David A. Love's Open Salon Blog

Will Obama Help Change Asia’s Racism?

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:11:27 -0500

For the nations that were a part of President Obama’s recent Asian tour, surely this was a new experience for them. For the first time, they greeted and hosted the most powerful person in the world, one of the most brilliant people they’ve ever met. And for the first time, that person is a man of African descent. It has been a long journey since the 1955 Bandung Conference, that historic meeting of African and Asian states striving for self-determination and against colonialism. Meanwhile, black people today are often stereotyped in Asian countries as dirty, violent, mentally deficient and otherwise inferior - not unlike the ways in which the West has portrayed people of color for years.

Although symbolism has its limits, surely, it means a lot for international relations to have a fresh face on the scene in the form of Obama, a leader of the world who has lived in the world. Obama was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia. His half sister is Asian American, and one of his half brothers is an African American living in China. No other president has had such an international background, or such potential to make a difference on the world stage.

But for Asian nations, white skin was the traditional standard of beauty and prosperity. In the old days, the poorer folks were darker because they had to work in the fields, where they were exposed to the sun.

As China welcomes Obama, the nation is forced to deal with its long-standing prejudices toward black people. But the discrimination is internal as well. The Chinese government has been heavy-handed in its treatment of the country’s aggrieved Uighur Muslim minority, and has waged cultural genocide against the people of Tibet.

In India, the caste system, although officially banned, still lives on. Brown and black faces predominate in this nation of over 1 billion people. However, white skin is desirable, and skin whitening creams are popular.

And Japan has had a longstanding problem with racism and xenophobia. Even today, one can find signs that say “No Foreigners Allowed” and “Japanese Only”, or a recent TV commercial depicting President Obama as a monkey. In 2005, Doudou Diene, special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, found that discrimination in Japan is "deep and profound." He added that “This xenophobic drive is expressed by associating minorities, certain minorities, to crime, to violence, to dirt.”

These Japanese sentiments do not apply solely to foreigners and foreign workers. Despite its self-portrayal as a homogeneous society, Japan has its own minority groups that historically have been regarded as inferior. For example, the Ainu, an indigenous ethnic group, has suffered from displacement and cultural assimilation, higher levels of poverty and unemployment, and lower levels of health and education. Over 1 million Japanese of Korean descent - products of Japanese wartime colonization and forced labor - are treated as foreigners in the country of their birth. They face a “hidden apartheid”, in which they face discrimination in housing and employment, and feel pressure to change their Korean names and blend in society. Further, the Burakumin are an outcaste group similar to the untouchable caste in India. They face discrimination because their feudal ancestors held occupations such as butchers, tanners and gravediggers - death-related jobs that were considered tainted and unclean under Buddhist and Shinto practices.

The topic of racial attitudes in Asia has fascinated me for a long time. In high school, I traveled to Japan as an exchange student and lived with a family in Tokyo. I majored in East Asian Studies in college, and wrote my thesis on Japanese perceptions of foreigners. After college, I worked as one of a handful of gaijin (foreigners) in a Japanese bank, and later for the Tokyo office of a major U.S. advertising agency. Living in Japan was a life-altering experience for me, and in a good way. Being a true foreigner in another culture provided me with a broader world perspective, and helped me deal with adversity.

Overall, my Japan experience was positive. It took some time to get used to the stares, or the occasional child who wanted to touch my skin or hair. Then there were the people who assumed I was a hip-hop entertainer, or a baseball player, or some other racial stereotype of a black man in Japan. Clearly, there was an embrace of black culture in Japan. The music and swagger of black people permeate international popular culture. And as I went to work in my business suit on the Tokyo subway, I couldn’t help but laugh to myself as I passed by Japanese teenagers sporting their dreads, hip-hop gear and Afrocentric t-shirts. But at the same time, I had to endure my fellow employees at the company dormitory. Some employees at the bank had the idea to throw a party, in which everyone would come dressed in blackface. After I protested, they cancelled their plans, but only after lecturing me about the need for foreigners to understand Japanese culture.

I believe that as time passes and the world shrinks, it becomes more difficult for discrimination to find a safe harbor. Modern technology serves to eliminate borders and expose our activities before the light of day. The nations of Asia, like the U.S., have a long way to go before they eradicate racism. And yet, despite its legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism, America elected a man by the name of Barack Obama as president. The leaders of Asia now must deal with a man of African descent as the leader of the American empire. And he isn’t a racial stereotype, for whatever that is worth. Certainly, that alone must give them pause.

PTSD Creates Fort Hoods Everywhere

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:11:04 -0500

It is an understatement to say the recent massacre at Fort Hood, Texas is a horrible tragedy. Pundits have said much about the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Nidal M. Hasan. And they will likely say a great deal more about his motives, his state of mind, terrorism, and al-Qaeda.

I knew it wouldn’t be long before the usual suspects would be rounded up, and the discussion would degenerate into a talk about Islamic extremism and purging Muslims from the military. Hate crimes and scapegoating of the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities are the unfortunate consequences in such an environment. All of America’s young white male ex-marines did not bear responsibility for Timothy McVeigh and his bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, so why should the Muslim community shoulder a burden that does not bear their name?

We should be concerned that at this tragic moment, society will miss a unique opportunity to address the effects of war, and the problems of violence and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The National Institute of Mental Health defines PTSD as “an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include violent personal assaults, natural or human-caused disasters, accidents, or military combat.” PTSD can cause many symptoms, such as flashbacks, bad dreams, difficulty sleeping, depression, emotional numbness, and feeling “on edge”.

Secondary trauma involves the emotional and psychological effects of working with traumatized people. Therapists, social workers and others who associate with victims of violence can develop symptoms of PTSD. As for an Army psychiatrist such as Hasan, listening to the horrific war stories of his clients on a daily basis must have taken its toll.

As Sandra Bloom and Michael Reichert point out in their book Bearing Witness: Violence and Collective Responsibility, we live in a violent culture that promotes trauma and organizes around trauma. Sadly, we pass that trauma to the next generation, and create a vicious cycle of violence. And society is like the psychiatric patient who must hit rock bottom and show life threatening symptoms before crying out for help. “Our entire culture is doing the same thing - manifesting such extremes of pathology that we can no longer deny that something is pervasively wrong,” the authors suggest. “We manifest this cry for help in our rate of firearm deaths, crimes of violence, and in the epidemic of child-on-child assaults.”

In a nation where Columbine-style school shootings are virtually commonplace, and aggrieved employees “go postal” and mow down their coworkers as a matter of course, Hasan is by no means alone. And as a repository for violence, the military is not dealing with untreated mental illness among its ranks. That Hasan was a mental health professional underscores the military’s failure to deal with a widespread problem.

PTSD afflicts 300,000 veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps as many as 15% of returning soldiers. Yet, many do not receive the medical treatment they need. Last year there were 128 confirmed suicides by army personnel and 41 by marines, the highest on record. The suicide rate among soldiers in Iraq is five times higher than in the Persian Gulf War, and 11% higher than during Vietnam. In fact, the military suicide rate is higher than the overall U.S. rate, the first time since Vietnam.

Further, stress-related homicides by soldiers - at home and abroad, active duty and after they return home - amount to a crisis situation that does not receive the attention it warrants. Crime has been on the rise on military bases since 2003, according to a recent U.S. Army study. The study also found that soldiers who experienced more combat, and whose units sustained more casualties, had a higher risk of developing mental illness, criminality, and conduct problems.

Prisons are repositories for the mentally ill that eschew rehabilitation and treatment. Consequently, these institutions create sicker people and better criminals in the process. Above and beyond the inherent madness, violence and criminality that institutions of war already represent, the U.S. military seems to assume a similar role. And the ticking time bomb originates not from the jacket of an al-Qaeda suicide bomber, but from within the ranks of the U.S. armed forces.

In the aftermath of Fort Hood, more time spent on gratuitous anti-Arab and anti-Muslim scapegoating is more time that PTSD is not addressed among veterans and active-duty personnel. Additional Fort Hoods are in waiting. However, the larger issue is that society must deal with the mental health effects of trauma and violence - not only on the battlefield, but at home on the streets of America. Violence begets violence, and war is terror, whether it occurs in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Philly, East L.A. or Chicago.

Absolute Corruption is the Rule in America

Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:11:22 -0500

Often, people will look at a high-profile example of corruption, and conclude that the egregious act is an exception to the rule. In reality, it might be the tip of the iceberg.

On October 29, 2009, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did a wonderful thing when it expunged the records of as many as 6,500 juveniles in Luzerne County. That’s not a misprint.

Two judges in that county were sent up the federal river for locking up thousands of innocent children over five years, in exchange for $2.6 million in kickbacks from private juvenile detention centers. Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan helped the developers secure the county contracts to build the prisons. Moreover, they filled the detention centers with warm bodies— many of whom were first-time offenders with minor infractions— and illegally denied the teens access to an attorney.

