Brooding Cynyc

Thursday, November 20, 2014

MEDIA CIRCUS RAMPING UP IN FERGUSON

FERGUSON READIES FOR ACT TWO

MEDIA DESCENDS ON SMALL TOWN AGAIN.

TAGS: MICHAEL BROWN, POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON,

FERGUSON MISSOURI, GRAND JURY, CIVIL UNREST, MEDIA HYPE,

MEDIA IRRESPONSIBILITY, MEDIA MAKING THE STORY,

SOCIAL COMMENT, CULTURAL OBSERVATION

(Thursday November 20, 2014, Ferguson, MO) It’s a cool 36 degrees on the ground here and the night comes on fast. People out on the streets are bundled up in heavy coats, woolen hats, scarves and gloves. They seem to move at a faster pace in the cold then they did when this community made its original introduction to the rest of America. Given the atmospherics here literally and metaphorically, this cold winter weather may come as a blessing for when “The Announcement” comes. Of course we are referring to “The Announcement” as to whether or not the St. Louis County Grand Jury empaneled to hear and see the evidence in the case of the White Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson and decide if he should be criminally indicted for the shooting death of the young Black man who was unarmed, Michael Brown last August 9^th. For variously suspect to patently absurd reasons officials here from the Governor Jay Nixon down to the County and Ferguson Police Department Chiefs have been publically extolling all the “measures” they’ve taken to cover every possible contingency once the Grand Jury’s findings are made public. There is a self-perpetuating element to this kind of lead up to a lead up to a possible event; preparing for potential public disorder and discussing it so publically in the media seems to be almost inviting trouble.

Perhaps the authorities see their public pronouncements as good public service as well as a warning to anyone, especially “outside agitators” who might want to travel to Ferguson, co-mingle with peaceful demonstrators and incite violence; violence against what is perceived as a “militarized” police force here in this community north of St. Louis. There were some chaotic nights in the immediate aftermath of the death of Mr. Brown but it never evolved into full scale rioting. It appeared at times that each side, the protestors and the Police were parrying with each other, collectively bobbing and weaving as boxers do in the early rounds as they try to size up and get the range on their opponent. It could have gotten very nasty very quickly but neither side was really up for that kind of fight. The 54 member Ferguson Police Department was clearly overwhelmed and, if only for crowd control purposes, needed the reinforcements from the St. Louis County Police, Missouri State Police and a small National Guard contingent to man an operations center. The media presence, at times, appeared to dwarf the number of protestors as the days wore on.

Now the media have begun to trickle back. They broadcast live on the evening “news” standing in front of boarded up businesses; businesses apparently expecting trouble to follow the Grand Jury’s findings. In this bizarre world we live today the media are often the story or they at least promulgate a nugget of innuendo, rumor, supposition or some “anonymous source” and conflate it into a story. They no longer cover or report the “news”. No, they are much more than pure journalists and reporters; they are TV personalities, celebrities and any corner of our culture any dark hole in society that they chose to illuminate with their klieg lights becomes news.

Yes, now they are back sticking microphones into anyone’s face that slows down enough to be ambushed. Then again, there is something alluring, something magnetic about the idea of being seen on TV that is difficult to understand. It is akin to an intoxicant for many and a validation of something, (?) for many more, We are a TV, media, Facebook, Skype, YouTube culture so perhaps it is understandable why people so eagerly appear on TV even in the midst of their greatest tragedies and losses. And, the media is fully cognizant of this fact. They really need not ambush anyone except some sleazy politico caught with his hand in the bag trying to duck out the side door of The Capitol. No, most folks seem to want to be on TV no matter the cause, purpose or how much of themselves, self-dignity or self-regard they will ultimately surrender. Just look at “The Jerry Springer Show” or “Maury”.

So the celebrity reporters are trolling the streets speaking with locals. They have found every gun shop in the greater St. Louis Area to report that gun sales have jumped by 700%! And that most of their newest customers are women. Yes, this is the setting the media is preparing.

HYPE

In the weeks leading up to a major pay per view prizefight, the broadcasting network will hype the event with what can seem like continuous airings of the fighter’s profiles down to the minutest details of their lives and careers. Fights, prize or otherwise, lend themselves to hype, they are the physical confrontation of two men, mano y mano, on a grand and glitzy stage broadcast worldwide, wagered on and highly anticipated. The hype is the vehicle to build anticipation. As fight night drawers closer, the hype is knocked up a gear into overdrive and the anticipation is at its peak. Often the fight does not come anywhere near matching the hype but, when it does, it is a special sporting moment in the most solo of singular sports.

For the last four weeks the newsertainment outlets have begun hyping an event that typically is not a reason for hype. But, in the dizzied, never-ending, 24/7 cable news, breaking news, continuing coverage, live on location, breathlessly hyperbolic environment we live in, anything can be hyped regardless of whether or not it should be. Hype impacts our lives at every turn and sometimes we fail to recognize that we are being fed hype. Because the 24/7 worth of airtime to fill the cable “news” outlets need to make mountains out of molehills; they need to have a flashy graphic with appropriately moody music for the intro to “the latest development” despite the fact that the latest development has been the latest development for 8 or 9 hours. The repetition of the hype and hyperbole provides the background din in American culture.

TIMING

If there is one thing everyone in the Law Enforcement Community is well aware of is that the long, hot nights of summer, those humid sticky nights that top off the ends of blistering heat are the toughest times in the City. The heat of passion is sometimes just the passion of heat. So, in that regard it is fortunate that the Grand Jury findings will be released in the middle of the harsh November chill that has settled over most of the country and is certainly carried on the cold winds that come out of the northwest.

Ferguson on a night like this seems like a sodium arc lamp lit ghost town. Very few pedestrians walk the streets; the few that do have their shoulders hunched into the collars of their coats against the cold. The traffic is very light and all appears peaceful. Smoke wafts out of chimneys and the houses and apartments are alit from within. This weather does not seem very conducive to any kind of long term outdoor nocturnal demonstrations no matter what the findings are.

There have been reports that cities across America are preparing for some possibility of “isolated social unrest” in their Black communities if Officer Wilson is not indicted. Those Officials in cities such as Cleveland, Chicago, Buffalo and all across the Midwest, into the northeast and down into Dixie will have the frigid temperatures on their sides; it’s far easier to get riled up and hoot and holler when it’s 85 degrees than it is when it is 20 degrees.

TRUTH

Hopefully those citizens who comprise the Grand Jury in this case have been taking their task seriously. Most Grand Juries do. While not sequestered they have been instructed by the Judge to avoid any accounts of the case in the media but, naturally, they live in the real world, work in the real world, and cannot avoid all the coverage. The best they can do is remain ever objective. Objectivity and rigorous adherence to the facts, not disputed information, simply the empirical facts, will lead them to the truth. Whatever that truth is or is not let it not be exploited by anyone on either side of the racial divide, the gaping maw of distrust between the African American communities and the Law Enforcement Community across this country. There has been ample exploitation here already.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKCN0J506920141121

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/as-ferguson-grand-jury-report-looms-police-say-they-dont-fear-protests.html

http://www.kmbc.com/news/ferguson-schools-prepare-to-protect-kids-after-grand-jury-decision/29851554

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/st-louis-region-prepares-grand-jury-decision-27059920

http://www.newsweek.com/police-arrest-protesters-ferguson-awaits-grand-jury-decision-285946

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-officer-s-lawyer-union-official-say-ap-story-on/article_214c7eee-5729-5b2a-bf1c-a16a0f17cb68.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/ferguson-protesters-grand-jury_n_6175676.html

Friday, November 14, 2014

OFFICER WILSON’S FATE MAY DEPEND ON FORENSIC PATHOLOGY

FERGUSON AWAITS GRAND JURY FINDINGS

AUTOPSIES RESULTS WILL PLAY KEY ROLE

FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST DR. MICHAEL BADEN AT PRESS

CONFERENCE EXPLAINING HIS PRELIMINARY AUTOPSY FINDINGS

AS LAWYERS FOR THE BROWN FAMILY LOOK ON

TAGS: PO DARREN WILSON, FERGUSON, MISSOURI, MICHAEL BROWN UNARMED,

RACIAL TENSIONS, FORENSIC PATHOLOGY, DR. MICHAEL BADEN, FORENSICS AND

FORENSIC AUTOPSY, THE ART AND SCIENCE OF THE FORENSIC AUTOPSY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY GRAND JURY

(Friday November, 14, Ferguson, MO) The headlines are ominous; they are already predicting with an exaggerated sense of foreboding how this community will react if the Grand Jury currently hearing the evidence against Police Officer Darren Wilson, the White Ferguson Officer who shot and killed an unarmed Black 18 year old, Michael Brown on the afternoon of August 9^th, 2014. That event served as a catalyst that ignited the anger, near riotous mob behavior that was as much about this predominantly Black community has long felt the alleged heavy hands of a Police Force with a sole Black Officer. The history of this small town has been marred by racial tensions between citizens and those who enforce the law. This particular episode made national headlines after President Obama dispatched the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, the top law enforcement official in the country, to Ferguson, ostensibly to meet with the Brown family and the usual roster of “Black Activists”, “Community Leaders” and bellicose reverends of all stripe to assure the citizenry that “justice will be served”. Just as disturbing have been recent statements in the press from the head of the Missouri chapter of the KKK. All the elements for a potentially volatile scenario once the Grand Jury’s findings are made public are gathering here.

On the immediate nights after Michael Brown’s death demonstrations and protests paralyzed this community. Once peace was restored demonstrations continued in an orderly manner despite the still simmering frustration that ran like an ugly undercurrent through this town. The Brown family retained the services of several well know attorneys who had represented families who had lost a child under similar circumstances. The now familiar narrative of White Police Officers abusing and even killing young Black men is never as clear cut as the public perceives them. Yet, no matter what the actual, substantiated factual accounts are typically ignored or reflexively dismissed as White Cops sticking up for one another, obstructing justice, and having tacit approval from their superiors that they can do as they please out on the streets and a criminal justice system that endemically treats African Americans much differently than they do White people.

The central assertions of the case are well known. The points of contention, the very factors that will determine Officer Wilson’s fate, are more complex and findings of competing post mortem examination will be the deciding evidence to either indict PO Wilson or not. Despite what the public may believe about crime scene investigation, autopsies and forensics, concepts they’ve likely picked up from viewing all the CSI and police procedural TV programs, are presented in an unrealistically simple manner that bears scant resemblance to the actual work performed by Police Detectives, Forensic Scientists from an array of specialties, and the Forensics Pathologist. In some case the investigation of an unnatural death, a murder, can yield evidentiary information that requires as much art as it does science; as much interpreting all the findings and working to establish a cohesive, coherent body of proof and, ultimately, court testimony.

WHERE THE LIVING SPEAK FOR THE DEAD

Above the entrance to most Autopsy Suites in the country is an old Latin admonition, or some abbreviated version of it, to be heeded by those about to enter. In English it is: “Let idle talk be silenced. Let laughter be banished. This is the place where Death rejoices to teach those who live”.

To the uninitiated the Autopsy Suite can be an intimidatingly discomforting place. Just the realization of what transpires in the stark stainless tell, cold, impersonal environment is sufficient to cause some to get more than a little jittery. But the environment is such because it is specifically designed, constructed and intended for one purpose and one purpose only: the performance of post mortem examinations. In spite of what some view as a gruesome, loathsome task, the autopsy is a solemn medical procedure with one purpose; to attempt to determine the cause of death – the manner and method – that transpired to result in a particular body to be placed beneath the bright lights above the autopsy table. Autopsies are conducted for a wide range of reasons from accessing the efficacy of some treatment modality, to rule in or out suicide, for insurance purposes, and as teaching experiencing. Arguably, the most important reason for an autopsy is as a Forensics tool; the opportunity for the Forensics Pathologist to dissect and study a body that was felled under criminal or suspicious circumstances. It is in this scenario that the autopsy can become the final arbiter of truth.

HANDS UP, HANDS DOWN

The autopsies conducted on the body of Michael Brown have each documented the various gunshot wounds, there location, whether they were entry or exit wounds and, upon internal examination, which one or ones where the actual manner of death. Often a body can sustain numerous gunshots and it becomes the Forensic Pathologists responsibility if a single gunshot or the collective damage of several shots caused death. In cases where bullets are recovered, the Ballistics specialists are able to identify if the bullets recovered covered came from one firearm or several. But in this case there is but one firearm and one shooter involved.

