RETHINKING WHAT IT IS TO BE AN AMERICAN

 

I was born in Connecticut almost 72 years ago. My mother was a direct descendant of immigrants William and Suzanna White through their son, Peregrine, who was born on November 20, 1620 on board the good ship Mayflower as it rode at anchor off the tip of what we now call Cape Cod. 

My father was born in Pennsylvania. His father came to the United States from Poland in 1913 and was immediately shipped off to Pittsburgh to work in the coal mines that fed the steel industry there. Because my grandfather could speak many languages he was recruited by the mine workers' union and became an organizer for them who was blacklisted and shot at by thugs in the employ of the mine owners.

My grandmother, from Eastern Poland, left there as the war clouds of World War I were lowering. She and her brother, Vincent, snuck across the border of Poland into East Prussia where they caught a Baltic steamer to Amsterdam from which port they sailed for the United States where they had a brother who had already immigrated and landed in Pittsburgh. Vincent was just another strong back to be sent to the mines in and around Pittsburgh but my grandmother was seen as a potential public burden. She was confined to Ellis Island for a month while pleading with her brothers to send her $10 that would allow her to be released into America. She and my grandfather met when she was called in to translate for my grandfather. He was in the Allegheny County Hospital having contracted Black Lung. My grandfather was fluent in Polish, German, Yiddish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Russian, and had some Czech as well but none of those languages was English, a language that my grandmother had picked up easily.

This woman that the Immigration Officials deemed a potential public charge went on to give birth to three American citizens: a daughter who became a registered nurse and one of the founders of the Connecticut Nurses Association, a son who was a tank mechanic in the 3rd Army during World War II and who was at the liberation of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp and another son who was a radio operator and waist gunner in B-17s honored for saving his entire crew when their first plane, The Old Shillelagh, was shot down over the North Sea following the Regensburg Raid and was wounded in bailing out of their second plane when it was shot down over southern France in 1944. He became a prisoner of war and wasn't repatriated until January of 1945. Because of the service of their sons to the nation both my grandparents became U. S. Citizens.

I am an American in every way one can imagine. I am the embodiment of 300 years of immigration to this great nation. I have ancestors who served in the Continental Army during our Revolution and who served in both World Wars. I have studied American history since boyhood, both the common history and many of the more esoteric parts of the last 2 and a half centuries of our nation. I have been to Gettysburg and Saratoga, Fort Ticonderoga and Lexington Green, to Concord Bridge and Antietam and to Fort McHenry. I have been to Washington, D. C. several times and visited the memorials there. I have been moved to tears reading Lincoln's words inscribed on his memorial and at  the sight of the Iwo Jima Memorial near the Arlington National Cemetery. My present for my 14th birthday was attending the Centennial reenactment of the Battle of Gettysburg. I've been to the Smokey Mountains, Mount Rushmore, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Acadia and many of our great cities. I have thrilled to see the U.S.S. Constitution, Old Ironsides, under sail and reenactors of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry march down Beacon Street in Boston as if they were on their way to glory at Fort Wagner.

I am an American. I believe in our form of government as established by our Constitution, its amendments and the laws promulgated on that Constitution. I believe that the words of its preamble, as was intended, define the broad purpose of our democracy. That "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Because I am an American I can say without the least ambivalence that the 8 Senators and 139 Representatives who opposed certification of the votes of the Electoral College are not Americans. They have set themselves in opposition to the most basic tenet of American democracy: that the majority vote of the people determines our elected officials. I can also unequivocally say that none of the riotous mob of seditionists that stormed our Capitol on January 6, 2021, whether they entered the building or not, are Americans. Those traitors and insurrectionists acted in concert to undermine our "more perfect union". Those traitors and insurrectionists acted to promote injustice, disturb the "domestic tranquility", attacked those trusted with our "common defense", opposed "the general welfare" of the people and sought to take "the Blessings of Liberty" from "ourselves and our Posterity" by destroying the Constitution ordained and established for the United States of America.

No amount of quasi-patriotic rhetoric can absolve the Republiscum in the Senate and the House of attempting to impose a dictatorship on the United States. No flag lapel pin, no Gadsden flag, not even an American flag waved by coup plotters and participants can make these scum Americans. Certainly no one who waves the Confederate battle flag or the Stars and Bars anywhere in this land, let alone inside the U. S. Capitol, is truly an American. No con man usurper of the presidency can call himself an American by instigating an insurrection against the will of the people.

