I Must Not stand for this I-mass Confusion

Once again the ugly but valid issue of race in America has surfaced as a hot topic. This time it’s because an American broadcasting icon put his foot in his mouth (Don Imus). He and his personally selected on-air staff called a group of Black Rutgers female basketball players “nappy headed ho’s,” among other racist and sexist disparaging remarks. The two white team members were, for all intents and purposes, ignored.

“Nappy headed,” “kinky haired,” “wooly haired,” “Nigger,” “pick-a-ninny,” are just a few of the words that White’s introduced into the lexicon of the American English language to demean, degrade, and dehumanize the slaves from Sub-Saharan Africa. This systematic campaign of negative racial stereotyping was necessary because the race-based and genetically inheritable form of slavery invented in colonial America by White American colonists was the first time slavery had been based on racial identity, made perpetually inheritable, and nearly inescapable by ordinary means. The negatively affected people were the enslaved ones, indelibly marked with their so-called Negroid features, dark skin, tightly curled hair, thick lips, and large widely spread nostrils. This set of easily identifiable physical characteristics facilitated easy identification and “recovery” of Black individuals who strayed from the bonds of involuntary servitude whether they had been legally sold and bought as slaves or not. The positively affected people were the White American colonists who found the key to exponential economic growth: a huge pool of unpaid and self-replicating labor populated by persons who could never inherit the fruits of that labor.

The power elite among the Euro-whites who colonized America were intelligent and educated. They were familiar with the political characteristics of the “classical” cultures they most admired. They knew that the Greeks, Romans, et al rose to dominance on the backs of slave labor. Slavery was recognized as the key to extracting more from an economic/political system than the system’s owners put into it.

The self-interested keepers of White moral and economic standards cleverly used pseudo-religious principles as tools to erect a cross upon which to crucify their Black victims as just sacrifices, ordained by God as a means for the deliverance of Whites from many of the labors attendant to gleaning wealth from the uncivilized and harsh continent upon which they found themselves (having fled or been expelled from their erstwhile “un-free” political environs in Europe and that little island). Faith and moral posturing were important then, as they are now. Recognizing that there might be a perceived disconnect between the principles espoused in their revolutionary rants and their actual practices, astute whites took institutionalized enslavement one step further by constructing a set of moral-sounding rationalizations for the nature of the institution, and the need to perpetuate it.

They cherry-picked phrases from the Bible, and what they could not support with direct quotes, they simply made up. Blacks were less than human in the eyes of God. They were bearers of the mark of Cain, and were thus deserving of lesser treatment. They looked different from “civilized” real humans. You could dress them up, but you couldn’t change their “animal” physical characteristics. They were progeny of faithless pseudo-cultures, created as a quasi-human “lesser” to be cultivated and controlled by the enlightened, White Christian “greater.” Ultimately, Pro-slavery White thinkers sold the idea that God sanctioned their actions. After all, they were only telling the “movers and shakers” what they wanted and needed to hear. To most it was an easy sell. (Even those who found slavery abhorrent tended to perceive Blacks as not quite human.) The framers of the Constitution and laws of the nascent nation wove racial discrimination into the legal and moral fabric of that nation. Thus the birth of a schizoid country began, and centuries later the schism is almost as wide as ever.

We are now in the 21st century and some wounds are still scabrous. Healing won’t be complete unless and until the scab falls off, the sensitive underlying skin is exposed to clean air, and the mending process is final. Imus’ infamous comments found their origin in an era when such disparagement was deemed to be necessary, and rationalized as morally correct. Now, neither its necessity nor its moral correctness is recognized as valid. Educated and intelligent Americans are (or should be) aware of their nation’s history, and the consequences of various actions taken along the way to the present. Still, when a White person gets busted for crossing the line of racial hatred and insensitivity, his/her first line of defense is always the trite, “Forgive me, for I know not what I do; the Bible obligates you to give me a break.” Over the centuries, White America has always used the Bible and the magical mantra of Christian forgiveness to get out from under the most vile, hideous, and hateful behavior against Black Americans. If that book was so important to them, that behavior would be less likely to still exist -- Unless, of course, they continue to hold a closeted belief in the validity of the racist propaganda promulgated in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

American Blacks must be the final arbiters of their own images. Note that I said “images,” not “image.” No single image can properly portray the realities of multiple millions of individuals, even if they share common physical characteristics. This is what freedom is all about. I am free to brand or tattoo myself. You are not free to brand or tattoo me without my overt consent. The pseudo-debate about how certain Black performers use disparaging terminology when referring to Blacks is the reddest of red herrings. It is an attempt on the part of proponents of the historic power of American Whites to continue to assert a dominant position over Blacks. After all, Black people couldn’t possibly be capable of deciding such issues for themselves -- or could they?

They can -- if they will. There are times when it is necessary to assert citizens’ rights regardless of the opinions of a majority that has been accustomed to framing the debate. To paraphrase others who have said it before, neither the Constitution nor cherry-picked biblical passages should be viewed as suicide pacts. Succumbing to a death by a thousand socially inflicted cuts is not an option. There are limits to forgiveness. Where my perceived need to forgive you is in opposition to my obligation to create a situation that will make it less likely that I and my progeny will have to endure a repetition of the affront that created the need for forgiveness in the first place, forgiveness loses. Accountability and appropriate behavioral modification are in order.

Imus had to be fired. For decades he demonstrated a pattern of behavior. He inflicted social injury to those least able to defend themselves. It doesn’t matter that he was an “equal opportunity” insulter. It doesn’t matter that his insults were often directed towards persons of power who were well able to defend themselves. It’s the collateral damage that counts most. His vile vitriol couldn’t help but spill over onto members of the minority masses who couldn’t fend off the continuous attacks by Imus and his fans, too many of whom used his on-air ravings as rationalization for more directly harmful behavior against Blacks and other minorities. He feigned repentance before, and didn’t mean it. He agreed to modify his racist behavior before, and didn’t do it. Even this time, during his “repentance tour” of various media outlets, he reverted to his old, bullying self whenever confronted with the reality of his past and present behavior. He tried to use his many charitable activities as shields against criticisms about issues that had nothing to do with those charities -- and certainly nothing to do with tax-deductions. Imus is still extremely rich and extremely famous and extremely popular. His approach to entertainment was certainly not illegal, but it was, in the eyes of employing networks, their sponsors, many broadcasting professionals, and many others, unacceptable. His firing was not illegal, but it was appropriate, acceptable, and necessary. His firing was a non-crime that befitted the non-crimes of which he was guilty.

A precedent must be established if Whites are to really be believed about how they are in no way proud of the hypocrisy in race relations that continues to plague our society. It is incumbent for supporters of social equity to hold onto the ball this time.

Imus was the morning “wake-up coffee” that stimulated much of America. Many of his fans were comfortable pretending to reject racism, while reveling in its corrosiveness as promoted by this “Shock Jock.” Imus has been wearing the “Dayrider’s sheet” of racist America, and his followers have been hiding under it or behind it. The time has finally come for the racist underpinnings of so much of this nation and its history to be exposed. This is not a pleasant or comfortable situation. That is why so many are pushing for “forgiveness.” Instead of doing the hard things and making uncomfortable admissions, many Americans are desperately seeking to preserve the cover with which Imus had sheltered them for so many years. It is enlightening and saddening to observe so many prominent journalists, editorialists, and others grasping for rhetorical straws as they attempt to come up with ways to save Imus from himself and for themselves.

One would think that they should develop somewhat of an aversion for straws of any kind, having seen the effect of the proverbial straw that broke the Imus camel’s back. There was nothing covert about Imus’ presentation. He used his sponsors’ money to hire staff to do “nigger” jokes. Alarm bells failed to ring, or if rung, failed to be recognized as his powerful commercial and socio-political supporters subsidized his efforts to give America what they were certain it wanted. CBS, MSNBC, corporate entities, prominent politicians, etc. have not been oblivious to the Imus’ nature. They have benefited from it, and enjoyed the ride -- all the way to their respective banks. Blacks and others were expected to continue to retreat to the back of the media bus.

Majority individuals (and a few clinging minority sycophants) all over America are in shock and awe of the fallout from that one last straw. The straw that breaks the camel’s back generally has that effect when it’s least expected. After all, if it were expected, that last straw would never have been laid on. Imus’ "last straw event" caught him and millions of others by surprise, not because of the nature of the straw, but because of the effect of its placement.

The pro-Imus insurgency is now engaging in the placement of rhetorical IED’s. They are attempting to nullify and intimidate their critics by targeting Black entertainers via a censorship drive. They are deliberately confusing freedom of expression within an ethnic or racial group with ethnic intimidation from those outside the group. They are pretending not to recognize that there is a moral and legal difference. That must not be permitted. Neither White media mavens, nor Black go-to-spokespersons must be allowed to become complicit to relinquishing freedom of expression in behalf of all of Black America. This would not be freedom, and would not respect the fact that no single point of view legitimately represents 100% of the members of any major population. This stance is ultimately threatening to the freedom of all Americans, regardless of race and ethnicity.

Good taste is not required under the Constitution. To any cretins who confuse the production and sale of possibly offensive forms of expression directly to those who wish to purchase it, with generalized corporate support (via advertising dollars) of offensive forms of expression channeled via public airways to listeners and viewers who have not directly asked for it, but who are inadvertently exposed to it because it is intermixed with more palatable fare: GET REAL!!

Whites have to be accountable for their actions, as must we all. Blacks are not the creators of, nor have they been the beneficiaries of the American racism that has existed for so long. There is no need for anyone to accept the unacceptable from the majority just because many of them continue to believe they are entitled to be the sole arbiters of American moral legitimacy. The past was then. The present is now. There is no longer any reason for Blacks to accept being treated as though they are the spawn of the Devil only because of their inherited physical characteristics.

Imus doesn’t need to stay on air to keep the dialogue going. He doesn’t need to stay on the air to remain rich. His good deeds in behalf of various causes can continue whether he remains in broadcasting or not. Jerry Lewis, for example, hasn’t been an actively performing “A-lister” for years, but he continues to do good through his annual telethons. If Imus is looking for a new cause he could probably raise a boatload of dough by hosting a huge pity-party benefiting the social redemption of the poor, downtrodden majority Male. He could call it Party In Sincere Support Of Majority Oppressiveness Forever and Forever (PISSOMOFF). A true Shock Jock would appreciate the acronym.

Kidding aside, it doesn't seem likely that Imus will be trodding the path toward redemption any time soon. One of his more revelatory statements was, "If you expect me to have a come-to-Jesus moment, that ain’t gonna happen!"

If he really becomes dejected about having received the broadcasting "death penalty," he can replace the words to his familiar six note theme tune with, "Imus is in mourning."

I-mass Confusion

First --- I'm back.

Second --- I was right before, and I'm right now.

Third --- Let's elucidate upon this Imus crappola.

The Fourth Estate and the First Amendment

Shame on you, Newsweek; not because of your use of anonymous sources, but because of how easily you caved in to those who successfully coerced you into a premature and unwarranted “mea culpa” with regard to your inability (or unwillingness) to put a name and face on the person or persons who predicted that a government report would contain acknowledgement of reports of Qurans being flushed down toilets by U.S. personnel involved in the detention and interrogation of suspected Islamic terrorists incarcerated at Guantanamo.

Is a report necessarily less correct because it can’t be confirmed by three or more sources? Is a report necessarily more correct if it is confirmed by three or more sources? The answer to both questions is no. A factual event observed by one individual is a factual event, whether or not two others observe it. (Think of anything you have done in private.) A non factual event is still without objective basis even if many sources agree that it is factual. (Think Iraqi WMD’s.)

Of course, if Newsweek or any other journalistic organization needs to admit having made a mistake, then it should do so. On the other hand, no institution representative of any form of “the press” should feel obligated to alter journalistic stances to please any branch of the government. The United States Constitution prohibits the government from abridgement of the press’s freedom.

The Newsweek fiasco is redolent with signs of capitulation to an aggressive Presidential Administration pressing onward in its so far successful attempt to gather unto itself powers not granted by the Constitution it claims should be “strictly interpreted.”

The response of any non-government news gathering organization to any government officials setting themselves up as arbiters of journalistic conduct, reportorial ethics, or arbitration of reported facts in dispute should be a resounding, “Mind your own business!” The government of the United States is responsible to the people of the United States. The press, for the sake of its own credibility, has a tacit responsibility to segments of the people. (Special-interest oriented or biased press is Constitutionally permitted.)

The press is not required to act as a cheering section for the government. It is not prohibited from acting as such a cheering section, either. It has that freedom. That freedom must, however, be defended if it is to be maintained.

The last thing a news organization seeking to remain free and to be viewed as credible should do is to apologize for upsetting members of an administration that has played faster and looser with the truth than the most insipid snake-oil salesman. Apologize if you must if you truly believe that you have been mistaken. Do not, however, apologize in such a way as to aid and abet administration officials who are systematically attempting to present themselves as unquestionable, despite being among the least credible in recent history.

Consider the lack of factual basis behind just a sampling of assertions and policies of the current Administration over the past three years:

The horrible events of 9/11, mostly planned and perpetrated by Saudis, and guided by leaders based in Afghanistan, becomes a “war on terror,” waged in Iraq.

Saddam becomes “Head 9/11-Associated Terrorist,” whose immediately deployable weapons of mass destruction are poised to continue a direct assault by Saddam on the United States. This is despite the fact that an Iraqi attack on the U.S. not only never occurred, but couldn’t continue, since it never started.

Congress is encouraged (or mollified) into abrogating its Constitutionally mandated power to declare war by permitting the Commander in Chief to wage de facto war without de jure sanction. (This, unfortunately, has become a habitual cop-out of timorous Congresses since the 1950’s)

When the WMD assertion and the fraudulent documents of proof of their existence are “slam-dunked” into the dubious reality of, “oops, we – uh -- thought they were there,” the conquest of Iraq is magically morphed into a war for democracy, and to save the Iraqi people from Saddam.

This about-face in stated rationale for the Iraq conflict is then touted as living up to the U.S. President’s responsibility to spread “freedom” and democracy, throughout the world, despite the fact that such a Presidential responsibility is contained nowhere in the text of the United States Constitution, and certainly is no part of the oath taken by this or any other U.S. President when he assumed office.

The Iraq war fails to show any signs of “paying for itself,” as U.S. borne costs of rehabilitating the production and shipping of Iraqi oil continues to exceed revenues returned to the American people.

Iraq, never an important base for Islamic terror organizations prior to the U.S. war of liberation there, starts to attract radical and violent Islamic Jihadists from throughout the Middle East like flies to feces.

The President, reelected by a slim three percent margin garnered mostly from those concerned about issues of terrorism and national security, boldly and fallaciously claims to have been awarded a mandate to aggressively pursue domestically divisive policies largely unrelated to both of those concerns.

Administration spokespersons appoint themselves to be arbiters of how the press ought to conduct itself, and virtually demand that an independent news organization withdraw elements of a report yet to be proven false.

The current administration has consistently been aided in its duplicity by members of the press who are more anxious to curry favor with governmental officials than they are to arrive at truth, no matter how distasteful it might be.

The last thing a news organization that sees itself as an important part of the structure of American society should do is to fail to aggressively question and investigate assertions made by governmental officials. As I have said before, politicians should be expected to vigorously advocate for themselves. (For them, legitimate techniques include “The Big Lie.”) It is not the job of the press to rubber-stamp any aspect of that advocacy. It is the press’s job to monitor events and actions and to ferret out and report on big lies and the strings of little ones that may one day combine to spell the demise of this great republic as we have come to know and love it.

This monitoring process often must begin with information provided by lone, unattributed sources who, to protect themselves and their loved ones, cannot make themselves known to the public. If such sources are quoted accurately, and the fact that their assertions cannot (at the time of publication) be independently confirmed, is clearly stated by the press agencies quoting them, the public can ultimately be served better than if such sources are unheard from. Investigative reporting is an ongoing process, and publications engaging in it have merely to inform their public whether published product is based on investigatory work in progress, or represents final conclusions of completed investigatory processes.

The American people are desirous of doing the right thing for themselves and their country. They want their leaders to reflect this. Neither the public nor its leadership can be expected to make correct and honest choices if they are prevented from access to enough factual information and sufficient pro and con opinions to arrive at well considered and righteous truth.

A fearless, active and conscientious Fourth Estate can and should act as an important visual aid for governmental individuals and agencies too often blinded by the supposed light of their rigidly adhered-to ideological proclivities.

Fourth Estate, Where Art Thou?

With all due respect to all the current President’s men (and women), the Bush administration cannot lay claim to being the most unethical in recent history. Having been given a second term and a majority in the House and Senate, it might yet earn that dubious distinction.

The Bush Administration has historic Republican role models, and seems to have learned to emulate some of the most repugnant characteristics of the worst (and best) of them.

We remember Warren Harding, perhaps the Patron Saint of over-reaching Republican Administrations. It was he who perfected the fine art of turning the White House into a cash cow to be milked by the President and his cronies.

We remember the Nixon White House and all of that President's men. Spiro “Nolo contendere” Agnew denied doing anything wrong all the way to his resignation and tax-evasion plea! The bribe-taking Vice President referred to critics as “nattering nabobs of negativism,” while his Chief looked sincerely into the lenses of TV cameras as he assured the nation that, "I am not a crook." Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, this was Nixon's assertion all the way to his ignominious exit from office.

We remember the seeming sincerity with which Ronald Reagan narrowly averted a Nixonian fate after he was “busted” for authorizing covert actions that were in direct contravention of U.S. law. He, at least was able to persuade critics and supporters that he had been “mistaken” in some of his actions. He was not anxious to precipitate a Constitutional crisis, nor was he foolish enough to risk a test of whether his actions constituted “High Crimes or Misdemeanors.”

All of the foregoing found ways of rationalizing the abuse of the power entrusted to them by the citizenry. Since the middle of the Twentieth Century, the American Presidency has arguably been the most powerful political office on earth. With the downfall of the USSR, and the development of some truly amazing weapons technologies, the United States has become The superpower. If it is true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then being Commander in Chief of The superpower must have powerful corruptive influence. If the President comes out of and/or admires a tradition of venality, greed, coercion, and self aggrandizement, the potential for turning to the Dark Side is great indeed. When that President has the successes and failures of like-minded predecessors to learn from, the temptation to confuse being Chief Executive with being the Nation’s Dictator may be too great to resist.

One of the most effective counter forces to office-holders run amok is the press. The press, in all its incarnations, and with its Constitutionally-granted freedom has the potential to thwart those who would distort, defame and ultimately destroy the unique entity that is the United States of America.

Two young reporters, a supportive Managing Editor, and a fearless publisher were instrumental in bringing down a Presidential Administration that flaunted its power and flouted its responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Today there seem to be Neither Woodwards, nor Bernsteins, nor Bradlees, nor news organizations with the courage to act as anything but sycophants for the Administration, no matter how spurious its claims nor how convoluted its logic.

Politicians should be expected to vigorously advocate for themselves. The press should be honest and objective enough to report proven facts as proven facts, presumptions as presumptions, assertions as assertions, and unsubstantiated claims as unsubstantiated claims – even if they emanate from the highest office in the land. It might sometimes be necessary to remind the President that he is not the Emperor, and to acknowledge when he lacks “clothes.”

Who is Cassandra Paine?

Cassandra Paine

Cogito, ergo sum. -- I think, therefore I am.

Rene Descartes stated the preceding as a philosopher. Taxonomists said it too, when they named our species, Homo sapiens -- thinking man.

I am a woman of thoughts, opinions, beliefs and hope.

I will use this space and other venues to join the blogging community and interact with my fellow thinking beings.

I reside in the Northeast United States.

I am the mother of five adult children, and grandmother of nine.

I have been a health professional, a small business owner, a radio host, an ombudsman, and an advocate for candidates, citizens, and causes.

Cassandra Paine is not my "given name." It is my "taken name," my nom de fon when I was a radio talk show host in my hometown, and my nom de plume here.

I wasn't born yesterday. If there are pet peeves that might color my opinions, one is that I resent it when our leaders and so many of the news presenters and commentators prominent in the mass media presume that I was (and you were). The other is that so many ostensibly intelligent adults allow themselves to be victimized as objects of that presumption.

To think is to be. To be is to think. A great part of the joy of being is in sharing thoughts with others.