Jon Stewart vs. Some Bigoted Cracker

I will be the first to admit that Jon Stewart can represent all that is despicable about liberalism (his comment at the beginning of this interview about abortion exemplifies this.) But here, he represents the best. "I think it's a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to 'make their case.'"

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

McCain Tries to Put Out a Fire He Started

Weekly Dave

We here at the Tank may be a bit slap dash in remembering to give out our 'Weekly Dave's but this week's recipient takes the cake in true Halloween/racist fashion. The winner is Julie Meyers, Bush's Migra czar (the head of ICE) who, while judging a costume contest at the Dept of Homeland Security Halloween Bash commented that a man dressed in dread locks, black face, and prison stripes displayed "originality".

The real clincher is that Meyers ONLY apologized after she find out the guy was white. Where's Sharpton?

Another disgusting case of Hate Crimes in the US

I don't know how many of you have seen this , case of the kidnapping and torture of a 20 year-old Black women in West Virginia by six white people, but it is stomach turning. Apparently the prosecutor didn't include a hate crime charge in his case (only sexual assault and kidnapping which carry heavier penalties) so earlier today hundreds of anti-racist activists and supporters rallied at the capitol to support Megan, the victim, and demand that the hate crime charged be added. Despite the fact that this was obviously a hate crime, the NAACP and the prosecutor say it would be 'difficult' to prove this charge because she had been in a relationship with one of her white torturers for several months. Are you shitting me?

From the case of the Scotsboro Boys in the 1930s until today, the NAACP has usually sided with a legalist approach while shunning activism and rallies (in the Scotsboro case the massive rallies organized by the Communist Party ultimately turned up the pressure on the government and the courts to either pardon or parole all nine and which lead to a huge upsurge in Black and white collaborative activism). Interestingly enough, the NAACP refused to defend Black CP members from the McCarthyist witch-hunts in the 50s (as in the case of NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois). Despite the success of their legal strategy in the case of Brown v Board, which, remains to this day unenforced, the national has shunned activism historically despite the fact that some of it's locals have spear headed such campaigns as the Montgomery Bus Boycott (Rosa Parks was the local secretary). But with this case the strategy seems absurd. With the momentum built up through the victory in the Kenneth Foster Jr case and the mobilizations in support of the Jena Six, how can the NAACP say that activism and rallies will damage their chances of victory? This cuts to the core of how a legalistic and lobbying strategy by themselves are a dead end for winning civil rights. Without the attention brought by the struggle to save Kenneth Foster, he would have been another statistic in Texas' death machine. Covering ones eyes to the rise in hate crimes (nooses in the South AND the North, as well as shit like this case of torture) won't make them stop.

By the way, Al Sharpton was NOT present at this rally.

More Good News: Oral Roberts U. Being Sued for Embezzlement!

To this I can only add a brief HA HA!

Former CIA officer less hawkish than Dems

Today the National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, had a brilliant article written about the saber rattling against Iran after President Ahmadinejad's recent trip to New York. Written by former CIA intelligence officer and Francis Walsingham Fellow for the American Conservative Defense Alliance Philip Giraldi, the article goes into detail about how, in fact, the Iranian president is highly unpopular and if he runs in the 2009 election, he will most likely be defeated by a large margin. This myth about all Iranians supporting the bizarre and often offensive claims of their president is the same bunk as the Red state/Blue state crap (if you need counter-examples see Texas, and the Deep South) peddled to rationalize Bush's reelection in any way aside from pointing to Kerry's miserable campaign.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has very little power:

"Contrary to the assertions of Columbia President Lee Bollinger last week, Ahmadinejad is no “petty and cruel dictator.” He is an elected president with very little power, frequently at odds with the country’s religious leadership and its parliament. Even if Iran had a nuclear arsenal, which it does not, his finger would not be on the trigger...He does not command the Iranian armed forces and he does not determine Iranian foreign policy. Far from being a belligerent expansionistic power, the last time Iran attacked a neighbor was in the seventeenth century."

I only wish those who froth at the mouth at the thought of attacking Iran to ensure regional stability and peace could point to our over 300 year abstention from invading other countries.

Giraldi continues by challenging the reality of the 'diplomatic approach':

"Bilateral sessions in Baghdad have consisted of little more than staking out adversarial positions. The United States is demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment program as a precondition for serious negotiations, but Iran is legally entitled to carry out enrichment as part of an energy program and both the Iranian public and the government are strongly supportive of that right. The U.S. insistence on Iranian capitulation in advance of any talks means that the negotiations are intended to be a non-starter, leaving only a military solution to the Iran problem."

As far as destabilizing intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, a key claim by both Democrats and Republicans, any definitive evidence proffered by the White House is undercut by the rampant arms black market in Central Asia and contradicted by the Iraqi and Afghani governments. Nor, according to this expert, is there any solid evidence of a nuclear arms program.

Ultimately, Giraldi chastises Congress for not challenging the White House and paving the way for military intervention with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defense Procurement that classifies the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

On the whole this article is a brilliantly sober assessment of the bluster and hawkishness that has been drippings from the presses and mouths of many these last few weeks. The major issue Giraldi fails to address (and considering his job, I'm not surprised) is the rise in anti-Arab and Muslim racism that pauly talks about in his most recent post. The effects of justifying imperialist policy abroad IS being felt at home.

White Supremacy on the March.

Racism is alive and virulent in America. Don't believe me? Look at nooses at the Coast Guard Academy: in Jena, LA; outside Jena; in Maryland. Look at a Black student at Gallaudet held down and marked with swastikas and 'KKK. Look at the mayor of Jena telling a white supremacist: "I appreciate what you are trying to do. Your moral support means a lot.” And of course you have Bill O'Reilly's surprise that Black people in restaurants behave, shockingly, just like white people. If I didn't know better I'd think Birth of a Nation was playing down at the multiplex. In that spirit, here's a column I wrote for the school newspaper excoriating the honkies.

If a poll came out tomorrow that showed 40% of Iranians were in favor of making Jews wear special identification from the government, the world would be justifiably outraged. It’s not difficult to picture the apoplectic fits we would see on the nightly news as pundits tried to outscore each other on who could condemn Iran the most stridently. Fortunately, it’s not true that Iran wants Jews to wear special identification. In fact Forward, the Jewish Daily, has reported that Iran’s Jews actively resist Zionist entreaties to emigrate to Israel.

It is true, however, that thirty nine percent of Americans think Muslims require special government identification. I’m guessing most people reading this haven’t heard this statistic, which is from a nationwide poll taken last year. The lack of furor caused by this openly racist sentiment (and yes, it is racist. Have you ever heard anyone calling for white folks to be kicked off a plane for speaking “strange languages?”) demonstrates something frightening about the acceptance of racism in American society today.

Ever since 9/11, lawmakers and talking heads have been bombarding us with the most disgusting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim doggerel imaginable. Witness, for example, Rep. Virgil Goode using the fact that there is one Muslim in Congress to whip up scare campaigns about how “if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office.” Or CNN’s Glenn Beck threatening Muslims that they will soon “be looking through a razor wire fence at the West." Concentration camps? Special ids for minorities? We know how this story ends.

Nor is acceptable racism in America limited to Arabs and Muslims. The supposed “immigration crisis” that congress is constantly trying to scare us into believing in has spawned a newer, more confident white nativism with devastating consequences for Latinos. This is most obvious in the movement of “the Minutemen,” a racist terrorist group which has gained legitimacy thanks to the scaremongering of Pres. Bush and congress. Their members have a signal new approach to immigration “problem.” One member said simply "Just shoot 'em on sight. That's my immigration policy recommendation. You break into my country, you die." Rep. Tom Tancredo called these men “heroes.”

Is it any wonder, then, with US policymakers openly supporting domestic terrorists, that this violence trickles down to people’s everyday lives? That’s just what happened to a Latino boy near Houston, Texas, who was assaulted last year in a vicious hate crime. The victim tried to kiss a white girl at a party, at which point two white boys beat him with a metal pipe, used it to sodomize him, and then poured bleach all over his naked body. While the Minutemen may think its fun to play army on the US border, it’s not fun for the Latinos who have to endure the kind of torture and humiliation we saw on display at Abu Ghraib.

Even more disturbingly, perhaps, is the degree to which the legitimization of groups like the Minutemen has given neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan a foot back into the door of American political discourse. It’s not uncommon to go to Minutemen events and see both Nazi and Confederate flags flying high. The acceptable racism against Latinos has given these despicable symbols new currency in America. Is it any wonder, then, that a white supremacist group felt confident enough last month to post the addresses of the Jena Six online “in case anyone wants to deliver justice?” The lesson is clear: the racist scapegoating of Latinos increases the confidence of racists against other groups as well.