We, the people of the United States, need to look at our definitions of what we mean by "an American". In recent years we have heard scum from the Republiscum Party and ultra right-wingers in media attack the birthright citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment. Were it not for that birthright citizenship my father, the decorated World War II veteran, would not have been a citizen. I must grant that even the adherents of the Republiscum Party and The Orange Führer are citizens of the United States but they are most definitely not Americans. Not one of them should be allowed to remain in public office. Not one of them should be allowed to run for or hold public office ever. Nor should any of these fascist scum be allowed to serve in any branch of our military, police or other law enforcement forces. The danger to our democracy is far to immanent and great to allow these insurrectionists public office, public trust or firearms.

We are at a turning point. Will we allow the seditious scum to continue to undermine our democracy and accept the probable dire consequences of their attacks on our Constitution, or will we decide that those who do not hold American values are unfit to serve the public at large? If we do not define them, as by their actions they have defined themselves, as opposed to everything that makes us Americans, we are undermining our democracy from within.

I am well aware that what I am calling for raises the vile shadows of HUAC, the Blacklist and McCarthyism. Let me point out that thousands of supposed "communists" never stormed the U. S. Capitol. No president of the 1940s, 50s or 60s every called for insurrection to keep him in office. Even Richard Nixon balked at that. We have allowed the McCarthites, the Goldwaterites, the Reaganites and the rest of the Republiscum, the militias, self-styled Minutemen, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, Klansmen, Nazis and right-wing evangelicals who hide behind religion to carry out their anti-American goals to grow and fester within our body politic until their attacks on our democracy metasticized into The Orange Führer and his seditious minions both in government and outside storming the Capitol. Let us not confuse a real cancer in our nation to an imagined and feared one. The answer to this cancer is radical surgery. Anything less begs for it to recur in a more deadly form.

BLACK LIKE THEE

Outrage is an easy emotional reaction. It feeds on our easiest emotion, anger, to which it is too close kin. It stems from all the wrongs done to us in the past but hasn't a lot to say about the present or the future. We are, unfortunately, in a time where our outrage is far too close to the surface. The very words "President Donald Trump" outrage me. Practically everything he, his cabinet and his supporters in Congress say and do is an outrage and much of it a violation of either the Constitution, our laws and/or our social norms. With the daily, if not hourly, beat of new outrages coming from our neo-Fascist Administration, Fox News, Info Wars and scum like Ann Coulter, Alex Jones, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh we are rubbed raw. Even thick skins have grown thinner with those of continually oppressed minorities like women, African-Americans and our LGBTQ brothers and sisters being the thinnest of all. That isn't a fault but rather a fact. The women exploited and raped, the African-Americans subject to hate, fear and ignorance at every turn to say nothing of the violence visited upon them and similar discrimination against those in the LGBTQ community have more than a right to be thin skinned and to respond with anger of their own to their treatment. However, that an angry response is understandable doesn't also make it inherently justified.

Let's look a little more coolly at the current mess engulfing the elected officials in Virginia as an apt example.

Democratic Governor Ralph Northam got himself into some hot water with the anti-abortion fanatics recently. I am not going to deal with that controversy here but it serves as the seed for what has followed. His support for abortion brought Northam to the notice of some right-wing fanatics who started scrounging around for something that could be used against Northam. What they found was a personal yearbook page from Northam's Medical School, Eastern Virginia Medical School, from 1984 with a photo of two people, one in blackface and the other in full Ku Klux Klan regalia.

As Trevor Noah pointed out on The Daily Show, were this a photo of an actual black person and an actual Klansman side-by-side, raising their drinks together at a party we would see it as a positive photo. It is not that. It is two white people trying to be funny and shocking while demonstrating only their cosmically great insensitivity.

Northam has not helped his case any either. First, he apologized for being one of the people in the photo. Then he apologized for the photo, claimed that he wasn't one of the people in the photo and claimed that he didn't know how it got onto his personal yearbook page. Then Northam, deepening the ineptitude, claimed that he thought that the person in blackface in the photo might have been him because he's worn blackface at around the same time when he'd impersonated Michael Jackson in a dance contest. Then to dig the hole for himself deeper, Northam's wife barely stopped him from moon walking in response to a reporter's question. I will acknowledge that Ralph Northam has dug this hole so deep that, if he can see over the rim at all, it's only on tiptoe.

The bad news for the militant right-wing extremists who want to bring down the Democrats currently in power in Virginia is that Northam's lieutenant governor can't be accused of wearing blackface because Justin Fairfax is black. Such a simple fact never stopped the right-wing fanatics before so they have defaulted to the strategy that proved effective in ridding them of Al Franken*. They found a couple of women to claim that Fairfax had sexually assaulted them at some point in the past. Let me backtrack slightly and say that the women's allegations may well be true but they require some very serious investigation before I will and many others should take them at face value. The women's allegations appear at a time that is a little too convenient for the Republiscum Party in Virginia and do not appear to have any prior history. Is it not a bit odd that these allegations did not surface in 2018 when Mr. Fairfax was running for lieutenant governor yet as soon as there is a possibility that he could succeed to the office of governor they appear?

The allegations against Fairfax and Northam bring into play the further constitutional offices that may fall in the line of succession. Thus Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring is forced to step into the spotlight as third in possible succession to the governorship and admit that he too once wore blackface at a party potentially disqualifying him for his current office let alone the office of governor. To Herring's credit, he got ahead of the right-wing fanatics and admitted this incident himself.

So who's next? If the three top elected Democrats in Virginia have to leave office we get down to Republiscum Speaker of the Virginia House, Kirk Cox. Speaker Cox, however, has his own problem since he was the editor of his yearbook at Virginia Military Institute and, mirabile dictu!, that yearbook is rife with blackface photos, racial epithets and other outright racist nastiness. Then again, wasn't this whole campaign against Northam, Fairfax and Herring designed to put a Republiscum in the governor's office?

Lost in all this recrimination and character assassination are some questions that the people outraged by Northam's, Fairfax's and Herring's past behavior should be asking: are these men racists or sexual predators? What are the motives of their accusers? Are they governing well or badly. Are they the kind of people today who would think and behave as Northam and Herring did some thirty-five years ago or as Fairfax is accused of doing fifteen years ago?

We used to have a concept called "consciousness raising". People who held awful, if traditional views, of African-Americans, women and members of the LGBTQ community, could question their beliefs, learn about the people for whom they held prejudicial attitudes and come to a higher consciousness that put aside those negative views and values emerging as better people. Today with our outrage rubbed raw by Trump and other neo-Fascists, by the murder of Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Philando Castille, or Emantic Bradford, Jr., (this list is foreshortened but already 100,000 times too long), by neo-Nazis in Charlottesville and elsewhere, by inaction over gun violence generally and school shootings in particular, by rapists whose money, power or success in sports make them immune to prosecution certain offenses whose actuality may be questioned loom large, often larger than warranted.

The aphorism, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," is most often attributed to Mohandas K. Gandhi, the Mahatma. It implies that if we take revenge for each offense done to us then the whole world will soon be engulfed in tit-for-tat revenge that leaves everyone wounded and no one whole or satisfied. That aphorism might well be applied here. Is it not possible that people who were either of stupid or actually evil intent thirty five years ago may have grown and become wiser and allied to good over that time? If you are an African-American living in Virginia today whom would you believe might better respect your rights and treat you are a human being worthy of respect? Would that be Ralph Northam, Mark Herring or Kirk Cox or any other Republiscum? If you are a woman, who would better respect you as another equal human being and respect your right to choose what happens to your own body, Justin Fairfax or one of the Republiscum who want abortion outlawed when a fetal heartbeat can be detected?

I am not proposing that we ignore offense for some pragmatic advantage. I am suggesting that offenses of the past need to be viewed in the context of what has passed between the offense and the moment we are in now. If Ralph Northam wore blackface in the past and would wear it now, that's one thing. He has renounced it now and denounced it too. If the man has grown and become educated to the offense and distress that such behavior causes over the last thirty-five years I do not see why he must resign his office. That is equally true for Mark Herring. If a full and complete investigation of the charges against Justin Fairfax establish that he sexually assaulted his accusers then he doesn't belong in his office. If, on the other hand, his accusers are shills for some Republiscum fanatics then they should be exposed and Mr. Fairfax continue as lieutenant governor.

