When America Burned After the King Assassination: An Interview With Author Clay Risen

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. Tomorrow, America honors the birthday of heroic civil rights activist Martin Luther King. Americans revere King across the political and ethnic spectrum for his wisdom, idealism, courage and practice of non-violent civil disobedience against the forces of racial oppression. Thanks in large part to the trailblazing efforts of King and his followers; America inaugurates its first black president the very next day when Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20th. Yet even as Americans celebrate the historical arc from Martin Luther King to Barack Obama, the scars of racial injustice remain woven into our country’s fabric. Understandably, historians have overlooked the immediate aftermath of King’s assassination in a Memphis, Tennessee hotel on April 4th, 1968. The meaning of King’s life as well as the tragedy his loss represented has received considerable attention from historians and the body politic. Yet the immediate aftermath of King’s death was dwarfed by his iconic life as well as the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the violence that took place during the Democratic National Convention later that year. Clay Risen, author of A Nation On Fire: America In the Wake of the King Assassination (John Wiley & Sons) argues that what transpired immediately after April 4th impacted America as intensely as King’s death itself. Within hours, there was rioting in Washington D.C. and before the violence subsided, the U.S. Army occupied three major American cities while National Guard units patrolled a dozen more. Overall, there were disturbances in nearly 120 cities. Ultimately, the riots helped facilitate forty years of conservative hegemony as urban America reaped the whirlwind of white resentment and indifference. Risen specifically chronicles the period covering President Lyndon Johnson’s withdrawal from the 1968 campaign on March 31st, to King’s assassination on April 4th and culminates with Johnson’s signing of the 1968 Civil Rights Act on April 11th. The author relies on dozens of interviews as well as newly declassified documents to provide a dramatic day-by-day, city-by-city narrative of the riots, from the looting in Washington to violence in Chicago, Baltimore and other cities following King's death in Memphis. Indeed, Risen skillfully takes the reader on a historical tour with larger than life personalities like the militant Stokely Carmichael to white racist vigilantes in Baltimore and political figures such as New York City Mayor John Lindsey, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, New York Senator Robert Kennedy and Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew. Perhaps the book’s most dramatic anecdote was when a young Deputy Attorney General named Warren Christopher, joined General Ralph Haines, and Public Safety Commissioner Patrick Murphy at a Washington DC gas station pay-phone to recommend to President Johnson that he deploy federal troops in the nation’s capitol. George Pelecanos, author of The Turnaround and The Night Gardner issued the following praise for Risen’s book: “Clay Risen’s A Nation on Fire is the long-awaited definitive account of one of the most important, underreported events of the 1960s. As important for its historical aspect as it is for understanding where we are today, it is an exciting, important document, excitingly told.” Risen, was formerly an editor at The New Republic and is the founding Managing Editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He has also contributed to Smithsonian, Slate, the Atlantic, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine. Risen agreed to a telephone interview with me in a podcast format about his book as well as the fateful days following King’s death. Our conversation was just over forty-seven minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below. Either searching for the Intrepid Liberal Journal or Robert Ellman can also access this interview at no cost via the Itunes Store.

Burris Should Be Seated!

The NY Times is reporting, U.S. Senator Roland Burris (appointed) will arrive today at the door of what many African Americans call, "The All White Club" of The U.S. Senate for a showdown that a growing number of Democratic members would prefer not to have. As reported by By Karen Ann Cullotta and Monica Davey at the NY Times: In a news conference at Midway airport in Chicago before his scheduled 2:20 p.m. flight to Baltimore, a defiant Mr. Burris told reporters that he was not concerned about the fact that the Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, has rejected the paperwork that would officially send Mr. Burris to the Senate. “Why don’t you all understand that what has been done here is legal?” he said. “I am the junior senator from Illinois, and I wish my colleagues in the press would recognize that.” He later added, “This is all politics and theater, but I am the junior senator according to every law book in the nation.” As NPR reports, supporters have rallied around Roland Burris. AAPP: I first thought that Senate Democratic leaders wanted to avoid a spectacle that would pit a black man pegging to gain access to the Senate floor to be sworn in as Barack Obama’s replacement. As I noted in a previous post now that Blagojevich has snubbed everyone in his state the U.S. Senate leadership has developed an elaborate set of contingency plans to keep this black man Roland Burris from taking over Barack Obama's seat. But check this out, The NY times and CNN reported Monday that an aide to Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the United States Senate, said that Ms. Erickson had rejected Mr. Burris’s certificate of appointment because, though it was signed by Mr. Blagojevich, it was not cosigned by Mr. White, as the Senate’s rules require. As reported by enotes, perhaps. The United States Senate has the right to expel a member of the Senate but whether they can refuse to seat a legally appointed new member is open to question. The argument rests on two parts of the Constitution. Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states that "Each house [Senate or House of Representatives] shall be the judge of elections, returns and qualifications of its own members . . ." In addition, "Each house may expel a member." During its entire history, the Senate has expelled 15 members. But these were members who were already part of the Senate. The 17th amendment to the Constitution states :"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." In other words, the governor shall appoint a successor when a vacancy occurs. Refusing to seat a new, duly appointed Senator may only be possible if the Senate has some indication that his appointment was corrupt. Since they have no such knowledge that Burris' appointment was corrupt, many constitutional experts say that to refuse to seat him would deny the citizens of Illinois proper representation in Congress. According to ABC news," . . election law attorneys said that senators may not have the constitutional power to refuse to admit Burris into the Senate without some indication that his appointment was corrupt." Thus, it is unclear what will happen if Burris attempts to take his seat. More HERE If Burris shows up today to claim the seat given to him by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the potential outcomes range from a denial of entry to a limbo where he can hire staff but not vote. The Chicago Sun Times is also following the story on how the United States Senate may block Burris and stall for time. In Chicago one newspaper, The Chicago Tribune is HOT saying:Illinois Democrats played a starring role in this mess. The paper even going as far as saying, let Burris have the Senate seat and move on, already. Now get this, The LA Times has wrote: Obama's election is changing the politics of race. They write, Reporting from Washington -- With Senate leaders threatening to block Roland Burris from being sworn in today as Barack Obama's replacement, many of his supporters see a familiar story of race and injustice. An all-white club, they say, is trying to prevent a black man from gaining admission, as well as the power that comes with a Senate seat. Summoning a harsh metaphor from the nation's racial battles, Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) even called the Senate "the last bastion of plantation politics." But the Burris episode has unexpectedly become the first example of how racial politics have changed with the election of Barack Obama to the White House. Many black leaders, including Obama, have declined to back Burris, even if that leaves the Senate with no African American members. Some view his appointment by Illinois' embattled governor as an odd playing of the race card. Others are renouncing the style of politics that highlights racial grievances and inequality, saying it can no longer work now that the nation has elected its first black president. "It is another statement on how black politics is now -- that the old regime, the old outlook, the old perspective has been displaced," said the Rev. Eugene Rivers, a black pastor from Boston and senior advisor to the Church of God in Christ, the biggest Pentecostal denomination in the country. "You can't use 50-year-old ideas in a new political era." Even the Rev. Al Sharpton, known for his confrontational style of politics, is distancing himself from the Burris matter -- conferring privately Monday with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid but refusing to join critics in denouncing the Democratic leadership in racial terms. Read More HERE Roland Burris right, and wife Berlean, second from right, along with U.S. Congressman Bobby Rush (D)-Ill, second from left, attend the New Covenant Baptist Church during a rally in Chicago, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2009. Burris is leaving for Washington D.C. on Monday, after Il. Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed him to fill President elect Barack Obama's Senate seat. Source: AP/The Seattle Times AAPP: Damn, it looks like black elected and self appointed political leadership have sold black folks to the highest bidder. This whole situation is now pitting black ministers against black elected officials and Obama. I guess the bottom line is, I agree with the following comments in the LA Times article, from supporters of Burris: Read More HERE

What is really going on in Gaza

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge As we all have, I have been watching the IDF assault on Gaza over the last few days. And from what I can tell, it is exactly like shooting fish in a barrel. I have often been critical of the IDF for their military exercises in the Gaza Strip. Does anyone remember Jenin? The likes of the Weekly Standard claims there was no massacre and that mostly combatants were killed. Well, the photos that are now available of the military attack on the refugee camp shows a different story - men and women laying dead over dead children, in the streets and in their homes. The photos revealed dozens of bodies being buried under the hospital parking lot. Of the hundreds of photos available, there is only one that was a Palestinian combatant. Was it a massacre? You tell me. But this wasn't the only time the IDF's response to terrorism was overreaching. There was a terrorist the IDF wanted killed, so they waited until he returned home and dropped a 2000 pound bomb on the whole apartment building. What was their answer for killing a single terrorist standing at a bus stop? Kill everyone else at the bus stop with a helicopter gunship. There isn't ONE sniper in the whole of the Israeli Defense Force? Lastly, I wished people would separate the Israel Knesset from Judaism - they are totally different things. Yes, Hamas needs to stop the shelling. Yes, Bush hasn't done jack-shit for Middle Eastern peace and yes, Israel needs to rethink the Palestinian issue. It is an issue they will need to live with and they need to come up with a way where they can live with it. As it is, no one is living the life of peace.

LEAKED: Bush’s Xmas Wish List

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge I have this theory I think will hold up after Obama takes his oath next month. I think after Obama is in office and all the idiots are swept out of government (at least most of the Bush appointed idiots), there will be a tidal wave of "leaked memos" that will come from every part of government. Civil servants I think genuinely care about the job of government and many may have kept their heads down and compiled massive amounts of notes, documents and others bits of stuff that can be termed as "evidence" that will suddenly see the light of day. Over the past year, I have seen and read numerous reporters say they have sources in government that have asked them to call back after Obama is in office and then they will spill whatever beans the sources have sequestered. I remember last year when we all enjoyed "Fitzmas." Maybe this time next year, we will be enjoying Obamukkah?

New York's New World

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. For my home state, Governor David Paterson's budget is a window into the future. Simply put, we are witnessing what happens when New York State ceases to the financial capital of the world. At the moment the world doesn't really have one as the global economy sorts through massive wreckage. Truthfully, the era of financial centers concentrated in western port cities such as New York or London is a relic. This had long been been predicted because information technology makes it possible to outsource back office functions remotely and utilize cheap labor. Why pay for New York City real estate and labor when a trader can just as easily play with other people's money from a computer in Dubai? However, until the recent economic catastrophe Wall Street stubbornly hung onto its symbolic trappings as the center of the universe. As a result, Albany could count on revenues generated from Wall Street to finance union pensions, government services, medicaid spending, corporate welfare, our prison industrial complex and so forth. The financial services industry also generated millions of jobs in our region from stock brokers to janitors. Hence, Wall Street's titans were able to leverage their influence with power brokers such as New York State's senior Senator Charles Schumer. As many of you know, the New York Times recently profiled the intimate relationship between Wall Street and Schumer. Liberals are justifiably outraged at Schumer's enthusiastic pandering to Wall Street's desire for excessive deregulation and lax oversight in exchange for campaign donations for himself and his party. Instead of a Democrat standing up for working people we elected an enabler of our economic meltdown. In fairness to Schumer, any New York senator would have to some degree catered to this industry's interests just as Joe Biden championed the banks and credit card industry while representing Delaware. All politics is local as Tip O'Neill used to say and even Wall Street enemy Eliot Spitzer raked in contributions from the financial sector during his 2006 campaign for Governor. That's where the action was that created jobs for New Yorkers and filled the state's coffers. However, Schumer's excessive pandering to Wall Street has facilitated a calamity for the working people in New York he claims to represent and helped wreck the global economy with it. Figures such as Clinton Treasury Secretary and Wall Street powerhouse Robert Rubin were never Obi-Wan Kenobi. Today New York is confronted with a $1.7 billion 2008 shortfall and a projected 2009-10 deficit of $13.7 billion while Governor Paterson promotes an "obesity tax." Important government services such as healthcare, education and emergency first responders will take a hit. And New York's Mass Transit Authority ("MTA") with its chronic incompetence in good and bad times will impose painful rate hikes and service cuts in 2009 to make up for its own steep revenue shortfall. As always the working stiffs are hit the hardest. The pain is no fun and hardships abound for New Yorkers as our manufacturing industry was sucking wind well before Lehman Brothers collapsed, AIG was bailed out and Bernard L. Madoff became a household name. Like all New Yorkers I'm feeling the pain too but thankfully still have a job. Yet even during this challenging period an opportunity exists. Necessity is a mother to invention and New York needs to reinvent itself. Just as oil is a dangerous narcotic that has arrested the development of petro states the financial services sector and manufacturing industry have undermined New York's ability to retool for the 21st century. Such innovation requires leadership and vision. Whatever critique one may have with the specifics of Paterson's hardship budget he is at least showing leadership by not ducking the tough choices. Personally though I am dismayed by Paterson's unwillingness to more fairly distribute the pain. He should worry less about taxing millionaires and instead embrace New York's Working Families Party approach of shared sacrifice. My question though is what sort of people does Paterson listen to as the corporate private sector vies for his favor in New York's new world? Alas, Paterson's consideration of Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate because of her ability to raise millions from friends such as billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg is not encouraging.