The same lesson applies to the anti-Muslim sentiment described above. Before 9/11, America was moving towards a nation consensus that racial profiling was illegitimate. Afterwards, however, federal and state law enforcement agencies moved with a frightening swiftness to single out anyone who looked remotely connected to the Middle East. This rehabilitation of racial profiling in the “War on Terror” has had disturbing consequences for African-Americans. Just look at Los Angeles in 2002, where 22 percent of Blacks stopped were asked to get out of their cars, compared to a mere 7 percent of whites. The numbers could go on, but suffice to say that once more racism won’t stay in its cage.

It’s for these reasons that the International Socialist Organization, the Wisconsin Black Student Union, and the Multicultural Student Center are having a panel discussion this Wednesday about how to fight racism here in Wisconsin. As the evidence marshaled here shows, racism has a powerful grip in American society. Nothing less than a mass movement will dislodge it. Join us Wednesday, October 10^th, at 7:30, TITU, for a discussion of how to start one.

Fuck tha Security Guards!

Via Lenin's Tomb. Just watch the video.

US Snipers Use "Bait" to Lure and Kill Iraqis

This is really disgusting. The only thing I would add to the article is the unemployment situation in Iraq, which in some cities reaches over 80%. Thus Iraqis, who are desperate to be able to feed their familes, are killed for finding something on the ground which could be used to buy some respite from hunger. This is what occupation looks like.

Weekly Dave: Kansas City Krackers

This story is a simple illustration of what the Left has been saying all along: political xenophobia of the kind spewing from Congress regarding immigrants turns all too quickly into xenophobic violence.

What merits the Weekly Dave, however, is the news item at the bottom: This same school district suspended a student for the crime of speaking Spanish.

Hate Crime: What about the Enablers?

The day after 20,000 people descended on Jena, Louisiana to protest the racist actions against the Jena 6, police in nearby Alexandria arrested two admitted Klansmen (one Klanschild and one adult) for driving around town with two nooses hanging out of the back of their pick up truck in order to intimidate and harass protesters. The 16 year-old told police that his entire family was in the Klan and had KKK tatoos as well as brass knuckles in the vehicle. Following the events in Jena, as well as the obvious implication of the act, one would think that no other charge could be given except that of hate crime. Yet, the police have charged the 18 year-old driver with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" and the passenger with driving while intoxicated. The police report goes to absurd lengths to avoid charging the two with hate crimes as an entry says "Bias Motive: Racial Anti-Black"(another way to say 'hate crime'), leading Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy to say that he is "looking into whether the incident was a hate crime."

Firstly, let's discuss for a moment what hate crimes are:

Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.

Clearly the case of the noose hangings in Jena and Alexandria seek to intimidate a specific group of people, given the painfully recent history of Jim Crow, and the effect, like motyat points out, is instantaneous to anyone who witnesses it. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wisconsin v. Mitchell that

"bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.... The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, 'it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness."

Thus, there can be no doubt that these actions were anything less than hate crimes.

To me, following motyat's post on the Jena 6, the fact that politicians and members of the criminal justice are willfully ignoring the racist nature of these crimes is pivotal for understanding the disgusting manifestations of racism aka the hanging of nooses and the confidence of not only Klansmen, but just racists shits in general, to have the confidence to rear their ugly heads. In the most recent International Socialist Review, an interview with Friends of Justice director Alan Bean, reveals the impact of the Jena District Attorney's dismissal of the act as youthful shenanigans:

The incendiary situation that sparked four days of racial violence in early December in Jena, Louisiana, was created by the very man who is now prosecuting these cases: District Attorney Reed Walters. Had Walters and Superintendent Roy Breithaupt called a hate crime by its proper name, the students of Jena High School wouldn’t have been forced to resolve issues far beyond their competence or understanding.

Short, out of school suspensions are NOT the way to stop racism nor make an example of the perpetrators of blatently racist acts.

Like the bigoted rhetoric of politicians like Rick Santorum gives confidence to gay-bashers that they are justified, or the confidence that anti-immigrant racists like Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs give rise to vigilante violence by groups such as the Minutemen and other extreme right groups, actions by the DA and other public officials who are not willing to take a call a hate crime a hate crime are PART of the problem. As history shows that we can't rely on politicians to end racism, we need to keep fighting like the 20,000 in Jena and other thousands around the rest of the country to end Jim Crow be it from a Klansmen or a politician who gives him the carte blanche.

Shut Up, Congressman

Peter King (R-NY), had this to say, recently:

Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country. There are too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully. We should be finding out how we can infiltrate. We should be much more aggressive in law enforcement.

This is after August, 2006, where the man proposed using racial profiling openly as a law enforcement tool.

Sounds good to me, Congressman. I think, unfortunately, that we have too many closed offices in this country. There are too many people sympathetic to radical imperialism. We should be looking at them more carefully. We should be finding out how we can infiltrate. We should be much more aggressive in law enforcement. Maybe we could have special checkpoints for middle-aged men of white-ish American descent. Oh, was that racist? I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that, while not all white men are war criminals, all the most recent war criminals are white men.

Hanging from a Hollow Tree

This week is record-breaking in its intensity of racism. It's time to talk about the Jena Six. The assumption for this article is that if you are a regular reader of General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle, you are probably already familiar with the Jena Six, and possibly organizing to support them. If this assumption is not apt, brush up on Jim Crow-era court behavior here.

What concerns me in this article is the recent homogeneity that has appeared in the reaction to activism surrounding the Jena Six. The counterargument to the idea that the Jena Six should be acquitted in self-defense runs as follows: the children who hung the nooses from the "White Tree" to scare off black students (remember, their only crime at this point was to attempt to sit under this tree) "were just playing." It is understandable to doubt that people would actually make this argument, so I provide evidence here and here.

A lot of things could be said at this point. The activist would claim that racism and threats of lynching are not "joking." And she'd be correct. The polemicist would claim that the movement for the freedom of the Jena Six should be blasting the bigots brazen enough to say these things, and he'd be correct, as well.

But this author is a linguist, and so will take those arguments as given, and present a bit of a diversion to point out that there is, theoretically, no such thing as "joking" here. Christopher Potts, a linguist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has done a lot of work in recent years on "expressives" the class of linguistic items that contains racial epithets. He argues in his work that "expressives do not so much offer content, as inflict it [emphasis mine --MT]." This means that epithets are not simply words that can be used willy-nilly, but instead have more in common with speech acts.

One defining characteristic about a speech act (and particularly the class of items known as expressives) is that it is immediate, which is to say that, once uttered/completed, its impact is immediate, and there is no going back. Potts illustrates this in his paper "The Expressive Dimension" (available here, though it will be hard-going for the non-linguist once Potts deploys his theoretical machinery) with an ingenious anecdote: a newly-instated superintendent at a mixed-race school district nearly loses his job after saying, in the opening of a speech: "To me, niggers come in all colors. To me, a nigger is someone who doesn't respect himself or others."

Potts notes that the superintendent's intentions were pure, and the then asks the question: why was he unable to redefine the meaning of the epithet, as he was trying to do? Here we begin to mix issues for Potts, but the answer is that once he had said the word, the damage was already done. Potts goes on to show, formally, how this notion can and should be captured in theories of natural language semantics/pragmatics.

The point of all this? It's impossible to joke about lynching, as the rebuttals claim. The very act of hanging nooses from the White Tree inflicts its content in the same way that giving the middle finger makes an American driver instantaneously angry, even if meant lovingly. A joke, by nature, needs to have ironic or humorous content associated with it, but it is that very association which is blocked in the immediacy of displaying a noose in a part of the south where memories of KKK lynchings run thick.

And while that was a long digression, let me say this in conclusion to apologists for white-noose-hangers: your argument is a nonstarter, and I just proved it with science.

One Is Silver and the Other Is Gold

It appears that the Bush administration has taken to heart a nursery rhyme told incessantly by my Irish/Italian grandparents concerning the nature of multiple best friends. Turns out that Alberto Gonzales was "too much of a distraction" to the Administration, preventing them from successfully running the world.

And how do you get to replace a torturing, habeus corpus-denying, warrantless-spying right wing hack? By being a PATRIOT ACT-writing, black people ignoring, war on terror-architecting right wing hack.

I think the discussion surrounding tapping Chertoff as the U.S.'s lead domestic terrorist ensures that any argument made by U.S. liberals (or conservatives) about the uniqueness of Gonzales' neoconservativity is a nonstarter. This resignation, whether brought about by distraction (read: too much talk about what the U.S. foreign policy must imply domestically, namely, a reduction in civil liberties and what can only be called human rights violations on a good day) or personal choice (read: Gonzales was tired of being the fall guy for these policies), is no different than impeaching Bush and ending up with President Cheney. Not only does this not constitute any real shift in domestic perspective for Bush, by replacing the architect of the terror list with the architect of the PATRIOT ACT and the war on terror, it is in fact exactly the opposite: a consolidation of personnel, ensuring that right-wing policies can continue amidst a flurry of public skepticism.

But at least now if my civil liberties are violated in the coming months, I have the recourse of sitting in a crowded football stadium for weeks while people starve, waiting for Mikey to come listen to my grievances.

White People Are Crazy

Now this is just freaky.