RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
When Public Servants Refuse to Serve the Public Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27142"><span class="small">Garrett Epps, The Atlantic</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 August 2015 13:20

Epps writes: "Is it possible to agree on what religious freedom is not? It's not a right to wear a Marine uniform but refuse to fight. It's not a right to be a county clerk and decide which citizens you will serve and which you won't."

A same-sex couple is denied a marriage license in Rowan County, Kentucky. (photo: Timothy D. Easley/AP)
A same-sex couple is denied a marriage license in Rowan County, Kentucky. (photo: Timothy D. Easley/AP)


When Public Servants Refuse to Serve the Public

By Garrett Epps, The Atlantic

16 August 15

 

Government employees have an obligation to follow the letter of the law despite their religious convictions—or else resign the offices they hold.

hirty-five years ago, as a reporter for The Washington Post, I spent 13 weeks following young recruits through Marine Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. That February, 226 candidates entered OCS; in April, 117—about half—got their lieutenant’s bars.

One of the candidates wanted to be a Marine aviator. He was fit, fast, and smart—good officer material. But as he neared the halfway mark of the training, he underwent a crisis of conscience. OCS training is demanding and martial. Instructors emphasized the realities of combat day after day. (One went so far as to read the candidates “Dulce et Decorum Est” by English poet Wilfred Owen—a vivid description of a World War I gas attack that left blood “gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs” of dying soldiers.)

At some point, this candidate realized he could not in good conscience engage in warfare. “Can I put a squad of men up against enemy fire?” he asked himself. “Can I permit my men to kill other human beings?” He struggled with his beliefs—even debated them respectfully with the battalion commander—but concluded he could not stay.

It was a painful parting on both sides. He lost a coveted career, the Corps lost a promising candidate. But it had to happen.

Here’s what didn’t happen: Nobody suggested that dropping him from OCS was a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of “the free exercise” of religion. He did not say, “I think that in recognition of my sincere religious opposition to war, you should let me stay in the Corps and get my pilot’s wings. I will do the job, except for one thing: I won’t drop bombs or shoot guns.”

I thought of that incident on Thursday, when I read Miller v. Davis. In that decision, released Wednesday, District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Kim Davis, Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, to issue state marriage licenses to all qualified couples who seek them.

After the Supreme Court decided in June that states must allow same-sex couples to marry, Davis had announced that she and her staff of six deputies would no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone. Barring any couples for getting licenses in Rowan County, Davis claimed, would protect her religious rights without discriminating against anyone. Judge Bunning brushed that argument aside and issued an injunction requiring her to issue licenses. On Friday, she defied the order.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex marriage licenses,” said a statement from her public-interest lawyers, Liberty Counsel. “At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated.”

Is it possible to agree on what religious freedom is not? It’s not a right to wear a Marine uniform but refuse to fight. It’s not a right to be a county clerk and decide which citizens you will serve and which you won’t. Religious “accommodation” doesn’t mean what Liberty Counsel thinks it means. If a person can perform the duties of a job with some adjustment for religious belief, that’s an accommodation. If they’re not willing to do the job, they have to leave. That’s not just a requirement of law; honor requires it as well.

Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. It’s not good enough to say, “Go to another county if you want a license.” It’s not good enough to say, “I won’t let anyone get married.” Those aren’t a clerk’s decisions to make.

“Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance,” wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy,in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans.

Since the decision in June, many commentators who should know better have been spreading a false narrative. After its decades-long fight for marriage equality, they say, the gay movement has become an intolerant juggernaut crushing anyone who dares to question same-sex marriage. Soon, they warn, federal officials will begin pulling pastors from the pulpits, and judges will order the IRS to strip tax-exempt status from religious schools that do not embrace marriage equality.

Just how all this is supposed to happen eludes me. There is no federal statute forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the major federal anti-discrimination law, applies to public accommodations, but does not even cover bakeries. As for tax exemptions, racist schools lost their tax-exempt status as a result of decade-long public administrative process initiated by the Internal Revenue Service. Only the IRS can do this, and only after public debate. There’s no reason to believe it is inevitable—consider that although sex discrimination is also banned under federal law, single-sex schools still retain their exemptions a half-century after passage of the Act.

