A year ago today I wrote my first blog entry. You can find it here. It’s a test one really, not about much; though in saying that I do Bobbin and Tess a disservice.

A year ago I was full of crazy excitement. Blogging was a new adventure. I hadn’t got a clue what I would write. I felt that bit by bit, writing at least a post a day, I would find my feet and discover why I was doing this.

A year on I’ve slowed down a bit. No post every day, but I try for a couple a week. And I’ve expanded. We’ve got the Trev and Simon blog on the go, and I’ve started 20th Century Mummified Fox- a blog where I can indulge in my love of films.

I still don’t know why I’m doing this. I haven’t found my feet. Of course it’s an indulgence; no doubt I am showing off, but showing off what? It’s not a comedy blog. It’s not some kind of confessional. I’m no film critic. Nor a photographer. But this blog is made up of bits of all of these. And lots of animals.

And it keeps me busy when times are tough. I enjoy it. And so, sometimes, do some of you. All of the people who come here and read or look, thank you. I know there’s lots of blogs out there, blah blah blah airline appreciation speech.

And thank you all for your comments. I enjoy reading them and I enjoy the interaction. And, to my pleasant surprise, the comments over the year have been thoughtful and considered, even when being critical. I haven’t, as yet, had to delete any for taking the chance to hurl abuse at me. Still, there’s time. My blog is just a baby.

Since the whole blogging thing is one enormous indulgence, for Mummified Fox’s first birthday I am going to pick some of my blog favourites from my 234 posts. One from each month.

November 2008- This and That’s Entertainment. Every year I go to Great Yarmouth to play pool. But which is best, Great Yarmouth or Las Vegas?

December 2008- Tommie Smith and John Carlos. I drag my family to see the Tommie Smith and John Carlos statue in San Jose.

January 2009- Murderer. Me, Trev and Cyndi Lauper have a close shave with Coronation Street murderer Tony Gordon.

February 2009- Deal or No Deal on the Dole. Ok, a bit of a weird one. this is a story about Deal or No Deal, Noel Edmonds, a luckless contestant, and Cosmic ordering.

March 2009- The Nazis. I drew them at school and only got a B+.

April 2009- A Nightingale sang in the 100 Club. A sort of review of the Nightingales and Ted Chippington.

May 2009- “Yes, I spent money on furniture”. Shadow Education Secretary Michael Gove and the elephant lamps we bought him. Including comments from the man himself (or so it seems).

June 2009- Pigs, a goose and a sheep. Just as it says.

July 2009- I’m going to cheat here and mention two posts. I’m not quite sure why it’s cheating; there’s no rules, it’s my blog. But at the top of this post I did say I’d pick one from each month, so yes, I am cheating. First Like the circles that you find- a guide to reglazing windows. And also RIP Rob. Rob sold the Big Issue outside Hither Green station. He died in July.

August 2009- Little and Large. My mum and dad used to go to The Talk of the North in the 70’s and see all the top acts. Years later I get to meet one of them.

September 2009- The Rogers Brothers and the Cox twins. The real life inspiration for two of our characters.

October 2009- Bigmouth strikes again. Possibly my most personal and indulgent post and also my most commented on.

So there’s some of my favourites for the year. If you click on any of them I hope you enjoy them. And if you do, please look at some of the remaining 221 posts.

I was going to use the blog’s first birthday to say why it’s called Mummified Fox. but I’m going to save that for next year.

Happy 1st Birthday Mummified Fox

I’m an alumna of San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Go Spartans…

I graduated from there in 1976, the Bicentennial Year. Things were pretty quiet by the time I arrived there in 1972. Some of the football team lived on the fourth floor of my dorm, Markham Hall. There was no campus activism. The Hog Farm visited once. I saw my first adult movie at the student union auditorium…no, not Morris Dailey. There was no John Carlos or Tommie Smith. Even the Greeks were quiet. The only excitement came from a (for that time) hotly-contested student election; former president and S.F. State faculty alum John Bunzel, taking a cue from S.I. Hayakawa, messing with the econ department over some lefty profs; Jessica Mitford’s residency at State, and Hunter S. Thompson’s occasional campus visits. Yep, it was relatively quiet.

If you think cops only beat up blacks or Latinos, get real. They will beat up on just about anybody, given half a chance. It’s just that people of color get the nightstick oftener, and often with no real reason to get violent.

Police brutality against people of color has got to stop now. I mean, I feel as if I am looking at the Sixties all over again, when the Panthers first organized against this kind of thing. Just because cops are given a gun and a nightstick is not permission to beat up anyone any time they feel like it. These kinds of cops need to be landed on HARD. The more they do this kind of thing, the more lawsuits will be filed, the more cities and towns around the country will have to pay up.

This is what happened in September; the whole story is just coming out now with the release of this video on YouTube. I never got to finish watching the video. Ho’s cries were just too much for me to take.

A cell phone video shows San Jose police officers repeatedly using batons and a Taser gun on an unarmed San Jose State student, including at least one baton strike that appears to come after the man is handcuffed, as they took him into custody inside his home last month.

The video, made by one of the student’s roommates without the knowledge of police, shows that force was used even though the suspect was on the ground, and apparently offering no physical threat to the officers. Several experts in police force said the video appears to document excessive — and possibly illegal — force by the officers. A police spokesman Friday said the department had opened a criminal investigation of the officers’ conduct, after police officials viewed a copy of the recording.

Phuong Ho, 20, was beaten and Tasered in September by San Jose police in response to a housemate's call (Courtesy: Mercury-News)

The confrontation arose as Phuong Ho, a 20-year-old math major from Ho Chi Minh City, was arrested on suspicion of assaulting another of his roommates. He faces pending misdemeanor charges of exhibiting a deadly weapon and resisting arrest. Ho admits picking up a knife as he argued with a roommate. He was not armed when police arrived.

Experts cautioned that the grainy, shaky video, a copy of which was obtained by the Mercury News last week from Ho’s lawyers, is difficult to view and may not depict critical actions by Ho that justify the response. Nevertheless, four of the six experts who reviewed the video at the request of the newspaper said it raises serious concerns.

And what were those concerns?  Again, from the San Jose Mercury-News story:

1. Ho remains on the ground, moaning and crying, as he is repeatedly struck. He does not appear to offer significant resistance, suggesting the high level of force is not necessary.
2. The officer most visible in the sequence stands for much of the time in a casual posture, at one point with his legs crossed. He seems to show no concern that the situation is potentially dangerous — raising additional questions about why force was being used.
3. The final baton strike appears to occur after the handcuffs can be heard snapping onto Ho’s wrists.