It has been alleged that PO Wilson and Mr. Brown were involved in an altercation while Wilson was still seated in his patrol car and there has been evidence recovered to support this claim; the evidence being Brown’s blood on Wilson’s shirt. After this alleged confrontation Mr. Brown did I fact walk away from PO Wilson as reported by eye witness accounts and the absence of gunshot residue on Brown’s body or clothing. This is indicative of Wilson firing his weapon from a distance – between 6 and 20 feet – from Mr. Brown. What the Forensic Pathologists also had to study closely were the clothes Mr. Brown wore on that fateful day. If his hands were raised in a “don’t shoot” position, the entry wounds and entry point on his shirt would be in line with each other. Many cases come down to this sort of evidence. When points of entry on clothing do not comport with entry wounds on the body, much can be said as to the actual physical distance, position and posture of the victim. Conflicting reports have been leaked by people purporting to be privy to the on-going Grand Jury testimony say there is evidence supporting both sides in this tragic story but it is imperative that the Grand jury completes their sacred task before anything approaching the real “truth” can be made available.

MULTIPLE AUTOPSIES MUDDIED THE WATER

As has been reported, the body of Michael Brown went through three autopsies. The simple facts and details of the procedure are clear; the first autopsy, if conducted completely in accordance with standard forensics post mortem procedures and protocols, is the most important and the best source of medico-legal information. Once a body is subjected to a thorough post mortem, any ensuing examinations are extremely limited in making any kind of determination besides some of the most obvious. Frankly, a complete autopsy is an in-depth examination of the external condition of the corpse and, once the “Y” shaped incision made, the body is splayed open. After examination of the corpse in this state, the internal viscera are each removed, weighed, measured, examined and sample of tissue are taken to be made into microscopic slides for later study by the Pathologist.

In the Forensic setting particular attention is obvious paid to any physical signs of violence, trauma, or insult. The dead body speaks volumes if the Forensics team is astute enough to listen. In this case, Mr. Brown’s internal examination prior to any removal of organs, was exhaustively studied to trace the damage made by the bullets that ultimately hit him. There has been much written and reported about a head wound and the entry point of that particular wound that was most likely the one single shot most responsible for his death. The wound’s position is a determining factor in whether or not Mr. Brown was standing up right, standing up right with his head bowed to a certain degree or, if he was on his knees with or without his head bowed to one degree or another. The position of that entry wound on the head would indicate that the 6’ 4” Mr. Brown was perhaps falling face-forward down or otherwise in a non-standing compromised posture. The entire Grand Jury testimony may come down to this singular question because its accurate answer based on the pathological findings has the potential to make or break the case.

In the case of Mr. Brown it remains unclear who had access to what evidence and when? There were initial reports that the St. Louis county coroner did not have Mr. Brown’s clothes to examine while the autopsy conducted on behalf on the family by arguably the most famous, respected, and brilliant Forensic Pathologist in America, Dr. Michael Baden, had either some or all of the clothing to examine. A third post mortem conducted by an FBI forensics team probably was more redundant and useless than helpful or insightful. With three separate and distinct autopsies it was probably a mighty chore for the County Prosecutor to decide what forensic pathology evidence he chose to present to the Grand Jury. Even in the most unambiguous of circumstances, the medico-legal information provided to the Prosecutor is often presented clumsily and inaccurately. It is the job of the Prosecutor to take what is often very technical medical information and put it in terms that can be easily understood by a jury, a jury typically composed of blue-collar, working class people typically unfamiliar with such complex information. Since jurors tend to take their civic duty seriously and, in a Grand Jury setting, they may ask many questions to have points of testimony clarified.

THE TRUTH

In any homicide but particularly in a case as emotionally charged, high profile, and controversial as is this, the truth is what is sought. The truth, some call it justice, is what all the autopsies and investigatory procedures are about. The details of the volumes of information and testimony given to the Grand Jury over the course of the last three months contains the truth or, at least, as much of the truth as can be determined by all the cumulative data. Police Officer Wilson has provided his “side” of his confrontation with Michael Brown just as have eye witnesses and other bystanders who were close enough to the scene of the crime to offer some valuable auditory information. Even at this time and despite the constant drip of leaks from sources within the investigation, no one knows what the truth is. Everyone has an opinion as is their right. Much of the opinion is split along the deeply gouged color line in America; Black Americans believe that White Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown without “just cause” a line of thought that is at the heart of much of the racial tensions between White Law Enforcement Officers (LEO’s) and Black men, particularly young Black men.

What is at stake regarding this Grand Jury’s verdict is the matter of whether or not to indict Officer Wilson on a charge of homicide, manslaughter or some similar charge. Given the amount of media coverage this case garnered in the immediate wake of the incident that left Mr. Brown dead, the eyes of the country will be upon Ferguson when the Grand Jury’s findings are released to the public. Police here and Police Departments in a number of cities across America are making contingency plans if the verdict is not the one the Black community hopes for.

In the movie “A Few Good Men” the Marine Corps Officer played by the actor Jack Nicholson famously shouted at the prosecutor from the witness box, “You can’t handle the truth”. Likely within days we will learn what the Grand Jury has learned and we will see if we can “handle” such truth.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/1024/Ferguson-shooting-Evidence-appears-to-support-officer-s-version-of-events

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/1115/Video-shows-Ferguson-Officer-Darren-Wilson-after-he-shot-Michael-Brown

http://www.propublica.org/article/what-to-look-for-in-dueling-autopsies-of-michael-brown

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/15/darren-wilson-fatal-encounter-with-michael-brown-was-brief-report-says/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/11/13/crump-ferguson-michael-brown/18961421/

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/lawyers-michael-brown-family-appeal-calm-ferguson-waits-grand-jury-n247791

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/ferguson-shooting-michael-brown-grand-jury.html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/ferguson-grand-jury_n_6159982.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/kkk-threatens-lethal-force-protesters-ferguson_n_6155570.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

VETERANS DAY 2014

THE UNEQUAL BURDEN
OF SACRIFICE UNSHARED

A VETERANS DAY COMMENTARY

(Updated Wednesday November 12, 2014)

(Tuesday November 11, 2014, NYC) It was once the great equalizer, the common experience that was the cementing mortar that held our society together. When sacrifice is borne by all; shared across all strata of society, it creates a stronger more cohesive nation more prone towards unity than division.

We are engaged and have been actively fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and other lesser known locales under the auspices of our “war on terror” with an entirely volunteer military. The generation of combat veterans, young warriors who have seen fierce, brutal battle, represent a mere 1% of their peer group and many of those who volunteered prior to September 11, 2001, had enlisted into the Reserves and National Guard primarily for the educational benefits used to attract young men and women to the military services. Few, if any signed up for multiple deployments and the stresses that accompany such involvement.

LOOKING BACK: VIETNAM

By January 1973 we were a war weary country; a people who had long past the point of supporting our efforts in the jungles of that far off place that became synonymous with guerrilla warfare and the harsh brutalities of fighting a largely unseen enemy in an environment they knew intimately. The public, particularly the parents of the young men and women serving in Vietnam were questioning the strategy, tactics and the rationale for continuing this protracted campaign, a campaign that would never grant us a clearly defined victory.

And it was that year of 1973 on January 27th that President Nixon put a moratorium on the military draft and ultimately did away with it for good. No longer would our military services be comprised of conscripts; service would from that time forward be voluntary. Our country lost much in this exchange, perhaps far more than anyone could have realized back in that troubled summer of protest and open defiance of the draft in 1972 that culminated in the complete end of the draft as announced by Nixon on January 27, 1973. By the time the last troops were finally airlifted out of a riotous Saigon on April 30, 1975, the country and military would slowly come to terms with what felt like a defeat but Nixon called “Peace with Honor.” For much of the nation and the military itself, the after effects known as the “Vietnam Hangover” set in and would ossify our military for years to come. The military had lost its luster and had been marred by the harsh realities our troops had experienced and witnessed during a war like no one we had seen up to that time in our history. It would take the military almost two decades to develop new strategies and tactics for guerrilla, “asymmetrical” warfare.

THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW

The Vietnam era marked the end of the concept of shared sacrifice. No longer would young men from every city and town, of every race and creed, from every rung on the socioeconomic ladder forever have memories and at least that one similarity. The country went from every young man being in “The Service” to a massive retreat from the military and an insidious vilification of Vietnam veterans, the kind of hostility and disdain previous legions of veterans had never experienced. Those were dark days and it would be many years before the American public found their collectively lost spine and once again were willing to send troops to combat zones.

