the politics of racism

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia knows nothing about “racial entitlements.” He is using however, just another catchphrase used by racists to shield them from the rage their words will elicit...

I wandered around the internet looking for answers to the question of “racial entitlements” and stumbled across this missive from blogger Tom Degan (http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2013/03/racial-entitlements.html)...

“It could only happen in the Washington DC of 2013. At Statuary Hall inside the Capital Building, the president of the United States was dedicating a statue of Rosa Parks, the woman whose refusal to give up her seat to a white man on December 1, 1955 was the spark that ignited the modern-day civil rights movement. Meanwhile, just across town, the United States Supreme Court were debating whether or not to abolish the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the two milestone laws that are forever associated in the minds of most people with that same movement. I’m not kidding you, these two events actually occurred simultaneously. Isn’t life strange?”

Yes, Tom... life can be very strange on occasion, and it brings me back to my question... what exactly are “racial entitlements?” And why should we be concerned about them?

First, a bit of background..

According to the site HighBeam Research (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-320687950.html) the answer to whether or not racial entitlements are still pertinent is a resounding yes when it comes to the question of Section 5 (the portion of the legislation called into question by Antonin Scalia...) Congress can enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under Congress’s 15th Amendment Powers. Specifically, Section 5 halts discrimination at the outset of any voting change made in a state.

 Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy summed up this argument before the Supreme Court... “the challengers seek to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act even though that critical section has protected constitutional guarantees against discrimination in voting where 100 years of prior civil rights laws failed. The Supreme Court got it right four years ago when it upheld the constitutional authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5 against a similar challenge.”

So what has changed in the ensuing four years? For one thing, the tea party has gained in strength... and with this new power, comes the reality that a great many tea party members seem to be racists, and strongly anti-government in their thinking (and acting). They see no problem with the elimination of Section 5, even though it would make voting problematic for many...

“Racial entitlements” is based on the concept that “present generations owe a ‘debt’ to those who have been disadvantaged by discrimination...” in other words... those individuals (read ‘black’) who have had to deal with laws intentionally barring them from stepping into a voting booth.

And let's face facts... Antonin Scalia has never been forced to deal with people belittling him for the color of his skin, nor has he received an inferior education because much of the school funding in his community was diverted to rich neighborhood schools in another community.

In truth, Antonin Scalia has no knowledge about "racial entitlements" because he's a member of the rich, privileged class and has never been forced to confront racial stereotyping that exists across this country, even today. And sadly, Scalia is also one of the justices who will move to overturn the Voting Rights Act because Alabama (that “great” bastion of racial equality) has suggested that discrimination based on the color of skin is long past, and it's time to move on...

It is a sad day indeed when a bunch of “old white, privileged men” move to dismember a piece of legislation designed to give everyone the opportunity to cast a ballot.

And contrary to Scalia’s remarks, the reality is still very unequal...

money, power & corruption rule the day...

An article in the New York Times regarding America’s CIA underwriting of the Afghanistan regime happened to catch my eye the other day... and as I read the article, I began to realize we’ve gained no knowledge and little wisdom from our experiences of propping up dictatorial leaders.

According to the article, for over a decade the Central Intelligence Agency [aka the CIA] has been dropping off “wads” of cash to President Hamid Karzai’s bagmen every month for the past decade. Problem is... it’s taxpayer funded, and I wonder how many Americans realize just how much we’ve been fortifying Karzai, while at the same time, we’ve watched a decline in our paychecks and personal wealth.

This ‘news’ really shouldn't come as a surprise, as it’s no big secret [at least in government circles...]. The CIA payola has been referred to as ‘ghost money’ meaning... “It came in secret, and it left in secret.”

I had to chuckle as I read a comment by an American official who commented “The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States.” The enormous influx of cash allowed the CIA unlimited access to Karzai and his inner circle as well as a guarantee of influence in Afghanistan’s government... But there was a problem, and a catch... 

Karzai was [at least for a while] double-dipping, and literally betting on both sides as he was accepting money from the CIA, while at the same time, accepting cash from the Iranians. However, once the Iranians got wind of our monthly payments, they stopped providing him with unlimited funds... sadly for Karzi. 

But now the cat is out of the bag, and Karzai is attempting to backpedal while the CIA is staying mum... Karzai has suggested that this money provides him with the ability to target Al Qaeda and insurgent leaders, but it’s a debatable point as the former Soviet Union leadership attempted to “buy” influence and quell a growing civil war in Afghanistan, only to bankrupt their country in the end.

And when all is said and done, President Karzai is apparently “unable to be bought,” so this episode may end [again] very badly for Americans and American influence in the Middle East... and wouldn’t that be tragic?

In 2014 there will be an additional draw-down of American troops... as President Obama has said “Our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.” But this doesn’t necessarily mean American troops will leave the country of Afghanistan completely, but rather, that Afghans will take more responsibility... so, the same civil war we’ve managed to smother for a few years will again explode...

And, another interesting note, Karzai’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai [also on the payroll of the CIA] was assassinated in July, 2011 leaving a power vacuum in the southern tier of Afghanistan. While Ahmed Karzai was considered by many to be “a divisive power broker... accused of corruption and [who] alienated the American military, but whose connections and ruthlessness made him a critical force...”

But the question of our involvement remains unanswered... when will this buying of despotic leaders be eliminated... or will this continue to be the CIA’s preferable way of doing business worldwide long into the future?

Wish I had the answers...