Water Man Spouts

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Princes and Powers

"Contemporary conservatives have become extremely contentious, confrontational, and aggressive in nearly every area of politics and governing. Today they have a tough-guy (and, in a few instances, a tough-gal) attitude, an arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their extreme thinking. … Even more troubling, the right-wing presidency of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney has taken positions that are in open defiance of international treaties or blatant violations of domestic laws, while pushing the limits of presidential power beyond the parameters of the Constitution." --Conservatives Without Conscience; John Dean; Viking; 2006; page xi.
One of the things that I enjoy about the Democratic Underground is that often, other participants will suggest interesting books. This morning, in a discussion about the concern that the Bush administration may be moving the nation away from Constitutional rule, and in the direction of dictatorship, a friend mentioned the importance of John Dean’s most recent book. In it, Mr. Dean discusses the increasing role of authoritarian conservatism in our culture, including in our government.
It is unlikely that those who have rigid, authoritarian personalities to be tolerant of a democratic society. We often find that while those with authoritarian personalities profess to admire humankind, they do not have much respect for individuals. Authoritarian governments are unlikely to place value on concepts like those expressed in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights, because of the individual worth that is expressed therein. For this reason, in his 2004 book "Worse Than Watergate," Dean notes that the neoconservatives "view civil liberties with suspicion," and "despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds." (page 104)
Dean’s most recent book reminded me of some of the works of Erich Fromm. I was first introduced to Fromm in the foreword of A.S. Neill’s classic book on education, "Summerhill." (Hart; 1960) That book addresses the concepts of individual worth, in terms of "freedom," in the educational system. I was lucky enough to have a good teacher who suggested I would enjoy the book.
"Overt authority is exercised directly and explicitly. The person in authority frankly tells the one who is subject to him, ‘You must do this. If you do not, certain sanctions will be applied against you.’ Anonymous authority tends to hide that force is being used. Anonymous authority pretends that there is no authority, that all is done with the consent of the individual. While the teacher of the past said to Johnny, ‘You must do this. If you don’t, I’ll punish you’; today’s teacher says, ‘I’m sure you’ll like to do this.’ Here, the sanction for disobedience is not corporal punishment, but the suffering face of the parent, or what is worse, conveying the feeling of not being ‘adjusted,’ of not acting as the crowd acts. Overt authority used physical force; anonymous authority employs psychic manipulation." – Summerhill; foreword by Erich Fromm; page x.
Fromm continues in the foreword to describe modern western society as needing adults who "cooperate smoothly; men who want to consume more and more. Our system must create men whose tastes are standardized, men who can be easily influenced, men whose needs can be anticipated. Our system needs men who feel free and independent but who are nevertheless willing to do what is expected of them, men who will fit into the social machine without friction, who can be guided without force, who can be led without leaders, and who can be directed without any aim except the one to ‘make good’." He adds that this person’s "consent is obtained, as it were, behind his back, or behind his consciousness." (page xi)
That theme of rigid, anti-democratic rule requiring an unconscious population is, by no coincidence, the central concept I discussed in my recent essay on Malcolm X (see: Make It Plain). The difference between a conscious individual and an unconscious group is strangely summed up in the old saying from Stalin, that a single death is a tragedy, while a million deaths is a statistic. It would not be surprising to hear those very words to come dripping from the lips of Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney. These are examples of authoritarian "leaders" who speak in glowing terms of the nation-state, but who place no value on individual rights.
(3)"I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a productive force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this deterioration. Unknowing prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naïve, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can only find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society." – Why Socialism; Albert Einstein; Monthly Review, volume 1,I; 1949; pages 9-15.
Politicians have long known that in order to get people to willingly give up their humanity, and their ability to think and act as individuals, it was important to use the fear of an enemy. This leads the group to hate the "enemy," while losing awareness of their own low level of being. More, it leads to the willingness to follow the rigid authority of the "leader." On page 59 of "The Sane Society," (Fawcett; 1955) Erich Fromm notes, "Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism are the most drastic manifestations of this blend of state and clan worship, both principles embodied in the figure of a ‘Fuerhrer’." On pages 208 through 211, Fromm discusses "Authoritarian Idolatry," a concept that is, of course, exactly what John Dean addresses half a century later. It requires a large number of alienated, unstable people to follow the authoritarian leader.
Where Einstein described the idea that I learned as a child – "think for yourself, and act for your community" – the authoritarian idolatry requires that one not think for themselves, while acting for the leader’s definition of "community." It has been hard for me to think of President Bush’s ranting about "the war on terrorism" being defined by his aggression in Iraq as anything other than a symptom of this type of social psychosis. It seems that whereas a majority of Americans accepted the claims about WMD that lead to the war initially, that more and more people are conscious of the fact that these were lies. And as that awareness grows, we see the administration attempt to inject fear and hatred into the public debate.
"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism." – Brave New World; Aldous Huxley; Vanguard; 1952; page 11.
Erich Fromm quotes liberally from Einstein, Huxley, and Albert Schweitzer in Chapter 7, "Various Answers," in which he attempts to provide the reader with ideas for healing the sick society. The ideas expressed in his book, and in those he quotes from, are not unlike those ideas that John dean and others speak of today.
"A new public opinion must be created privately an unobtrusively," Schweitzer noted (The Philosophy of Civilization; Macmillan). "The existing one is maintained by the press, by propaganda, by organization, and by financial and other influences which are at its disposal. This unnatural way of spreading ideas must be opposed by the natural one, which goes from man to man and relies solely on the truth of our thoughts and the hearer’s receptiveness for new truth. Unarmed and following the human spirit’s primitive and natural fighting method, it must attack the other, which faces it, as Goliath faced David, in the mighty armour of the age."
In that sense, I believe that those who participate in discussions on DU, and who exercise those muscles defined in the Bill of Rights, have discovered what it means to be an American.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Make It Plain

[1] " ‘Make it plain’ is the code that he used for us to bring him forward. He didn’t like a lot of icing and all that. Just, just plain." – Benjamin Karim
(Malcolm X: Make It Plain; Cheryll Greene; Viking; 1994; page 204)
I frequently quote Minister Malcolm X in my writings. Though I never had the opportunity to meet him, he was a major influence on my thinking as a youth. More, one of my close friends was associated with both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1960s, and in the decades of the ‘70s and ‘80s, I had the benefit of his insights on both men.
Today, younger Americans are able to get to know Malcolm by the wonderful movie by Spike Lee, and by the classic book with Alex Haley, The Autobiography of Malcolm X. There are more than one hundred books that provide information and opinions about him. And, while Malcolm himself had founded the newspaper "Muhammad Speaks" while he was a member of the Nation of Islam (aka "Black Muslims"), his most powerful form of communication was the spoken word.
Malcolm developed his skills for public speaking while taking part in debating classes in state prison. He fine-tuned them when he recruited for the NOI on street corners and in living rooms. Soon, he would become famous for his communication skills in larger public forums, including debates on television and on college campuses. By 1964, he was the second most popular public speaker at universities in the United States.
Recently, a friend on the Democratic Underground suggested that I submit an essay that examines some of Malcolm’s strengths as a communicator. I would suggest that people interested in this either read some of the books of his speeches, watch the film clips that are available, and find copies of some of his speeches which were made into a series of records in the late 1960s. I will include a list of my favorites at the end of this essay. Listening to Malcolm is a far more powerful experience than reading what anyone else says to describe his talents.
[2] "Very briefly: The usual pattern is, first, of a break away or departure from the local social order and context; next, a long, deep retreat inward and backward, as it were, in time, and inward, deep into the psyche; a chaotic series of encounters there, darkly terrifying experiences, and presently (if the victim is fortunate) encounters of a centering kind, fulfilling, harmonizing, giving new courage; and then finally, in such fortunate cases, a return journey of rebirth to life. And that is the universal formula also of the mythological hero journey, which I, in my own published work, had described as: 1) separation, 2) initiation, and 3) return: ‘A hero ventures forth from a world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are encountered and a decisive victory is won; the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man’."
(Myths to Live By; Joseph Campbell; Bantam Books; 1972; pages 208-9)
The above quote is from a 1970 speech that Joseph Campbell delivered in The Great Hall of The Cooper Union Forum in New York City. The name of the presentation was "Schizophrenia: The Inward Journey," and in it Campbell described the similarities between some types of psychotic breaks and the "hero’s journey" in mythology. I find it ironic when compared to a September 12, 1964 editorial in the Saturday Evening Post, which began, "If Malcolm X were not a Negro, his autobiography would be little more than a journal of abnormal psychology, and the story of a burglar, dope-pusher, addict and jailbird – with a family history of insanity – who acquires messianic delusions and sets forth to preach an upside-down religion of ‘brotherly’ hatred."
Malcolm’s father, Earl Little, was a hard-working, family-oriented man. He was a part-time minister, and a supporter of Marcus Garvey’s Pan-African Universal Negro Improvement Association. Malcolm’s eldest brother, Wilfred, has said, "People saw us as oddballs … Whites would refer to us as ‘those uppity niggers’ or ‘those smart niggers’ that live out south of town. In those days whenever a white person referred to you as a smart nigger, that was their way of saying this is someone you had to watch…" (Make It Plain; pg 19).
People did watch Earl Little. At one point, a Ku Klux Klan-type group burned the Little family’s home. When Earl continued to preach Garvey’s message, he was lynched. Malcolm’s mother was left with seven children in the Depression era. Eventually, she was hospitalized, and Malcolm went into a series of foster- and group homes, before eventually moving to Boston with a half-sister. There, he did become a hoodlum in much the manner as the Saturday Evening Post described. This resulted in his being sent to prison, where he was introduced to the teachings of Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam.
At the time, the NOI had an estimated 400 members. When Malcolm was released from prison, and became Minister Malcolm X, he would build the organization to an estimated 40,000 members in 10 years. He was clearly the type of hero that Campbell described. Malcolm’s appeal at that time was primarily to those black Americans who live in the ghettos and the prisons. Malcolm became the public spokesperson for Elijah Muhammad, who, as historian John Henrik Clarke has said, "was the king to those who had no king, and he was the messiah to those who some people thought unworthy of a messiah."
But in 1963, Malcolm was "silenced" by Elijah, partly due to comments made after the murder of President John Kennedy. This would be the beginning of Malcolm’s second journey into the darkness. He would describe his experience as being "in a state of shock …. I felt as though something in nature had failed …. My head felt like it was bleeding inside. I felt like my brain was damaged." (The Autobiography of Malcolm X; Alex Haley; Ballentine; 1964; pages 309-11)
Malcolm would also say that he felt that the moon and the stars had shifted. He would journey to Mecca, and upon his return, would begin to teach orthodox Islam, and begin to become politically active, something the NOI had forbidden. Although the truth about his evolution in thinking was not as neat and tidy as what has become the Malcolm myth – for example, he had out-grown Elijah’s teaching that white people were "devils" by nature, as a result of his experience with several white journalists, teachers, and many students – it is true hat Malcolm X undertook two "hero’s journeys."
[3] "As Gandhi used to say: ‘God never occurs to you in person but always in action.’ And so does a special person manifest himself only in events which are of his making. But here we owe it to ourselves to ask what it may have been in his nature and in his background, in his childhood and in his youth, that fashioned him in such a way that he grew up to be one who would make history."
(Gandhi’s Truth; Erik Erikson; Norton; 1969; page 93)
People tend to interpret or gain meaning those "special persons" that Erikson speaks of in terms of themselves. Hence, black nationals see Malcolm in terms of black nationalism, while socialists will often point to his speeches to the Militant Labor Forum as evidence that Malcolm had begun to advocate socialism towards the end of his life. It also became common in the 1990s for some conservative critics of Malcolm to speak of his life in Freudian terms, including an unconscious search for a father-figure in Elijah Muhammad to replace the missing biological father.
I prefer to view Malcolm in another manner. Readers are probably familiar with Erik Erikson’s theory of human development taking place, in eight general stages. It is interesting to consider these stages as steps on a staircase to maturity, and to recognize that many of the issues we face on the lower steps will manifest themselves in new ways on each future step. Thus, in "Garvey, Lumumba, & Malcolm: Black Nationalists Separatists," (Third World Press; 1972) Shawna Maglangbayan notes that the popular belief that there were "three Malcolms: pre-NOI, in the NOI, and post-NOI" are in error; instead, she notes, there are two Malcolms – the unconscious Malcolm, then the conscious Malcolm. (page 69)
Alex Haley wrote about the notes Malcolm scribbled on napkins when they worked on his autobiography. On page 396, Haley quotes this: "Only persons really changed history those who changed men’s thinking about themselves. Hitler as well as Jesus, Stalin as well as Buddha…" Clearly, Malcolm understood that the evolution of human beings is the evolution of their consciousness, and that a person’s consciousness cannot evolve unconsciously.
[4] "Yes, I’m an extremist. The black race here in North America is in extremely bad condition. You show me a black man who isn’t an extremist, and I’ll show you one who needs psychiatric attention." – Malcolm
Malcolm’s experiences as a hoodlum, along with his observations while incarcerated, taught him that human beings who are oppressed begin to consciously adjust to that oppression. As they adjust, they begin to accept the system of oppression. Soon, they begin to accommodate that system in unconscious behaviors. Those behaviors entrench them in a manner that they become unconscious cogs in the system.
In a February 25, 1965 interview in the Village Voice, Marlene Nadle asked Malcolm about how he planned to organize people for grassroots political activism? "I’m going to create an awareness of what has been done to them. This awareness will produce an abundance of enery, both negative and positive, that can be channeled constructively … The greatest mistake of the movement has been trying to organize a sleeping people around specific goals. You have to wake people up first, then you’ll get action."
He went on to say that people had to become conscious of "their humanity, to their own worth, and to their heritage." When people become conscious of their human worth, they choose to behave differently. They no longer will accept being an unconscious cog in the oppressive machine. They will make a conscious choice to become part of a solution to their problems. Malcolm knew that in order for people to do more, they had to become more.
In "The Fire Next Time" (Dell; 1962), James Baldwin noted that Elijah’s NOI was "not an overnight sensation." It was Malcolm’s ministry that made the organization grow. "And now, suddenly, people who have never before been able to hear this message hear it, and believe it, andare changed. Elijah Muhammad has been able to do what generations of welfare workers and committees and resolutions and reports and housing projects and playgrounds have failed to do: to heal and redeem drunkards and junkies, to convert people who have come out of prison and to keep them out, to make men chaste and women virtuous, and to invest both the male and female with a pride and a serenity that hang out about them like an unfailing light. He has done things, which our Christian church has spectacularly failed to do." (page 72)
Two decades ago, I worked next to the director of an upstate NY drug abuse services. He told me that "in the old days," when he and his co-workers in NYC had extremely difficult cases, they would ask Malcolm’s people to assist them. He said that the NOI could work miracles with the most difficult of cases. "There is no shame in saying that you used to be a drunk," Malcolm often said. "But there is shame in remaining a drunk." He would tell audiences that vices like drugs, gambling, and prostitution were "social novocaine" that kept they unconscious of their oppression. "You sit there feeling no pain. Still that blood is dripping down your jar," he would say.
[5] "You came to America on a slave ship, in chains like a horse or a cow or a chicken." – Malcolm
(Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard; Archie Epps; Paragon House; 1991; page 58)
Malcolm was a master at communicating, in large part for two closely related reasons: he loved books, and he loved words. "People don’t realize how a man’s whole life can be changed by one book," he told Alex Haley. He mentioned one in particular, "The Loom of Language." "Philology, it’s a tough science – all about how words can be recognized, no matter where you find them. ….Philology is related to the science of etymology, dealing in root words. I dabble in both of them" (page 400)
Malcolm was interested in the methods that Aesop used to teach. He learned that "Aesop" was the name the Greeks called an Egyptian slave, who –like Jesus—was able to challenge the social order by means of parables. Malcolm began to use the animal imagery that is associated with Aesop’s "fables." "The white man in America is a wolf and the Negro is nothing but a sheep," is but one example.
He would also make reference to Shakespeare: "There was another man back in history whom I read about once, an old friend of mine whose name was Hamlet, who confronted, in a sense, the same thing our people are confronting here in America," he told students at Harvard University on December 16, 1964. "Hamlet was debating ‘To be or not to be’ – that was the question. He was trying to decide whether it was ‘nobler in the mind to suffer --peacefully-- the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,’ or whether it was nobler ‘to take up arms’ and oppose them. I think his little soliloquy answers itself. As long as you sit around suffering the slings and arrows and are afraid to use some slings and arrows yourself, you’ll continue to suffer. The OAAU has come to the conclusion that it is time to take up whatever means necessary to bring these sufferings to a halt."
In "The Rhetoric of Malcolm X," (Columbia University Forum; 1966; page 9), John Illo notes that rhetoric is "poeticized logic, logic revised by the creative and critical imagination recalling original ideas. In the rhetoric of Malcolm X, as in all genuine rhetoric, figures correspond to the critical imagination restoring the original idea and to the conscience protesting the desecration of the idea. … Rhetoric, like revolution, is ‘a way of redefining reality’."
Archie Epps quoted historian Kenneth Burke, who noted that rhetorical naming of things and people helps create codes by which people judge the world around them. Malcolm understood that his use of rhetoric would also lead the media to use code words to define him. I think he enjoyed this.
Haley wrote of a reporter telling Malcolm that it was being said that he was the only black man in America who could start – or stop – a race riot. "I don’t know if I could start one. I don’t know if I’d want to stop one," he replied. "It was the kind of statement he relished making," Haley wrote. (page 403) When he appeared at the Philadelphia Convention Hall for a WCAU radio show, he was asked if he was "the man who has said, ‘All Negroes are angry and I am the angriest of all’; is that correct?" Haley writes, "Malcolm X said crisply, ‘That quote is correct!’ (and) the gathering crowd of bystanders stared at him, riveted." (page 404)
Malcolm was accused of advocating hatred and violence. "Concerning nonviolence: it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law," he told a reporter. This was the type of statement that led the editors of Playboy to question if they should publish the interview Alex Haley did for their May, 1963 edition. In their introduction, they called him Elijah Muhammad’s "business manager, trouble shooter, prime minister, and heir apparent ….. (who) spoke with candor and … the impersonal tone of a self-assured corporation executive. Many will be shocked by what he has to say; others will be outraged. "
Malcolm’s rhetoric frightened many white people. He even made some black people uncomfortable. With the advantage of 20-20 hindsight, we know that this fear was misplaced.
[6] "Many will ask what Harlem finds to honor in this stormy, controversial and bold young captain – and we will smile …. They will say he is of hate – a fanatic, a racist – who can only bring evil to the cause for which you struggle! And we will answer and say unto them: Did you ever talk to Brother Malcolm? Did you ever touch him, or have him smile at you? Did he ever really do a mean thing? Was he ever himself associated with violence or any public disturbance? For if you did you would know him. And if you knew him you would know why we must honor him: Malcolm was our manhood, our living, black manhood! This was his meaning to his people. And, in honoring him, we honor the best in ourselves …"
--Ossie Davis; Eulogy at Malcolm X’s funeral
After the split with the NOI, Malcolm began to organize black people for political action. "He began in late 1963 to work with me – attending meetings in my political club and being seen with me out on the street. He helped me register voters and make telephone calls. In Albany, people were wondering, ‘Who is this guy, Percy Sutton, bringing in that revolutionary Malcolm X?’ But that was the first thought. Then came the conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats who wanted to take a picture with Minister Malcolm, wanted to shake his hand. He was a celebrity," NY Assemblyman Sutton says on page 168 of "Make It Plain." (On the opposite page is a photo of Sutton and Charles Rangel flanking Malcolm on the steps of the NYS Assembly, with a crowd of 50+ spectators watching.) Malcolm also began to work closely with Representative Adam Clayton Powell.
Less well known is that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., were beginning to communicate, though indirectly. Their communications were largely through an attorney in Chicago. It is certain that Martin had become impressed with Malcolm’s attempts to make "civil rights," which he saw as limited to a domestic issue, into a "human rights" issue to be considered at the United Nations. On his international travels, Malcolm had been making progress on this front. In doing so, he became a concern for people within the Johnson administration. In his last year of life, for example, there came a time when he was denied entry into France.
Malcolm knew that this was something beyond the influence of Elijah Muhammad. Still, he was under intense pressure from an on-going struggle with the NOI. He was aware that the NOI leadership was urging members to kill him. Shortly before his death, his house was burned by NOI forces. Yet during this final stage of his life, Malcolm delivered the word.
On a January 19, 1965 radio interview, he was asked his opinion of integration and intermarriage? "I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being – neither white, black, brown or red; and when you are dealing with humanity as a family there’s no question of integration or intermarriage. It’s just one human being marrying another human being, or one human being living around and with another human being."
At a February, 1965 OAAU meeting, a man challenged Malcolm on his changing his position on white people. "I just see things on a broader scale. We nationalists used to think we were militant. We were just dogmatic. It didn’t bring us anything. …. If you attack (a man) because he is white, you give him no out. He can’t stop being white. We’ve got to give the man a chance. … We’ve got to be more flexible."
One of the last things Malcolm told Alex Haley was, "The young whites, and blacks, too, are the only hope America has. The rest of us have always been living in a lie."
(Note: Xenon has a 1 hour film, "Malcolm X: El Hajj Malik El Shabazz," that features some good segments of Malcolm’s public speaking. Charisma Records has four of Malcolm’s speeches on LPs; these include "A Message to the Grass Roots"; "Ballots or Bullets"; "The Blue-Eyed White Man"; and the 2-LP "Last Message." Warner Bros. Has a soundtrack LP from Marvin Worth’s "Malcolm X" which features clips from several speeches.)

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The Betrayal of America

"In our comprehensive reviewing of published, academically accepted history we continually explore for the invisible power structure behind the visible kings, prime ministers, czars, emperors, presidents, and other official head men, as well as for the underlying, hidden causes of individual wars and the long, drawn-out campaigns not disclosed by the widely published and popularly accepted causes of these wars."
--R. Buckminster Fuller
In recent weeks, it has become obvious that as a result of the utter failure of President Bush's attempts to promote his "stay the course" policy in Iraq, that another group of powerful Americans are engaged in an effort to sell a "kinder and gentler" military strategy. During the 2004 "Plame Threads" on the Democratic Underground, I had quoted from retired US Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty's book "JFK," in which he noted a group that Churchill called the "High Cabal," and which Fuller referred to as the "invisible power structure." I had mentioned James Baker as a member of that power elite, who -- like W. Averell Harriman a generation before him -- would step out from behind that invisible curtain from time to time.
It was Baker who came forward to "undermine the Constitution and chose our president" in 2000, as documented in Vincent Bugliosi's classic "The Betrayal of America." Baker took actions that resulted in the man elected president, Al Gore, being denied the highest office in the land, because he knew that George W. Bush was fronting for that High Cabal. What Baker did was indeed part of a process that betrayed the citizens, the history, and the Constituion of this country. But he did not do it alone: Baker's anti-democratic actions were given the stamp of approval by the US Supreme Court in a ruling that, as Bugliosi showed, had no justification in law.
Today, as we come closer to the mid-term elections, we see Baker again stepping out from behind that invisible curtain, in an attempt to coordinate the effort to redefine the highly unpopular war of aggression in Iraq. When such efforts take place, the power elite uses a tactic called "perception management," which I have discussed in previous essays. It can perhaps be most easily summed up with a quote from Minister Malcolm X: "If you listen to what they tell you, you'll be carrying an umbrella on a sunny day, and getting soaked when it's raining."
A significant part of the perception management campaign is found in "State of Denial," by Bob Woodward. This book mixes large amounts of the truth, such as the fact that the US is losing the war in Iraq and that the administration is lying to the public about this, with doses of lies about how we can turn this losing effort around by simply changing military tactics. The truth is that neither the problem nor the solution lies in the military. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies, and no amount of fire power can change that. We need to get out of Iraq.
The majority of Americans want the US to end its occupation of Iraq. This is why, for example, Ned Lamont kicked Joe Lieberman's behind in the democratic primary. It wasn't because of Lieberman's policies on education or the environment. It was because he was an administration lap dog on the war in Iraq. But when the power elite sees that a poodle like Lieberman is in trouble, they try to shift the focus. They try to find another lap dog that might be more acceptable to the public.
Last night, I watched Jim Baker and his trusty lap dog Lee Hamilton on Hardball on MSNBC. These two are heading the US Institute for Peace's Iraq Study Group. I listened to Lee say that they have talked to everyone possible about resolving the conflict in Iraq. And I thought that I should remind people why it is never safe to listen to Lee Hamilton if one is hoping for the truth.
I need not concentrate on his role in the 9/11 Commission. If anyone believes that this commission revealed the truth, I believe they are brain-dead. Instead, I will review Hamilton's betrayal of this country during the Iran-Contra era. Lee was the head of the House Intelligence Committee, and as such, was supposed to look at the evidence that the Reagan-Bush administration was violating federal law in re-supplying the contras. He showed his lack of integrity on August 11, 1986, when he went to the White House Situation Room with his buddy, Rep. Dick Cheney, to talk to Ollie North. Of course, North lied and said there was nothing illegal going on. Hamilton told the media that he was "fully satisfied" with North's responses.
Keep in mind that this was at a time when a democratic senator named John Kerry was beginning to investigate the idea that the administration was using the money from drug sales and illegal weapons sales to fund their wars in Central America. Hamilton did his best to disrupt any investigations into the cocaine sales. For example, when Costa Rica indicted John Hull for drug trafficing and arms smuggling (which was coordinated with the US embassy and CIA), Hamilton signed a letter threatening to end US economic aid unless the charges were dropped. Thanks, Lee.
Hamilton was also the head of the House Task Force that investigated the "October Surprise" of 1980. He allowed republicans to have veto power over democratic staff appointments, including that of the House Intelligence Affairs Committee Chief Spencer Oliver, who had first recommended the investigation. When Rep. Mervyn Dymally (D-CA) wrote a dissenting opinion that exposed Hamilton's 1-13-93 report, Hamilton told him that if he did not withdraw it, "I will have tocome down hard on you." And in fact, the next day Hamilton, as the new chair of the House International Offices Committee, fired all of Dymally's African subcommittee staff. Thanks, Lee.
Hamilton also was among the strongest advocates of the Reagan administration's attempts to expand domestic security laws. As the head of the CIA, George Bush had pushed for increasing government secrecy to combat "terrorists" who might compromise national security. No member of congress worked harder to help the Reagan-Bush attempts to deny US citizens information on the decisions being made by their elected officials than Lee Hamilton. Thus, David Broder wrote that Lee was the "conscience of Congress."
Is it any surprise that when the power elite feels the need to step out from behind that invisible curtain, they bring Lee Hamilton out to make their efforts seem more acceptable?
It's extremely important that democrats at the grass-roots level not this republican lap dog make it seem that the democratic anti-war effort embraces the James Baker/ Iraqi Study Group policy for "peace" in Iraq. I strongly urge people to write a simple, concise Letter to the Editor of your local newspapers, stating that you speak as one of the majority of Americans who wants the US to get out of Iraq.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Gypsy Joe Harris: Son of Philadelphia

"Boxing was my pursuit of happiness. Now they say I can't do it anymore."
-- Gypsy Joe Harris

Last month's edition of The Ring had a review of a new book on a interesting chapter in boxing history, the welterweight/middleweight contender Gyspsy Joe Harris. The book, by his younger brother Anthony Molock, should be of as much interest to sociologists as boxing fans. Molock, a career educator, describes in graphic detail the rise and fall of one of the legends of Philadelphia.

The Ring's Nigel Collins writes, " 'Son of Philadelphia' is not a boxing book per se, but rather the story of a family's struggle for survival in the Philadelphia ghetto, and how one member of that family briefly soared to great heights before plunging headlong into a dark place from which he never really emerged."

He was born on December 1, 1945 in New Jersey. His family soon moved to North Philly, and Harris had to learn to fight at a young age. When he was about 12, an older kid tried to steal his bag of Halloween candy. When Joe refused to give up his bag, the other boy hit him on his head with a brick. Harris lost most of the sight in his right eye as a result.

I've ordered a copy of the book, and look forward to reading it when it comes in the mail. I remember Gypsy Jow Harris from when he was a young welterweight contender. He had been an outstanding amateur, and turned professional in 1964, in order to earn some money. Boxing has long been an attractive potential avenue out of ghetto for the poor young men in American cities. Harris came from what at the time was recognized as the toughest "boxing" city in the country. It's hard enough for any strong athlete to compete; for Harris, being blind in one eye presented difficulties.

He developed a style that was a strange variation of what we used to call "jail house" in those days. I looked through some scrapbooks to show my younger son articles about this guy. An AP sports writer, Ralph Bernstein, described him like this: "If you think Gypsy Joe Harris is a clown in the ring, try talking to him after a fight. The Gypsy did his little dance step, stuck his tongue out, dropped his hands to his side, and won as usual last night. .... Afterward, he was asked if he was a welterweight or a middleweight. 'I'm a heavy welterweight, and a light middleweight,' he mumbled."

Besides being between the two weight classes, at a time when the Jr. Middleweight division wasn't widely recognized, and being almost completely blind in one eye, Harris was also not a hard puncher. Although he won his first 24 fights, he only scored 8 KOs. But he easily outboxed many of the toughest Philly fighters of his day. He beat guys like Jose Stable , Bobby Cassidy, and Stanley "Kitten" Hayward -- easily. And these were all guys who were ranked in the top 5 in the welterweight division. Sports Illustrated had him on their June 19, 1967 cover, and in a feature article "Menace of the welters."

In early 1967, he fought a nontitle bout with the Weleterweight Champion, Curtis Cokes. Harris won an upset 10 round decision. Although that should have secured a title fight, Cokes would defend against a half-dozen other contenders, and avoided Harris.

Gypsy Joe was not considered one of the more disciplined athletes outside of the ring. He was noted for "indulging in fast food, fast women, and fast cars...," according to a book review. As I remember, some of the people who were promoting on the national level weren't fond of him. In 1967, they matched him against a contender that was expected to beat him. Harris won a decision. They had a rematch. Harris again won easily. But he couldn't get a title fight.

In early 1968, he fought a slugger from Canastota, the hometown of the great Carmen Basilio. (Carmen's nephew Billy Backus, from nearby Syracuse, would win the welterweight title in 1970.) Dick DiVeronica was a tough guy who could fight at welterweight or middleweight. Like Harris, he was hoping to earn a shot at either Cokes, or the middleweight crown. But the middleweight title was tied up in a series between Emile Griffith and Nino Benvenuti. Harris won a lop-sided 10 round decision over DiVeronica.

Next, they put him in against Emile Griffith, who lost his rubber match against Nino. Griffith was another fighter who went back and forth between the welter- and middleweight divisions. The winner of the match was going to get a match with Curtis Cokes. Griffith beat Gypsy Joe by decision, the only loss in Harris's career. (Cokes lost the title in a "tune-up" against Jose Napoles; Napoles beat Griffith, lost to Backus, then won the title back in a rematch.)

I remember that Gypsy Joe used to memorize the "eye chart," so that he could pass his physicals. The blows he took in the ring had resulted in the total loss of sight in his right eye, and I had heard he was going blind in his left eye. I'm not sure if that is accurate,and so I look forward to reading his brother's book.

After being forced to retire, Harris lived a sad life. He would deal with drug addiction, mainly abusing alcohol and heroin. He spent his ring earnings rapidly, and was on welfare for years. I remember a friend saying that even though he was depressed about having his career taken from him, Gypsy Joe was always trying to cover his internal pain by joking and making others laugh.

He died on March 6, 1990, at the age of 44, after having his 4th heart attack. His younger brother, who is a teacher in Atlanta, wrote "Gypsy Joe Harris: Son of Philadelphia," which tells the story of "unfulfilled destiny, always one step away from the true greatness he sought." It's available from AuthorHouse (paperback; 209 pages) for $16.50. Those interested can order it via e-mail at www.authorhouse.com or by calling 1-800-839-8640.