Rev. Jeremiah Wright & Sen. Barack Obama: The Failure of “Colorblindness” and the Ignored Reality of White Social Power in the US

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright has my admiration and respect. Unfortunately, citizens had to witness the media gauntlet formed in the last week of April 2008 and its fallout.

What the media circus showed is that the United States is still mired in race yet does not want anyone to point out that fact or the United States’ failed foreign policy adventures. Moreover, Senator Barack Obama unjustly condemned Rev. Wright’s statements as “not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate.”

The Black Agenda Report’s Executive Editor Glen Ford has written an excellent column analyzing the collapse of Sen. Obama’s color neutral world view.

The world views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Barack Obama were incompatible from the start, just as the mythical American Manifest Destiny world view is directly at odds with the facts as perceived by Blacks in the United States. Wright finally forced Obama to choose sides in the conflict of racial/historical visions, and in doing so, performed a service on behalf of clarity. Obama lashed out in a startlingly personal manner, calling Wright a “caricature” of himself and linking the minister to forces that give “comfort to those who prey on hate.” Rev. Wright exposed the flimsy tissues of so-called “race neutrality” in a nation founded on racial oppression.

This whole event between Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama leaves unanswered the question of what happens to current issues of concern of the Black community (which Sen. Obama essentially downplays as relics of older Black people in his heralded speech on race). I assert that the issues Rev. Wright speaks about, still are relevant (and essentially unaddressed) today.

Some of these issues I have attempted to address on this blog in tracking Ward Connerly’s ballot initiative in four states (click on the affirmative action tag in the right column for my previous posts on this subject).

One is the facile (and untrue) implication that Blacks and Whites have equal social power in the United States. Sen. Obama alludes to this view in his speech on race.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

The fact is that the White population has the sole social power in the United States. First, the travails of White Americans were not caused by Black people but rather the economic policy of the United States, which happens to be dominated by White people. In addition, Black people have similar problems on top of institutional anti-Black discrimination.

Second, Sen. Obama fails to acknowledge that Whites have a much bigger population size than Blacks in the United States. The White side alone (75.1 % of the United States population) controls governmental power. The 2000 Census makes this clear.

United States (population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.1%	211,460,626
Black	12.3	34,658,190
Native American	0.9	2,475,956
Asian	3.6	10,242,998

Thus, it is not fair simply to compare the groups strictly as equals, as Sen. Obama did in his April 2008 speech.

Domestic & Foreign Policy: Punishing a Population to Force a Change in Goverment Is a Failed Policy

Some states (nations) do not like the governments of other states. On tactic used by these states to coerce a change, is to place pressure on the population. The hope is that the population will hate suffering the lack of government services, that they will reject their government.

This tactic ultimately does not work.

Gaza and Israel

 

Israel hoped that pressuring the Palestinians in Gaza to endure deprivation would cause them to reject their government elected to run Gaza. Instead, the wall separating Gaza was broken, ending the deprivation.

But Israel’s recent effort to further intensify the closing of Gaza, by cutting off nearly all supplies and forcing the extension of rolling power cuts to more than 12 hours a day, clearly backfired, giving Hamas a kind of moral pretext in the Arab and Palestinian world to break through the Egyptian border. As the daily newspaper Haaretz said in an editorial on Friday, “The siege of Gaza has failed.”

 

[...]

 

“The experiment blew up in their faces,” said Shlomo Avineri, a political scientist at Hebrew University. “The whole theory of putting pressure on a population to put pressure on their government doesn’t work. It didn’t work in Lebanon in 2006, and it didn’t work now.”

 

Washington, D.C.

 

The tactic of causing the population of a government disliked by the powers that be occurred in the District of Columbia during the Mayoralty of Marion Barry.

Becton lobbied for $36 million in supplemental funding to reroof more than 60 schools in response to the Parents United lawsuit. Among those he solicited was U.S. Rep. Charles H. Taylor, a Republican tree farmer from North Carolina, who chaired the appropriations subcommittee on the District. “His comment was, ‘I’m not going to give you a goddamned thing until you get rid of that mayor,’ ” Becton recalled.