Retired L.A. sheriff’s deputy and former lieutenant Roger Clark, a certified policing expert, declared that the third concern constituted “a felony.”  David Grossi from Florida, a law enforcement trainer and an expert on the use of police force said, “That is not what can be construed at first blush to be reasonable force.” Grossi was once a lieutenant and training commander with the New York Police Department.

Even former San Francisco mayor Frank Jordan, who was also a former San Francisco police chief, had to admit,  “Once he is handcuffed, then he is helpless. If you can show that his hands are behind his back, and he is handcuffed, that is where you get brutality. That would be excessive force. You have him in custody. This is one last coup de grace. Is that really necessary?”

Two of the experts the Mercury-News called upon, though, did not think that the video raised any concerns.  Thomas Aveni of the Police Policy Studies Council, said that the poor quality of the video made it impossible for him to come to a reasonable conclusion.  He said that the repeated use of a baton made the situation worse than what it really was. 

Oh, really?

And Brian Kinnard, who has previously testified on behalf of cops in cases questioning the use of force in the deaths or maiming of suspects, said that he saw nothing wrong, suggesting “that the question of whether force is ‘reasonable’ depends on the circumstances.”

Boy, those last two would get off Johannes Mehserle.  It’s no wonder that cops feel that they can get away with this kind of thing repeatedly and with their jobs and careers intact.  Meanwhile, there’s not enough money in the Universe or deeply-felt apologies from politicians or police that can ever bring back the lives of thousands of people who were just blown away for absolutely nothing, or have less productive lives because they are in a wheelchair or are emotionally scarred.

All the cops should have done was ask what was up, and interviewed both Suftin and Ho separately. Then it would have been up to Suftin to make a decision to press charges. If Suftin wouldn’t, then the incident would have been over. Instead, these idiots came in like gangbusters when the altercation was probably way over.

In a related story, the four cops involved in the beating and arrest of Phuong Ho have been placed on paid leave pending an investigation.

[...]Kenneth Siegel used his baton, and officer Steven Payne Jr. used his Taser gun to subdue Ho, whom the reports describe as violently kicking and refusing to comply with their orders as they attempted to place Ho in handcuffs.

But the grainy video, taken by one of Ho’s roommates, documents more than 10 baton strikes as well as Taser gun usage that some experts contacted by the Mercury News described as excessive and potentially criminal.

Police officials said Siegel and Payne, as well as two other officers who were at the scene — Jerome Smith and Gabriel Reyes — were placed on leave while their internal review proceeds.

And the kicking that the former cops were talking about? Probably not from Ho begging for mercy, but from the Tasering. The body always jerks from the charge of several hundred volts. The kicking was not intentional. These guys were total idiots; on top of the blunt force to the head and the Tasering, Ho could have died.

Phuong Ho has no criminal record. He lived in the student ghetto around San Jose State with several housemates. The incident in question? Some dishwater soap was either deliberately or accidentally slopped onto Ho’s dinner steak. He and the housemate with the dishwater, Jeremy Suftin, fought briefly, but when Ho picked up a steak knife, and said that in Vietnam, he could kill Suftin for such an act, Suftin freaked out. A couple of the other housemates who witnessed the incident actually laughed at what Ho had said, but Suftin called the cops.

Housemate Dimitri Masouris, who secretly cell-phone recorded the attack on Ho, said he considered the police response “unnecessary and excessive.” Masouris then sold the video to Duyen Hoang Nguyen, the San Jose lawyer now representing Ho, most probably to support Ho’s case against the cops.

Ho [...] told the Mercury News last week that he was not resisting arrest that September night, but that he was desperately looking for his thick, high-prescription glasses, which flew off as police shoved him. He said he was then stunned by the blows that followed.

“In philosophy, they call it ‘dehumanization,’ ” Ho said. “So when they think me a dangerous guy, they don’t treat me like I was human. They hit me like an animal or something.”

Well, either Suftin or Ho is going to have to look for a new home. The Vietnamese community in San Jose (and probably elsewhere) is no doubt highly upset about this incident, and in my view, it’s justified. (Welcome to America, people. Now you know how it is for the rest of us.) Nothing like this, to my memory, ever happened to SJSU students. I wasn’t around for Dow Chemical–I’m not that old. And so it’s no wonder that because of incidents like these, cops are distrusted all over.

“It wasn’t done for a malignant reason. It was only done to bring attention to the atrocities of which we were experiencing in a country that was supposed to represent us.”

In a gesture that illustrates powerfully the “actions speak louder than words” mentality, Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists in solidarity at the Olympic podium after accepting medals for their staggering performances in the 200-meter race. In a powerful display, the two men sought to communicate to the captive Olympic audience that there is unity and pride among the Black community but that there is still racism and poverty in America that, if we are not fighting, we are condoning. The image of the event is perhaps one of the most recognizable and dramatic image of protest in America in the last century. 

The fallout of their actions was great. The Olympic heroes had sacrificed their personal glory in order to make a statement much larger than themselves and there was a price to be paid for it. Critics claimed that the Olympics were an apolitical event and this sort of “Black power” statement was not appropriate for the venue and both men (and their families) received death threats. But if criticism and attention is a gauge for proper protest, Smith and Carlos were successful. Though poverty and racism still exist in America, this image exists in our collective memory to stand in opposition to these societal ills. 

Il Compagno Tommie Smith

Il compagno Tommie Smith
Malatempora (2008), 224 pagine; 11.00 euro | acquista! | il blog

Città del Messico, ottobre 1968: Tommie Smith ha appena vinto la finale olimpica dei 200 metri, davanti a Peter Norman e John Carlos. Al momento dell’inno nazionale, i due afroamericani si presentano senza scarpe, calze nere ai piedi: alzano un pugno coperto da un guanto nero e abbassano la testa, mentre l’australiano Norman espone un distintivo per la promozione dei diritti umani.
È la più nota di tante vicende sportive che si sono caricate di significati politici. il libro racconta un intreccio di momenti fatali, biografie segnate da atti di ribellione e ansie di riscatto sociale, uomini e donne che hanno dato un senso allo sport, ne hanno fatto una questione di integrità personale. Fra queste storie, ce ne sono alcune riportate mille volte e tuttora entusiasmanti. Altre, quasi dimenticate, ci arrivano piene di vuoti e silenzi. Solo la leggenda può colmare quei vuoti, trasportare l’eco di quelle voci.
La memoria dello sport resta in bilico fra la cronaca e l’epica. In un capolavoro crepuscolare di John Ford, dopo aver saputo cosa accadde veramente dalla viva voce dell’uomo che non uccise Liberty Valance, il testimone conclude che fra la verità e la leggenda, è sempre la leggenda a farsi preferire.

On October 16th, 1968, two African-American athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, raised their fist in a black power salute during the playing of the national anthem at the Olympics. The two had just placed medal times in the 200 meter dash during the Mexico City games. Smith’s record setting sprint brought him gold and Carlos took bronze. As the National Anthem began playing, the pair lowered their heads and raised their fists in what would become an iconic image of the black struggle for equality. As members of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, the athletes also were shoeless to protest black poverty and wore beads to highlight the crime of lynching. For their symbolic protest, Smith and Carlos were promptly banned from the games and expelled from the Olympic Village. The corporate press back in the U.S. had a field day ostracizing the two for their supposed lack of respect. Both Smith and Carlos faced hard times and death threats when they returned home from the games, but the image of resistance they staged lives on, not in infamy, but in annuls of subversive history.

The protest and sacrifice by Smith and Carlos is an instructive example of the courage needed today to deliver on the promise of a “more perfect union.”  We honor and salute Tommie Smith and John Carlos-thou more than heroes- for their heroic action in the service of a better America

Getting published is something that is not new to me. I write for a living, so seeing my name in print isn’t a huge deal anymore. But when it happens unexpectedly, I must say there is a sense of giddiness.

Big thanks to Tom at South Bay Sports Cards for pointing out to me last week that I had been published in Beckett. I swung by the card shop last Friday for the first time in about six weeks to buy some supplies, and Tom asked if I was the guy who was published in Beckett. Turns out the magazine ran my letter in the “Readers Write” section.

In a nutshell, Beckett had created a list of most significant Allen & Ginter autographs since the set’s re-released in 2006. I noted that the 2007 Topps Allen & Ginter Tommie Smith card was not on Beckett’s list, but that I had considered it one of the most significant non-cut signatures Topps had released in the last decade. (You can probably click the image posted here and read the letter for yourself.)

What’s funny is that I had kind of stayed away from Beckett magazines in recent months because of my inactivity in the hobby so I had no intentions on buying the magazine. I actually held a copy of this same issue just days earlier while getting my oil changed at Wal-Mart, but I put it down before actually flipping to the Readers Write section. Had Tom not pointed out that I was in it, I probably would have never known.

This is the first time I’ve had my name in the magazine, but the second time something I did was recognized in print. In 2001, the magazine noted my $3,605 sale of a 2001 Upper Deck Hall of Fame Walter Johnson cut signature. And yes, I am kicking myself for not keeping a scan of the card or taking a picture with it. Gah!

American orator Patrick Henry is famous for saying “Give me liberty or give me death!” in 1775. Henry achieved liberty long before his death, on this date in 1799.

James Meredith was shot and wounded while leading a civil rights march through Mississippi on June 6th, 1966.

Runner Tommie Smith won the gold in the 200-meter dash at the 1968 Summer Olympics, and then chose to give a “Black Power” salute during the medal ceremony, for which he was suspended from the U.S team. Smith was born on June 6th, 1944 – the day of the Allied D-Day invasion to liberate Europe.

On the morning of October 16, 1968, U.S. athlete Tommie Smith won the 200 meter race in a then-world-record time of 19.83 seconds, with Australia’s Peter Norman second with a time of 20.07 seconds, and the U.S.’s John Carlos in third place with a time of 20.10 seconds. After the race was completed, the three went to collect their medals at the podium. The two U.S. athletes received their medals shoeless, but wearing black socks, to represent black poverty. Smith wore a black scarf around his neck to represent black pride. Carlos had his tracksuit top unzipped to show solidarity with all blue collar workers in the U.S. and wore a necklace of beads which he described “were for those individuals that were lynched, or killed and that no-one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred. It was for those thrown off the side of the boats in the middle passage.”

To view the remainder of this feature, purchase your copy of “D’s 2-cents.”  Send your request to damonduncan7@yahoo.com .

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”
- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 2.2

No offense to Shakespeare, but I don’t think he ever studied public relations or the value of brand identity.  Nor do I think he had to watch the “G” ads.  These black and white TV commercials scroll past athletes and pop cultural icons by the likes of Misty May-Treanor, Kerri Walsh, Muhammad Ali, Derek Jeter, the JabbaWockeeZ, Tommie Smith, John Carlos, Michael Jordan and Peyton Manning while an announcer answers the question, “What is G?”  “G” is of course “gifted,” “glorious” and “golden.” Duh.

I am sure that you have all guessed correctly that these commercials clearly refer to Gatorade.  What else could “gifted,” “glorious” and “golden” mean?  And if that wasn’t enough, I know all of America is up-to-date on its pop culture and American history.  The JabbaWockeez won MTV’s America’s Best Dance Crew, and Tommie Smith and John Carlos are infamous for their salutes protesting racial inequality during the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.  And if anything is going to fuel consumption of a sports drink after exhausting physical activity, it is these figures.

In my personal opinion, Gatorade wasted its money on these ads.  In no way does this commercial reflect the hydrating, vitamin-filled, flavorful qualities that we have come to identify with the blue-sweating, turbo jet running athletes in its past commercials.  And I’m not alone in this line of thinking.  John Swansburg wrote in his blog post on Slate, “It’s as if Gatorade execs had thrown everything they’d read was cool these days into a pot and stirred. Viral campaign: check. Hip-hop dance crew: check. Lil Wayne: check. Barack Obama: check.” 

Gatorade is a sports drink and its main consumer is athletes.  So how do pictures of Obama in a suit or dancers in masks inspire heart pounding activity after which Gatorade is necessary?  It doesn’t.  Now, I’m not saying its older commercials such as, telling consumers about its conception at the University of Florida or showing athletes performing rigorous activity, were breathtakingly original.  But at least we knew what they were when they aired.  What is ‘G’?

My friend, Sam, just summed it up like this, “It actually discouraged me from getting Gatorade, because I didn’t want to get anything with just a ‘G’ on it.  I didn’t know what it was.  So I just got one of the old bottles of Gatorade….But for real are the ‘G’ bottles special Gatorade or normal Gatorade?”

-Jarrett Cocharo

Tommie Smith and John Carlos are never ending political figures. In the 1968 Olympics they raised a Black Power fist at the 110 year of the modern Olympic Games. They were persecuted for the move, but now Tommie Smith is being celebrated with his own shoe from Puma. See them below along with their statement in Mexico City.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/cowboys/stories/013009dnspocowlede.3289c20.html

At the Mexico Olympics in 1968, this photograph of American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos standing on the victory podium with heads bowed and black-gloved fists raised in a Black Power salute in protest at racism in the USA, became the iconic image of the age.

In the fraught years since 1968, the weight of living through the aftermath put a heavy burden on the friendship of Carlos and Smith. In separate interviews with the Los Angeles Times it was revealed that they have barely spoken to each other since the early 1990s, despite living just a short drive apart in southern California. Smith described their relationship as “strained”. Carlos would call his former team-mate only “Mister Smith”.

Recalling the Olympics, Carlos said:

“When we arrived at the award stand there was a lot of applause. When we left there were many boos and thumbs down. Well, John Carlos and Tommie Smith want the people who booed to know that black people are not lower animals like roaches and rats. … We’re not like some sort of a show horse who does its job and then had some peanuts tossed at it. We’d like to tell all white people that if they don’t care for things black people do, they should not go see black people perform.”

Smith was equally bitter:

“It is very discouraging to be in a team with white athletes. On the track you are Tommie Smith, the fastest man in the world, but once you are in the dressing rooms you are nothing more than a dirty Negro.”

Over the years, they paid the price. Smith was discharged from army service as a result of his ‘un-American activities’. Two brothers of John Carlos were also sent home from battle. They never represented the USA again.

(Less well-known is the fact that Peter Norman, the white Australian athlete on the podium with them, expressed his solidarity by wearing the same ‘Olympic Project for Human Rights’ badge on the podium as Smith and Carlos did. He too was victimised when he got back home to Australia. Despite running the necessary qualifying times, he was excluded from the Australian squad which went to the 1972 Olympics, and he was not invited to take any part in the 2000 Sydney Olympic celebrations by the Australian organisers. Carlos and Smith both went to Norman’s funeral in 2006 and delivered eulogies to the late sprinter, who still holds the Australian record for 200 metres which he set in Mexico.)

From a wonderful history of dissent at the Olympics by Martin Belam

But here, in 2009, are Carlos and Smith at Obama’s inauguration, with their wives, in a hotel room.

(Boston Globe/Stan Grossfeld)

What the election of Obama signifies, the energies it can generate, the solidarities it can create, the transformations that can be effected under its sign, cannot be understood simply in terms of a charismatic man of mixed race becoming President of the most powerful nation today. It is only those who cannot see beyond these mere “facts” who are cynical and mocking, for whatever Obama’s actual record in office will prove to be, we must mark this moment.

It is a moment that every struggle against power and authority anywhere in the world has claimed for itself. Centuries of racism and two decades of Empire later, every edifice of power in every part of the globe has, in one sudden ray of light, revealed its vulnerability. Anything seems possible, not least of all, a Dalit woman Prime Minister of India.

“Obama” is bigger than the man.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8ExSaZpfHqM9lDgSkvtWQOCEVAAD95QLQ600
“It means somebody heard my steps — besides people in the races I ran against,” he said. “It’s a great stride forward, just because we have a person with hue, and with an African-American background. That doesn’t mean our job is over; it means it’s just begun. I don’t mean people of color, I mean everybody in the nation.” Tommie Smith

Record personnels : 100y – 9.3 (1967); 100 – 10.1 (1966); 200 – 19.83 (1969); 220y (straight)– 19.5s (1966); 400 – 44.5 (1967)

Many of you know this story, but it  has always struck me as one of the largest displays of injustice in the history of our country. These men truly stood for something more than themselves or the ideology of a nation. At the Mexico City Games in 1968, two black American sprinters stood on the medal podium with heads bowed and fists raised—a symbol of black power. Teammates Tommie Smith and John Carlos had secretly planned a non-violent protest to bring attention to the injustices faced by black Americans should they medal in the 200-meter race.  Which they did, with Smith capturing gold and Carlos bronze. But at the time, the athletes encountered such outrage that they were stripped of their medals, suspended from their national team and banned from the Olympic village. The athletes and their families also received numerous death threats. I have heard terms such as patriot or freedom used sparingly in our culture, unfortunately many individuals have no idea what they truly mean…..

40 years after their silent protest at the 1968 Olympics, Gold Medalist Tommie Smith hugs Bronze Medalist John Carlos, and their wives Delois Smith and Charlene Carlos after Barack Obama is officially sworn in as the President of the United States. Photo taken in the Smith room at the Sheraton Boston in Boston, MA. (Boston Globe/Stan Grossfeld)

My respect for not only our new President, but for those who cleared the path.

Photograph of Tommie Smith & John Carlos at the Olympics in Mexico 68′, please forgive me for not crediting the photographer

A protest which sent shockwaves across the United States, protest against second-class citizenship of African Americans, protest for the voiceless dead in the middle passage, protest representing blue collar workers, protest for freedom of speech.
Goosebumps when I look and warmth in the knowing that Smith & Carlos exist, always existed, always will, Gives me hope that people will be able to look up history books for heroes and be able to find them.

Today I dragged my mum, sister, niece and nephew along to San Jose University to see Rigo 23’s statue of two former students. The statue portrays Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ civil rights protest at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico. What did these two men do? Oh, apart from win Gold and Bronze medals in the 200m? They removed their shoes and raised black-gloved fists, heads bowed, in a dignified and silent protest on behalf of the Olympic Project for Human Rights. That’s all. For this, they were expelled from the games.

The man behind their expulsion was Avery Brundage, the IOC president; a man who in 1936, as President of the United States Olympic Committee, saw nothing wrong in the Nazi salutes on display at the Berlin Olympics. Oh, he also thought the Olympics was no place for women. As far as every great and inspirational story has obstacles and, bluntly, baddies, they don’t come much badder than Avery.

Tigerlily Films made a documentary for BBC4 called Black Power Salute. The director, Geoff Small, talks about it here. Please read it. You’ll like it. It’ll take you a couple of minutes; roughly 6 times the time it took Tommie and John to change the world.

The silver medal was won by Peter Norman; a white Australian. As an opponent of Australian policies specifically designed to restrict non-white immigration (and as a decent human being), Peter wanted to do his bit at the medal ceremony to show support for OPHR’s stand against racial segregation and racism in general. Maybe to the surprise of Tommie and John, he borrowed an OPHR badge from Paul Hoffman, a (white) member of the US rowing team. He wore a badge, that’s all. And for this he too was punished.

“While he didn’t raise a fist, he did lend a hand.” Tommie Smith.

Peter Norman is missing from the sculpture. Some, it seems, have been offended by this. They shouldn’t be. Peter attended the unveiling, and when he died in 2006 both Tommie and John were pallbearers at his funeral. John Carlos said, “Peter was a piece of my life… I was his brother. He was my brother. That’s all you have to know.”

And the sculpture acknowledges Peter’s contribution in the most moving of ways. In his place is the inscription; “Fellow athlete Australian Peter Norman stood here in solidarity. Take a stand.”

We can all be Peter Normans. Stand amongst giants. Lend a hand. Take a stand.

the other night when i felt a strong urge to throw a stiletto at condoleeza rice it was because i was listening to her speak about the impending united nations security council resolution 1850. in a press conference here is what the secretary of state had to say for herself:

What that resolution does is to put the international community on record in believing in the irreversibility of the Annapolis process – bilateral negotiations toward a two-state solution, a comprehensive solution, and the various principles of Annapolis and what the parties have established since then. And I believe that that will then add the voice of the international community through its most powerful and its most consequential body – that is, the Security Council – to establish Annapolis as the way – the Annapolis process as the way forward.

Obviously, Israel will have a prime minister one way or another after February, and the Israeli Government will have to chart a course. But I believe that the international community will have done what it can do in the strongest possible terms, and that is to put the weight of the Security Council behind not just the two-state solution but a particular process for getting there. And I might just emphasize that Annapolis, of course, is not just a top-down – that is negotiated process toward the solution of two states, but also a bottom-up process of Roadmap obligations and of improving life for the Palestinian people on the ground. And that is really the reason for the resolution tomorrow….

I believe that if you look at the language of Annapolis, it says that the parties will make the best efforts that they can – they could to come to an agreement by the end of the year. I think they have made best efforts and they continue to make best efforts. And so what this resolution does is to urge, as the parties did with us and the Quartet when we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, the continuation of this process to the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement, and also within the context of a broader Israeli-Arab peace. And so that is the reason for the resolution.

But I’d just like to take one moment to speak to the question of not having achieved an agreement by the end of the year. They won’t achieve agreement by the end of the year, but they have achieved a good deal of progress in their negotiations, a good deal of progress in the work that is being done on the ground. And I would just remind that this is the first time in almost a decade that Palestinians and Israelis are addressing all of the core issues in a comprehensive way to try to get to a solution. And if that process takes a little bit longer, so be it. But we are very much further along, certainly than we were in 2001, and I would argue even than we were in 2007 when Annapolis was concluded.

so apparently annapolis has moved from a conference to a “process.” is this going to be anything like the so-called peace process (better known and experienced in palestine as a ware process)? should it be also known as oslo 3? this is an excerpt from rice and the other members of the quartet’s comments (yes, that same quartet which has received a failing grade) at the united nations yesterday. you may read the rest by clicking on the above link. but rather than quote from that transcript ad nauseum i think it is more fruitful to look at the actual language of the new un resolution as well as this supposed “progress” that rice claims to have made.

first, the resolution reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 242, 338, 1397, and 1515 and the Madrid principles,

“Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

“Welcoming the 9 November 2008 statement from the Quartet and the Israeli‑Palestinian Joint Understanding announced at the November 2007 Annapolis Conference, including in relation to implementation of the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,

“Noting also that lasting peace can only be based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement, and terror, and the two-State solution, building upon previous agreements and obligations,

“Noting the importance of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative,

“Encouraging the Quartet’s ongoing work to support the parties in their efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

“1. Declares its support for the negotiations initiated at Annapolis, Maryland, on 27 November 2007 and its commitment to the irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations;

“2. Supports the parties’ agreed principles for the bilateral negotiating process and their determined efforts to reach their goal of concluding a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues, without exception, which confirm the seriousness of the Annapolis process;

“3. Calls on both parties to fulfill their obligations under the Performance-Based Roadmap, as stated in their Annapolis Joint Understanding, and refrain from any steps that could undermine confidence or prejudice the outcome of negotiations;

“4. Calls on all States and international organizations to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations and to support the Palestinian government that is committed to the Quartet principles and the Arab Peace Initiative and respects the commitments of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, to assist in the development of the Palestinian economy, to maximize the resources available to the Palestinian Authority, and to contribute to the Palestinian institution‑building programme in preparation for statehood;

“5. Urges an intensification of diplomatic efforts to foster in parallel with progress in the bilateral process mutual recognition and peaceful coexistence between all States in the region in the context of achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

“6. Welcomesthe Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009;

“7. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

as is the case with far too many un resolutions–and with rice’s rhetoric–this resolution is empty. it is empty for so many reasons. whatever so-called progress discussed in either of the above quotations can only be understood in relation to israel’s facts on the ground: more palestinian political prisoners, more illegal israeli settlements, more israeli checkpoints, an increased siege on gaza, increased oppression of palestinians in 1948 palestine, increased home and village demolitions. but of course what rice and the security council fail to understand is that peace will never come without justice.

illegal israeli settlements, for example, have increased since annapolis according to adri nieuwhof in electronic intifada:

In Annapolis, Olmert committed to freezing settlement expansion. However, since that time according to numerous sources ranging from Israeli newspapers, to Peace Now, the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as well as the websites of the Israeli Central Bureau, and the Ministry of Construction and Housing, Olmert’s government has been accelerating illegal settlement expansion on occupied Palestinian land.

Six months since Annapolis the planning of settlements has accelerated. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved the construction of almost 1,000 housing units in several settlements in the West Bank. Furthermore the Israeli authorities announced plans, approved by Olmert, for the construction of an additional 2,900 units in settlements in the West Bank, including 750 units in Giv’at Zeev, and 1,900 housing units to be built this year for settlers who had to leave Gaza in 2005. In addition, Israel worked on the advancement of another 9,500 housing units in and around East Jerusalem, of which over 5,000 units have already been submitted for public review. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz the municipality of Jerusalem started the process of approving a plan for a new settlement complex with a synagogue in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan.

this is the only sort of process i can glean from whatever it is that rice is talking about or whatever this un resolution will bring to the fore: just more negotiations to obscure the israeli construction of facts on the ground. last month hasan abu nimah predicted that this will continue on in the form of some “process” in electronic intifada:

This is a game that suits the participants well; Rice — the lamest of lame ducks — is heading back to the region to meet a powerless caretaker prime minister in Israel and a powerless Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah. What can this possibly achieve other than to preserve the illusion of an ongoing “process?”

Sadly, many others who heavily invested in the peace process industry will prefer to latch on to these empty maneuvers as signs of “hope” rather than admit that they contain no substance that can ever lead to justice and peace.

But let me be clear: the negotiations did not reach a dead end because the negotiators ran out of time and are now leaving the scene. They failed because there was no viable peace project, because Israel, the strongest party, was not interested in reaching a reasonable settlement, and the sponsors of the process lacked the political courage to stand up to Israeli obstruction.

too, in electronic intifada osamah khalil saw this “process” coming immediately after the annapolis conference concluded and shows us why negotiations are a never-ending song and dance rather than anything remotely resembling an actual treaty or document that the zionist regime could be held accountable to:

Historically, successful diplomatic summits have resulted in a peace treaty not a “process” or a “framework for negotiations.” This is due to the presence of senior government officials and the momentum and trust built from negotiations that are actively facilitated by a major power. It is not a photo-op with a disengaged and indolent president who promises to be active in the future. The resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been known for over 40 years, an additional 14 months of negotiations is not intended to conclude a peace but prevent one. Moreover, the Arab League Peace Initiative which is based on existing UN resolutions and international law has been offered to Israel twice in the past five years and rejected both times. In addition, countless studies have been conducted by the UN, the World Bank, and numerous universities, think-tanks and non-governmental organizations on the different parameters not just for a peaceful settlement, but for political and economic coexistence and cooperation. What is needed now is not another “process” for negotiations, but the political will by the US and Israel to agree to, and institute, the existing agreements. Anything less is designed to further entrench and institutionalize the occupation while wringing additional concessions from the Palestinians and the Arab states.

Of course that is the true goal of this “process,” an amalgam of the strategies of two former Israeli Prime Ministers: Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon. After leaving office, Shamir explained why he agreed to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, stating that although Israel participated in negotiations with the Palestinians, “I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years and meanwhile we would have reached a half million people in Judea and Samaria.” Sharon’s strategy is best described by his adviser, Dov Weissglas, who explained in 2004 that the Gaza disengagement plan “supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” This would not only “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state” but also forestall “a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.” In launching this new “peace process,” the Bush Administration continues to provide Israel’s ongoing colonization of Palestinian land with the requisite time to create further facts on the ground and stifle Palestinian aspirations for a viable, independent state. In order for this to be successful, Washington and Tel Aviv need a Palestinian leadership that will actively participate in such a charade in return for US funding and the title of President or Prime Minister. Abbas and his appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are perfectly suited for this role and are in the process of obtaining the necessary political, economic and military support from the US and Israel to maintain their positions against internal opponents, including Hamas and other members of Fatah.

it is an illusion. it is a charade. nothing will come of this un resolution just as nothing came of annapolis. it’s all a ruse. but at the same time part of the problem when such vacuous language appears in a un security council resolution: how does one implement it? is this resolution suggesting that palestinians should stay on this merry-go-round while their land continues to be confiscated, while they are continuously kidnapped and imprisoned, murdered, under siege, and while refugees are still waiting–and thankfully not compromising on–their right of return? notably there were several protests of annapolis from those who felt most marginalized by this and all other so-called peace processes. palestinian refugees, most importantly, issued this statement from canada last year in protest:

It is our belief that the purpose of the Annapolis round of negotiations is to extract further critical concessions from the Palestinians while further delaying final status agreements. In particular, we believe that Israel will attempt to redefine the conflict with the Palestinians as being only about ending the occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, or parts thereof. Such a redefinition leads the Palestinians into the trap of the “two-state” formula which subverts our legitimate rights under international law. We stress that the central issue in the Palestinian conflict with Israel has always been the dispossession of the Palestinian people from their land and property caused by the Zionist ethnic cleansing of 1948 and the Israeli denial to Palestinians of the basic human right to return and to live in peace and security as equal citizens on their land.

We further specifically caution you against any recognition of Israel as a “Jewish” state. Such a recognition would give Israel the facade of moral and legal legitimacy while critically compromising the full implementation of the inalienable Palestinian right of return. In addition, it would contradict the struggle by Palestinian citizens of Israel to maintain their identity and gain equal rights as citizens. We point out that Israel was established through United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Resolution) which does not envisage or consent to the establishment of states on a religious or ethnic basis. In addition, we underscore that Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations on the basis of its having recognized the full right of return of the Palestinian people on the basis of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (Right of Return Resolution).

one of the reasons i stress week in and week out the necessity of placing un resolution 194 at the forefront of a just solution–and clearly i am not alone in this– is because this gets at the root of the problem. if you get to the heart of a problem you can find a solution. but in spite of israel and its lobbying buddies in the u.s. feigning interest in a solution of any kind–two states or otherwise–i would argue that the real reason they press on with this roller coaster of occupation known also known as a two-state solution because it really doesn’t matter what they agree to. from the beginning they have lied, stolen, cheated. they sign documents promising not to build settlements, for instance, and they continue to do so. but all of this daily reality–as brutal as it is–forces us to deal with the pressures of the moments: checkpoints, imprisonment, settlements rather than the core issue: the ethnic cleansing and rights of refugees to return home. this is codified in international law in the form of even the un resolutions mentioned in this new resolution 1850. this is like treating a lung cancer with a diet of cigarettes.

instead those who have called for and actively participated in a program of boycott, divestment and sanctions with a vision towards a one-state solution ensure the rights of refugees, and by extension all related issues. when you allow palestinians their right of return you immediately solve the problem of borders, water, settlements, land. ali abunimah and omar barghouti make this point abundantly clear in an electronic intifada article from last year:

Since the Palestinian-Israeli Oslo agreements were signed in 1993, the colonization of the West Bank and all the other Israeli violations of international law have intensified incessantly and with utter impunity. We see this again after the recent Annapolis meeting: as Israel and functionaries of an unrepresentative and powerless Palestinian Authority go through the motions of “peace talks,” Israel’s illegal colonies and apartheid wall continue to grow, and its atrocious collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza is intensifying without the “international community” lifting a finger in response.

This “peace process,” not peace or justice, has become an end in itself — because as long as it continues Israel faces no pressure to actually change its behavior. The political fiction that a two-state solution lies always just around the corner but never within reach is essential to perpetuate the charade and preserve indefinitely the status quo of Israeli colonial hegemony.

To avoid the pitfalls of further division in the Palestinian rights movement, we concur with [Nadia] Hijab and [Victoria] Brittain in urging activists from across the political spectrum, irrespective of their opinions on the one state, two states debate, to unite behind the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, as the most politically and morally sound civil resistance strategy that can inspire and mobilize world public opinion in pursuing Palestinian rights.

The rights-based approach at the core of this widely endorsed appeal focuses on the need to redress the three basic injustices that together define the question of Palestine — the denial of Palestinian refugee rights, primary among them their right to return to their homes, as stipulated in international law; the occupation and colonization of the 1967 territory, including East Jerusalem; and the system of discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

and indeed the other key issue that gets solved with a just solution–meaning the return of refugees–is the plight of palestinians who are citizens of israel living in 1948 palestine. nadim rouhana demonstrates, by way of american analogies, how this ongoing process excludes palestinians living in 1948 and why they, like palestinian refugees, demand to have a voice in the so-called “peace process”:

Like many Mexican-Americans, we didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us. We have been struggling ever since against a system that subjects us to separate and unequal treatment because we are Palestinian Arabs — Christian, Muslim and Druze — not Jewish. More than twenty Israeli laws explicitly privilege Jews over non-Jews.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is under intense pressure to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This is not a matter of semantics. If Israel’s demand is granted, the inequality that we face as Palestinians — roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population — will become permanent.

The United States, despite being settled by Christian Europeans fleeing religious persecution, has struggled for decades to make clear that it is not a “Christian nation.” It is in a similar vein that Israel’s indigenous Palestinian population rejects the efforts of Israel and the United States to seal our fate as a permanent underclass in our own homeland.

We are referred to by leading Israeli politicians as a “demographic problem.” In response, many in Israel, including the deputy prime minister, are proposing land swaps: Palestinian land in the occupied territories with Israeli settlers on it would fall under Israel’s sovereignty, while land in Israel with Palestinian citizens would fall under Palestinian authority.

This may seem like an even trade. But there is one problem: no one asked us what we think of this solution. Imagine the hue and cry were a prominent American politician to propose redrawing the map of the United States so as to exclude as many Mexican-Americans as possible, for the explicit purpose of preserving white political power. Such a demagogue would rightly be denounced as a bigot. Yet this sort of hyper-segregation and ethnic supremacy is precisely what Israeli and American officials are considering for many Palestinian citizens of Israel — and hoping to coerce Palestinian leaders into accepting.

Looking across the Green Line, we realize that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has no mandate to negotiate a deal that will affect our future. We did not elect him. Why would we give up the rights we have battled to secure in our homeland to live inside an embryonic Palestine that we fear will be more like a bantustan than a sovereign state? Even if we put aside our attachment to our homeland, Israel has crushed the West Bank economy — to say nothing of Gaza’s — and imprisoned its people behind a barrier. There is little allure to life in such grim circumstances, especially since there is the real prospect of further Israeli sanctions, which could make a bad situation worse.

In the poll I just conducted, nearly three-quarters of Israel’s Palestinian citizens rejected the idea of the Palestinian Authority making territorial concessions that involve them, and 65.6 percent maintained that the PA also lacked the mandate to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Nearly 80 percent declared that it lacks the mandate to relinquish the right of Palestinian refugees — affirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948 and reaffirmed many times — to return to their homes and properties inside Israel.

palestinian authority billboard in tabariyya

indeed. but there were more recent polls taken, too–each problematic in their own way. these polls are related to the ads that abbas ran last month in israeli newspapers about his so-called promise of “peace.” the ads, as it turns out, are also billboards in hebrew all over 1948 palestine, though i only saw them in jewish-only cities when my friends and i were touring ethnically cleansed palestinian villages (see above photo):

Last month, Abbas ran ads telling Israeli newspaper readers they would win recognition from 57 Arab and Islamic countries if Israel withdraws from all the territories it occupied in the 1967 Mideast War.

According to the survey, 61 percent of Israelis oppose the trade-off and 36 percent support it. Among Palestinians, 66 percent support the idea and 30 percent oppose it.

clearly we see that israelis are not willing to give up any land for “peace.” that’s point one. point two is that just who was polled in this palestinian poll? palestinians in 1948 and palestinian refugees in syria and lebanon? no, none of these people were included in this poll. thus, the people who are most marginalized by this charade of a “process” are excluded and the poll is therefore deceptive.

at a protest against annapolis last year people interviewed by rami almeghari for electronic intifada expressed these same concerns showing that rights are far more urgent than “peace” because on the ground “peace” becomes like war:

A young woman taking part in a large women’s rally cried angrily, “We don’t want more alleged peace conferences, which bring us more suffering. We prefer poverty to accepting shameful peace.”

A young man at a nearby rally voiced similar frustration: “What peace are they are talking about? They want us to give up our legitimate rights. We prefer more years of suffering to conceding our rights.”

The speaker of the elected PLC, Dr. Ahmad Bahar, told the crowds, “Today, the Palestinian people tell those meeting in Annapolis that they refuse to concede their inalienable rights.”

Bahar said that the PLC passed a new bill prohibiting the concession of the Palestinian refugees’ right to return as well as the Palestinian nation’s rights to Jerusalem and to resist the occupation.

“This bill is intended to protect Palestinian rights from those who coordinate with the Israeli entity,” the speaker added, referring to President Abbas’ parallel, unelected government that holds talks with Israel.

Many Palestinian bodies, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)-linked parties and intellectuals have voiced their objection to the peace summit in Annapolis.

Dr. As’ad Abu Sharekh, a professor of English literature and a political analyst in Gaza, believes that the efforts underway will not lead to real peace.

“This conference should have instead been convened by the United Nations, which has been sponsoring the Palestinian question over the past six decades. The United Nations is the sole body that should implement its long-pending resolutions concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

“Resolution 194 of 1949 should be on top of such resolutions, which demands the return and compensation of Palestinian refugees to historical Palestine,” he added.

it should be clear that this never-ending process will continue to be never ending because the issues that are at the core continue to be ignored. and yet the un security council voted unanimously to maintain the status quo. further it absolutely ignores key issues at stake as jamal el khodary shows us:

El Khodary added that this resolution provides protection to the illegal Israeli measures against the Palestinian people, as it supports unbalanced bilateral Palestinian-Israeli talks. He also said that this resolution gives Israel another free hand to annex the Palestinian lands, increase the Gaza siege and allow Israel to annex the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The independent legislator said that one of the most dangerous issues in this resolution is that it “puts the victim and the oppressor in equal positions”, and added that this resolution denies the legitimate Palestinian rights, especially the rights of independence, self determination and the right to establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

El Khodary also said that the resolution did not place any timeframe, did not call for dismantling the Israeli colonies, did not even hint the release of political detainees and ignored the internationally guaranteed Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees.

Furthermore, El Khodary added that the resolution totally ignored the Israeli siege on Gaza, collective punishment practiced by Israel and also ignored the settlements and the Annexation Wall.

el khodary brings up another essential point in the way that occupier and occupied are treated as equals in all of these international negotiations. but the problem is, too, that occupier and occupied are never treated equally by international parties; instead, the occupier is always given special treatment in spite of its incessant complaints of anti-semitism. this is precisely why the zionist state never wants people from the un like richard falk to enter palestine or why miguel d’escoto brockmann is now receiving death threats for speaking out against its apartheid regime. clearly in this “process” there is no room for justice and this new un resolution at best will bring no change and at worst will bring more of the same.

and just a couple more words on another process…or the lack thereof. i thought that there was some interesting timing today in that human rights watch released a new report about the lack of due process and justice in the iraqi criminal court system. this comes as muntathar al-zaydi is due in court. it also comes after reports on his torture in prison as well as dick cheney reporting that he approved the use of torture during his tenure as vice president.

rania had some really important things to say today about the meaning of muntathar al zaydi and how we can mobilize our collective energy and power in relation to this euphoria:

Now, the question becomes not only what will happen to Muntadher al-Zaidi and when he will be released (if he will be released) — but the larger question is how many more shoes will be launched towards the heads of occupiers and puppets and oppressors?

Let us also remember that resistance in Iraq existed prior to the shoes-thrown. And resistance in Iraq will continue to exist after the shoes-thrown. The question for us is: for those of us inspired, empowered, moved, energized by the action of Muntadher al-Zaidi, what shall we do? individually, what shall we do? collectively, what shall we do? it is not enough to be inspired and to be moved emotionally. What creates change is action. What inspires action is hope and strategy.

these are very important questions for us and our friend abed attempted to pose further questions and challenges that we should also consider:

But at the same time, i never once doubted the reactions of the people facing occupation all over the world, not just in the Arab World…

I never doubted their will to fight the power structures, and their courage to do so… that people, will engage in their own individual initiative to say NO, in the absence of a group project…

But what we need is more than personal/individual experiences, we need a collective approach to advance…

The entire world watched the Shoe thrown by a Iraqi journalist, just like we remember the Chinese guy in the Suit over in Tinamen Square… Muntather Zaidi is synonymous to Tommie Smith from the 68 Olympics who lost the Gold Medal because of the Black Power Salute… These are all examples of how individuals can challenge the status quo, and there are millions of these examples everyday everywhere, but these particular people were caught on tape or by the lens of a camera…

The only difference is that, today, only individuals are ready for sacrifice and have the courage and creativity for such actions while groups/parties/new possible progressive systems are dormant/non existent… while in the past (Tienanmen & Mexico city), the people were inspired by a collective action happening & taking place (Student movement, & civil rights movement)…

Don’t get me wrong, it is a beautiful action, but it was always there in Iraq everyday, it was just not on camera… and what we need is way more than what individuals can offer to save Iraq, Palestine, Sudan…
Muntather should not be turned into a hero because turning him into a hero will make him lose his humanity, nationalism & common sense which were the reasons for his actions… Making a hero out of him is isolating his action, while we need to multiply this kind of actions on camera while waiting for the collective project to wake up…

The excess of happiness over the shoe is our incapacity for actions at the Arab collective level…

so what shall we do? collectively? certainly there are the petitions–and a new one which i will add below–but this is minimal a simple petition is helping just one man. how can we help an entire nation or region resist colonialism and apartheid and occupation in all of its nefarious forms? think about that while you sign this third petition for al-zaydi:

حملة لجمع 50000 توقيع لإطلاق سراح البطل منتظر الزيدي

No Obamamania for Brandon Marshall

By: Dave Zirin

All Brandon Marshall wanted was the opportunity to be part of the moment. The Denver Broncos wide receiver wanted to feel connected to the thousands who have flooded into the streets and the millions in a state of shock and awe around the world, celebrating the election of Barack Obama. [...]

Unfortunately, we will never know what would have happened, or how the crowd would have reacted. We will never have that image of a football player bringing politics to the field. Marshall did score a touchdown, but as he removed the glove from his pocket, his teammates stopped him.

The problem was that Marshall’s touchdown came with only one minute and twenty-two seconds left to play, putting the Broncos ahead, 34-30. His teammates–particularly fellow wideout Brandon Stokley and tight end Tony Scheffler–saw what he was about to do and stopped him, fearful of an automatic fifteen-yard penalty for “unsportsmanlike conduct.”

One can be charitable toward Stokley and Sheffler, given the moment in the game–although the image of two white players surrounding a black player to block his political statement is the antithesis of the very ideas Marshall was attempting to communicate [...]

More At Your Black Sports

G. Larry James, a middle-distance runner known as “The Mighty Burner” who employed his streaky speed to win gold and silver medals in track at the 1968 Summer Olympics, died of colon cancer at his home in Smithville, N.J., on Thursday, his 61st birthday.

James won his gold medal in Mexico City by teaming with Vince Matthews, Ron Freeman and Lee Evans in the U.S. 4-by-400-meter relay. He also won a silver medal in the 400-meter individual race.

But the issue came to a head after U.S. sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos won gold and bronze, respectively, in the 200-meter race.

At the medals ceremony, while “The Star-Spangled Banner” played, Smith and Carlos stood on the podium and raised their gloved fists in a Black Power salute.

The athletes were booed, and the International Olympic Committee insisted they be expelled for making a political statement during the Games.

Two days later came the 400-meter race. The U.S. runners swept the event, with James taking silver in 43.97 seconds, second to Evans’ world-record time of 43.86. Freeman was third.

All three men recorded their best times ever, and James and Evans were the first to break the 44-second mark.

“When we had the press conference after the race, all anybody wanted to ask about was Tommie and John,” James told the Star-Ledger. “I was thinking, ‘Doesn’t anyone want to talk about what we just did?’ “

Next up was the 4-by-400-meter relay, held two days later. This time the U.S. runners set a world record in 2 minutes, 56.16 seconds, with James running the third leg.

The winning time was matched in 1988, but the record remained unbroken until 1992.

For their medals ceremony, the relay runners chose to wear black berets and black socks, but when the national anthem played, they removed their caps and stood at attention.

“We were agents of change, but . . . we were so unprepared,” he said. “We were suddenly expert on everything, man, on toothpaste. You get caught up in it, the love affair the public has with athletes. You learn how it embraces you, and then you learn how it tires of you.”

James returned to Villanova, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in business in 1970. He served in the Marine Corps Reserve, attaining the rank of major, and later earned a master’s degree in public policy from Rutgers University.

He was hired as track coach and assistant athletic director at Stockton College in 1972. He used to tell people he had planned to stay for three years, but they stretched into 36.

James became athletic director in 1980 and transformed the athletic program into a Division III power, the highlight coming when the men’s soccer team won the Division III national championship in 2001. He also led efforts to build a $17-million multipurpose recreation center in 2000. He stepped down as athletic director Aug. 1.

James stayed involved in the Olympic movement over the years and held a variety of positions with USA Track and Field. In 2003 he was inducted into the National Track & Field Hall of Fame.

George Lawrence James was 15 when his mother, Martha, took him to Washington, D.C., in August 1963 for the March on Washington at which King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

“I realized there was more to life than just me and my neighborhood,” James told the Journal News of Westchester County, N.Y., in 2004. “There was a whole world of people that wanted to make a difference.”

After scoring the winning touchdown in Denver’s in at Cleveland on Thursday night, Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall pulled a black and white glove from his pants.

From the Associated Press:

He was about to put it on and raise his fist in the style of Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who made controversial black power salutes at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.

Slot receiver Brandon Stokley rushed to him in the back of the end zone and persuaded him to nix the salute because the Broncos couldn’t afford a 15-yard celebration penalty at that moment.

“That’s what a good, old veteran is for,” Marshall said.

After the game, Marshall, who is black, read a statement he wrote about how inspired he was by Obama becoming the first black man elected to the nation’s highest office.

“Barak Obama’s election as the 44th president of the United States is a tremendous symbol of unity,” Marshall said. “I want to create that symbol of unity because Obama inspires me (and) a multicultural society, and I know at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico, Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised that black glove and fist in a silent gesture of black power and liberation.