Colorado’s Court of Appeals Thursday affirmed an order requiring a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, to accept wedding-cake orders from same-sex couples. That claim arose under state law, and each state’s civil-rights laws are different. Bakers and photographers claim that participating in same-sex weddings—even to the extent of baking cakes or taking pictures—violates their religious-freedom and free-speech rights. My sympathies lie with the customers, but the business owners’ claims are serious ones; taking photographs and baking message cakes involve expression, and First Amendment claims deserve serious consideration.

But any discussion of those issues should take place in a realistic framework. First, discrimination against same-sex couples is not solely a difference of opinion about marriage; it is also discrimination against individuals—the members of the couple and their families—on the basis of sexual orientation. In some cases, legislators may choose not to forbid discrimination; but that’s not the same thing as pretending it isn’t discrimination at all.

Second, the Kim Davises of the world have no monopoly on faith or conscience. Many same-sex couples have married because of their religious beliefs, and many religious bodies, and people, regard those marriages as sacred. Allowing others to disrespect those unions offends some consciences as surely as forbidding it offends others. Civil-rights laws must balance the harms carefully, with attention to both sides. Religious freedom cuts both ways.

Third, religious objections to same-sex marriage do not belong on a special and privileged plane. After Obergefell, the law no longer recognizes a distinction between “gay marriage” and “traditional marriage.” Instead, it simply recognizes marriage. Married couples have to have the same benefits and protections regardless of sex or sexual orientation. If employers or businesses can’t discriminate against married straights, then they shouldn’t be allowed to do so against married gays.

Finally, no matter what settlement emerges after reasonable debate, Kim Davis needs to find another job—now, today, before Judge Bunning throws her in jail. Government serves everyone, and the preferences of its employees aren’t relevant in that regard. Whether it’s flying a fighter jet or issuing a license, an honorable government worker will do the job or quit. Full stop.

The “religious freedom” backlash is, at bottom, not really about the right to order two grooms atop the buttercream fondant. It’s about locking in second-class status, not just for same-sex marriages, but for gays and lesbians generally. Under the banner of “religious freedom,” for example, conservatives in Congress are now seeking passage of the “First Amendment Defense Act,” which would, among other things, sanction employment discrimination against gays by federal contractors.

Human equality is as important as religious freedom, and any sane discussion has to balance the two.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
There Is No Reason Why India Should Face Hunger and Farmers Should Commit Suicide Print
Sunday, 16 August 2015 13:10

Shiva writes: "Our farmers are among the most hardworking, productive people in the world. Yet India faces an emergency, in our food and agricultural system. This emergency is man-made."

Vandana Shiva. (photo: unknown)
Vandana Shiva. (photo: unknown)


There Is No Reason Why India Should Face Hunger and Farmers Should Commit Suicide

By Vandana Shiva, EcoWatch

16 August 15

 

here is no reason why India should face hunger and malnutrition and why our farmers should commit suicide. India is blessed with the most fertile soils in the world. Our climate is so generous we can, in places, grow four crops in a year—compared to the industrialized west where sometimes only one crop is possible per year. We have the richest biodiversity of the world, both because of our diverse climates and because of the brilliance of our farmers as breeders. Our farmers are among the most hardworking, productive people in the world. Yet India faces an emergency, in our food and agricultural system. This emergency is man-made.

Firstly, the poor and vulnerable are dying for lack of food. According to the Deccan Herald, Lalita S. Rangari, 36, a Dalit widow and mother of two children of the Gondiya tribal belt, allegedly died due to starvation. Justice Bhushan Gavai and Justice Indu Jain of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court have served notice to the government of Maharashtra seeking its reply to the starvation death of a Dalit widow.

Even as India gets richer, we have emerged as the capital of hunger and malnutrition. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), 42.5 percent of children under five years old were underweight. This is more than double the African average of 21 percent, which until recently was the face of hunger.