But the troops who were sent to fight our battles were often drawn from the lowest caste of society. The military became a refuge for those without other opportunities, for men and women to escape poverty and perhaps learn a trade of some kind that would allow them to prosper, at least minimally, in civilian life. However, no matter their points of origin or intentions, they served with courage and valor whenever called upon to do so.

The shared sacrifice and common experience of past generations of veterans has become cheaply replaced by a largely unaffected public who fly the American flag in front of their homes and have “Support our Troops” bumper stickers on their pick-ups as if these are potent symbols of a patriot. They are no such thing. Most young people today and their parents wouldn’t think of having a son or daughter enlist in the military. They have seen what those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq have been through; the multiple deployments because of a shortage of ready and qualified troops, a Veterans Administration system completely unprepared to adequately care for the thousands upon thousands of returning veterans with traumatic limb amputations, brain injuries and other horrific battle wounds as well as the unknown battalions of those who suffer, often in silence, wracked by PTSD, depression, alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment and even homelessness. An extremely disturbing and sad fact is that every 65 hours another combat veteran takes his or her own life.

When suicide on that scale becomes the norm there is something institutionally, almost sinfully wrong. We as a people have not held up our end of "The Pact", the once sacred Covenant that assures our veterans of the care they need. What are we as a country, as a people, that we stand idly by while tens of thousands of young people suffer these medical and mental maladies and the indignities of hunger, poverty and homelessness? What is the message we are sending our veterans and anyone considering enlisting? The answers to these questions say much about our shared neglect and that is directly related to our loss of shared experience.

RE-INSTITUTE THE DRAFT

There was a time when virtually all our elected officials including those in the Senate and House had served in the military. Those men (those bodies were composed largely of men until the mid-1970’s) who had first-hand experience of the horrors of combat were far more deliberate and reluctant to put American troops “in harm’s way” without a clear threat to our national security or vital national interests. Former Five Star General and United States President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the famed World War II commander of the European theater of operations, often spoke of the caution that ought to be used before committing our troops to battle. He also warned of the vast “military–industrial–congressional complex” that was developing towards his last years as President and how war-making was becoming a lucrative endeavor as the Cold War was developing. Had his prescient warnings been heeded much of American military history over the last 60 years would have been very different.

If the chicken hawks and war-mongers in Congress continue to seek to commit our troops as they see fit, this time of perpetual warfare cannot be sustained solely by enlistees. It is a matter of simple arithmetic and attrition. There are only so many active troops available for foreign forays into ill-defined missions without fully understanding the stakes involved or even the facts on the ground, history of the warring factions and why, exactly, are “we” there. Military incursions without a clearly defined and acknowledged "exit strategy" will inevitably devolve into a murky quagmire. Once sucked into a quagmire and "nation building" our formidable military might is reduced to the facts on the ground which are always to our disadvantage.

On this Veteran’s Day we should spend a moment contemplating the true meaning of the day, reexamine what patriotism means to us, and learn to not be content to blindly follow our elected officials into untenable combat circumstances. We have intervened enough in the last 13 years. We should also find it within ourselves the sufficient amount of gratitude that should be bestowed upon all veterans no matter when or where they served. They are truly the best of us as a people and represent us best as a country.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

MIDTERM ELECTIONS 2014: REPUBLICAN WAVE WASHES OVER COUNTRY

OBAMA: THE LAMEST OF LAME DUCKS

THE RACE ABOUT RACE

TAGS: REPUBLICANS GAIN SENATE MAJORITY, DEMOCRATS RAN AWAY

FROM PRESIDENT, OBAMA ILL-PREPARED FOR HIS OFFICE,

RACIAL UNDERCURRENTS, OVERT RACISM IN CAMPAIGNS,

AMERICA WAS “NOT READY” FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA

(Wednesday November 5, 2014 Washington, DC) There is no need for extensive post-election analysis. No time should be spent by commentators and pundits, pollsters and political operatives espousing their own pet theories regarding the huge red wave that swept Republicans into Office from coast to coast. The Republicans now control the Senate and the House of Representatives and, the agenda is theirs to set. They now have legislative carte blanche to do as they please and in the process can dismantle as many of the legislative actions President Obama has signed into law in the last six years. After all, that is what this election was all about. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous at best, naive’ or at worst. The fallacy of a “post-racial” America was always just that – a fallacy; a sort of haze that first seemed to offer hope but rapidly revealed the true nature of our society, our politics and especially our politicians.

