Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A Nation of Cowards

".....in things racial, we have always been....a nation of cowards.... We...simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
Attorney General Eric Holder, Feb. 18, 2009

Does the AG mean that men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright are too cowardly to speak up about race in this country? I do not think so----they seem to talk about little else!

Perhaps he meant that white people, like this blogger (white as the driven snow, though Nazi-types would deny that) don't talk enough about race? It is true that the Glazerbeam has not dealt much with racial issues-----until now. I proudly accept the AG's challenge to discuss race in America candidly, but I am not sure he would like what I have to say, if he even reads this blog.

Unlike Mr Holder, I contend that talk of race has had too great an impact on public affairs in this country, and here are some examples of what I mean:

Clarence Thomas. When the first black Supreme Court Justice retired in 1991, President George H W Bush appointed US Circuit Judge Thomas to succeed him. Although he was the only black person ever nominated to the Supreme Court by a Republican president, Thomas apparently believed the President's claim that his race had nothing to do with his selection.
Yet, at his confirmation hearing, he never tired of reminding senators of his humble origins in a dysfunctional black family in Pin Point, Georgia. He lambasted criticism of his nomination as a "high tech lynching," deliberately using this racially-charged term to discredit his opponents. Instead of holding him in contempt of the Senate, the Senate confirmed him.

O J Simpson. Despite overwhelming DNA evidence of his guilt in the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and Ronald Goldman, Simpson was acquitted by a jury without even one white male member. (1) To this day, polls show that most black Americans believe Simpson was innocent. (2) He is only behind bars now because he subsequently committed other crimes in Las Vegas, where his race could not save him from justice. If he ever needed Johnny Cochran, he needed him at his Nevada trial.

Barack Obama must be one of the cowards that Holder was referring to, since he rarely mentioned race during his long presidential campaign, until the furor over Wright made him address the subject. But that is exactly where he differed from previous black presidential candidates like Jackson and Sharpton, which is why many whites voted for him!
Obama apparently believes that his partial-African heritage was an obstacle that he had to overcome in winning the Democratic presidential nomination, but the truth is that it was an enormous advantage. As the only African-American in a field of nine candidates, he garnered the lion's share of the black vote in every primary and caucus, while the other candidates scrambled for a share of the white vote. This was crucially important in winning southern primaries, where black voters today are often a majority of the Democratic base. In addition, white liberals could manifest their racial liberalism by voting for an African-American candidate more than by backing a white contender who was merely supportive of black aspirations. In this age of "identity politics", Obama was the "real deal."

As for Eric Holder, I cannot prove that his race was a major factor in his impressive legal career, which included important positions in the Clinton Justice Department, which then paved the way for his appointment as Attorney General. But it probably helped.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The prosecution agreed to move the trial from the district where the crimes where committed to Central Los Angeles, where more blacks would be in the jury pool. Cochran succeeded in eliminating all white males from the final panel, then using the racism of Detective Furman to persuade the jurors that Simpson was framed.

(2) Simpson is an ironic beneficiary of black solidarity, since he preferred the company of whites. Not only did he marry a white woman (as his second wife), but he allowed an unemployed white guy to share his home, even though there were plenty of black losers in LA who would have gladly accepted his hospitality.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Glazer's Law

"If you use your energy to refute all the bunk in this world,
You will run out of energy before the world runs out of bunk."
Glazer's Law of Bunk (1)

There really was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln, and another one to cover-up the Watergate break-in. The trouble is that for every real conspiracy there seems to be about ten or more bunk-conspiracy theories around, and there is no shortage of gullible people to believe them. Here are a few current examples:

1. Death of a Princess and an Heir
Shortly after midnight in Paris on August 31, 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales, and her friend Dodi al Fayed were killed when the car in which they were riding crashed into a pillar and a wall. Their chauffeur,Henri Paul (who was also killed), had been drinking alcoholic beverages for hours before Dodi selected him to drive the couple to his apartment; boasting that he would outrun the mob of photographers vying for pictures, Paul reportedly drove far faster than Paris speed limits.
Mohammed al Fayed, the father of Dodi, still cannot accept the simple fact that his son was the victim of a DUI crash, despite thorough investigations by both French and British police. On February 18, the senior al Fayed asserted in a London courtroom that the crash was deliberately caused by Prince Phillip and his son Prince Charles, with the help of British and French secret services as well as the CIA.(2)
The first absurdity of this conspiracy theory is that driver Henri Paul would have thrown his own life away in order to kill Diana. Unlike the suicide bombers who willing die to kill others, Mr Paul was a Frenchman with no allegiance to the British Royal Family or other ideological motive to commit this suicide-murder.
Secondly, British intelligence services do not take their orders from the Royal Family, but rather from the Ministry of Defence. If Prince Phillip had tried to misuse them to commit a crime like this, it is not credible that they would have obeyed; more likely, someone would have leaked the story to the British tabloids.
So, will anyone still believe Mr al Fayed? Probably.

2. Oswald-Ruby Plot
The same day that the story above broke, the Dallas County District Attorney released a large collection of memorabilia from the JFK assassination case. Among them was a typed dialogue between accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and the man who killed him, Jack Ruby. (3) The dialogue discusses the assassination as a Mafia-inspired plot.
Obviously the DA at that time, Henry Wade, placed no credence in the alleged transcript, since it was not passed on to the FBI or the Warren Commission. Although the conversation could not have taken place on the date cited in it (4), the current DA Craig Watkins commented that he did not know if the alleged conversation were real or fake. He added that the alleged dialogue will "open up debate " about a possible conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
Actually Mr Watkins is remarkably reluctant to label the conversation an obvious hoax or proposed movie script. Even if these men really met to plot the assassination (which is very unlikely, since there is no evidence they even knew each other), why in the world would they have taped the session or had a transcript made? To make sure they would both be convicted?
Now that 44 years have passed since the crime, the numerous Kennedy conspiracy buffs seemed to be running out of steam, but the DA is right in predicting that this manuscript will revive their interest in the case.

3. Did OJ have help?
In the new book "If I Did It" by O J Simpson (5), the author claims that a mysterious man called "Charlie" (no last name given) visited him on the evening of June 12, 1994, and told him about his ex-wife Nicole "messing around with men" in the presence of their children. According the book, Charlie accompanied OJ to Nicole's condo, blocked Ron Goldman from leaving the condo sidewalk, and later disposed of the knife and the killer's bloody clothing.
The trouble with this story is that there were only one set of bloody footprints leaving the murder scene, and they were traced to Simpson's shoes. There is no physical evidence or witness account to support the claim that another man was there.
However, the knife and Simpson's bloody clothes were never found (despite extensive police searches of nearby areas) and he barely had enough time to return home and meet a limo that was scheduled to take him to the LA Airport. If someone else helped him get rid of these items, it would help explain how OJ got away with the crimes.
Meanwhile, OJ Simpson is awaiting trial for an armed robbery that took place in Las Vegas last year. Other men were definitely involved this time. The former star's book on that case just might be written in a prison cell. For a title, how about "If We Did It" ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A euphemism for bovine excrement, also beginning with "B", which cannot be identified in a family-oriented blog like the Glazerbeam.

(2)Associated Press, Feb.19, 2008.

(3) Dallas Morning News, Feb. 19, 2008.

(4) The conversation allegedly took place at Ruby's nightclub in Dallas on an evening when Oswald was known to be with his wife in Irving, Texas.

(5) The parents of victim Ronald Goldman won a money judgment against Simpson, which was never satisfied. The author's royalties for the book were originally intended to benefit Simpson's children, but the Goldmans got a court order transferring the rights to the manuscript to them, so that the proceeds of publication could be applied to the judgment.
The ghostwriter who actually wrote the text based on Simpson's words later stated that he did not believe "Charlie" ever existed.

Labels: , , ,