The second tragedy is that our food producers, the small farmers who have provided food to more than a billion Indians and hold the potential to provide healthy food for all, are themselves dying because of agriculture and trade policies which put corporate profits above the rights and well being of our small farmers. More than 300,000 farmers have committed suicide in India since 1995, when the rules for the globalization of agriculture of the World Trade Organization (WTO) were implemented, transforming food into a commodity, agriculture into corporate business and shifting control over seeds and food from farmers to a handful of giant multinational corporations.

The third tragedy is that even those who get food are being denied their right to healthy and nourishing food. The explosion of junk food, of pesticides and toxics in our food, have created a disease epidemic that is a human tragedy and an economic burden. There is an epidemic of diseases related to our lifestyle and food, such as diabetes, cancer, hypertension, infertility and cardiovascular diseases.

The recent Maggi noodle scandal highlights the rapid invasion of junk food in the Indian diet. We are what we eat. When we eat food full of toxic chemicals, we pay the price with our health. India has emerged as the epicenter of diabetes.

In 2004, 8.2 lac Indians were diagnosed with diabetes and 2.6 lac succumbed to the disease. In 2012, the diabetes numbers jumped to 180 lac diagnosed and 7 lac dead. In 2010 alone, India spent 32 billion dollars on diabetes care. Cancer has also seen an increase by 30 percent in the last 5 years, with 180 million people affected in India. At 10 lac treatment per cancer victim this multiplies to 300 billion dollars, or 18 lac crores in rupees.

In extensive studies reported in “Poisons In Our Food” by Navdanya, elevated levels of PCBs, DDE and DDT have been found in the blood of women suffering from breast cancer. Studies show that 51 percent of all food commodities are contaminated by pesticides.

My research over the past three decades on food and agriculture systems in India and across the world, informs me that the three tragedies are not separate, they are related and are, in fact, different dimensions of the food and agriculture crisis linked to promotion of an ecologically, economically and socially non sustainable model of food production and distribution referred to by various names, such as the Green Revolution, Industrial Agriculture, Chemical Farming. Solutions to all 3 dimensions of the crisis lie in shifting from the focus on an unhealthy, nutritionally empty, toxic, high cost food system to a healthy, nutritious, low cost and sustainable system which improves the health and well being of the earth, of the farmers and all citizens.

The industrial model relies on intensive consumption of energy, water, chemicals, capital and fossil fuel, inflating costs of production to much higher levels than the price farmers get for their harvested crops. This high cost system, which neither the farmers nor the nation can afford, is artificially kept afloat with a huge subsidy burden which only benefits the agrichemical corporations selling toxic chemicals. Financially, it is a negative economy, vulnerable to a chaotic climate in times of climate change and a manipulated commodity market. The debt and suicides of farmers are related to this feature of economic non-sustainability.

In 2014-15, the government procured 51 million tons of wheat and paddy, which is 30 percent lower than the previous year. With farmers now selling their food grains in the open market, wholesale prices of paddy and wheat crashed by 16 percent and 6 percent, respectively. In several parts of Bundelkhand and Western U.P., farmers sold wheat at a much lower rate than Minimum Support Price. In Punjab and Haryana, farmers were dumping stocks in front of government procurement centers. The farmers crisis is related to exploitation and injustice. Ecologically too industrial, chemical agriculture is a negative economy, using ten units of energy as input for every one unit produced as food.

The same system that drives farmers into a debt trap also creates malnutrition. Chemical monocultures and commodity production displace biodiversity which is a source of nutrition. The Green Revolution, which only works as monocultures, has destroyed our pulses and oilseeds—which were always grown as a mixture along with cereals. Today, in the land of urad and moong, tuar and chana, gahat and naurangi, we are importing “yellow pea dal,” having removed them from our fields to grow Green Revolution monocultures. In the land of til and sarson, alsi and coconut, we are importing GMO soya oil and palm oil. If we avoid growing nutritious biodiverse crops, malnutrition is a predictable outcome. If we grow or food with toxic chemicals then diseases related to these poisons are bound to increase. A recent field survey by Navdanya revealed that in a single village, Gangnauli (Bagphat), there are 100 patients suffering from various types of cancer.

