Tag Archives: racism

HISTORY LESSON; Small Government or No Government?

HISTORY LESSON: SMALL GOVERNMENT, NO GOVERNMENT ?

Louise Annarino

2-17-2012

 

Republican and Libertarian 2012 presidential candidates have followed two themes: small government, or no government. In support of these complimentary positions they rewrite American history, even Mr. History Gingrich who should know better does so.

 

Colonial Americans did not dump tea in Boston Harbor because they opposed taxes; but, because they were unrepresented in the British Parliament. Initially, they did not want  to end government but to participate in it. The corruption and despotism of British monarch George III, the arrogance and disdain of the British Parliament toward colonial interests, and the overriding desire to refill a depleted British treasury following the Seven Years War on the backs of colonists stirred the minds and hearts of the American colonists who began to see themselves as simply “Americans”. They declared their independence from Britain and immediately started designing a government very like the one they overthrew, with some interesting twists learned from native American political structures.

 

For example, the British Parliament has two chambers: the House of Lords (aristocracy), and House of Commons (everyone else). One of the hottest arguments after the revolution was between those who wanted to call George Washington “King-Your Majesty-Your Highness” and those who wanted to avoid all things aristocratic and call him “Mr. President”. Mr. Washington insisted on the latter, and shunned all signs of royalty. Americans chose a bi-furcated legislative body, the Senate and The House of Representatives. Their response to despotism and the threat of autocratic rule was a “separation of powers” between the Executive,Legislative and Judicial Branches of government. “We the People, By the People, and For the People” was born.

 

Initially, they favored a “confederation” of quite independent states based on the Native American “confederation of tribes” model; but, soon recognized the need for a strong federal government, affirmed early on by The U.S. Supreme Court. The failure to directly address the slavery issue and women’s right to vote, despite Abigail Adams’ warning to her husband John to “mind the ladies”, remained a stain on self-government and equal rights for all citizens; and, eventually led to a civil war.

 

I have been watching Ken Burns’ THE CIVIL WAR. It is appalling that after such horrific suffering caused by secessionists and slave owners with the support of Southerners, including West Point graduates, among them Robert E. Lee, who abandoned their oaths to support the United States of America and called it “honorable”, that our current batch of presidential candidates would also suggest secession, states rights, and the honor of the American people as appropriate policy within the Republican Party. The Republican Party, The Grand Old Party (GOP) which gave us Abraham Lincoln as its first presidential candidate. It is shameful;how far the Republican Party has fallen.

 

We must not accept a discussion of secession to be considered a legitimate possibility. To attack President Obama as unpatriotic while behaving so unpatriotically themselves is the height of hypocrisy. They use the threat of secession as a means of attacking a strong federal government; just as it was used to instigate a civil war 200 years ago. Why would they risk such division among our citizens? The same reason they did then…money and power. Racist code talk, outright racist comments, and outright lies about President Obama’s policies and leadership should have been laid to rest 200 years ago.

 

Those, who argue a strong and active federal ( Paul,Perry,Gingrich,Romney et al) or state government (Governors Kasich R-OH and Walker R-WI) takes away our liberty are wrong. If by “government” one means government led by a despot this is true. But WE are the government. WE pass legislation, make rules, interpret laws through those WE elect to represent us in those endeavors while we go about earning a daily living. WE are not despots. WE are not deprivers of our own liberty. WE decide what government does;despite the fact George W. Bush “the Decider” alleged otherwise. The Government is not something apart from ourselves; it is US. When Republican candidates attack government, they attack US. WE are “we the people”. Why attack our governments? Because WE are all that stands in the way of those 1% “aristocrats” who want to make money at our expense. Have we forgotten the our history?

 

In the meantime, they distract us and delude us into thinking our governments, federal-state-local are attacking us. We are under attack, but not by government. Discover and support your own self-interest…your government.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Ashamed To Be A White Woman

ASHAMED TO BE A WHITE WOMAN

Louise Annarino

January 26, 2012

Did you see THE HELP? In the movie based upon the book of the same name, the racism of white women takes center stage, but the African-American women are the stars of the show. When I saw Republican Governor Jan Brewer, of Arizona angrily shake her finger at President Obama at the foot of the staircase as he emerged from his jet, I thought of this movie. Governor Brewer was behaving with the same arrogant disregard for the humanity of President Obama as the white women in the movie did their household help. She displayed the intrinsic racism of white women, which we white women must confront and overcome on a daily basis.

 

What does this disrespectful act show? It shows her premise that she is superior to President Obama, that he must answer to her, and that she is free to publicly shame him. Why? How? He is not her child. He is not a boy. He is an adult male. He is the President of the United States of America. He is a guest of the state of Arizona. He invited her to be present on the tarmac for his arrival, an honor HE granted HER. And he is African-American. To the Gov. Brewers of the world the latter overrides every other consideration.

 

She says the president is “thin-skinned” because he told her that in her book, she misrepresented  a meeting he had with her in the White House. Immediately after the meeting she had told reporters it was “cordial’ and was ‘all smiles”; but, in her book she indicated President Obama had lectured her and was condescending to her.  In other words, she accuses him of having an opinion and challenging her own. How dare he! She later tried to justify today’s behavior saying she felt  “threatened”. How many African-American men have been jailed or lynched on trumped-up assault charges by a white woman claiming she felt threatened? Too many. As a  further defense of her own rudeness she accuses the President of walking away from her while she was still talking. She accuses him of the very thing she did…behaving rudely.

 

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton was close enough to observe and overhear the interaction  between the two. He has indicated that the President did not prematurely leave the scene; but, in fact stayed much longer than he expected, and was very gracious and calm. In the photo itself, President Obama appears to be calming and comforting. It is not he who is angrily denouncing someone. When interviewed about the incident he continued to act graciously toward Gov. Brewer. The Governor’s attempt to justify her actions is not simply a reframing of truth to make herself look better; nor is it believable. It is a series of lies which defame President Obama. This confirms the President’s contention that her book misrepresented him. She is still misrepresenting him!

The most damning of all is that Gov. Brewer actually thinks we accept her justification. White women always expect to be believed when attacking an African-American man. Clearly, we can all see within the photo itself, and from comments of nearby observers that she was putting the “boy” in his place. To then add feeling threatened and accusing the President of wrongdoing confirm my initial impression that she behave with racist anima. This is despicable behavior. Unfortunately, it sells books.

Somedays, I am just ashamed to be a white woman. Today is one of those days.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

LETTERS FROM HOME: POLITICAL E-MAILS

LETTERS FROM HOME: Political E-Mails

Louise Annarino,

January 23, 2012

Political e-mails, I call them “letters from home”, from friends and family tend to fall into one of several categories:

  1. Ad hominem attacks on President Obama using “facts” proven untrue: e.g. refuses to show his birth certificate, apologist for America as evildoer, spending country into ruin, raised taxes etc.
  2. References to an un-cited article published by well-known news source as basis for  “facts” proven untrue.
  3. Religious pieces with art depicting Christ on the cross, candles with moving flames across the flag and cross; citing scripture etc. before attacking Obama for stopping Americans from praying, reading scripture or forcing them to pay for abortions.
  4. Letters from unknown  or anonymous (they would be destroyed if they disclosed their identity)persons, veterans, military personnel, or secret agents describing some horrendous anti-American act/ statement by President Obama which Politifact and other neutral fact checkers indicate are lies.
  5. Racist rants.

The one thing each of these has in common is that they intertwine reality with lies, their source cannot be found, there is no factual basis for the allegations contained within, they claim liberal-elitist media is keeping the story under wraps…AND…we are warned that if we do not forward this information something terrible will happen.

I used to go line-by-line refuting each allegation with facts which were properly cited to original source material, and hit “reply all” asking each person to forward my response to others whom they had sent the e-mail. I received 3 types of response:

  1. a personal attack on my character, intelligence and morality ( I am being prayed for all over America!);
  2. personal threats to maim or kill me;
  3. warnings to never send such Obama garbage to them again (of course they persist in continuing to send me attack Obama e-mails);
  4. no response at all.

Now, I just hit “delete”. Because such emails are not a true effort to communicate. The people who send them are not inherently stupid, nor deranged. They are not un-educated, nor unread. They are not mean, nor uncaring. They simply hate having an African-American president more they than hate sounding stupid. Yes, they also hate having a Democratic president. But what frightens them most is that the era of  heterosexual,white male dominance is over. They sense the game can’t be rigged in their favor much longer. African-Americans, Latinos, East Asians, West Africans and other new immigrant groups are gaining demographic majority far faster than anticipated. Women and the LGBT community are gaining professional and economic clout at an increasing pace. President and Michelle Obama are a daily “in-your-face” reminder that the power of privileged white men is on shaky ground. They need to dominate our political bodies: legislative, executive and judicial to maintain their presumed superiority. President Obama’s success are an affront to their control. They do not fear he is failing the country; they fear his success. What else can they do but lie … to themselves, to one another, and to us – their family and friends? And, when we do not buy the lie, they attack us personally.  I cannot lie to myself or to them, merely to hold the sense of family and friendship. I welcome the wonders a diverse leadership of this country can bring. As a woman, I resent their insistence I must accept their white, male dominance as a sacred reality. I am saddened by this loss of communion. I had enjoyed communicating with them. I no longer do. Is this how the Civil War became possible?

Even right-wing, Tea Party, Christian fundamentalist Michele Bachman is an unacceptable threat to the male dominance espoused by  today’s political conservatives: “Rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s Iowa coalitions director, Jamie Johnson, sent out an email saying that children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president. He wrote it in June, but it surfaced on the campaign trail in the fall.

“The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?’ ” Johnson’s email said.”

– DesMoines Register ,January 12, 2012 , Jennifer Jacobs;

Candidate Santorum offered no response; and Johnson, in an NBC interview stated his position is rooted in “classical Christian doctrine.”

That explains why so many people are praying for me! Please comment explaining how you handle such e-mails.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS