Social Justice Junkie
Header

Racial Entitlements vs. White Privileged Entitlements

March 18th, 2013 | Posted by David Whitfield in Racial and Political Justice - (4 Comments)

Why does racism persist and leadership abstains?

I realize that this blog is a bit salty; but as long as we have law officers (justices), Agents, supremacists, dominant, privileged, oppressors, social justice will be impossible for all. When Justice Scalia uttered “voting as a racial entitlement,” I kept thinking of the meaning of it. I thought if we interrogated privileged entitlements, we would see Agent a-la Leticia Nieto. Agent is a synonym for: supremacy, privileged, oppressor, and dominance, plus. Historically, when it comes to voting it was forbidden, matter of fact, illegal, for Blacks to learn to read; yet, at voting sites, Whites administered literacy tests; if Blacks couldn’t read, they couldn’t vote. And now it’s called racial entitlements? That speaks volumes of the dominant group’s intent; of course, there are exceptions.
 
What is this about? It’s about denial of the reality of ethnically, racially, and culturally different others. Meaning, those of us (Targets) who differ from the dominant group have an abnormal reality. Said differently, the Target’s reality is not a concern for the Agent. And when it comes to Targets, our existence is subsidiary, insignificant. This helps to justify the utterance of “racial entitlements.” It justifies neo-colonialism, oppression, powering over and not powering with; it justifies protracted segregated schools, neighborhoods; it justifies the hatred, lynchings, drownings, bombing of homes and churches during the civil rights era. And in this case, since most Agents are from the dominant group, the idea is to make neo-colonialism normal. Specifically, keep America White: dominate, oppress, and exploit ethnically, racially, and culturally different others. So, how long will this dominance last?
 
As I see it, dominance won’t last much longer because there is more awakening in the world; there is more hatred toward us (U. S. Americans) from a variety of non-White countries and cultures. North Korea and many of the Muslin countries come to mind. What many of us don’t realize is that seven-eighth (7/8th) of the world is non-White. And if members of the 7/8th decide to collaborate or collude against the 1/8th (the White, dominant world) the entire world scene will change. Think of who attacked us on 9/11? Members of the 7/8th. Who hates this country with a burning passion to destroy it? Many members of the 7/8th. Also, think of “that little raggedy-ass country,” as President Johnson called it—Viet Nam. That little raggedy-ass country defeated us.
 
We lost that war despite the atrocities committed by Americans while in Viet Nam: My Lai, where more than 500 Vietnamese were slaughtered. According to the Embassy of Viet Nam in Washington, D. C, a tally shows: that 50 of the Vietnamese were three years old or younger; 69 were between the ages of four and seven; 91 were between eight and twelve; and 27 were in their seventies or eighties. And then, “Beers for Ears,” which went like this: “The more ears you brought back, the more beers you got,” per the documentary “Winter Soldier.” Finally, old men were used for target practice; young Vietnamese girls were raped, etc., etc. Again, we lost that war. And we don’t have the courage to discuss it. And yet, we want to pick a fight with Iran; North Korea is threatening to attack us; and we have a very tired and overworked military. Plus, we treat our veterans and many of our citizens like crap. And that’s because, with few exceptions, our leaders aren’t leading.
 
Now, I sincerely hope nothing happens to this country; then again, how do we awaken the conscious of this land? What if China and North Korea, plus Iran were to collude against us? What would that look like? Do we want a non-White force to occupy this land before we get the message that our behavior toward those who differ is not acceptable? “White man slaps 19-month-old Black Baby”? White man with Swastika demands that no Black nurses are to touch his White Baby?
 
Why aren’t our national leaders leading? And why is it that many of them behave like political harlots? They peddle and their influence to the corporations rather than lead the country. And when does the supremacy stop?
Your thoughts are welcome.

We the People–Not We the Party

January 30th, 2013 | Posted by David Whitfield in Economic Justice | Political Justice - (0 Comments)

We the People—Not We the Party
A Call for Political and Economic Justice
Part I
 
“We are our choices.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
 
I just want to talk about what I see, feel, and think. Our republic is led by those who have neither the skills nor the will to lead; either they are feckless, gutless or both. I say that because we have many perennial problems, affecting the majority of the more than three-hundred million American citizens, except for about two percent of the population, meaning those who have most of the wealth. So, what are some of those perennial problems?
 