Chemical monocultures are pushing our farmers to debt and suicide, they are depriving our children of the nourishment that our fertile soils and hard working farmers could be growing and they are spreading an epidemic of cancer. To address the triple crisis of farmers suicides, hunger and malnutrition and disease epidemics, Navdanya is starting a five year campaign—Anna Swaraj (Food Sovereignty) 2020—to make the growing and availability of healthy, nourishing food the foundation of a resurgent India where no child goes hungry and no farmer commits suicide.

Our work over the past 3 decades has shown that when measured in nutrition per acre, biodiverse, organic, natural farming produces more food (health per acre). And food is supposed to provide nourishment and nutrition. We can grow enough nutrition for two India’s, if we cultivate biodiversity without chemicals. Our farmers are small and ecological agriculture is better suited for them. Ecological farming also gets rid of toxics from our food crops and thus reduces the risks of diseases linked to those toxics (poisons in our food). Since hunger and poverty go hand in hand, we need to promote an agriculture that does not create poverty by haemorrhaging the scarce resources of the agrarian economy (to multinational corporations) for purchase of costly seeds and toxic chemicals.

Our research in Wealth per Acre has assessed that farmers who have their own seed, practice chemical free, ecological agriculture and shape fair trade markets are earning 10 times more than their counterparts who dependent on costly corporate seeds, chemicals from the same companies and forced dependence on exploitative commodity markets. If wheat farmers shifted from monocultures to growing diversity their net incomes would increase two to three fold. The crisis of pulses is a result of the Green Revolution monocultures of wheat and can be overcome through growing mixtures. And we would not need to import low quality dals. Pulses grown with cereals provide free nitrogen to the soil and healthy protein to us.

The Anna Swaraj agenda for a food and agriculture revolution and food democracy with the participation of citizens and all levels of government, from the local, to the state, to the national level:

We must stop treating food as a commodity, to be wasted, contaminated and profited from. Article 21, of India’s constitution, guarantees the Right to Life of all citizens. Food is the basis of life, the right to food is a basic human right. The National Food Security Act is a step in this direction and needs to be implemented with full commitment. Our culture teaches us “Annam Brahman”—food is divinity. Commodification of food is a violation of food as sustenance.

We need to promote chemical free organic farming, not as a luxury, but as an imperative for the well being of our land, our farmers and our health. Chemical free ecological agriculture reduces costs of cultivation, reducing the debt burden for farmers as well as the malnutrition and disease burden for all citizens .

We need to move away from centralized, chemical and fossil fuel intensive monocultures accompanied by long distance transport (including dependence on imports) towards promotion of local Anna Swaraj food circles for direct consumer—producer links, bypassing the exploitative ‘middlemen’, like giant corporations which exploit, both, farmers and consumers. These circles will promote biodiversity on our farms and biodiversity on our plates, which is vital for nutrition. Thereby, also promoting economic diversity, creating employment and cultivating food democracy.

We need to shift the use of public tax money from subsidising toxic, nutritionally deficient commodities as food for the vulnerable—who do not have adequate purchasing power to buy healthy, safe, diverse, nutritious food—by removing subsidies offered to multinational chemical corporations that only add toxicity to our food system. There is no justification for using crores of tax money to subsidise bad food when that money could promote a healthy and sustainable food system for Mid Day Meal schemes, PDS and ICDS through people’s participation, specially that of women who would like to bring nutritious food to their children.

We need to grow more food and nutrition everywhere, in villages and in cities—in communities, in schools, in backyards, on roof tops and terraces. These Gardens of Nutrition and Gardens of Hope can contribute to creating a malnutrition and hunger free India. Gandhi Ji had started a Grow more Food campaign and Lal Bahadur Shastri encouraged turning lawns into edible gardens. That spirit needs to be cultivated again to free India from the clutches of global agrichemical corporations.

From Meerut, the sacred land of our first freedom movement of 1857, a new freedom movement for Food Freedom—Anna Swaraj—was launched on August 2 by Navdanya.

Food freedom is based on the liberation of the earth from ecological destruction and toxic pollution, the liberation of the farmers from suicides due to debt created by dependence on the purchase of costly chemicals and seeds and the liberation of the citizens from malnutrition and disease caused by those toxic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides.

