The Unvarnished King & The Dream

My guess is many of you reading this had today off in recognition of the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; the wheels of the real estate industry roll on so it was a work day for me.

Fortunately there was some excellent MLK Day programming to listen along to online throughout the day on WNYC.org and I got to hear some really insightful topic discussions revolving around some of the same socioeconomic issues that Dr. King addressed more than forty seven years ago.

Which is both fascinating and troubling.

Some interesting excerpts from WNYC's 10th Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration held this past weekend were played on this morning's edition of  The Brian Lehrer Show.

The event was held at the Apollo in Harlem and I think WNYC did an excellent job of truly honoring King's legacy and mission by focusing on issues that are both topical and current including the impact of institutional racism on schools, access to higher education and justice - and the struggle of American society to recognize and acknowledge White Privilege.

One of the most interesting segments today was Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview with Regina Mason, who's great-great-great grandfather William Grimes wrote what is now considered one of the very first slave narratives published in America in 1825, "Life of William Grimes, The Runaway Slave." 

Mason discovered Grimes after years of family history research and as our own family's resident historian, I was moved by her story and understand the the challenges of finding out details of African-American ancestors who were born into slavery in the United States before 1850.

As Mason observed in her interview today, the existence of Grimes' book and her subsequent efforts to connect with the descendants of the slave-holding family who owned her great-great-great grandfather, helped to bring into reality Dr. King's "dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

Dr. King remains one of the greatest and most influential figures in American history; possibly the world.

One who undoubtedly deserves a federal holiday and, in my humble opinion, the argument could be made that his image should be chiseled onto the face of Mount Rushmore alongside those of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt.

If Washington is regarded as the father of our nation, surely King can be considered its conscience.

So for understandable reasons there is a tendency to deify King in this country and view him more as a mythical figure than as a man.

One of the most interesting pieces on King I read today came from essayist Chauncey DeVega, who reminded readers of his blog Indomitable today that during his life, King was frequently viewed as a radical and an enemy - particularly after he began to speak out publicly against the Vietnam War in 1967.

From the vantage point of 2015, it's remarkable to read the list of politicians and activists (see the link directly above) who publicly berated or even reviled King when his opposition to the war in Southeast Asia turned major American newspapers including The New York Times, Washington Post and leading African-American newspapers against him.

DeVega cites a fascinating article by Obery M. Hendricks posted earlier today on Salon.com entitled, "The 'Macroethics' of Martin Luther King, Jr.: When He Spoke Out Against the Vietnam War Even His Supporters Deserted Him - Here's How He Endured." 

If you take the time to read anything on King today, I'd suggest you check out Hendricks' Salon.com piece.

For later generations for whom the civil rights struggles of the 40's, 50's and 60's exist as distant history, King will arguably best be remembered less for leading non-violent protests against segregated housing in places like Cicero, Illinois, or for labor rights for African-American sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee - but for "The Speech".

King's "I Have a Dream" speech remains one of the most significant and moving pieces of American oratory in the nations history; on par with Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg in the pantheon of U.S. history as far as I'm concerned.

One that encapsulates the vision of a complex and learned thinker in one speech.

Dr. King, August 28, 1963 [Photo - Bob Adelman]

Back in December of 2007 when I was still first trying out the blog as an online platform to share my thoughts, I wrote one of my first blogs about Dr. King after hearing an interview with photographer Bob Adelman on The Tavist Smiley Show.

Adelman, a Long Island, New York native, helped to chronicle the civil rights struggle with his photos and was taking pictures of King at the podium on August 28, 1963 as the speech was being delivered.



That's one of Adelman's iconic photos (pictured above) of King towards the end of the speech as he's shouting the words, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

According to Adelman who was there and shot three rolls of King at the podium (you can see how close he was), about twelve minutes into the speech as the applause swelled after a moving passage, gospel legend Mahalia Jackson, (who was seated near King on the podium during the speech and was the only woman),  overcome with emotion by the passage, yelled out to King, "Tell  'em about the dream Martin!"

Adelman said that in response, King took his speech, folded the papers up and put them in his pocket, and proceeded to deliver the remaining approximately five minutes and eighteen seconds of the actual "I Have a Dream" section of the speech totally off the cuff without notes.

Jackson was close to King and was a long-time supporter of the movement and Adelman suggested that King's "Dream" was a topic he'd spoken about privately with Jackson before.

Regardless, the knowledge that Dr. King delivered those words straight from the heart, without notes still gives me goosebumps, as a writer who loves words it leaves me astounded.

During a pivotal moment of American history on a hot summer day with the statue of Abraham Lincoln looking down and the eyes of world watching in awe; a timeless example of the unvarnished King.

The Angry American

Burns, Oregon protester John Ritzheimer

"In my mind, he should pack his bags and come home,"

That's Arizona rancher Clay Bundy as quoted in a New York Times article talking about his cousin Ammon Bundy; the leader of the five-day old standoff taking place on a remote federal wildlife refuge outside Burns, Oregon.

Clay Bundy pretty much sums up the feelings of the vast majority of the residents of Harney County, who don't want Ammon Bundy and his heavily-armed posse of angry anti-government followers using their small rural community as an excuse to espouse their extremist agenda.

Or worse, use the imprisonment of two Oregon ranchers convicted of setting fire to federal lands as some kind of excuse to spark a violent confrontation with police and federal agents to incite even further senseless anti-government stand-offs like the one they're already in.

Among the 100 or so armed "patriots" currently holed up in an isolated collection of federal buildings is John Ritzheimer (pictured above).

Ritzheimer made headlines last May when he organized a group of heavily-armed protesters who held an anti-Muslim rally outside of a mosque in Phoenix, Arizona. He also became the subject of an FBI manhunt back in November after posting anti-Muslim hate videos online; including one in which he used an assault rifle to shoot a copy of the Koran.

As an Aljazeera article (see link above) noted, last fall as news about his virulently anti-Muslim video postings spread, Ritzheimer took offense at outraged Facebook users who called him a "Nazi" - which of course conflicts with the black t-shirt he's wearing in the photo above with the SS logo surrounded by the words "Support your local white boy".

As this self-created "siege" moves into its sixth day, a lot of mainstream and social media are increasingly focusing their attention on the non-confrontational hands-off approach of law enforcement in response to heavily-armed individuals facing off with members of local police and federal agents.

It's understandable that federal agents want to avoid creating a violent standoff like Ruby Ridge or Waco, but the longer it goes on, the more it stands in stark contrast to the kind rapid, full-bore crack downs of police against African-American protesters in places like Ferguson, Missouri.

The contrast in response is shedding light on the differences in policing in America based on race.

Missouri National Guard members in Ferguson

White "patriots" in Burns, Oregon man watchtowers, block roads into the compound and openly boast about their willingness to engage in armed conflict with federal agents and freely come and go as they please.

The response to mostly African-American protesters in Ferguson, Missouri in August, 2014 in the wake of the police killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown was much different.


Almost immediately, heavily militarized police using heavy-handed tactics that included rubber bullets, tear gas and armed vehicles were deployed to public streets to confront large groups of unarmed protesters.

The Missouri Governor called out the National Guard (pictured above).

As essayist and blogger Chauncey DeVega observed on his Indomitable blog yesterday:

"Ultimately, the recent events in Oregon are one more reminder of how white privilege is an existential state of hypocrisy. African-American protesters in Ferguson were met with lethal rounds from police, faced down by snipers, were bludgeoned with nightsticks, shot with rubber and wooden bullets, spied upon by drones, and shown the full range of power that is capable of being summoned by America’s hyper-militarized police forces. The protesters in Ferguson were also confronted by the National Guard—a step that the governor of Oregon has so far not taken in order to neutralize the estimated 150 armed white men who are making terrorist threats and engaging in armed insurrection in his state." 

Like many people, I've read some of the abstract quotes from the Oregon protesters about their desire to "restore freedom" and take back power and land from the federal government.

But I'm genuinely confused about what they're so enraged about.

Ammon Bundy flanked by armed militia members

Most of them (including Ammon Bundy) aren't from Harney County. Plus the two ranchers sentenced to jail for arson peacefully surrendered themselves to authorities to be taken back to jail as required.

So what are all these people still doing there?

As DeVega observed in his blog, these protesters seem prepared to die for the Constitution.

Yet they're in violation of Article I of said Constitution which considers armed resistance to the federal government a violation of the same Constitution they so revere.

Selective Constitutional reverence?

It's like the protester's rage against Muslims, the government, authority, gun control etc. blinds them to what the Constitution actually says and means.

As you may have heard, the results of a recent national poll conducted by NBC and Esquire reveal some fascinating insights into the level of anger in this nation as expressed by white and black Americans.

The poll surveyed 3,000 people and found that white Americans are generally a lot more pissed off than others, less optimistic about the future of the nation and much more pessimistic about race relations in the United States.

Now obviously a poll of 3,000 people can't tell you everything about each one of the more than 320 million people living in this country, but based on the sampling it does offer some insight into the kinds of things that might be on the minds of the "patriots" holed up with their weapons in a remote wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Earlier this morning on WNYC, The Brian Lehrer Show devoted an interesting 21-minute segment to the results of the NBC/Esquire poll and what it means to the idea of the American Dream.

It's worth a listen when you have time; just click the link above.

I think the various callers who phoned in to share their insights help to shed some understanding into the kind of anger that's been so visible in this country - especially with some of the Republican presidential candidates over the past year.

It's not just Republican presidential hopefuls either, with the House passing the 62nd piece of legislation to override the Affordable Care Act today, it's pretty clear House GOP and Senate members are rather angry too.

Personally I think the poll results reflect the stress of an economy that's not doing much of anything for average folks of all stripes - history has shown that when times are tight, people look for something or someone to blame.

Those folks holed up in Oregon are obviously fed up and desperate for some way to show it; but I think they'd get a lot more done without the loaded weapons and the camouflage.

Clay Bundy pretty much sums it up; they should all pack their bags and just go home.