In the case of Luzerne, the “cash for kids” scheme was a coldblooded expression of greed, and we should not downplay the seriousness of the crimes committed. Yet, what happened in this rural county in northeastern Pennsylvania is a reflection of what America’s criminal justice system has become— a for-profit, money-making enterprise.

Often, our poorer children, disproportionately of color, are funneled into a cradle-to-prison pipeline through adulthood. With a criminally negligent public school system, and job opportunities outsourced abroad, many children at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are ensured a future of little else than street corners or prison bars. In fact, many urban schools are nothing more than prison prep, complete with police and metal detectors.

Interestingly, the children of Luzerne, a county which is nearly 97% white, did not resemble the “usual suspects” in the criminal justice system. But that really is not the point— when prisons are a capitalistic endeavor, warm bodies are needed as the raw materials, and so they must come from somewhere. And consequently, justice takes a backseat to dollars. From the foodservice industry and the phone companies, to the Wall Street bankers and the investors, many people have a vested interest in filling up those empty prison beds and maximizing their cut. American capitalism made the U.S. prison population the world’s largest at 2.5 million, with mass incarceration for nonviolent drug offenses and victimless crimes.

And American-style capitalism is problematic for the culture of corruption it has enabled, in the absence of an effective regulatory framework. Much attention has been paid to Bernie Madoff, that poster child of the Ponzi schemes, who defrauded investors out of $65 billion. The damage he created is impressive, from the family savings that were forever lost, to the charities that went under. But like the judges in Luzerne County, Madoff was merely a cog in a wheel of corruption that enabled greed.

Madoff himself said he was surprised his scheme lasted so long, and that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigators were so clueless about his fraudulent activities over 16 years. The fact is, some members of the SEC staff were inexperienced or just idiots. Further, Madoff had too much credibility with the SEC and was not properly investigated, with red flags uncovered yet ignored.

With the deregulation of the financial sector and the evisceration of the Glass-Steagall Act came the financial crisis of 2008. The system had become the Ponzi scheme. The economy was built on paper shuffling and no tangible products. Consumers were preyed upon with sketchy, deceptive and destructive subprime mortgages. Banks gambled people’s money in high-risk, high-stakes poker games. And with a revolving door between Wall Street and the Treasury department, the same people with the gambling problem are running the casino, and “monitoring” it as well.

The banks that ruined the country swore by the free market when it suited them. But now, they gladly accept their corporate welfare bailout checks, and scoff at the rest of us. Wall Street has rebounded, business as usual, and Gordon Gekko is smiling. Meanwhile, America’s former middle class is joining the ranks of the poor, and the foreclosed are filling the nation’s homeless shelters. Short of bold government action of Rooseveltian proportions, there will be no economic recovery for everyday people. After all, the unemployed, the homeless, and the soon-to-be unemployed and homeless generally are not big spenders.

The moneyed interests also have corrupted the political process, and a prime example is the behavior of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and the “Blue Dog” Democrats in the health care reform debate. Lieberman has earned a special place in the hearts and minds of progressives of late for vowing to stand with Republicans, and filibuster any health care bill that contains a public option. He has even said he would rather have no bill at all than a bill with a public option.

In American political folklore, the Senate is presented as an august deliberative body where cooler heads prevail, where genteel statesmen and stateswomen put the brakes on rash and potentially harmful legislation, for the betterment of all. In reality, the Senate is a place where bold legislation for the public good is killed, because industries put a contract out on democratic ideas. And they instruct their employees, the senators, to stop these ideas in their tracks. This is a bipartisan endeavor. The Blue Dog Democrats, who are the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives of their party, distinguish themselves from other Democrats by their greed and hypocrisy. They receive the most corporate money, and have rejected less costly health reform bills that would hurt their benefactors. Ask Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the Senate Finance committee, and a key player in this year’s health reform debate. Baucus received $3.4 million from health and insurance industry interests between 2003 and 2008, more than any other member of Congress. Judging from the sad excuse for a health reform bill that came out of his committee, the industry got its money’s worth.

And Lieberman, the dirty dog that Democrats love to hate, is a fully-owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. Over the course of his career, he has received $2.6 million from the insurance companies. In addition, his wife is a health care industry lobbyist. Despite the overwhelming popular support in Connecticut for a public option, Lieberman has decided to follow the money. The Democrats must take Lieberman to the woodshed for his double-crossing ways, and relieve him of his coveted chair in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee. Not to be outdone, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), whose wife has made at least $2 million sitting on the board of a major health insurance company, hinted that he would filibuster the public option as well. Apparently, faced with the prospect of the Democratic leadership opening a big can of whup ass on him, he backed off.

The problem here is not just Senators Lieberman, Baucus, Bayh and a few other unscrupulous politicians. The fact is the entire political game, the link between money and politics, is rancid and is killing democracy. In the case of health care reform, the corrupting influence of money is literally sucking the country’s life blood.

As in the days of old before the 1929 stock market crash and the New Deal, corporations have far more influence in this society than they are entitled. Citibank gleefully proclaimed in a series of reports in 2005 and 2006 that the U.S. is a plutonomy— a system of wealth inequality in which the richest 1% hold a disproportionately large share of wealth. The rich are likely to get even wealthier, at the expense of labor. This rising inequality, Citibank predicts, will lead to a political backlash.

And some backlash is needed now. It is certain that the outrageous displays of greed and corruption deserve our attention and our outrage. But to dismiss them as exceptions to the rule, rather than products of a systemic, vulturous culture that must be attacked, is to choose a perilous path.

The Lawyers Who Would Torture

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:10:48 -0400

America’s current economic meltdown has crippled many professions, and the legal professional is no exception. As major law firms are engaging in the wholesale layoffs of lawyers, and freezing hiring for two years, newly minted lawyers must seek employment at department stores and fast food restaurants. One cannot help but conclude that collectively, lawyers are paying the price for the crimes of an errant minority.

I speak of that group of lawyers that, over the past decade, wrote the 30-page credit card contracts that are destroying millions of lives—contracts that are so intentionally murky and deceptively convoluted that even Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor and Congressional TARP overseer, cannot understand them. There were the Ponzi-scheming lawyers who conspired to swindle honest, hard-working citizens out of billions of dollars in life savings. And there were the lawyers and judges who knowingly placed the innocent behind bars—or even worse, sent them to their untimely death.

And finally, there were the government lawyers who wrote memos to the President, justifying the torture of terror suspects, and giving the green light to lawbreaking. These documents were not mere academic exercises, but rather weapons used to harm and oppress others. Further, these memos were a violation of international treaties and federal criminal statutes, denying its victims a fair trial governed by the rule of law. If there is a hell, whether actual or metaphysical, such a place would undoubtedly reserve a special wing for such lawyers. And they will be made to wear those proverbial gasoline drawers on their journey to that select subterranean locale.

To coincide with the Obama administration’s release of a report on the CIA’s brutal and coercive interrogations techniques, Georgetown legal scholar David Cole has presented a new book called Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable (The New Press, 2009). As its name suggests, the book discusses and presents in their entirety the actual legal memoranda that Bush administration lawyers wrote to justify torture. An important point which Cole makes is that while the actual CIA torturers should be held accountable for their brutal and illegal acts, the authors of these memos are culpable for their contortions of the law to sanction human rights abuses.

“Law at its best is about seeking justice, resolving disputes pursuant to principle and reasoned judgment, regulating state power, respecting human dignity, and protecting the vulnerable”, Cole says (p. 35). “Law at its worst treats legal doctrine as infinitely manipulable, capable of being twisted cynically in whatever direction serves the client’s desires….[T]hey used law not as a check on power, but as a facilitator of brutality, deployed against captive human beings who had absolutely no other recourse.”

Acting in bad faith, the legal hacks who crafted the torture memos engaged in sham analysis and tricky legal gymnastics. Motivated by a desire to please their superiors and little else, they merely invented law out of thin air, and created a law-free zone where perpetrators could act as they pleased. No superior legal analysis was presented from these allegedly superior legal minds. Ignoring that the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is absolute, they began with a false, predetermined conclusion that torture is acceptable. They proceeded to twist the law to rationalize their predetermined conclusion. Most of all, the analysis always absolved the CIA torturers— and the officials who authorized torture— of any wrongdoing. It makes you wonder what some people actually learn in law school, and what they hope to do with their law degree.

A nation is only as good as the laws that govern it. Unfortunately, throughout history we have witnessed the ways in which societies compromise their legal systems to oppress the many, benefit the few, and sanction the unconscionable. The law becomes a political game in which the powerful are exempt from the rules, and some are more equal than others. An arbitrary and capricious legal system can cloak injustice and the unjust with a veneer of legitimacy, fully backed by the apparatus of the state and the prestige of the courts. The Torture Memos reminds us through its post-game analysis that a free society must guard against such abuses of the law. Failure to do so will ensure that official criminal wrongdoing will occur. And as a matter of fact, it just did over the course of the Bush years.

Cross-posted from BlackCommentator.com and Huffington Post.

Rick Perry And His Texas Death Machine Are In Big Trouble

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:10:57 -0400

When criminals are about to be caught, they try to hide their wrongdoing. When drug dealers hear the police sirens, they dump the stash in the alley or flush it down the toilet. When the Nazi officers in the concentration camps heard the allied forces approaching, they destroyed—and in many cases murdered—the evidence. There’s something about the light of day when it shines its truth upon you.

And when a Texas state commission started looking into a report that a faulty arson investigation apparently put an innocent man to death, Gov. Rick Perry replaced the commission and called the dead man a monster.

Because that’s what Southern hick town justice is all about.

Cameron Todd Willingham is now a free man, but unfortunately it took death to release him from the confines of his prison bars. He was executed on February 17, 2004 for the 1991 arson deaths of his three children. Gov. Perry refused to grant him a 30-day stay, despite questions about his guilt. According to a bogus forensics report, Willingham’s house was intentionally burned down.

In 2005, Texas instituted a forensic science commission to investigate mistakes and wrongdoing by forensic scientists. Baltimore fire expert Craig Beyler, who was hired by this commission to look into the Willingham case, concluded that there were no scientific grounds to characterize the fire as an act of arson. As The New Yorker reported, Beyler said the approach of the arson investigator in the case denied rational reasoning, was based on "folklore and mysticism rather than science," and violated "not only the standards of today but even of the time period." This, in a state whose fire investigators typically had a high school diploma, and unlike other states, no requisite experience and no specialized training or qualifications.

So, the Texas commission was reviewing Beyler’s report, and Gov. Perry, running for reelection, eliminated the members of the commission before they could issue their findings. Pure politics. After all, we don’t want people going around and talking about the execution of innocent people.

Meanwhile, Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that state’s highest criminal court, could find herself in deep trouble. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct initiated impeachment proceedings against Keller for incompetence, violating her duties as a judge and casting public discredit on the court. For a state such as Texas— with such abysmal standards of integrity in its criminal "justice" system—you must wonder what she did to stand out among the crowd.

Keller refused to keep the court open after 5pm when she knew Michael Richard, a death row inmate, sought a last-minute appeal challenging the constitutionality of his punishment of lethal injection. The inmate was unable to file an appeal and was executed. Also, Keller rejected a new trial for Roy Criner, a mentally retarded man convicted of rape and murder, even though DNA evidence showed that he did not rape the victim. "We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent," Judge Keller said. "We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important. When witnesses testify, and when jurors return a verdict, they need to know that they can’t come back later and change their minds."

Keller was unrepentant, and Perry said the execution of Willingham was appropriate based on the "totality of the issues". Ex-governor Mark White suggests that Texas might have to do away with the death penalty altogether, given that it does not deter crime and is unfairly administered, with a risk of executing the innocent. Bad habits are hard to break, and with 423 executions since 1974, including 152 under Gov. George W. Bush, Texas has the most voracious appetite for capital punishment. But perhaps the Willingham case is what is needed to end the barbaric practice.

My take on this subject is that the death penalty never was intended to be fair, as it is a holdover from Jim Crow lynching. Capital punishment was an effort to transplant lynchmob justice into the courtroom and make lynching official, if not respectable. A broken system that was designed to be broken—just clean it up and no one will notice, they thought. Guilt or innocence is of little concern here, as finality reigns supreme. And Judge Keller essentially said as much. It is no accident that the states of the former Confederacy— the states with the most violent racial history, a deep legacy of extrajudicial terror and killings— have been among the most enthusiastic executioners. Interestingly, those states also seem to have the lowest educational and health standards. Typically, the inmates on death row are people of color, and poor white folk like Mr. Willingham, those who lack resources and are unable to afford the best justice money can buy. We will never know how many people have been wrongfully executed. But Cameron Todd Willingham certainly would not have been the first. And perhaps we will never know how many opportunistic individuals have built their political careers on the corpses of the executed, whether guilty or innocent.

Rick Perry and Sharon Keller now have ethical clouds hanging over their heads. They utilized death as a political tool, but now, ironically, the death machine that helped bolster their careers could be their undoing. Yet, both are appropriate spokespersons for the death penalty. They have helped perpetuate an inherently unjust, incompetent and capricious system that legalized the lynchmob.

Cross-posted from BlackCommentator.com.