Finally, all this is taking place in Virginia amongst Virginians. Is it really so hard to believe that a white man in blackface was abnormal in any state of the old Confederacy yesterday let alone thirty-five years ago? That isn't an excuse but it sure provides context. Where would we expect to find consciousness raised less, less frequently and most recently than in the states of the old Confederacy? One would always expect that racism and its cousin, racial insensitivity, would be rife in the states that fought hardest for the evil of slavery. I don't give a pass to Northam or Herring because they are Virginians but rather I'm sure that it took longer for them to learn and grow out of racism than it did for many others.

I appreciate the source of the outrage. I understand how offensive these men have or may have been yet it is also true that their offenses were from a then that is now long past. If they are no longer the men they were many years ago that must count for something. The present man should be evaluated in relation to his past but the past must also be judged in relation to the present man.


* Some stupid clowning on Sen. Franken's part not withstanding, we know that his main accuser of sexual misconduct is a long-time right-wing activist. We also know that the allegedly "unwanted" kiss during a USO tour was a part of the show and had been rehearsed before the tape that showed the alleged "unwanted" kiss was made. Al Franken was railroaded out of office by the same right-wing that delayed him from taking his senate seat until July, 2009 and by Democrats who were all too eager to appear on the side of women in general without looking too hard at this woman in particular. In that sense Democrats had trapped themselves by going to bat for women who are actually too often ignored or disbelieved when they have actually been sexually assaulted because truly investigating the woman's charges looks too much like the rampant and egregious disbelief that most truly victimized women face. The right-wing fanatics like to catch Democrats and other Liberals in traps they have constructed for themselves especially when Democrats have no idea how to get out of those traps.

MONUMENTS, DIXIE AND MONUMENTS IN DIXIE

I wish I was in the Land of Cotton.

Old times there are not forgotten.

Or in Mississippian William Faulkner's apt phrase referring to his home region, "The past is not dead. It's not even past."

For a couple of years now we have been distracted and agonizing over monuments, songs, buildings, books and other supposed desiderata that have compromised or downright unpleasant connotations. For the moment I'm going to limit myself to the discussions around race, racism and the fetishizing of the Confederacy. So let's get one thing out of the way immediately. 

The American Civil War was not a "War of Northern Aggression". The first shots fired in that war rained down on a Federal garrison at Fort Sumter in the harbor of the secessionist city of Charleston, South Carolina. Major Anderson did not fire on Charleston first. He was fired upon. Nor was the Civil War a "War for States Rights". The states kept their Constitutionally guaranteed rights but they had to acknowledge that they were parts of one nation and subject to the laws thereof. The whole point of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the ratification of our Constitution was to knit together what had been thirteen fiefdoms at war with one another and often with themselves. Our Civil War settled the fact that we are one nation in which states have rights but not rights that supersede those of the Federal Government.

The American Civil War was fought over slavery and the preservation of the plantation system that could not exist without slave labor. Every one of the secession documents and secession constitutions of the Confederate States make it absolutely clear that slavery was the issue behind secession and all that followed so let's be clear about that from the start.

Here we are more than one hundred and fifty years later and the freedom that a northern victory conferred on former slaves has never been fully realized. Too often we see minorities, black, brown, Native American and others cheated, denigrated and abandoned not to mention the every lengthening list of murder victims: Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Philando Castille and on and on stretching both to past and future. We have forced African-American and other racial and ethnic groups into ghettos. Because Irish, Italians, Polish, Germans and Jews among other Europeans are considered "white" they assimilated quickly and within a century became part of the American majority. Perhaps the greatest assimilation factor was World War II during which members of many ethnic groups found themselves in the same foxholes trying to stay alive while fighting a common enemy both in the actual battlefield and in the movies shown at home.

African-Americans, unlike their pale, European cousins have always had their skin color to identify and exclude them. Too often they have been seen as Africans while their white sisters and brothers excise the "American" part of their group identity.

The past truly isn't even past. Lynchings now seldom involve a rope, at least outside of a jail cell. Today they involve a choke hold or an all too eager policeman's bullet. Yet it is those very bullets and the videos that allow bystanders to document the abuses of police and other citizens that have made the racism and discrimination obvious to those previously inclined to dismiss such claims. Thus having brought the Jim Crow past manifestly forward into the present we are also sensitive to the symbols of that horrible past that persist into our slightly less horrible present.

Much has been made of David Wark Griffith's Birth of a Nation as the inspiration for the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th Century. That's a facile and largely wrong identification. The U. S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. For that decision to reach the Supreme Court there had to be segregation long before Homer Plessy was refused a seat in a rail car. If we are looking for a beginning to the Ku Klux Klan we have to look into the hearts of men who can observe another human being and find a difference that makes the observer superior to the person observed. We have to look at men and women who refused to accept freedom and equality for all human beings. We have to look at white women who valiantly fought for their right to vote but would not consider that their African-American sisters should have that right too. We have to look at men and women who refused to accept that the world that they knew and profited from was, to coin a phrase, "gone with the wind" and never would come back. We definitely have to look at "The Corrupt Bargain of 1877" that traded Reconstruction and Federal troops occupying the former Confederate states for the presidency of minority Republican Rutherford B. Hayes rather than the majority vote's choice of Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Griffith's film and Woodrow Wilson's personal racism sure had an effect but the Klan hordes who came out from under their several rocks through the 1920s weren't new. They were just revealed. The Klan and other racist groups and individuals (e.g. the German-American Bund, America First, Westbrook van Voorhis or the popular Radio Priest, Father Charles Coughlin) were always lurking in the penumbra at the edges of our vision. They just came out into the centre of focus for a time. I am not defending Birth of a Nation. The script is an appalling racist screed and needs to be acknowledged as such. It is also, however, a work of art. The narrative may be vile but the skill and perception that went into making it is worth seeing. That is the dichotomy that I wish to discuss very shortly.

Much like Birth of a Nation is only one expression of the racism infecting our society, the statues now coming down or, more often, staying up long after their meaning gone from bad to worse have a complicated and fraught meaning. Many who want statues honoring soldier and figures of the Confederacy removed cite the fact that most were erected between the 1890s and 1920s, long after the Civil War was over and the battlefield dead turned to dust. That late advent is indisputable fact but I would suggest that we also consider that time in a slightly different light. The 1890s into the 1920s saw the passing of the great majority of the survivors of that war. The old veteran who might be seen at some local popular spot ready to tell stories of his youth in battle was no more. That his friends and neighbors and, yes, often fellow Klan members, might subscribe to erect a statue to their local veteran and all such veterans is no more perverse than the monuments to those who served in World War II, Korea or Vietnam that now stand on the National Mall. What is perverse is the cause for which that veteran fought.

When I was a boy and obsessed with Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War I found much that was admirable in Robert W. Lee, Thomas J. Stonewall Jackson, Joseph Johnson, Philip Kearney, Ulysses Grant and, perhaps the noblest next to Lincoln, William T. Sherman. As a Union man and admirer of Lincoln I could still feel the pain of Confederate General John Bell Hood after losing the Battle of Nashville and seeing his army destroyed. Hood had lost both an arm and a leg in the war. He had to be helped about the camp and strapped onto his horse. I have no sympathy for his cause but I do not have so stony a heart as to remain unmoved by this man, wracked with sobs, alone in his tent after the battle knowing that he had lost all of the Confederacy west of the Appalachians and east of the Mississippi River. Hood is as tragic a figure as King Lear and deserves a tear no less than Shakespeare's supremely tragic king despite his fight for wrong to his fellow men. He is not less worthy of remembrance than martyrs for the rights of all human beings like Medgar Evers or Fred Hampton. I am not about to set up a statue to John Bell Hood who is already remembered in Fort Hood, Texas nor will I oppose the removal of a single statue to him. His story, like those of the much more admirable Evers and Hampton, is worth remembering still.

The great problem for the Confederate symbols and statues and even the song, Dixie, is that they have been adopted by the worst of us, the new Klan, the casual racists and the neo-Nazi alt-Right, the white supremacists who, with every word and act, prove to the world and especially to this old white man that there's precious little that's supreme about being white.

The statues in question are tainted at the root from racism and they are further tainted by the inhuman and sub-human scum who cleave to them in support of their odious beliefs. Yet I can foresee a day, a day that the greatest hero of my lifetime, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., also foresaw. That day is one when the past is at long last past. When we have acknowledged that humanity, equality and decency are the birthright of every human being and we can go to museums and parks and public buildings and view statues and monuments to men and women who attempted what they believed were great things but in service of an odious wrong.

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemmings. Those actions are a great wrong yet Jefferson could also write that "all me are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There is considerable irony in his authorship of those words but those words form the bedrock of all fights to realize every American's inalienable civil rights. We cannot pull down that larger than life statue of Jefferson in his Washington, D. C. Memorial without pulling down those words as well.

For our time and for a very long time we need to put away the Confederate battle flag, the statues and Dixie. Put them by, let them gather dust and be forgotten. Let the past finally be past. One day, however, let them be seen and heard again. Let the dust be removed when the white, black, brown or other child viewing those old symbols can look up at his or her grandfather who's just explained their meaning and say, "But, Grandpa, that was all wrong. Awfully wrong!" Then Grandpa can answer, "What a good, smart child you are! You make me so proud." Perhaps on that future day, should there be a band standing by, someone can quote the always generous Abraham Lincoln after receiving the news of Lee's surrender at Appomattox the day before, "I have always thought 'Dixie' one of the best tunes I have ever heard....I now request the band to favor me with its performance."

For the sake of our times and for all future times, let the old times there be forgotten so that we can one day remember them as part of history and not as part of current injustice.

E-Klan Robes

The argument is utterly absurd on its face.

Here in my home state of Washington and now in Federal Court in California right-wing bigots are claiming the right to wear virtual hoods over their heads. The ironic and absurd contention is that if these terrorists are identified in public they may be subjected to ridicule and intimidation. On its face their argument is that we bigots have an inalienable right to intimidate others but no one else should dare to assert a phony right to intimidate us.

The issue here is not race hatred but rather hatred of gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals who are seeking equal rights with their heterosexual peers.

Back in May of 2009 the Washington Legislature finally gathered the courage to pass what we refer to as the "Everything But Marriage Act" allowing domestic partners of either sex the full benefits of marriage but without legalizing same-sex marriage per se. This act skirted an issue in Washington created by the bigots themselves. In 1998 a voter initiative passed creating a Washington State "Defense of Marriage Act". Marriage, which has had a sad and checkered history throughout time, has been an institution used briefly and, sometimes often, for a half century in America but the threat from which the red-neck bigots and fundamentalist loonies found it needed defending was the possibility that couples of the same sex might marry. Their hysterical rant claimed that heterosexual marriages were somehow threatened by homosexual marriages. How and to what effect they never could coherently specify. The best argument they could muster was that their Big-Imaginary-Friend-In-The-Sky said it was a no-no. This, of course, came from people whose direct antecedents claimed that Afro-Americans were an "inferior" race based on the advice of that same Big-Imaginary-Friend-In-The-Sky. With the Washington "Defense of Marriage Act" on the books, legislators had to tread a bit lightly. Thus they did not do the obvious and correct thing in having the "Defense of Marriage Act" declared unconstitutional followed by passage of a bill extending full marital rights to same-sex couples.

Light tread or not, the bigots marshaled their night-riders and set out to terrorize the state. On September 1, 2009 the Republican Washington Secretary of State certified initiative petitions containing enough signatures to put Referendum 71 on last November's ballot. The bigots are not without lawyers. After all Kenneth Starr and Antonin Scalia are, sadly, still breathing. They managed to couch the petition in language sufficiently obtuse that a Yes vote retained the "Everything But Marriage Act" while a No vote would have repealed it. Thanks, in part, to the bigots' efforts to confuse voters about their purpose and their success in doing so, Referendum 71 was defeated in the 2009 state elections. But what is relevant here is the history between September 1 and November 5, 2009.

Initiative petitions are public documents. That is and has been settled law in Washington State and throughout the United States. But when a pro-gay rights group in Washington announced plans to create a public, on-line database of the signers of the Referendum 71 petitions, all hell broke loose amongst those awaiting The Rapture. Good heavens! They were simply trying to deny equal rights to others and now they might face discriminatory treatment themselves! Horrible! That is, after all, why Klansmen wore hoods!

The courts, up to the U. S. Supreme Court in the person of "Justice" Anthony Kennedy, decided to punt on the issue. If I am being charitable, and, being a dyed-in-the-wool Lefty, I must be even when it grates, I suspect that the punt was meant to split the difference between the settled law that the petition signers' names are public records and the worry that they would be targeted for some unspecified violence (burning rainbows on their front lawns?). In any case, election day, 2009 came and went. The odious Referendum 71 went down to well deserved defeat and the case became moot.

Now we have a trial in Federal Court in San Francisco, California raising the issue of the even more odious Proposition 8 which actually amended the California Constitution to outlaw same sex marriages. Judge Vaughn R. Walker presiding over the case, a Libertarian-leaning appointee of Poppy Bush, wanted to televise the proceedings. Once again the right-wing night-riders objected to having their hoods removed for a broad public claiming that they might be subject to witness intimidation. A compromise went for nothing and now the Supreme Court, once again in the person of Anthony Kennedy, has punted but this time with a level of unabashed absurdity that exponentially exceeds the Washington case.

Indeed, the bigots won't appear in inglorious color on YouTube but there is nothing to prevent any person attending the court proceedings from reporting their names and other identifying information in any public forum available. In short, the Supreme Court injunction will do nothing but turn a video record into verbal reportage.

Yet the very real issue is one of darkness and light. Light, whether sunlight or scrutiny, disinfects. Lots of noisome things grow in the dark. The bigots who promote gay bashing, whether in individual, physical attacks or in public legislative attacks on our gay brothers and sisters, need to be brought out into the light to disinfect our society. The real issue is that these bigots are ashamed of their vile bigotry just as the Klansmen that they resemble needed hoods to hide their identities from the larger public. When we turned over the racist rocks under which Byron dela Beckwith, Cecil Price, Lawrence Rainey, Sam Bowers, Robert Chambliss and Thomas Blanton cowered, the killings and bombings stopped and Afro-Americans could go about their business in Mississippi and Alabama with far less fear than when the hate of those monsters festered in the darkness. It's now time to expose the current crop of night-riding bigots to the light so that their public shame and native cowardice ends this odious chapter of American bigotry.

We had to wait thirty years for the play and subsequent movie Inherit the Wind publicly showing the vacuousness of the fundamentalists in the Scopes Monkey Trial. I doubt that we will have to wait so long for the public display and discrediting of this new subset of bigots. It won't do away with the bigotry in itself just as we are still battling over evolution eighty-five years after William Jennings Bryan discredited himself and fundamentalism in Dayton, Tennessee. However, dragging the bigots into the light will quiet them and purge the public forum of their hateful viciousness.

We need this publicity not only for ourselves but for our world as well. The fundamentalist bigots are now financing and promoting gay bashing legislation in Uganda that is only slightly different from that in Hitler's Germany. Their churches and the overflowing, tax-free offerings on which their ministries of hate depend operate in darkness. They preach that they "hate the sin but love the sinner" while sponsoring the death penalty for the sinner. Public exposure of their bigotry will necessarily cut into the offerings in the plates passed on Sunday mornings as people unwilling to be publicly associated with such odious policies opt for other, less extreme places of worship.

So I am cheerfully awaiting the first reports of the names, addresses and even cell phone pictures of the bigots who want to deny that most American belief that "all men are created equal" and the fulfillment of that in the assertion that we all have equal rights regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or who we love.

Impeach Earl Warren

Most people won't remember the billboards that went up in the states of the old Confederacy and some plains states as well after Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Furguson and outlawed segregation in America. Those billboards exhorted people to get behind a movement to impeach the new U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, the former Republican governor of California, Earl Warren. Warren had led the court to a unanimous decision that when our Constitution proclaimed equal rights to all men, it meant it regardless of minor distinctions like skin color, ethnicity, and the like. But that upset a lot of people, rich and poor, who thought that equality was fine for those who were most like themselves and inappropriate for those they preferred to hate.

A decade after the Brown v. Board of Education decision one of the things at stake in the 1964 presidential election was implementation of that decision. Senators like James O. Eastland, John Stennis, Richard Russell and Strom Thurmond couldn't hold back the 1964 Voting Rights Act but they could nullify it if right-wing fanatics took the White House. They didn't get their wish then.

When they did finally elect a neo-fascist in 1968 the majority of Americans' popular perception was that all men and women were indeed created equal. Richard Nixon rode into the White House on the disarray of the Democrats following Robert Kennedy's murder and an effective campaign to blame peaceful protesters in Chicago for the police riot that victimized them. But Nixon also rode into office on his "Southern Strategy". That strategy involved pandering to the racists, segregationists, states-rights proponents, Klansmen and the like who'd been loyal Democrats since 1865. Suddenly the scum of American politics were following Strom Thurmond into the Republican Party that had been anathema to them since Abraham Lincoln's first campaign.

Truth to tell, the populist Democrats from the South in the 1920s and 1930s such as Hugo Black, Claude Pepper, Sam Rayburn and others were less concerned about race than they were about economic standing. That concern allowed them to come to an uneasy accommodation with Northern Democrats, whose more liberal views on race were out of sync with that of their Southern constituents, focused on moving America out of the Great Depression. The understanding that the chains that weighted people down had more to do with class than color opened those populist leaders to change. The casually Democratic and casually bigoted voter did not share that openness and were ripe for picking by Republicans cynically eager to heave Lincoln overboard for racist votes.

But Nixon couldn't manage to shove onto the Supreme Court the candidates of his racist backers, the Klan tainted Clement F. Haynesworth and G. Harold Carswell. He did get the Arizona racist, William Rhenquist, onto the court but Southern racists simply couldn't pass muster. The Haynesworth and Carswell fiascoes taught the Republicans that they needed to reframe their arguments and concentrate on subtlety.

They propagandized their position as opposition to "activist judges" and a focus on "the original intent of the framers of the Constitution". In fact, those catch phrases have always been an Orwellian smoke screen for promoting right-wing extremists who would take us back, not just to the Vinson Court of 1952 but to the Taney Court of 1852. Right-wing fanatics like Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia and Scalia's puppet, Clarence Thomas, have no more respect for or knowledge of the "original intent" that they trumpet than they have for the rights of individuals against corporations. They are exactly what they profess to oppose: activist judges, though they are themselves activists for neo-fascism.

The next attempt to neutralize the Supreme Court during the Reagan Presidency narrowly avoided afflicting the nation with Robert Bork. We despised Bork for firing Archibald Cox in 1973 but the reason for keeping him off the Supreme Court was his neo-fascist extremist vision of the Constitution. No one questions the contradiction inherent in the belief that Bork, Scalia and their ilk can use some bizarre telepathy to mystically understand the "original intent of the founders" even as they insist that the Constitution is ossified and unchanging, that things not specifically delineated in it do not exist. There is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution because "the founders" (sounds awfully like Star Trek: Deep Space 9, doesn't it?) never heard of personal privacy and were utterly unaware of the concept when they drafted the 3rd and 4th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

But persistence counts for something. Having packed the court at last with reliably neo-fascist jurists 53 years later, the Supreme Court that couldn't be rid of desegregation by impeaching Earl Warren has now achieved a reinstatement of Plessy v. Ferguson in the Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. It is an uneasy reversal given that Justice Anthony Kennedy who swallows a great deal of rancid neo-fascist tripe choked on some of the reasoning and consequences that his even more extremist colleagues served up.

As many of us believed when Roberts went before the Senate Judiciary Committee all but wearing a t-shirt that read, "I (heart) Stare Decisis," the new Chief Justice has no compunctions for dragging us back to the 1850s. And that return to segregation if not to slavery is cynically couched in the rhetoric of being "color blind". The irrational explanation for that catch phrase is that if race should not be an occasion for discrimination then ignoring race will magically make racism disappear. One of the requirements for being a right-winger is voluntary an selective disassociation from reality and a kind of magical thinking in which idiocy like closing ones eyes and ears makes bad things go away. The 5-member Supreme Court majority has stuck its collective fingers in its collective ears and intoned "La-la-la-la-la! I can't hear racism!" As if that would make it go away.

Segregation in America was the next best thing to having "happy darky slaves" picking in the "ole cotton fields back home." Had the South been able to completely undo the Civil War it would have done so. The violent opposition to the Civil Rights Movement that culminated in the 1960s proved that. The graves of Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Viola Liuzzo, Martin Luther King, Jr. prove that. The more recent murder of James Byrd proves that the agenda has not changed. At long last Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito and their houseboy, Thomas, can effectuate that agenda. How they are going to negate the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments remains to be seen but we can have confidence those who'd sacrifice a mother to save a deformed and non-viable fetus will find a way.