We have created a culture of graft and greed. Graft is greed’s friend; they are mutually supporting. This creates inequality, poverty, illiteracy, and more. Here’s a quick example. It’s about a prominent discrepancy in the pay equity or fairness. There’s a CEO who makes $5,000,000 per week (that’s million); that $125,000 per hour. And I defy anyone to cite a metric that justifies such. Yet many who work in his company, earn less than $10 per hour; that’s a bit more than $20,000 per year; others earn less, thus not a livable wage. Furthermore, per the Congressional Budget Office, a huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top 0.1 percent, whose average pay is $27 million per household, per year. The average income for the bottom 90 percent is $31,244 per household per year; therefore, a humongous discrepancy in pay, and one may say an excess or glut.
 
Another unending problem is that some 67% of corporations do not pay taxes. Yet our U. S. coffers are empty. The Economic Populist, Robert Oak, says,
“…America is broke and multinational corporations continue to blood suck the United States dry. …. The pattern becomes clear; U.S. Multinational corporations are out to not pay taxes, come hell or high water.”
 
This is supported by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations who held a meeting on “Offshore Profit Shifting and the U. S. Tax Code,” who asked: “Did you know U. S. Multinational Corporations have more than $1.7 trillion in untaxed profits stashed as undistributed foreign earnings and keep at least 60% of their cash overseas?” Would someone please tell me why that is legal?
 

Now, what do these discrepancies portend for broke America? Though the list of unfortunate results is relatively endless, let me offer a few: since U. S. coffers are empty, there will be fewer services: fewer police officers, resulting in less citizen security; less money for the poverty-stricken, especially children; fewer teachers resulting in less education for American children. America cannot afford not to educate its citizens. No wonder we have 44 million adults who cannot read these words: cannot read, period. Plus, some 90 million who are functionally illiterate; meaning, they are unable to read and understand between the fourth and eighth grades. Another shocking statistic is that only about 26% of Americans have a four-year college degree. That in itself is astounding. Though there are many more perennial problems, I think you get the picture of where we stand. So, what does “We the people”—not, “We the Party” have to do with these and other sorts of issues?
 
“There are two primary choices in life: to accept conditions as they exist, or accept the responsibility for changing them”
― Denis Waitley
 
I often think about our choices. For most of my life I have immersed myself in facilitating the development of leaders and leadership via the classroom, training room, presentation halls, and living rooms. Realizing that I don’t have the power to change someone, I recognize many of us crave societal change. So how do we capture that energy? How do we support a group’s creativity, a People’s creativity toward choice-creation? I believe we can do it through “Choice-Creation.”
 
What choices should we make? Or, should I say what choices ought we make and what questions do we ask? I believe Brandon October, a South African vocalist who says it best: “The choices we make, determine our destiny.” We the people—not we the party, must create a different conversation: a choice-creating conversation. One way I have learned to do this is by using a strategy called Dynamic Facilitation, an effective yet different way of holding creative space for a group, opening up thinking, leading to a powerful level of creativity. In the process of shifting our thinking, we shift our consciousness, our conversation, says Rosa Zubizarreta, an experienced and seasoned Dynamic Facilitator. This process is about literally noticing what is alive in the room, listening to what participants have to say, drawing them out, by encouraging them to “say more.” To paraphrase Zubizarretas, “it is not about taking sides; it’s about “taking ALL sides.” This leads to self-organizing without regard to political party; thus: We the People, not, We the Party.
 
Mind you, this is not brainstorming. I liken it to organized chaos or self-organizing where the Dynamic Facilitator helps create a “whole landscape” of an issue, be it pay inequity, tax inequity, or school desegregation. Participants’ contributions may be understood by the following categories in this process of Dynamic Facilitation (Zubizaretta, 2012, p. 20):
 
Problem statements—Examples: how do we fix pay inequity? How do we amend the tax code, making it fair for all, including corporations? When it comes to compensation, how do we bring about economic justice? There is a culture of greed.
 
Solutions—or creative contributions from participants, examples: Totally revamp the American compensation system. Critically examine the worth of different jobs from different occupations. Think economic justice. Take the greedy to task in front of the community where they work and in front of their workforce.
 
Concerns—Examples: the rich will never agree to a revamped compensation system; or, the corporations will not endorse it. People aren’t educated enough to warrant more pay, Greed is here to stay.
 
Data—this category involves beliefs or perceptions about pay equity in this example; or a complaint about what works and what doesn’t; and statements about what participants believe. It may also include statistical information.
 
Ask yourself, how it would be to have few to no rules of engagement where your feelings of passion and peril are not only welcomed; they are needed. Where emotions are necessary to create the most salient choice, where what you say is recorded and becomes part of the group’s story, where you are not in a cue, where power is leveled to experience synergy; it is that synergy of mind and interest that weaves the room into a place it never expected to be.
Whereas this process is not a panacea, it has the potential to change our thinking regarding our issues, potential solutions, and possibly our worldview. I believe it will lead to choice-creating, away that we the people can not only get back in the game, but create a different game. And it is party-free: We the People—Not We the Party.
 
Since I cannot do justice to the Dynamic Facilitation process in this blog, please visit: http://wisedemocracy.org/; or http://tobe.net/ ; or http://www.societysbreakthrough.com/SBChapter5.pdf; or http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html. You will see how this process is used in creating a different conversation of “we the people—not we the party,” potentially leading to both political and economic justice. Stay tuned for Part II.
 
Your thoughts?

Our Dysfunctional Education Systems Affect Economic Justice

December 1st, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Economic Justice - (3 Comments)

Your Education is worth what you are worth.
Anon
Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.
Bertrand Russell

Whatever happened to our school systems since the first school was built April 23, 1635, in Boston, Massachusetts, has adversely affected our communities, our economy, and our nation. Yet we rave about American exceptionalism. We have a relatively uneducated citizenry: evinced by only 27.2% of Americans have a bachelor’s degree, per the U. S. Census Bureau; only 8.9% have Master’s degree; and only 3% have earned a doctorate. Now what do these statistics portend for this “great democracy”? What does it mean?

It means 14%, or 43 million Americans cannot read these words—that’s 43,000,000. Not only do they not know what they don’t know, they do not know THAT they don’t know; meaning, they think being illiterate is normal. Add that to the 93,000,000 (that million) functionally illiterate adults: they cannot read and understand material between the 5th and 8th grades. It also means that we have three million jobs that we cannot fill—3,000,000 unfilled jobs: no qualified applicants. So, the ones who have a college degree don’t have the necessary skills employers are seeking. It also means that most of the college graduates are unable to write a grammatically correct sentence; they don’t know the difference between a colon and a semicolon. Not only that but half the nation is innumerate; meaning half of our citizens cannot do simple fractions, are unable to add two- or three-column numbers, cannot “add and carry,” and cannot balance a checkbook.

And when it comes to high school, we have 12th graders who cannot do 5th grade work. How do we explain that? How are students allowed to advance to the 12th grade and not be able to do 5th grade work? Consequently, the Department of Education’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel, found that:
• 78% of adults could not explain how to compute the interest paid on a loan.
• 71% couldn’t calculate miles per gallon on a trip.
• 58% were unable to calculate a 10% tip for a lunch bill.
 
What are we doing to our students, ourselves, our nation? And how do we compare internationally? Well now, a report from Harvard University’s Program of Education (2012) found that American students ranked 25th in math, 17th in science, and 14th in reading. Should we take our country back to 1635, when the first school was built? Since our mantra is, “Let’s take our country back.” To where?

Finally, our dysfunctional education systems need educational leadership; we need national leadership; we need community leadership; and we need family leadership. Our biggest deficit is leadership. Ergo, until we “fix” our leadership situation, our economy will suffer. When our economy suffers, our citizens suffer. That means economic justice is relatively dead.
What are your thoughts?

America’s Human and Race Relations: Where is the Leadership? Why the Social Injustice?

October 28th, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Racial and Political Justice | Social Justice | Uncategorized - (4 Comments)

We’re Not as Exceptional as We Think
Imagine a little boy watching his pregnant mother pushed to the ground by a tobacco-chewing, White row-walker, on a plantation in the Mississippi Delta. We’ll return to the plantation later.
 
Right now, I am furious. And I write this blog with rage and revulsion. I am distressed by the unabated, calcified, unmitigated, racial, sexual, and social discrimination we see today in 2012. And please don’t talk to me about what Jesus said and the word of God, until we talk of how we treat people.
 
We are good at cherry-picking the bible, the constitution, policy, our own memories, etc., without regard for how this affects the lives and well-being of fellow citizens. Our politicians want us to think that we are the most bodacious, bad-ass country on the planet and will manipulate the truth to uphold the shifting tides in our global leadership. Still number one, just elected the wrong leader; he’s not American enough, or capitalistic enough.
 
We can talk about the President, lie about him, badger him about his birth certificate, his ethnic origin, his college transcript, his religious affiliation, etc., all the while knowing that it’s not about that, but rather about the color of his skin. It is about getting, Barak Obama, that Black man out of that White House. Former Chief of Staff of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, made the most lucid and substantive statement about racism I have heard, especially coming from a White male.
 
Here’s what Colonel Wilkerson said. “My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people — not all of them, but most of them — who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that’s despicable.” [Italics are mine.] Colonel Wilkerson made my day. See video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/lawrence-wilkerson-colin-powell-sununu_n_2027721.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#slide=1416197
 
Although it was amazing to see someone speak the truth, in my head, I continue to struggle with racism, hatred, dominance, violence, and oppression that I learned firsthand on Mr. Moore’s plantation. As mentioned earlier, as a child, at the age of eight in the “great state” of Mississippi, I watched a tobacco-chewing, plantation row-walker, push my pregnant mother to the ground; and as she lay holding her stomach, he spat tobacco juice at her. Had she not moved her head, the spit would have landed in her face. I will never forget her groans, the expression on her face, tears, as she struggled to get up. I attempted to help her and with help from the other sharecropper women, she got back on her feet and wiped her tears. All the while grown men stood, agape, and did nothing, because they wanted to live. That scene has played in my head since; and it appears in my head almost daily; it will not go away. How does one make sense of this behavior? And when I hear about this being a Christian nation, I ponder oppression, dominance. My insides churn.
 
When will the oppression and suppression of non-Whites, children, and women stop? Where is the leadership? Why so much social injustice?
 
I have watched dominance fulfill this country’s mantra for centuries. It started as European settlers murdered their way from East to West, lying to the Indians, killing them, taking their land, raping their women, pushing them to the reservations, violating treaties. Their skin wasn’t the “right” color, just as Blacks and Hispanics. The Indians were seen (and still are) different, not Christian, ethnically, culturally different, and treated differently, violently. Do we really think we can continue this way, in the 21st century?
 
Dominance. Violence. Oppression. Racism. Look at voter suppression, threatening signs in non-White neighborhoods, intimidation, false accusations of voter fraud. Not too long ago, the Freedom Riders fought and died for voting rights; some were beaten; many were murdered. The FBI transcripts are clear: Viola Liuzzo, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, Medger Evers, and many more, lost their lives simply because they were helping fellow citizens exercise their right to vote. Today, again, in 2012, we still have to defend our right to vote, to stand our ground, reminding the powers that be, that we have a right to vote. Why? I am beyond frustration, anger, and being fed up! My strongest vote is for an “American Spring,” but without the violence. We, en masse, need to occupy every capitol place until the national leadership realizes what they are doing, or not doing.
 
Finally, what’s needed, in my view, is a change in worldview, leadership, and ideology. Racism, sexism, hatred, and violence will not keep this republic intact; will not create a strong nation from which we can offer the world leadership. A nation that can face its truths can be accountable to each other or hold complex discussions about these issues, leading to change. It will take a different leadership: one with audacity, authenticity.

Your thoughts are very welcome

Declining Dominance, Privilege, and Patriarchy: Threats to Global Justice

September 19th, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Economic Justice | Global Justice - (1 Comments)

Threats to Global, Social, Distributive, and Economic Justice
 
People are created to be loved. Things are created to be used. The reason the world is in chaos is because things are being loved and people are being used. —Aimi Razman
 
How do we explain the protests in the Middle East and other parts of the world? There is flag burning, bombing, firefights, murder, and mayhem. In my view, if we add a bit of dominance, and a pinch of patriarchy and privilege, we will have at least a portion of the answer. As a nation, we should rethink how we see the world, the planet, and the people occupying it. Our worldview is costing us severely: lives, money, and inclusion. Change in this regard requires different behaviors.
 
For centuries the dominant group has exerted its power, privilege, and patriarchy over women, people of color, culturally different others. Their power, privilege, and patriarchy are evinced by telling others how to live, where to live, where not to live, what to do, what not to do, how to be, how not to be, and the list goes on. Women are denied work or certain jobs because they are women, Blacks and Hispanics cannot live in certain places or buy that property because of what they are. Native Americans, the least discussed group and the poorest of all ethnic groups in America, struggle on reservations, isolated. Those relatively obvious examples have been alive and well and still are. These behaviors demonstrate control, greed, and being one-up. As we see in numerous (20) countries where citizens are responding by protesting, they don’t want to be controlled, dominated, abused; that means the landscape of dominance is changing: dominance is declining; hegemony is waning; the dominant group’s privilege is being threatened; their patriarchy is weakening. Ethnic groups and culturally different others have begun to affirm their presence, question their status, and assert their rights to be a part of this planet.
 
When it comes to global justice, social justice, economic justice, distributive justice, and the overall wellbeing of global citizens, dominance isn’t working for the benefit of all, only for a select few. So, how can we shift from using people and abusing people, to a support system that accommodates the different justices cited above? What would that look like? Would it minimize the unrest and civil strife? Would it eliminate the thousands of refugee camps, where millions of mostly women, children and the elderly suffer? My travel and experience tell me that most people, if not all, simply want the basics: food, shelter, clothing, clean drinking water, education, access to medical care, and most importantly control over their lives and well-being. Absent the basic will potentially lead to violence where innocent beings are hurt in many ways, not to mention that in some cases they are utterly slaughtered so that the dominant group retains control.
 
In closing, when it comes to the protests and chaos across the world, citizens who have been used are responding with violence, asserting their rights. And since the world population consists of one-eighth (1/8) dominant and seven-eighth (7/8) non-dominant, it is critical that those who exercise dominance, privilege, and patriarchy, change their behavior. If they don’t, I believe the response of the 7/8th will potentially lead to the worst world war imaginable.
 
What are your thoughts?

Gender Justice vs. Misogyny

August 25th, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Mysogyny - Hatred of Women - (0 Comments)

Who in the hell do they think they are, trying to control women’s bodies?
And they call themselves leaders!?
 
Why do men brazenly abridge the rights of women? I believe because many men are misogynists—haters of women. Jack Holland states in his book Misogyny, when it comes to men: “This is what makes misogyny so complex: it involves a man’s conflict within himself…for the most part, the conflict is not even recognized.” The conflict among men and within men, is wreaking havoc for women, against women. This is evinced by legislators, so called “leaders,” in all 50 states have introduced one thousand, one-hundred (1,100) provisions related to reproductive rights. At the end of 2011, they had passed 135 new provisions, 92 of which target abortion rights. And they call themselves leaders? These men are charlatans, imposters, and don’t even know what leadership is.
 
“Leadership should be born out of the understanding of the needs of those who would be affected by it,” said Marian Anderson. Men continue to write “contracts” against women with the aim of subordinating them, controlling them, demeaning them, and denying them their equal rights to gender justice.
 
Men wrote the social contract; men wrote the sexual contract (please see Carol Pateman’s book, The Sexual Contract), where she discusses men’s control of women’s bodies). Here’s what I would like to know: Who controls men’s bodies? Patriarchy? Modern patriarchy is alive and well. Carol Pateman says, “Modern patriarchy is characterized by a contractual relationship between men, and part of that contract involves power over women.” This power is executed via three definitive contracts: the marriage contract which accords men or husbands the right to sexual access without being charged with marital rape. The prostitution contract according to Pateman requires equal access by men to women, in particular sexual access: access to their bodies. Again, who’s in charge of men’s bodies? And finally, the contract for surrogate motherhood, Pateman says, “can be understood as more of the same, although in terms of access to women’s reproductive capacities.”
 
Apparently, most men, especially misogynistic legislators have never heard the meaning of gender justice. In her “Gender Justice and Reconciliation,” Nahla Valji says it is “…defined as ‘the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic and social rights on the basis of gender equality…’” Gender justice is essential for women’s survival, economic freedom, and their reproductive freedom. Susan B. Anthony said it best in 1876, in the Declaration of Rights for Women: “We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all the civil and political rights that belong to citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever.”
 
Not only do women tolerate the legislative, misogynist, cavemen mentality (from men), but they are also exploited. According to the United Nations, women do 66% of the world’s work; they produce 50% of the world’s food; and earn a whopping 10% of the world’s income; yet they possess a paltry 1% of the world’s property? Is that gender justice?
And how do we reconcile the numerous atrocities against women and girls: sex trafficking, sex slavery, political rape, domestic rape—that every 6 minutes in this country a woman is raped? That’s every 6 minutes! In 2009, 16,150 women were raped or sexually assaulted in our military; only 8% were prosecuted; only 2% were convicted. And let’s not forget the price women pay during wars. They are raped as a form of retaliation; yet, they had nothing to do with what started the stupid war in the first place. “It is generally accepted that because of gendered powered relations, it is women who pay the disproportionate costs of war,” says Valji. Is this also part of the sexual contract? Mind you, we are talking about half the population here.
Then there’s maternal mortality: a woman dies every minute, trying to give birth to a child. Where is the gender justice in all of this? What about social justice and gender justice when it comes to women’s wellbeing? What tells us that this abuse and primitive treatment of women is acceptable? Does our community endorse this treatment? And what would Jesus say about all of this? Mind you, Hell is closed; and all the devils are here on earth.
 
Florynce Kennedy says, “The biggest sin is sitting on your ass.” Think about how we participate in misogyny. To what degree are we complicit?
What are your thoughts?

Our Mendacious Nation: When Leaders Lie, People Die

July 4th, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Economic Justice | Social Justice - (0 Comments)

Our Mendacious Nation

When leaders lie, people die.

Imagine a Liar-in-Chief as Commander-in-Chief.  When leaders lie, people die!  And if you don’t believe that, just look at the wars of Viet Nam and Iraq; both wars were based on lies.  It is highly likely that we will put liars in the White House this November, along with a Liar-in-Chief, with the assistance of all of us.  It doesn’t matter whether we vote; we are complicit in their election, placement, etc.  Apathy and complacency are alive and well among us.   We say little or nothing about liars running for political or national office.  We the people have “lamed out” on our civic responsibilities.  We should occupy, challenge them, especially Romney and his lot.  Very few news analyst or reporters will mention it, or confront the person uttering the lie.  Thomas Jefferson chimed in about this pathology: “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time till at length it becomes habitual.”  Jefferson’s quote is consistent with Mitt Romney’s behavior.
 
We have diminished the value of truth; truth has become just another point of view.  And the opposite of right is not wrong; the opposite of right is lying. We have begun to create a culture of lying; that means it will be “the way we do things around here.”  That’s one of Edgar Schein’s definition of culture—“the way we do things around here”—we lie. I say “we” because we’re all in this together, despite what our feckless, plantation style leaders and their concurrent row-walkers say. McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, and their followers: all tend to distort the facts, a code phrase for lying.   Nietzsche said it best: “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”
 
I often wonder about the psychology of lying. Why do men lie?    Men lie more than women.  According to psychologist, Feldman, we tell lies when our self-esteem is threatened; that’s one of the main culprits, causing us to lie at higher levels.  One study (sample size 2,000) claims that women average three lies daily; men lie six times daily.  “Men are liars.  We’ll lie about lying if we have to. I’m an algebra liar.  I figure two good lies make a positive,” says Tim Allen. How’s that for rationalizing this pathology.  Two lies make a truth?  Really?
 
Many of our national leaders lie for success; they lie for personal and political gain.  Abraham Lincoln chimed in: “No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar.”  This is consistent with Mark Twain who said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”  Leaders who lie constantly, have “…entered the territory of lies without a passport for return,” said Graham Greene. Do we want a Liar-in-Chief in the White House?  Solzhenitsyn too, chimed in:  “In our country the lie has become not just another moral category but a pillar of the State.” Is that what we want as a pillar of our State?
 
Finally, the consequences of leaders lying are severe and costly. Their lying have led to wars; theirs lying has cost human suffering, death, and destruction.  Their lying has a deleterious effect on the administration of economic justice, distributive justice, and social justice.
 
What does lying portend for the survival of this nation?

Any thoughts?

Foxes vs. Chickens: Feckless, Feeble Leadership

June 26th, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Economic Justice - (0 Comments)

I have often said and still do, that many of our national leaders have neither the skills nor the will to solve the nation’s problems; they are not leaders but rather, political prostitutes, selling their influence and power to Wall Street and other corporations for money, money that keeps them in office. Consequently, they are not doing the people’s work; they are not doing the nation’s work; and they are not doing their job. So, why are they on the people’s payroll? Who pays their salary? They don’t have the guts to stand up to the big banks and other financial entities. They are feeble. And “Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government,” said Edmund Burke.
 
Their feebleness reached a zenith when members of the Senate Banking Committee questioned CEO Jaime Dimond, regarding the fiasco in JP Morgan Chase where between $3 billion and $8 billion was lost in a bad trade. Specifically, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee tried to get Dimond to speak up against Dodd-Frank in his line of questioning, by asking him if Dodd-Frank helped or hindered. And, “How can we help you?” Plus, “What should the function of the regulators be?” asked Senator Mike Crapo. Then Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee chimed in again, “Is Dodd-Frank more than marginally makes our banking systems safer?” Dimond, “I don’t know.” Why not ask the foxes how best to guard and protect the chickens? The foxes are more than forthcoming with their deceptive suggestions.
 
Imagine what would have happened if General George Patton had asked his Third Army troops how best to approach the Battle of the Bulge, or how best to advance along the Kasserine Pass to confront “The Dessert Fox.” What would have happened?
Many of our national leaders don’t care about the 8 million jobs lost, failed businesses, housing market swimming at the bottom of the sea, personal savings wiped out. They don’t care about consumer protection. All they care about is sleeping with the parasitic corporations who keep them in office.
 
Many of our national leaders are feeble, feckless, fickle, and abysmally selfish. Their job is to get that Black man out of the White House, another form of their selfishness, racial, divisive ideology. They ignore the pain to many citizens caused by their despicable behavior, lack of performance, greed, and incompetence. Their leadership is the same as that of Mississippi plantation owners: do what they want, as long s they want, the way they want, to whom they want, without accountability, and with impunity.
 
My solution: we the people need to occupy the U. S. Congress, the Supreme Court, the White House Lawn, or better yet, the whole Capitol. That includes teachers, firefighters, police, and mayors, plus. Occupy it until our so called national leaders change their behavior. Or perhaps we need an “American Spring” without violence, of course.
What are your thoughts?
 
Please see for yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/jon-stewart-senate-jamie-dimon-video_n_1599689.html?utm_hp_ref=comedy –

Plus, Google Dodd-Frank and make your own decision.

Letter to Goldman Sachs

April 10th, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Economic Justice - (2 Comments)

Letter to Goldman Sachs

Dear Goldman Sachs:
In response to, “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs,” NYT, March 14, 2012, by Mr. Greg Smith, my thoughts follow. The law requires you to maximize your shareholders’ investments; the law does not require you to lie, steal, cheat, and tolerate those who do. The law also does not endorse your investment in illegal human trafficking, with a 16%-stake, as pointed up in NYT, “Financiers And Sex Trafficking,” dated April 1, 2012, by Nicholas D. Kristof. Does your Board of Directors know this? Are they too, complicit in your exploitation of such a marginalized and abused group: women and girls?
 
Think of the more than 800,000 people illegally trafficked across borders annually; 80% are women and girls. That’s some 640,000 women and girls trafficked, illegally, across borders annually to be sex slaves, sweatshop workers, unpaid domestic workers, etc. And think of the number of them raped and murdered. What about that works for you? How are you able to sleep at night, knowing that you are profiting from abused women and girls? What did you need that you didn’t get from your leaders, parents, etc., for your development? Please think about that.
 
With your swine-at-a-trough behavior, where do you think you’re headed, Goldman Sachs? Are you not behaving the same as you did prior to the last crash? “Every time history repeats itself the price of the lesson goes up” (Anonymous). So when you crash again, and I predict you will, think of the price of that lesson. So, you have created a culture of graft, greed, and deception, rather than a culture of creativity, accountability, and integrity. Many of your customers are just suckers for you, feeding your culture of graft, greed, and deception. It reminds me of T. Bar Greenfield who posits, “That organizations are accomplished by people and people are responsible for what goes on in them.” Of course, that proposition includes disingenuous practices of not being forthright when investors inquire about their investments, as noted among responses to Mr. Greg Smith’s letter.
 
Now, I know very little about the financial world; I do know a bit about leadership and organizational behavior. Of the 256 plus recorded definitions of leadership, yours doesn’t even come close to any of the definitions. And you call yourself leaders? That is not leadership, Goldman Sachs. And your organization’s behavior reminds me of “the smartest guy in the room.” Remember ENRON? They thought they were smart, systematically cheating customers. Look what happened to them. And yes, you are powerful; I predict, however, that your power will lead to your demise. And that will affect many innocent investors who had nothing to do with your greed, Goldman Sachs.
 
I often think of the way we were: “The Slippery Slope and Social Justice,” posted on www.theblackrascal.com. We were once a paragon to follow when it came to financial matters; we were a nation of growth and savings, production, advancement. People died to come here, lied to live here. We experienced hegemony, influence, dominance, pride. Look at us today: we’re almost like the grasshopper and the ant during summer; well, not too far in the near future, we can say “good-bye to the summer.” And that can be attributed to your institution’s behavior.
 
From a social justice view, institutions are public systems of rules, judged by their justness, their creators. The rules are agreements among relevant parties, who were at the table doing rule creation. Who was at the table when the rules were written for Goldman Sachs? Was there agreement to graft, greed, and deception among relevant parties? Were the illegally trafficked women and girls a part of rule creation? Were the investors who have tried unsuccessfully to get straight answers about their money part of the rules? And what was at the table when the rules were written? Was courage at the table? Was forthrightness at the table? Was integrity at the table? If these qualities were absent when the rules were created, then your institution, at a minimum, is financially flawed and socially unjust. Social justice demands that no one should be disadvantaged while another is advantaged. Is your behavior any different from Bernie Madoff’s, whose sentence is 156 years? Though our jails are overcrowded, I am sure there is room for a few more.
 
Sincerely,
David Whitfield
Global Citizen

The Caw for Social Justice

March 21st, 2012 | Posted by David Whitfield in Social Justice | Uncategorized - (3 Comments)

The Caw for Racial Justice

Murder, murder is in the air,

Murder, murder is everywhere,

Murder here, murder there,

Social Justice, do you care?

“In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.”
― Toni Morrison

The difference of race is one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist;

because race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance.

Benjamin Disraeli

 

At this very moment, I am not sure what I am feeling, or how I am feeling, or what I should feel.  Perhaps it doesn’t matter because life goes on regardless with hatred, murder, destruction, war.  I think of how we deal with difference.  We don’t deal with difference constructively in this country; that means cultural, ethnic, racial, or any difference that‘s different.  As Disraeli says  …”difference implies superiority…,” especially the difference of race, and skin color.

Trayvon Martin was murdered, shot down, like a vicious animal, leaving all his relationships behind: his mother, father, siblings, friends, teachers, classmates, etc. He’s no longer with us, no longer on this planet. Why? Well, we could go back to 1619 when the first slave ship arrived at Jamestown, Virginia.  But what good would that do for now?  The main reason in my view is he was racially different—“race implies difference, difference implies superiority.” The color of his skin was and still is a magnet for hatred, violence, vitriol, and death. Imagine, his skin color led to his death, even though he didn’t make himself; he had nothing to do with his skin color, not a one of us does.  Ergo we haven’t come very far since 1619: first slave ship arrived; or 1955: 15-year-old Emmet Till was murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman; or 1964: when Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman were murdered just because they were helping those of color to vote.  Seemingly, Blacks are always strangers in this land; our skin color says so.  And we are treated accordingly, murdered just because…

Murder, murder is in the air,

Murder, murder is everywhere,

Murder here, murder there,

Social Justice, do you care?

So, what should Blacks do?  Or, what should those who live with difference every day do for themselves?  How do we change this?

What are your thoughts?  What would you like to caw about regarding this tragedy?