For openers Dick Cheney and his moronic sidekick George W. Bush made Barak Obama possible. Had it not been for the monumentally disastrous eight years of Cheney and Bush, their wars of choice, the financial collapse and all the ramifications and fallout from what could have been a complete financial collapse akin to the Great depression of 1929, the country never would have voted in a landslide for an unknown, untested, first term junior Senator from Illinois with the exotic sounding name. By the time Cheney and Bush were in their last years in the White House the country was exhausted from all that had taken place under their negligent, inept, neo-con pleasing watch. People wanted change and, for many reasons that have been studied and analyzed, a broad coalition of the voting public saw Obama as an agent of change, while others would have voted for a turnip; anyone to wash the sour taste of the Bush/Cheney debacle out of their mouths.

The country was clearly not “ready” for a Black president. It cannot be said any simpler. Not only was the country not ready for an African American in the White House, they were surely not prepared for this particular man, this particular Black man. After his first inauguration he was granted a honeymoon of a sort as the Congress and Washington insiders slowly observed and studied the man looking for cues as to what made him tick, what indelible core beliefs did he hold and would be willing to fight for, what would be his agenda? It did not take the Congress and the other rabid wolves in Washington, DC to size him up as a cautious, contemplative cat; an unemotional, seemingly untroubled intellect that would approach the many and varied demands of his Office in his own unique style. But it was more than “style” that puzzled the seasoned politicos. What they initially perceived as style was actually the true man; he was the way he was because that is the way he is. He is a self-contained, hard to read, slow to anger, contemplative, thoughtful intellectual and he brought all those inherent traits to the most difficult job in the country. He was not what anyone expected and his honeymoon was short lived.

The rapid rise of Obama was propelled not only by the public’s weariness from the Cheney/Bush years; there was a huge grassroots effort to register voters in minority communities, young people on college campuses and others who were unaccustomed to or had never voted before. Yes, it was indeed a broad coalition; a potent force powerful enough to defeat the durable, well-oiled “Clinton Machine” that was at Hillary’s disposal during the bruising primary. Once the primary was over and Obama was the Democrat’s standard bearer, the real "retail politicking” began in earnest and it became a self-perpetuating beast feeding off the uncharacteristic engagement of so many regular citizens and, of course, a tsunami of Hollywood money, trial lawyers donations, and other left-leaning organizations and individuals and their fat wallets.

Obama was a good campaigner. He drew ever increasingly large crowds of vocal supporters and fed off their energy often delivering soaring rhetoric with a Baptist preacher’s cadence. But he would soon find out that his Office required far, far more than inspiring oratory; he had work to do in the face of what would come to be the most recalcitrant, obstructionist, partisan, corrupt, bigoted opposition Party in Congress than ever before had been seen in American politics. The sleazy, turkey-necked slug from Kentucky, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell promised in a speech just days after the President’s inauguration to make President Obama, “A one term President”. The open warfare between the new President and the sharp elbowed Republicans on The Hill was declared.

Once Barak Obama became President Obama the ugly “dog whistle” catch phrases and turns of phrases were amplified. The “birthers” accusations that he was an illegitimate President vociferously claiming without evidence that he was born in Kenya and that he was a closet Muslim with an “anti-American” agenda consumed untold hours of talk radio and cable “newsertainment” programs. The Right said that he had associated with radical groups such as the Black Panthers while in college and controversial African American activists while working in Chicago. The Right was merciless, vile but oh so effective. They raised so many issues without relenting that President Obama’s popularity poll numbers went into a slow but steady decline by his first summer in Office.

By 2008 Americans were tired; the eight previous years had taken their toll. Beginning with the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the omnipresent risk of more terrorist activity here at home while one percent of our sons and daughters fought wars on two distant and separate – actually disparate – fronts, the notion of endless war began to eat away at the national psyche; a psyche with a miserably short attention span accustomed to a fast paced, interconnected culture. Then the banks began to fail. Their criminal recklessness, sleazy financial practices with no government or other oversight, and the bursting of the “housing bubble” saw many people loose homes, life savings and jobs. As the unemployment rate rose there emerged a segment of the populace who had fallen off the radar. These folks were the ranks of millions of “long-term unemployed” ineligible for government benefits as well as the millions of under-employed workers struggling to earn a living wage often working more than one job. Nationwide the squeeze was on the shrinking “middle class” with no tangible, practical relief in sight. Though the genesis of each of these bleeding open wounds to our economy were the result of Cheney/Bush actions or inactions, it was head spinning to watch as the Right Wing deftly placed the blame for all of it squarely at the feet of our new President. With a unified, defiant, and determined Republican Party ready to launch a full frontal assault on the new Administration and Obama in particular, for some reason the White House and the Democratic Party allowed the Republican Party to write the narrative that quickly became recognized as truth by ill and under informed citizens. Their anger grew with their frustration.

But there was much more than that at work in society. The cold undercurrent of racism coursed through what counted as the political discourse of the day. People began to see, with the prodding of conservative politicians and right wing media, President Obama as a disengaged, aloof “empty suit” and by his nature he would not counter their arguments and assertions; he took the high road and was determined to remain above the fray. He profoundly misjudged the sentiments on The Hill as well as the amount of power he actually had as President. He did not have the long Congressional resume that other Presidents had; he had not been in the Senate long enough to develop relationships that he could have enlisted to navigate legislation through that slow moving chamber.

The naïve’ idealism of many joined by those who voted for Obama in the hope that once he and his family stepped over the threshold at 1600 – Pennsylvania Avenue, that his Presidency would usher in a new dawn, a “post-racial” America. Unfortunately, just the opposite occurred. Once in the White House and in the seat of power it did not take long before the thin layer of dust of overt racism that had settled over the years, that has always been just below the surface in segments of our society, was blown away and the insidious serpent of bigotry and racism re-awakened.

In our society tectonic shifts happen at a glacial crawl. Cleary in 2008 we were not at all ready for a Black President. Even the most cursory examination of our history since the end of World War II is ripe with examples of groups of people seeking civil rights, equality in employment and housing, as well as all the Constitutional rights Caucasian Americans are automatically granted by birthright. Yes, the pace of change in America is slow. It was 80 years after our Civil War that African Americans began to be afforded equal and voting rights and all the same protections under the law as are available to White Americans. Many of the African Americans of a certain age who cast their vote for Barak Obama were merely one generation removed from slavery. All Americans born up to the mid to late 1950’s can recall the various “White Only” and “Black Only” sections of buses, diners, water fountains and many other places. So the promise of a President Obama was inflated and doomed to burst; the widespread resentment and some outright hatred cast a pall over parts of the country, blocs of citizens who did not believe we should have a Black President simply because we never have.

Everything President Obama did was scrutinized, dissected, and ultimately found to be flawed or misguided by the Republicans. He never received any credit for some of the actions he took immediately after he took Office to save the failing “Big Three” automobile manufacturers, extend unemployment benefits, pass a stimulus package, all without any support on the other side of the aisle. The slender Senate majority he had to work with was often too concerned with how their constituents would view their votes and some Democrats did not support the President’s initiatives fearing a backlash back in their home district.

It can be argued that the Presidency of Barak Obama has set racial relations in America back perhaps as far as a generation. This is the result of the misguided concept of what we “need” in our elected officials. There are many ethnic and racial groups that have not been represented in the highest positions in the government and we elect candidates because “we haven’t had (insert race, gender or ethnicity) yet.” Obama’s Presidency clearly illustrates just how much further we need to go before we are truly ready for the best candidate based on experience and merit; not one who is meant to pacify one group or another.

The 2016 presidential race is already gearing up and many on the Left and in the Democratic Party see Hillary Clinton as their standard bearer. Her candidacy should be based on her experiences, intellect, knowledge and merit, not her gender. We should not elect Hillary Clinton simply because we haven’t had a woman president before. Change in American politics and society is at a snail’s pace and any efforts to accelerate change usually backfire in dreadful ways.