Whatever the Hell it is they're so pissed about it's really not worth dying over.

The Stepford Anchors & Trump Gets Bloodied

Fox GOP debate hosts loosen up before starting last week.

As much as I call out Fox News for it's elevation of rigid conservative ideology and fringe op-ed over actual facts, reality and truth, overall the channel had a pretty good week.

Their live coverage of the 1st debate between the Republican presidential candidates from Cleveland last Thursday night scored high ratings and debate anchors Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Brett Baier (pictured left) surprised many liberals and progressives with a relentless series of well-researched and hard-hitting questions that kept the candidates on edge.

Personally I was expecting slow-pitch softball but they delivered fast balls over the plate all night; to me only Ohio Governor John Kasich really hit it back out of the park with his comments on same-sex marriage and defying his party to accept the expansion of Medicare which is a major component of the Affordable Care Act.

Trump shrugs off his ignorance during Thursday's debate

Remarkably, when confronted with evidence of his own misogynist comments against women by Megyn Kelly, Donald Trump reverted to a bizarre subtle "threat" against her that he'd have to re-think his relationship with her simply because she was asking him the questions millions of Americans want to know.

Seriously, what is it that has to come out of this buffoon's mouth before the RNC realizes what a liability he is for Republicans in the 2016 general election and finally cuts him loose?

If his report card from fact-checkers monitoring the debate was any gauge the GOP needs to cut that rope pronto.

After the debate, Trump had the gall to try and brush off the fact that Kelly kicked his ass on national television by suggesting she was tough on him because she was menstruating; and his asinine "blood comment" has drawn outrage even from his fellow GOP presidential candidates. 

It also got Trump uninvited from the Red State Gathering event coming up this weekend in Atlanta as conservatives move to distance themselves from his ignorance, blustering toxicity and anger.

Trump even made a lame attempt to explain away his "blood comment", but that ship has already sailed; and Trump seems genuinely confused at the backlash against him.

After all he's only saying what he thinks conservative white Americans want to hear; and let's not pretend a guy who refers to African-Americans collectively as "the blacks" is speaking to any other demographic.

Trump is speaking to the Fox News audience.

"Fair & balanced"? Female Fox News hosts

On Saturday afternoon, a post on DailyKos.com by Injolt posed an interesting question that's puzzled many people; "Why Are All the Female News Anchors At Fox News Blonde?" 

Accompany the article was the image to the left showing the photos of all the female Fox News anchors cropped next to one another.

Now even though I may have philosophical differences with the generally slanted content produced by said female Fox anchors, I'm not demeaning their professional ability or anything.

But there's clearly a creepy "Stepford Wives" aspect to their all having pretty much the same shade of blond hair like it's part of a uniform or something.

An August 3rd op-ed / blog post penned by essayist and cultural critic Chauncey DeVega entitled "Dear White America: Your Toxic Masculinity Is Killing You", written as an open letter to white people on his Indomitable blog about the dangers of what he calls "Toxic White Masculinity", offers some insight into Injolt's question about why all the female Fox News are blond. 

In the article (which I first read about on The Field-Negro's blog the other day) DeVega discusses, in part, the dangers of the distorted media perspective perpetuated by Fox News on a daily basis. 

DeVega shrewdly observes that Fox has "created an alternate reality for many white Americans where down is up and up is down so to speak." in which the Fox News viewing audience which is 92% white during prime time, exists.

The Fox News bubble doesn't reflect the America that actually exists, it reflects a culturally isolated walled-off suburban America the Fox News audience wants to see; one that is continually reinforced by the ideas of political extremists and "mainstream" white supremacists like Ann Coulter, Laura Graham, Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan. 

The blond news anchor pictured above is a psychological reflection of what the Fox News audience sees; there are no Hispanic, Asian or women of color of African descent who host on Fox, though there are certainly very conservative women journalists from each of those demographics in this country.

During the debate, we didn't see that side from the Fox hosts, who seemed particularly intent on reaching out to the much more centrist view point that represents where mainstream America actually exists - and the ideological center from where the next president will elected in 2016.

In short, last Thursday night in Cleveland Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Brett Baier temporarily stepped out of the Fox bubble to connect to reality.

The hard-hitting questions crafted by the hosts and their producers at Fox strike me as a calculated two-prong effort to begin to separate Donald Trump from the field of legitimate Republican candidates, and specifically silence the backlash from progressive and more liberal and centrist-leaning media organizations who've become adept at calling Fox out for it's BS.

What we saw last Thursday was a complete 180 from the 2008 election when Fox essentially created the Tea Party by lending non-stop coverage to what was then and still is, essentially a fringe extremist political movement that reflects the politics of a very small fraction of the total American electorate.

The Tea Party was barely (if at all) mentioned at last Thursday's event cleverly designed to reach towards the center, but if you click over to Fox you won't have to wait long to hear the vestiges of the Tea Bagger ideology where they butter their bread.

Fox was on it's best behavior for the debate, and the anchors came off like real journalists for a change.

But they're still Fox and they still pitch their tent far outside the boundaries of the mainstream American mindset.