For me, as for most Americans, the words of Martin Luther King have been and will always be inspiring.
In my hometown, as many other cities, the life and accomplishments Martin Luther King are celebrated, in may different ways, by many different segments of our community. Later this month, for the Jewish community and for all who wish to attend, Temple Adath Israel, will be offering a uniquely special remembrance of not only the life of Martin Luther King, but also pausing to remember the contributions of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel whose life is intertwined with Dr. King’s.
Rabbi Heschel, met King in 1963. King asked Heschel to help lead “prayer services” for civil rights during a march in Alabama. Rabbi Heschel had to receive permission from the Jewish theological seminary where he was teaching, A few days later, the Rabbi called the seminary to ask for money to bail him out of jail. They asked, aren’t you suppose to be leading prayer services for civil rights. Rabbi Heschel said he was doing just that, “his legs” were praying. For eleven years, Temple Adath Israel has acknowledged the life cycle coincidence in time of these two great men” with a special Shabbat service of righteousness and peace.
Rabbi Marc Kline of Temple Adath Israel, told me “Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech was not about about racial equality but the divine dignity equal in every human. King’s fight was for social justice, economic justice, racial equality, anti-war, and more”. Rabbi Kline went on to say “Oppression is when one person asserts power over another, thus diminishing their dignity. King’s dream was for equality. Prayer is what we do, not only what we say”. In a similar vein, a book, I once read entitled, “God is the Good We Do” echoes what Rabbi Kline is saying. With these thoughts in mind, is it not appropriate for the “spirit” of Martin Luther King be used for the launch of a new social justice, economic and political movement known as the Worldwide Wave of Action.
Plans for the Worldwide Wave of Action are beginning to take shape.
David DeGraw, is one of the organizers behind the Wav. David, recently wrote in an email that when he “pressed play on the new Worldwide Wave of Action video, the voice of Martin Luther King rang out crystal clear with a message that could not be timelier”. Dr. King went on, “We have come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.”
DeGraw said, he thought he had slipped into a vortex and transported into a new dimension as Dr. King went on to say, “I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom. ”. David then wrote, “I had fallen down the rabbit hole declaring” as Dr. King did “let freedom ring!.”
The Worldwide Wave of Action has already inspired several other videos (see some here, here, here & here) and has just launched a new organizing site at WaveOfAction.org. The call to action found there, states, “this will be a decentralized crowdsourced movement open to all willing to engage in a wide diversity of nonviolent tactics”.
As their homepage pleads: “Be the change. What are you waiting for? This is your movement! Let’s create a culture of transformation. Share an action or event that you are organizing. Whether it’s a large-scale demonstration or a small personal act, tell the world what you are doing to be the change we need….”
It is obvious, The Worldwide Wave of Action, has been influenced by the Anonymous, Occupy and 99% movements. David DeGraw, who was involved back then, said “building on the foundation of these movements provides a powerful opportunity to regain momentum and recapture mass consciousness. Considering that the social conditions, economic inequality and corruption of the political process have become even more severe than they were in 2011, when the Occupy Movement was born”
To me, the timing seems right. Many more people are now aware of the injustice and exploitative nature of the present system. Even the new Pope is now reciting from the Gospel of Occupy, and Gartner, the respected technology research firm, has predicted, “A larger-scale version of an Occupy Wall Street-type movement” in 2014. Other research also reports that it only takes 3.5% of the population to create significant change. With the communications power of the Internet, is it not a viable movement possible? I can’t help but think back to the two Viet Nam demonstrations I attended and results they had.
Is this movement more than naive wishful thinking? It seems the facts indicate otherwise, but organizing and coordinating in a more coherent and unified manner will be needed, not like the loosely knitted Occupy movement.
The organizers have picked a three-month span of time for action. beginning on the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, on April 4, 2014, to ignite and unite their collective actions into what they call “an unprecedented Worldwide Wave that cannot be ignored by anyone”.
Rabbi Kline, often says, “if not now, when?” referring to social justice participation, but is the tipping point near? Will there be critical mass? Is there a turning tide to ride? Can a wave of transformation rise over the horizon? In time, these questions will be answered and reported here. Are you going to ride the Worldwide Wave of Action?
Gary Yarus is a freelance writer, a student of political movements, an escapee from the Democratic Party, a progressive populist, a Green Party pro-democracy advocate and the curator of an online magazine, devoted to democracy, ecology, peace and social justice called “The Beacon” ( http://bit.ly/TheBeacon ). Email: garyyarus@yahoo.com
A year ago, in lieu of resolutions or predictions, I offered a more guarded set of wishes for the new calendar year. Could the track record have been worse? There was the melancholy: Mandela no longer lives; while George H.W. Bush survives, his conciliatory brand of leadership is discredited in his own and seems impossible to revive nationally. There was the embarrassingly off base: describing Virginia’s likely soon to be indicted Bob McDonnell as a politician without a single ethical blemish, and a much too laudatory take on the Washington Redskins’ Robert Griffin III were the low points.
There were rosy hopes that didn’t pan out: some of my favorite center-right thinkers have added a lot of wisdom to the internal Republican debate without influencing it very much; Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed, rather than soaring, is the latest southern black politician whose ambitions suffer the limitations of his party’s “electability” mantra; and Bobby Jindal is a much longer presidential shot now than he appeared 12 months ago.
And there were the parts that really made my label of “wishful thinking” unintended irony. Let’s just say that Phil Robertson isn’t the principled voice of federalism on same sex marriage that I had in mind; that the Heritage Foundation’s assault on food stamps is not quite the anti-poverty agenda I was hoping for; and that education reform continues to lie in the overstocked, undersold column on aisle 32.
So, in the hopes of doing better, a more guarded set of wishes for 2014:
(1) That a year from now, some Republican has decided to run for President unabashedly as a center-right alternative, with policy ideas and campaign message to match. Whether that individual is Chris Christie, the most successful coalition builder in big league politics today, or Paul Ryan, who should keep channeling his former mentor Jack Kemp’s vision that upward mobility is a legitimate conservative aspiration, or someone to be named later, it would be to the good of Republicans and domestic politics in general if a presidential level Republican owned the notion of a vital center rather than running from it.
(2) That George Packer’s superb “The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America” follow up its National Book Award with a Pulitzer. One can take issue with Packer for skimping on the fine points of economics, or for staying vague on solutions, but this is the most gripping account that has emerged of what the guts of the country looked like in the depths of the Great Recession. He nails the development of alienation that has eroded normal ideological boundaries. And if Packer’s subtle narrative maneuver of reducing national politics to the margins seemed incomplete to critics, it surely captures how the swamp on the Potomac registered to most rank and file Americans.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Wishful Thinking for the New Year, Part II
At the end of my December 30th post in RP, “Is a “Third-Party Needed?”, I asked the question, Do you know which President was the last successful third-party candidate? I suspect most reader’s had a common thought that this must be a trick question. Surely a third-party candidate could never be successfully elected President. I am equally sure some of you used Google and found the “rest of the story”.
There was a time a respected lawyer, well known in his community, got elected to office at the state level. He was then approached by an existing political part, organized for several years that asked him to run for President. The man never thought about higher office, but after talking with his advisers and family took up the challenge and began campaigning across the country. Wherever he went, the two major parties of the day would just criticize him and his relatively unknown party. After much campaigning, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln became the 16th President of the United States as a Republican. Yes, the Republican Party was the third-party during that time period when Whigs and the Democrats were the two major parties who had held the Presidency until then.
——
Written with national Presidential elections in mind, there have been many different kinds of challenges to dominance of the two major parties, yet we have had the same two-party duopoly in power for 150 years as both Republicans and Democrats have proved their staying power. During this time period the duopoly has had landslide victories, demoralizing defeats, cliffhanger wins and losses, major splinter movements, and the realignment of their electoral support base. Yet they have endured Presidential campaigns and stayed in power.
The reasons for dismal third-party success is not always the same. The reasons may change over time and usually, no one factor limits the development of a third-party. It is often, several factors working in combination.
Read the rest of… Gary Yarus: Roadblocks to Third-Party Success – Part I
In 2012, just prior to the November presidential election. I wrote in RP, a closing argument on behalf of my chosen candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party. I asked readers to try to imagine a political party really wanting America governed progressively. Imagine its platform stressing the environment, social justice, human and civil rights, peace. and disarmament. I had concluded, the two-party duopoly, may claim they support advancing these values, but the truth, upon closer analysis, proves they do not.
The election results showed only about 1.8% or 2.3 million of the combined popular vote were cast for any third-party candidate. All third-party campaigns had been predicting a better turnout than in the past, but like most, I knew, at this time, a third-party candidate would not win the election. Nonetheless, I felt good about my pragmatic and principled vote for Jill Stein.
The control exerted by the present two-party duopoly leaves third-party candidates little hope of being elected to a major office, until fundamental changes in our electoral process occur. Such candidates have continued to run and by doing so, have influenced election outcomes while often shifting national conversation.
The question remains, has anything changed in America since the 2012 presidential election, which would improve third-party chances in the future? Do the majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, think a capable and robust third-party is needed?
The Gallup organization, for the past 10 years, has been asking this question. In October 2013, they reported their latest’s poll results. Perhaps it was a surprise to some, but voters polled have said “yes!. The majority of Americans, now believe a major third-party is needed.
Presently, Americans see dysfunction, by both political parties, in the way government works is within a point of it’s all time low, suggesting, Americans are fed up with the way the major parties are handling things, even going as far as saying the best solution is a major third-party initiative in 2016.
Lookin at the numbers: 26% of Americans say the two major political parties are doing an adequate job, yhgt 60% say the two major parties are doing such a poor job that a third party is needed. Is that a big change from previous polls? Not really, although that 60% the highest Gallup has ever seen on this question over the last ten years.
Also, for the first time in U.S. history, Gallup found, given the inability of the Republican and Democratic parties to agree on the most basic of government functions, 52% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats believe a third party is needed to adequately handle today’s problems. Expectantly, 71% of independents support a third-party initiative.
How about other demographics? You might expect young voters to favor a third-party. You would be wrong! Young voters, aged 18 to 29, perhaps due to difficulty finding a job paying a living wage, the pressure of going to college, then trying to payoff exorbitant college debt has caused them to take their eye off of politics. According to Gallup, this demographic polls the highest, saying the current system is OK. It’s the 50 to 64 year olds, probably worrying about healthcare, Social Security and Medicare who most want a third-party choice.
Also, what about the idea of divided government? Most of us, along with some pundits and commentators, have come to the conclusion having divided government, as it is now, with the Presidency and Senate controlled by the Democrats and the House of Representatives by the Republicans lead to the kind of paralysis we are seeing in Washington. But, the Gallup poll found there is no pent up demand by the American public for one-party control of all three branches. It is just the opposite.
25% say it is better for the country to have the same party in control of the Presidency and Congress,
38% say the political party of the President and the Congress makes no difference, and 28% say it is better to have the President and Congress of different parties. Matter of fact that 25% is, by a few points, the lowest interest in having a single party government in the 10 years the Gallup organization has been conducting this poll.
Similarly, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, the current Congress is not just bad, it is terrible. Two-thirds of Americans think it is clearly the worst Congress in their lifetime.
CNN wrote: “That sentiment exists among all demographic and political subgroups. Men, women, rich, poor, young, old, all think this year’s Congress has been the worst they can remember,” “Older Americans, who have lived through more congresses, hold more negative views of the 113th Congress than younger Americans”.
Amazingly, despite the terrible results of these two polls, well over 85 percent of the current members of Congress are expected to be re-elected in 2014! Upcoming columns will explore the question, is there not something wrong with the design of an electoral system when the connection between job performance and election outcome can be so weak?
Just hope and desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be another successful one. Unfair structural factors contrived by the two-party duopoly for the presidential and congressional elections and the parties’ own abilities to deceitfully, yet skillfully, adapt to wavering public opinion and preferences, then altering their campaigns, helped the Republican and Democratic parties remain the dominant parties for more than 150 years. Emerging third parties have challenged their dominance but not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success.
All hope for a third-party presidential victory may not be lost. It has happened before in U.S. history. Do you know which President was the last successful third-party candidate?
===
Gary Yarus is a student of political movements, a progressive populist, a Green Party pro-democracy advocate and the curator of an online magazine, covering democracy, ecology, peace and social justice called “The Beacon” ( http://bit.ly/TheBeacon ). Email: gyarus@me.com
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
To judge others or not to judge others…. And the seeming paradoxical personality types behind that decision.
It appears to me the most judgmental people I have encountered in life also seem to be the least critical of themselves. In other words, they are ruthlessly hard on other people but seem tough on themselves not at all.
It’s not so much that they give themselves “a pass” —rather it jus.t never seems to occur to them to apply personally the same critiques, criticisms and value judgments they almost instinctively apply to others. They just don’t see the need.
Conversely, those people I have encountered who are the least judgmental (the most accepting and understanding of other people), usually judge themselves the hardest of all. They seem easily to find flaws within themselves but not in others. It’s not that they give other people a pass — it just doesn’t seem to occur to them to bother commenting on others weaknesses, shortcomings and failings that they seem to instinctively acknowledge in themselves. They just don’t see the point.
This does appear to be a paradox but I don’t believe it is at all. In fact, I think it makes perfect sense once understood. Those people who are deeply self-aware —aware of what makes them tick, aware of the things they could and should have done better, the regrets they have, their idiosyncrasies, shortcomings, character flaws and excesses— are far less judgmental of others for these same flaws because they can’t comfortably criticize others for things they know they have done (or could do) themselves. They tend also to be more generous and understanding–both with themselves and others. They may not approve of all parts of themselves but their deeper and broader self-awareness of the whole of themselves including their own imperfect and halting struggles to improve themselves, allows them to grant others the same dignity and respect they have learned to show to themselves.
By contrast, those who are quick to criticize, belittle and denounce the flaws, faults and hypocrisies of others are able to do so because they appear to imagine they are in some sort of protective cocoon that prevents them from ever having to wonder if they have done –or, God forbid, are doing— anything regrettable or foolish in their own life. They rarely appear to be struggling to improve their own personal imperfections but instead, if pressed about themselves, will draw deeper into their cocoon and resist the horrifying notion that they have anything at all to change about themselves. They are, in their view, not perfect– but a finished product that doesn’t need revisiting. They are done. And yet their alter-egos, those who don’t seem naturally inclined to scold, when confronted about a need to take a closer look at themselves, do so reflexively and gladly, comfortable in the knowledge they will be better off for the effort.
They are never done. Nor need cocoons to protect them.
Those who feel less inclined to judge others, I believe, are that way because they are able to lay down their pre-conceptions about themselves, others, and the world we all live in.
They learn at some point that the things they “think” they dislike about themselves, others and the world aren’t necessarily true. In other words, it’s not the “truth” they are upset about but the story they are assuming is true about themselves or some person, situation or circumstance. Often a story they have never questioned and in many cases aren’t even aware or even know where it came from or why they believe it. It’s just there. As a sort of invisible anchor responsible for their world view.
Until one day they realize, often serendipitously, that something that they are mad about—some perceived personal flaw in themselves or another, some characteristic about another person or some unfair bias they see in a life situation working against them, isn’t what they thought it was at all. In fact, it may even be the exact opposite. The actual motive, reason, excuse, cause or purpose of something that has fueled their angst for many years is unmasked as false or non-existent.
At that moment, these individuals truly get a glimpse of what a “blessing in disguise” really looks like. They learn a silver lining isn’t a lining at all but often just a clearing up of their own misconception based on the inability to see more than they—or any of us— are capable of seeing clearly at an earlier time.
Maybe this kind of humbling epiphany happens several times before these individuals really change. But at some point they realize that they are mad more at their preconceptions about the world than they are about the world itself —and as those preconceptions dissolve they are replaced by wisdom.
The more rigid and judgmental, it seems, take an opposite tack. They choose a course requiring them to spend a much greater deal of time trying to prove to themselves and others that the world does, indeed, fit into the cramped preconceptions they hold fast to with an increasing tenacity. It can be, to those observing, like watching a grown man who believes he can still fit into the same favorite outfit he wore as a self-assured boy. Or to be even more metaphorical, like a grown person trying to cram the world they are discovering into a cramped container they used as a child to fit their world into so that it made sense.
It isn’t that all their old ideas are wrong. It’s just that their container, comforting and familiar as it is, doesn’t have room for any new ideas. And there seems to be no inclination to make room by discarding old ideas that don’t work anymore. After a while the life of these individuals starts to seem more about protecting that old and comforting container they are trying to fit their world into rather than about discovering and understanding the world they are experiencing each day.
Their less critical brethren don’t cease to judge or make discriminating decisions. They just do so with a increasing awareness of the limited understanding on which they are making their life decisions. The awareness of what they “don’t know” turns out to be a compliment, not a threat, to what they do know. And humbly embracing what they don’t know becomes, ironically, one of the greatest and most useful tools for living in their life toolbox. And to stay with the metaphor, these individuals seem to have replaced their small and rusty container with an ever-changing and growing toolbox to help them navigate the world they encounter each new day. Their life becomes more about living forward with this malleable toolbox than living backward with a cramped container they aren’t sure how they ever came into possession of in the first place.
The “life container” and “life toolbox,” of course, represent a person’s world view. How a person views and navigates the world. Is life something that is “understood and done” or something else that we should face with greater humility and openness? At least that is what I am trying to communicate in my own inartful and inadequate way.
In trying to sum up what I am trying to say, it would sound something like this: “The more we are aware of what we don’t know — and acknowledging that what we believe we do know could just as easily be false –the more knowledgeable and informed we become. And the more confident and peaceful we find ourselves with the decisions we make. The more open we are to serendipity and Grace. And the richer our lives seem to become.”
In other words, yes, “Knowledge is Power.” But knowledge coupled with the humility of understanding how little we still know —or can ever know — is even more powerful.
The sign language interpreter used at Tuesday’s memorial service for Nelson Mandela, and whose image was broadcast around the world as he shared a stage with world leaders including President Obama, was being called a “fake” by the Deaf Federation of South Africa…
The Associated Press also reported the allegation Wednesday, saying that three sign language experts who watched the broadcast said the man was not signing in South African or American sign languages.
“It was horrible, an absolute circus, really really bad,” Nicole Du Toit, an official sign language interpreter, told the AP. “Only he can understand those gestures.”
USA TODAY was not able to independently confirm the allegations, which if proved true would be an enormous embarrassment to South African officials at a time when the nation is looking to celebrate the life and legacy of Nelson Mandela.
South Africa’s government said it is preparing a statement.
Collins Chabane, one of South Africa’s two presidency ministers, said the government is continuing to investigate the matter.
I hear the noise from the right wing, claiming Mandela was a “Terrorist,” that he applied “Torture” and “Violence” in accomplishing his goal of freedom. He probably did. But that is the way of the world, where a group of oppressed people rise up for their rights to a reasonable life.
Those in power never yield power without a fight. I believe it was John Kennedy who stated that when peaceful revolution is denied, violent revolution becomes inevitable. History records that the South African regimes that kept Mandela and his people down, committed atrocities far and beyond anything Mandela and the ANC committed against their government. Racism is violence.
I wonder…would Mandela’s detractors accuse George Washington and the Continental Army of being “Terrorists” because they used violence against the ruling power of England?
Mandela led the way to freedom for his people. As in most revolutions, his side had next to nothing in weapons or logistics. Revolution depends on the fire in the soul, the drive to make life better for the oppressed.
Was Mandela a “Communist?” his goals sound more like the U.S. Constitution than some group of despots who call themselves “Communist.” By the proper definition of the word, the world has never seen a true Communist regime.
Mandela was a great man, a great leader. I wish we had a Mandela in America.
After visiting Lincoln’s birthplace in Hodgenville, KY, my uncle from India shared, “Being in the presence of where great men have been, gives us the opportunity to aspire to some of that greatness.” That quote has stuck with me through the years.
The last two weeks have been filled with reminders of greatness. Our country commemorated the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. I was too young to see JFK in person, but I heard stories from my family members about what he inspired in them. This past week, the world mourned the loss of another leader, Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela was someone I was able to see in person, someone who inspired us all by his own story, and taught us the best way to handle difficult situations. His response to his imprisonment taught us how to work together towards reconciliation. His example is something we can all use as we work to deal with others who do us wrong, or perceived wrong.
I was in middle school when I got to see Nelson Mandela in person accepting an award from the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, TN. I don’t remember what he said, or if he even said anything at all. I just remember the presence of greatness.
I did not understand the depth of what this man meant to South Africa until my Sub-Saharan politics class at UK. Quoting the thesis from my research paper, “The South African nation was able to achieve its greatness and strength by the nationalism of its racially different groups, international scrutiny following World War II concerning apartheid, and the realization that a resolution to the racial conflict was necessary.” Nelson Mandela had a hand in each aspect of this to help South Africa achieve that greatness.
Invictus, the movie, captures this nationalism that South Africa experienced. Mandela was able to unify a nation over the World Cup Rugby Match. The title of the movie was inspired from the poem, by William Ernest Henley. Mandela would recite the poem from memory during his time in prison. The ending lines of the poem provide the most inspiration of all.
“It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.”
If Mandela could deal with everything he dealt with in his life, we can deal with what comes our way. That is his lasting impression and his sense of greatness for which we can all aspire.
I am writing my thoughts about Nelson Mandela, having the advantage of reading over a dozen commentaries written here by others. These commentaries celebrated his life with views most people can support. There is no doubt he was an iconic figure, the father of his country, triumphing over South Africa’s brutal apartheid regime. To me, this great man can be more accurately eulogized and admired, in other equally important ways.
Mandela was a political activist and agitator who without universal approval did not shy away from controversy. Before and after his release from prison, he embraced a feerless progressive and provocative platform. Shortly after his death one commentator wrote “Mandela will never, ever be your minstrel'”, because of the his Malcolm X moments of anger. None the less, I see Mandela as the inspirational freedom fighter’s freedom fighter.
Mandela blasted the Iraq War and American imperialism accusing the United States of “wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust” by going to war, all for oil. He saw the Iraq War as an example of American imperialism around the world. He said “If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States”.
Mandela called freedom from poverty a “fundamental human right calling p overty one of the greatest evils in the world, and spoke out against inequality everywhere. He said “Massive poverty and obscene inequality are such terrible scourges of our times — times in which the world boasts breathtaking advances in science, technology, industry and wealth accumulation — that they have to rank alongside slavery and apartheid as social evils,”. He considered ending poverty a basic human duty:
“Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life,” “While poverty persists, there is no true freedom.”
Mandela called out racism in America. On a trip to New York City in 1990, Mandela made a point of visiting Harlem and praising African Americans’ struggles against “the injustices of racist discrimination and economic equality.” He reminded a larger crowd at Yankee Stadium that racism was not exclusively a South African phenomenon. “As we enterthe last decade of the 20th century, it is intolerable, unacceptable, that the cancer of racism is still eating away at the fabric of societies in different parts of our planet,” “All of us, black and white, should spare no effort in our struggle against all forms and manifestations of racism, wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head.”
Wouldn’t it be great if someone in Washington would imulate Mandela and try to put the country first and work together for the betterment of the ol USA.
Just think of all the less fortunate in South Africa that are better today because he “raised all ships”.
DeGraw said, he thought he had slipped into a vortex and transported into a new dimension as Dr. King went on to say, “I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom. ”. David then wrote, “I had fallen down the rabbit hole declaring” as Dr. King did “let freedom ring!.”
