotional reaction to the Manning-Snowden disclosures.  Nothing against Barack Obama personally, but I object to his feverish, slightly paranoid response to the Snowden leaks.

Whenever national security is at issue the stakes are high.  I realize that.  But, like all human beings, I am biased, and my biases are rooted in personal experience.

It appears that I am in the minority on this one.  Two-thirds of the American population thinks investigating terrorism trumps security concerns.

I am not anti-government, but I am a Christian who takes the doctrine of human depravity seriously.  The idea isn’t that we’re all bad to the core (although some of us may be).  Human depravity means that everything we do, think and believe is tainted, at best a mix of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad.  Public officials, even those who appear in uniform on Meet the Press, are no exception to that rule.  Human beings get things really wrong all the time.

I love us, but I don’t trust us.

As President Reagan put it, “Trust and verify”.  I trust the government; but I want a watch dog looking over the shoulder of every public official in America, making sure they are performing their duties in the public interest.

Thanks to Edward Snowden we now know that the NSA has exceeded the limits established by Congress on thousands of occasions since Barack Obama took office.  This troubles me and I think it ought to trouble you too.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll cited below suggests that concern over the official invasion of privacy is growing along bi-partisan lines.  This isn’t primarily a culture war issue.

Not surprisingly, Democrats were far more concerned about privacy and civil rights issues when George W. Bush was president.  But recent revelations have forced a re-evaluation.  Three-quarters of the population agrees that our civil rights have been abused by federal agencies, but most folks think that’s just the price tag that comes with security.

For a free people, that price is too high.

Read the study and tell us what you think.

Concern over NSA privacy violations unites Democrats and Republicans, poll finds

By Scott Clement, Published: August 16 at 11:31 amE-mail the writer

Fresh disclosures that the National Security Agency broke privacy rules threatens to  fuel Americans fast-growing concerns about civil liberties. But the surprising partisan consensus that programs trample on privacy marks a key feature of public assessments, representing a break from similar debates during George W. Bush’s presidency.

A July Washington Post-ABC News poll — before the latest disclosures reported by The Post — found fully 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans said the NSA’s phone and Internet surveillance program intrudes on some Americans’ privacy rights. What’s more, Democrats and Republicans who did see intrusions were about equally likely to say they were “not justified:” 51 and 52 percent respectively. Nearly six in 10 political independents who saw intrusions said they are unjustified. 

There was less partisan agreement in 2006, when news about the George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program broke. That January, a Post-ABC poll found 73 percent of Democrats — but only 50 percent of Republicans — said federal agencies were intruding on some Americans’ privacy rights.

Intrudes on some americans privacy

The current agreement is striking given how far apart Democrats and Republicans stand on views of President Obama and virtually all other political issues,  but it also marks a return to the year following the Sept. 11, 200, terrorist attacks, when overwhelming majorities in both camps prioritized terrorism investigations over invasions of personal privacy.

The agreement did not last long, as Democrats’ privacy concerns rose sharply in 2006 while Republicans maintained focus on investigations. But that commitment has waned in the past two years to nearly match Democrats: In the July Post-ABC poll, 32 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of Republicans said it’s more important to avoid privacy intrusions.

Post-ABC polls

See interactive results and complete trends over time from the latest Post-ABC poll.

Defense lawyers will put federal government on trial

· 1 Comment ·
A slide from a presentation is seen about a secretive information-sharing program run by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Special Operations Division
A slide from a DEA presentation

Suppose the Drug Enforcement Agency gets some information about illegal drug activity from a confidential informant of dubious reputation and they don’t want defense attorneys grilling the poor sap on the stand.  What to do?

A series of articles recently published by Reuters reveals that since the early 1990s the DEA has employed a clever work-around.

Instead of using the actual source of the information, the DEA alerts law enforcement to pull over a particular car at a specified time and place and, sure enough, the trunk is full of powdered cocaine.

Here’s the kicker: the DEA doesn’t have to tell defense counsel how they knew to stop that particular vehicle.  In fact, they don’t even have to reveal this information to local law enforcement, the prosecutor or the judge.  Everyone is left in the dark and somehow that’s okay. (more…)

Holder calls for an end to mass incarceration

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

In a speech delivered to the American Bar Association, Attorney General Eric Holder signaled that the Obama administration wants to move away from the philosophy of mass incarceration.

Holder’s analysis of the criminal justice system is reminiscent of Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow except that Alexander’s bold racial claims are softened considerably.  Nonetheless, the AG acknowledged that the criminal justice system is systematically unfair to people of color.

The speech highlighted three particular initiatives: those designed to cut down on the incarceration of low-level, non-violent drug offenders with no association to major drug cartels; policies designed to expand the compassionate release of aging prisoners who pose no threat to public safety; and encouraging alternatives to incarceration.

Holder clearly understands that we are locking up far, far too many people and appears to understand that the costs go far beyond the inordinate price tag that comes with mass incarceration:

Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities.  And many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate these problems, rather than alleviate them.

I was pleased to hear the AG acknowledge that federal prosecutors are making too many federal criminal cases.  Having covered a number of federal cases, Alvin Clay, the Colomb family, Ramsey Muniz, and the IRP-6, I know how easy it can be for the federal government to make a weak case stick.  Federal prosecutors have been handed sweeping powers that translate into a 98% conviction rate.  They can’t simply indict a ham sandwich–add a little mustard, and they can get a conviction!

It will be interesting to see if Holder’s critique of mindless prison expansion impacts the immigration system in a meaningful way.

Finally, I was pleased to note that Holder has given the blessing of the Obama administration to the sentencing reforms currently enjoying bi-partisan support in Congress.

Below, I have pasted the conclusion to Holder’s groundbreaking call for a new criminal justice regime, but I urge you read the entire speech. (more…)

Glenn Greenwald takes on the sycophantic media

·
Michael Hayden during his time as the head of the CIA
Michael Hayden during his CIA years

Glenn Greenwald blogs for The Guardian on issues related to the tension between security and liberty.  He is suspicious of politicians of both parties, the national security state, and what he calls a “sycophantic” mainstream media.

In this piece, he castigates Bob Schieffer for using Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, as a credible spokesperson on national security issues.

Hayden was the mastermind of an NSA operation dedicated to spying on US citizens that the Department of Justice investigation found to be illegal.  That was when Hayden headed the NSA.

Now Hayden works as a shill for the Chertoff Group:

a private entity that makes more and more money by increasing the fear levels of the US public and engineering massive government security contracts for their clients. Founded by former Homeland Security secretary Michael Cheftoff, it’s filled with former national security state officials who exploit their connections in and knowledge of Washington to secure hugely profitable government contracts for their clients.

So how does a highly regarded reporter like Schieffer justify treating a man like Hayden as an objective public policy expert instead of a pitch man for the fear industry with a dark past?  It’s simple, says Greenwald:

“Objectivity” in Washington journalism does not mean being free of opinions; it means the opposite: dutifully echoing the official opinions and subjective mindset of those in political power. In the eyes of official Washington and its media mavens, spouting opinions is not a sin. The sin is spouting opinions that deviate from the ones expressed by and which serve the interests of those in power.

I encourage you to read the rest of this well-researched piece.

Being compassionate when compassion ain’t cool

· 1 Comment ·
 By Alan Bean

Charles Blow says America has become a heartless nation (see his column below).  Ask the person on the street for the primary reason for poverty in America and 24% will tell you it’s because welfare prevents initiative.  Another 18% will blame crummy schools.  Then its family breakdown (13%), and lack of a work ethic (also 13%).  These are all explanations endorsed by the conservative movement.

You won’t hear any of the issues favored by progressive Americans until you work much further down the list.  Lack of government programs checks in at 10%, and persistent racism polls at a dismal 2%.  Unless people of color were excluded from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (an unlikely prospect), the liberal diagnosis of society’s ills doesn’t even appear to be playing well in the minority community.

It’s not enough to lament that America has become “a town without pity” (for younger readers, that’s an allusion to an old Gene Pitney song inspired by a 1961 movie).  In the 1960s, an American president could launch a war on poverty without worrying too much about the political fallout.  Then America’s glory years were overtaken by an era of economic anxiety.  When people worry about money, they turn inward and politicians follow suit. (more…)

How liberal is the media?

· 1 Comment ·

People who talk about the “liberal” media reference a specific fact set:

  • Media people tend to be Democrats.
  • Media people are disproportionately educated in Ivy League and top-tier universities where traditional values are subjected to rigorous critique
  • The media, for the most part, take a liberal slant on social issues like abortion and homosexuality.
  • The media cover American life from a distinctly secular perspective and references to religion are often pejorative or related to scandal
  • The media avoid frank discussion of racial issues and pundits who offend minority groups frequently get the axe.

The following article, compiled by a liberal blogger who calls himself akadjian, suggests that the media is driven by money not ideology.  If MSNBC skews left and FOX tilts right, it’s because targeting a specific demographic can be good for the bottom line. Because the media business is about producing profits there is a strong disinclination to cover stories that reflect badly on rich people or that question the fundamental character of American economic life.

If the argument below is that the American media never touch these stories, I don’t buy it.  All of the issues below are regularly featured on MSNBC (particularly on the Rachel Maddow Show) and pop up occasionally in the mainstream media.  But these stories don’t get nearly the coverage they deserve, partly true because they aren’t sexy or titillating; and partly because the folks who pay the bills shape the editorial policy of most media outlets.  Normally this influence is indirect (editors know where the lines are drawn), but I suspect the one-percent has its ways of expressing displeasure and punishing offenders.

You will be particularly interested in number 11: Nixon’s Southern Strategy.  It begins with a 1970 quote from a candid Kevin Philips:

The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

Notice the logic here.  It isn’t that Democrats won’t be able to attract enough Black and Latino voters to win; it’s that the Blue team’s very success with minority voters will drive White voters into the Red camp.

The implications of this insight (and Philips nailed it) are staggering.  It means that every time lefties get a bunch of minority folk and counterculture Whites together to demand justice we are begging the White majority to adopt the opposing view.   That’s not what we’re trying to do; but that’s what we’re doing.  At some point we progressive types must start taking the gut reaction of White conservatives into consideration and ask how we can get a conversation started.  Without at least 30% of the White electorate you can’t win a statewide election in Texas or anywhere else across the South and much of the American heartland.  In Texas, 80% of White voters went for Romney in 2012 and I suspect the figure was even higher among White males.

Read the list and tell us what you think.

15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media

byakadjianFollow

WED AUG 07, 2013 

If you know anyone who still believes in a “liberal media,” here’s 15 things everyone would know if there really were a “liberal media”.

1. Where the jobs went.

Outsourcing (or offshoring) is a bigger contributor to unemployment in the U.S. than laziness.

Since 2000, U.S. multinationals have cut 2.9 million jobs here while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg as multinational corporations account for only about 20% of the labor force. (more…)