 

“I said, ‘Hey, I am the superintendent; I don’t have a cotton-picking thing to do with the election of that mayor.’ He said, ‘Until he goes, you get nothing.’ “

 

Taylor did not return calls seeking comment.

I was always wondering why the Congress did not help D.C. more back then.

Also, the deprivation tactic did not work, Mayor Barry served four terms as Mayor and is currently a DC City Council Member for Ward 8.

U.S. Foreign Policy: Strait of Hormuz Issues Require Careful Scrutiny

In The New York Times’s Opinion section, David Crist, a columnist, presented his view on the recent event in the Strait of Hormuz between the Iran Navy and the United States Navy. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical body of water as oil is transported through it.

The central concern of Mr. Crist involved the protection of the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz.

After the 9/11 attacks, several European navies (as well as Australia’s and Canada’s) sent large forces to augment the United States effort in safeguarding the sea lanes of the Middle East from terrorism. The Bush administration should harness this coalition by asking them to let Tehran know through their own diplomatic channels that any attempt by the Revolutionary Guards to interfere with the free navigation of international waters will be treated no differently from a terrorist attack.

Strait of Hormuz (Courtesy of the University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin)

 

However, the issue regarding the Strait of Hormuz is not as clear as Mr. Crist argues in his article. According to Dr. Kaveh Afrasiabi, in The Asia Times, there are no “international waters” in the Strait of Hormuz. The shipping lane is in Iran’s territorial waters.

Moreover, Dr. Afrasiabi explained that the United States Navy was citing advantageous provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which the United States has not ratified, while not considering provisions that are within Iran’s territorial interests.

Given that the approximately three-kilometer-wide inbound traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran’s territorial water, the US Navy’s invocation of “transit passage” harking back to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) is hardly surprising.

 

Although the US has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, it has been a strong advocate of its provisions regarding navigational rights, thus explaining the US officers’ availing themselves of “international law”.

 

[...]

 

However, irrespective of how Congress acts on the pending legislation on UNCLOS, the fact is that the US cannot have its cake and eat it. That is, rely on it to defend its navigational rights in the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously, disregard the various limitations on those rights imposed by the UNCLOS - and favoring Iran.

Dr. Afrasiabi explains the conflicting provisions of the UNCLOS as it applies to the Strait of Hormuz. The major issues involved are the ability to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz and the right of a state to protect land and waters within its territory.

As a result of events occurring in the Strait of Hormuz, people of good will must apply careful scrutiny of issues involving this area.

Judicial Nominations: Getchell, Nominee to the Fourth Circuit, Withdraws

According to The Virginian-Pilot, E Duncan Getchell withdrew his name from being considered as a nominee for a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Getchell recognized that political reality would prevent his nomination from being confirmed.

‘Recent press reports indicate that despite the support I have received, the Senate Democratic leadership will not allow a hearing to go forward and so, after prayerful consideration, I have determined to withdraw my name from consideration.’

I disagree that the Senate Democrats are to blame. In reality, the finger of accusation must point to the President.

DCPS: DC Council Grants Chancellor Authority to Fire Nonunion Central Office Staff

On January 8, the DC Council approved legislation granting Chancellor Michelle Rhee the ability to terminate nonunion Central Office staff.

For text of the legislation (Bill 17-0450), click here.

Related link

The DCist published a memo distributed by Chancellor Rhee to the Central Office staff.

U.S. Judiciary: Columnist Opposes CJ John Roberts’ Judicial Pay Raise Proposal

Law professor Scott Baker, in a Los Angeles Times column, disagrees with the need for a pay raise for the federal judiciary, as proposed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Professor Baker provided three reasons for his opposition:

• no evidence that higher pay produces better judges,
• there is no reason to believe that the highest paid attorneys would be the best judges, and
• there is no marked difference in judicial behavior between judges with a government service background and judges from corporate law firms

Professor Baker’s column makes excellent points, especially now as he notices the economic pressure facing the nation.

In a time of strained budgets, both Democrats and Republicans need to make hard choices on spending priorities. Federal judges earn six figures. Why choose to pay judges more — as opposed to equally deserving, lesser-paid federal employees such as park rangers, members of the military or FBI agents — if it ultimately makes no difference to how well the judges perform their jobs?

I, too, oppose exorbitant pay raises for judges. I feel that if judges make too much more, they will not be able to relate to the lives of the middle class litigants that may appear before them. Go to the federal judiciary tag in the right column for my posts on the subject of the judicial pay raise proposal.

U.S. Judiciary: Chief Justice John Roberts Issues 2007 Year-End Report

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, issued a 2007 year-end report on the judiciary.

Unlike last year’s report, which focused solely on judicial pay, this year’s report is fairly standard.

The Chief Justice emphasized three points in the report. First, the system and process of the United States judiciary serves as a model for the rest of the world.

In addition, the Chief Justice urges the people of the United States to appreciate the quality of the United States Judicial branch of government.

Finally, the Chief Justice establishes goals for 2008:

• improve communications with the Executive and Legislative branches,
• ensure that federal judges maintain the highest standards of integrity, and
• seek salary increases for federal judges [Note: See my posts on this issue in the federal judiciary category in the right column.]

In the appendix to the report, the Chief Justice provides an explanation of the workload of the judiciary. I will focus on the Supreme Court’s workload.

	2005	2006
Filings	8521	8857
In forma pauperis	6846	7132
Paid docket	1671	1723
Cases:
argued	87	78
disposed	82	74
signed opinions	69	67

Judicial Nominations: President, Senate Must Reach Consensus on Potential Nominees

The Washington Post wrote another editorial concerning judicial nominations.

The reasoning of the editorial board of the Post is regardless how a nomination is decided, once a name is submitted, the process should go forward (presumably towards confirming the nominee).

I reject this reasoning. If the Presidential nominee selection process is flawed, yet the President still submits a nominee to the Senate, then the nomination process in the Senate should not start at all.

The people of the United States must always remember that judges have lifetime terms. Thus, the Senate has an obligation to consider carefully every judicial nomination. This includes the decision to refuse to consider Presidential judicial nominees.

The Post’s editorial summarized the circumstances surrounding President Bush’s Fourth Circuit nominees for Virginia and Maryland.

Virginia

Senators John Warner (R) and Jim Webb (D) evaluated nominees and presented President Bush with five people that they would both support for nomination to the Fourth Circuit (for the Virginia seat). President Bush nominated Richmond lawyer E. Duncan Getchell Jr., who was not on their list. This decision did not please the Senators from Virginia. [Note: Mr. Getchell was on the list of Senators John Warner (R) and former Senator George Allen (R). According to the Virginian Pilot, since Allen lost to Webb, Getchell's name was removed from the list.]

The Post’s editorial board wisely stated that the Senate would not give the nominees a confirmation hearing.

Maryland

I wrote about the nomination of Rod Rosenstein in this post. In summary, President Bush nominated Rod Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for Maryland, for a judicial post on the Fourth Circuit, despite the objections of Maryland’s Senators.

For a smooth judicial nomination process consensus between the President and the Senate must occur before the President submits a nominee to the Senate.

Moreover, I do not consider it a priority to fill the five vacancies. Ten of fifteen seats (66%) are filled, balanced between Democratic and Republican appointees.

There is no need to upset the balance, especially since President Bush is entering his final year in office.

Fed. Govt: Senate Confirms Nomination of Julie Myers as Asst. Sec’y of Homeland Security

The Senate, by unanimous consent motion, confirmed the nomination of Julie Myers to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Note: For a post about Julie Myers and her interaction with an employee in a Halloween blackface costume, click on the DC tag category in the right column.

U.S. Judiciary: House Passes Consolidated Appropriations Bill; Bill Includes 2008 COLA for Judges

[Update 12/19/07: The Senate has also approved H.R. 2764. Click here for the roll call vote.]

The U.S. House of Representatives passed its consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 2764). Included in the measure is a cost of living adjustment for Justices and Judges in 2008.

SEC. 305. Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, and from funds appropriated in this Act, Justices and judges of the United States are authorized during fiscal
year 2008, to receive a salary adjustment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 461.

There is no provision for a judicial base pay increase (there is no language from H.R.3753 or S.1638). [Note: See my previous post for more information on these bills.]