The Anna Swaraj Abhiyan was launched with a campaign on Food Smart Citizens for Food Smart Cities—connecting producers to consumers and the village with the town in direct links through safe, fresh, local and fair food.

Navdanya has started to create Food Smart Cities to address the food and nutrition emergency we face. Food Smart Cities connect citizens directly to the farmers in their foodshed area, allowing direct access to healthy, local, fresh, fair food for the cities and access to a fair market to the farmers. If we join in the mission of Anna Awaraj 2020, India can become a land of good food for all. The Taitreya Upanishad has said the growing and giving of good food is the highest Dharma—Annam Bahu Kurvitha—let us all be reminded of this duty on this, our Independence Day.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Expand Social Security. Don't Cut It. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7122"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 August 2015 11:26

Warren writes: "80 years ago today, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law - and it was in large part thanks to a remarkable woman from Massachusetts: Frances Perkins."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: elizabethwarren.com)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: elizabethwarren.com)


Expand Social Security. Don't Cut It.

By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

16 August 15

 

ighty years ago today, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law – and it was in large part thanks to a remarkable woman from Massachusetts: Frances Perkins.

Frances Perkins was FDR’s Secretary of Labor – the first woman in US history to hold a cabinet position. Coming out of the Great Depression, she was a chief architect of the New Deal, and we can thank her for the 40-hour workweek, the minimum wage, and unemployment insurance. She was also the head of the Committee on Economic Security, which created the blueprint for Social Security. God bless Frances Perkins.

FDR and Frances Perkins established Social Security because, as FDR said, “It [would] take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.” In other words, Social Security would be a win-win: good for our nation’s economy and good for the citizens of our nation.

They knew that Social Security was about economics, but it was also about our values. It’s about who we are as a people, and what kind of country we are determined to build.

Today Social Security is under attack. The Republicans are doing everything they can to privatize and cut benefits for millions of seniors who rely on Social Security to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.

80 years later, we need Social Security more than ever. People are hitting their retirement years with less savings and more debt. Pensions are disappearing, being replaced by 401(k) plans that leave retirees at the mercy of the stock market. The squeeze on America’s middle class is now a squeeze on America’s retirees.

Social Security benefits are modest – just $1300 a month, on average – but two-thirds of America’s seniors rely on those checks for the majority of their income. For 15 million seniors, Social Security is all that stands between them and poverty.

Social Security is about independence and dignity. It’s no surprise that 79% of likely voters in last year’s election – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – support increasing Social Security benefits. Every person who represents you in Washington, and every person running for President in 2016, should be talking about protecting and expanding Social Security – not cutting it.  

FDR and Frances Perkins knew that you don’t get what you don’t fight for. So today, I’m fighting hard to make sure we don’t cut a dime of Social Security benefits. I’m fighting to protect and expand Social Security and I hope you’ll fight alongside me.

Decades after Social Security was established, Frances Perkins told the Social Security Administration:

Social Security is so firmly embedded in the American psychology today that no politician, no political party, no political group could possibly destroy this Act and still maintain our democratic system. It is safe. It is safe forever, and for the everlasting benefit of the people of the United States.

Let’s fight to make good on Frances Perkins’ promise by protecting and expanding Social Security.

Thank you for being a part of this, and a special thanks to Frances Perkins a tough woman with a vision. Happy birthday, Social Security!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Jeb Bush Just Botched the Iraq Question. Again. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 August 2015 10:14

Pierce writes: "He really doesn't have a good answer to this question, does he? First, he stood by C-Plus Augustus. Then he got bum-rushed into saying he didn't."

Jeb Bush. (photo: Kayana Szymczak/Getty Images)
Jeb Bush. (photo: Kayana Szymczak/Getty Images)


Jeb Bush Just Botched the Iraq Question. Again.

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

16 August 15

 

Jeb (!) spoke about the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the U.S. invasion of Iraq again. He becomes less and less coherent every time.

oday's Headline:  FLORIDA MAN FEEDS HISTORY TO HIS PET PYTHON.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on Thursday during a campaign stop in Iowa that "taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal," according to multiple reports…The Beast reported that Bush went on to say he didn't want to hypothesize about what would have happened if his brother, former President George W. Bush, had not ordered the invasion of Iraq, which led to the toppling of Hussein." Then that's back to the future and you could make a movie," Jeb Bush said, according to the Beast.

He really doesn't have a good answer to this question, does he? First, he stood by C-Plus Augustus. Then he got bum-rushed into saying he didn't. Then, in Cleveland, he blamed the president for squandering the laurel-wreathed triumph that was The Surge. And now we have this bibble-babble that starts out completely wrong and then starts shedding coherence by the dipthong. Were he as deft a politician as, say, Donald Trump, Jeb (!) would have dumped big brother over the side on this issue the moment he announced his campaign. ("Sorry, but my brother was a stupid loser, a yoooooooge stupid loser. I got your real surge right here.") The best he can do–and why he hasn't done this yet, I have no idea–is to repeat ISIS over and over again until his listeners are stunned into silence. Republican presidential candidates are supposed to be able to blot out the blunders of their glorious ancestors with more agility than this. ("The Iran nuclear deal is a sellout. What's that? Missiles? Mullahs? Reagan? Eh? Sorry, I was distracted by an elephant beetle.") Jeb (!)'s biggest problem is that he can't seem to find the memory hole without which no Republican presidential candidate can thrive.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'Where Are You?': An Open Letter to American Civil Liberties Groups Print
Sunday, 16 August 2015 08:33

Sterling writes: "Where were you? Where were you when I was faced with blatant discrimination at my job, when my employer told me I was 'too big and too black' to do the job?"

CIA Officer Jeffrey Sterling was sentenced to 3.5 years for leaking info to a NY Times reporter. (photo: Reuters)
CIA Officer Jeffrey Sterling was sentenced to 3.5 years for leaking info to a NY Times reporter. (photo: Reuters)


'Where Are You?': An Open Letter to American Civil Liberties Groups

By Jeffrey Sterling, St. Louis Post Dispatch

16 August 15

 

ear NAACP, National Action Network, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Congressional Black Caucus and others:

Where were you?

Where were you when I was faced with blatant discrimination at my job, when my employer told me I was "too big and too black" to do the job?

Where were you when I, one of the first black officers to do so, filed a discrimination suit against the Central Intelligence Agency?

Where were you when the justice system of the United States dismissed my discrimination suit because the U.S. government maintained that trying my suit would endanger national security?

Where were you during the many years I reached out to you, begging, pleading for help from you while the United States government pursued and tormented me for years, bent on retaliation and persecution?

Where were you when I begged for help from Congressman Lacy Clay's office and they told me to run away, to leave the country? I was there ... and I didn't run.

Where were you when the United States government arrested me, put me in jail and branded me with espionage?

Where were you when the United States put me -- the only person and only black face investigated over a 10-year period of time -- on trial in federal court on Espionage Act charges, claiming that I am a traitor to national security? When the prosecution used against me the same issues from my discrimination case that I had not been allowed to pursue in civil court? When a jury without a single black member found me guilty, even when the FBI itself said there was no evidence?

Where were you when a white official, Gen. David Petraeus -- accused of far more violations than I -- was given a slap on the wrist?

Where were you when Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke up for me?

Where were you when the judge sentenced me to prison for 42 months?

I have seen you around.

I saw you when Michael Brown lay dead in the street only a few miles from my home.

I saw you when other black faces were either killed or mistreated. I was out there, too.

I felt the joy and promise of the Million Man March. I felt the joy and the promise when the first black president was elected. I was there with you then.

Though I am invisible to you, others, many others, see me and see the injustice that I have endured for a very long time. Have you not read the editorials, articles and commentaries?

I am now in prison for a crime I did not commit.

The many others I speak of do not claim to be mighty advocates for civil rights on the same level as you, but they are there and have been with me, and will be with me as I appeal. And, they will be with me when I am free.

Where are you?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 Next > End >>

Page 2371 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN