Community of Nations

Last week the United States hosted a gathering of nations in New York. Many countries were represented and many heads of state had time to address the body. President Barack Obama had an opportunity to speak before the body and kept his remarks consistent with what he has been saying on the world stage thus far into his presidency. Sadly he was again polarizing as those on the political right criticized him for apologizing for the United States past behavior. Some on the political left praised the president for his honest and candid reflections on the United States presence in world affairs. However, not every speech was common fare. There were some notable United States allies and enemies who took to the stage who received considerably different responses.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations and went into a tirade against the Nazis, Iranians and and all members of the body who stayed seated as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke. Ahmadinejad again stood on the world stage and denied the holocaust ever existing. Members of the United States delegation left when Ahmadinjad came to speak as did delegations from many other nations. On the other side of that coin, there were delegations that left in protest against Israel when Mr. Netanyahu rose to speak. Mr. Netanyahu received fair to favorable coverage in the United States media although the Palestinian Authority has a war crimes suit against Israel before the World Court at The Hague.



A man who did not receive such favorable response was Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. Gaddafi addressed the body for nearly two hours. He rambled through much of his speech failing to strike a consistent theme or tone. He was not a poised nor polished speaker and his thoughts were not clear to say the least. However he did seem to have merit to his suggestions. He was the only speaker who suggested a one state solution to problems in the Middle East. He suggested that if the future of the Israelis and the Palestinians were linked as one there would be more incentive for cooperation. He also pointed to a positive Arab-Israeli relationship citing the Arab harboring of Jews in the wake of the holocaust.

Muammar al-Gaddafi is by not means a saint, nor are his comments the most profound words uttered from the podium at the United Nations. However neither is Mr. Netanyahu or any other foreign leader who has risen and spoke from that podium. Many leaders across the world have the metaphorical "blood on their hands". As listeners to the speeches from the United Nations, we have to be critical of what we are hearing and who we are hearing it from. We must be vigilant to weed out the rhetoric and find the substantive points of the speeches.



In doing that, we as the American public must also be fair. If we are going to be open-minded and hear Mr. Netanyahu out before reaching a conclusion about him, we must also hear Mr. Gaddafi before we simply dismiss him. Neither of the men are angels, but likewise neither are devils. They are merely two players on the world stage who we hope can help solve a centuries old problem. To dismiss either one as a mad man who can offer nothing of merit is disrespectful to both men. Since much of the United States press won't offer a fair minded approach to Mr. Gaddafi and some foreign press services won't offer honest observations of Mr. Netanyahu that puts the burden on the citizens to do the necessary research and think critically and come to their own conclusions about the world around us.

Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man

Usually I use this space to discuss a relevant political matter of the day. However I wanted to use this space to comment on a disturbing behavior matter regarding a particularly famous artist. It is nothing new for an artist to go through crisis. Because of their fame and popularity it often plays itself out in front of millions of people where as everyday people can make similar or worst transgressions and its only known by that persons close network. With that, this then becomes a plea. A plea for critics, fans and friends alike to intervene and understand the plight and portrait of this particular artist as a young man.

The rapper Kanye West has never been bashful about being in the public. This can date back to him being so eager to put his music out, that he funded and shot the first video to his single off his debut record. It is that same confidence and brashness that has garnered him millions of fans around the world. However as we know there is a thin line between confidence and arrogance. Kanye's behavior has often done more than simply crossed that line. Sometimes he has all out trampled over that line in self-indulgence. One can argue he loves to hear himself talk. Or you can make the case that like most celebrities he feels any press is good press. Finally some see it as his desire to be seen in the limelight by as many preening eyes as possible.

What is worth noting though is that lately Kanye West in his music and behavior has struck a bit of a different tone. The tone he struck was one of a young man who has lost his way. One who since the death of his mother and lost of his fiance has been quite evidently without direction and seemingly tired of the spotlight. We can first see his tantrum at the Los Angeles International Airport. Kanye, tired of the media and the attention that his superstar status has garnered him, takes the cameras of those taking pictures of him and goes on a tirade destroying their equipment. Then in a guest verse in the song "Put On" he laments about how people don't know his stress and how he has money and fame and it still doesn't amount to anything. There after on another record "Forever" he details that he'd love to "trade his grammy plaques just to get his granny back" and that he "used to want this thing forever, but you can have it back". Finally on Jay-Z's hit record "Run This Town" Kanye begins the last verse wishing that when he's in church he'd prefer not to be photographed. His most recent outburst saw him rudely interrupting an awards show.

This pattern of behavior seems potentially troubling. It seems to speak to a young man who is losing control of accurate decision making. In doing so we (the public) watch him go through a serious breakdown and crisis that sees him drinking in public, and being artistically unfocused. What the public must notice is that this is not the first time we have seen an artist do this. Great artist before him have also suffered from their own fame. Artist such as Michael Jackson, James Baldwin and Paul Robeson have all suffered from public persecution in one form or another. Kanye is no different. What is happening to him could and would happen to any of us if we were in the public eye. It is made worst because as we all have seen, Kanye is an artist that wears his feelings and emotions on his sleeves.

Hopefully in the very near future Kanye West takes some time to regroup and organize himself and his emotions. From there he can focus on his art and get back to the aspect of him that makes millions fans of his work. More than wanting good music (no pun intended) the public should want for him to get his life and himself under control. We as a viewing public have seen far too often what happens when a star shines too bright and ultimately fizzles out. We've seen it with Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Dave Chappelle and Martin Lawrence. Kanye West is showing signs that this "Hollywood life" is threatening his mental and emotional well-being. Now more than ever those who care about him should get him back to a healthy and comfortable place of being. A place where we the public pass judgment on his music and not his behavior.

The Color of Change

President Obama has been firmly entrenched as the President of the United States now for almost eight months. Since his inaguration he has faced criticism on a bevy of different topics and issues. He has seen metaphorical darts thrown at him both from the political far left as well as the political far right. However just as he has faced more warrant-less criticism than most presidents in recent history, he has also faced more warrant-less praise than most other presidents in recent history. He has enjoyed a grace period filled with the type of social and political capital that Gerald Ford would have killed for. He has the social and political latitude to say and do things that Bill Clinton could only wish. Yet through the first eight months of his presidency there has been a pink elephant in the room. The same pink elephant that has been with the United States since its inception: Race.

The problem is much like Attorney General Eric Holder said back in February, the United States is a nation of cowards concerning race. That is not to say the nation has not worked to change the way people of different cultures and ethnicities interact with one another. That is to say there are deeply held convictions that people from different races are not honest with each other about. Because of this the race dialogue is never respectfully or legitimately addressed. The mainstream media also has a level of culpability. Since race is a social buzzword, whenever it is thrown around it is sure to generate interest. Networks find themselves giving a superficial glance at racial issues and playing up the dramatic effect of the buzzword for profit. For his part President Obama has attempted to steer clear of race, race related policy matters, or publicly acknowledging or discussing racism. The one time he did make mention he nearly squandered all of his political capital.


In today's political climate there is a heated debate of health care and health care reform. Masses of people are taking to the street to denounce President Obama, his health care plan and the large amount of government intervention. Many of the same people who are protesting now in the name of libertarian principles and fiscal conservatism were quite quiet and actually in defense of President Bush as he ran up huge deficits on defense spending, as well as spent more money on education than any president before him. President Bush also sent large amounts of money to various foreign nations in the hopes of advancing United States interest. Again these same people protesting were silent if not defensive of Mr. Bush. Some on the left are saying the only reason people could be protesting is a latent racism. An uncomfortability accepting a President who is of African descent.

Interestingly enough, this seems to be a preoccupation among white liberals. Keith Olbermann provided a special commentary on how the venom of comparing President Obama to Hitler and the massive protest are a result of unsettled racism. Former President Carter made news when he told NBC's Brian Williams that the animosity toward President Obama was "because of a belief among many white people not just from the south but around the country that an African-American is not qualified to lead this great country." This type of fodder becomes the news of the day. And again the issue of race becomes a central talking point, but it is approached with no meaningful depth or substance. What's worst is that sadly a good number of African-Americans have been so jaded by how blacks have been treated in this nation, that if President Carter's assesment is true they wouldn't be shocked, surprised or even offended.

All of this has those interested in policy issues thrown off track. Important policy matters are being ignored. President Obama has seemingly turned Afghanistan into the new Iraq and there is a demand for an Iraq-like "surge" to turn the tide in Afghanistan. Meanwhile domestically, President Obama can take solace knowing that most economic indicators suggest that the economy is rebounding.At the same time the unemployment rate is teetering dangerously close to 10%. In communities of color that number is more like 15-20%. Just as President Obama has agreed to a higher tariff to protect tire manufacturers in the U.S.; his administration has also undertaken plans to renew portions of the the much villified PATRIOT Act. This shows us that there is much room to debate the actual policy matters of the administration if we got past the question of race. We shouldn't get past it because it doesn't pervade our society, or it isn't the unremovable sin that this nation can never wash its hands of. We should get past it because otherwise we will never be able to see if as promised "Change has come to America".

Blame First Ask Questions Last

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States seemed to usher in a dawn of new politics. People hoped that politics would change enough to the point where policy matters were discussed on their merit and how they would affect the real people of the United States and the world around us. Sadly that has not happened. We can see the failure of this new form of politics among politicians. Both major parties recite old cliches when critiquing the other. Democrats/liberals accuse those on the right of being soul-less, impossible of being passionate, and selfish evil people. Republicans/conservatives all spread the propaganda that those on the left seek to take away all individuality and make the United States one God-less monolith. This is definitely not the change I hoped for.

The United States is a nation with very serious and critical policy matters to discuss. Not least among them is the issue of its economy. Because the U.S. does not have a pure market or capitalist economy it is extremely nuanced. As one commentator on MSNBC was trying to explain the complicated matters of federal currency regulation another commentator on the network called him "wonkish". Wonkish is a term most often used to describe one who is immersed in the particulars of policy. However with the state of affairs in the United States perhaps now is the time to be wonkish. Now is the time people should be made completely aware of what is going on. Rather than do that, the left-leaning network spent very little time looking at the intricacies of economic policy and went back to reciting cliched themes of "Bush failure" and "Cheney torture"

The left-leaning MSNBC is not the only network that would rather play the blame game than seriously look at and consider the way policy will affect American people. Fox news has a history of skewing the presentation of the news to the favor of conservatives. However they drop the ball in their presentation of health care matters. When the conversation of health-care is had on one of their "Great American Panels" they act as if there isn't a significant portion of the nation that is advocating for the single-payer system. The single payer system is one where the government provides for the health care of its citizens (see With Liberty and Health Care for All Feb 4, 2009). The rhetoric used by Fox News suggest that a single payer option will financially bankrupt the nation and destory the concept of individuality in every way. However they don't take the painstaking steps the California Nurses Association took when it researched the topic and came with the economic numbers that a single payer health care option would turn out.

Unfortunately the lack of intelligent discourse or policy matters on those stations may not be new news to many people. The 24 hour news networks may not have the time nor actually care to put in the effort necessary to have a policy conversation. Even with that one would expect the Sunday morning programs to get more the heart of political affairs. Sadly this doesn't even happen there. On the long running Sunday morning program "The McLaughlin Group" the panelist discussed whether or not Barack Obama spent too much time "blaming America" and apologizing in his Cairo speech. Rather than doing that, perhaps they should have been examining the merit of his words. He was (for really the first time in modern U.S. politics) at the very least acknowledging the United States did not have clean hands when it came to Middle East affairs.

The problem with this behavior is that citizens are kept away from making informed judgments because all the people charged with informing them are failing. Politicians can not see past the special interest and next election to actually discuss policy matters. Journalist can't seem to see beyond the next sound-byte, or "gotcha quote" to explain matters. Sadly what is left is an uniformed nation who rather than discuss policy positions instead revert to inflammatory rhetoric and playing the blame game.

A Brave New World

In the summer of 2009 President Obama will make state visits to Middle East countries Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He will also make his first sub-Saharan African trip to the nation of Ghana. These trips will continue the efforts of the President to step out on the World Scene to refurbish the image of the United States. Needless to say President Obama's predecessor did him no favors in raising the nation's profile and image. It is with that burden that the current President takes the world stage. Fortunately he has well-wishers among some of the previous administration's harshest critics. However, in order to really revamp the way the United States is viewed and treated in the world the President should seek to engage in policy that supports his good spirits.

Obviously there needs to be a change in Iraqi policy. So far President Obama has said what appears to be all the right things. He has talked about drawing down the number of active combat troops on the ground in Iraq. He has also intensely laid out the strategy for shifting the nature of the work in Iraq from active combat to military training. The only bad part about that is former President Bush made the same claims. Unfortunately those ideas never took shape the way any of the American people would have wanted them to and they are understandably wary of that same talk.

If President Obama does change the face of the United States on the world scene he must also address the military's unacceptable behavior. Some mainstream media outlets have addressed this but only in the vein of discussing torture. That issue is something the current administration must address and rectify. Beyond that, the Obama administration has the daunting task of tightening up attack procedures in the Middle East. Countless numbers of civilians have been harmed or killed in United States military attacks. This was something that was prevalent in Iraq and now that the nation has supposedly turned its attention to Afghanistan it is happening there as well.

The United States can not ask to be looked to as a moral authority and continue to hurt innocent civilians. Some supporters of the attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan argue that the civilians are collateral damage and that the by and large number of victims are Taliban or insurgent fighters. This contradicts much of what those countries governments are releasing as official reports. The Afghani government claimed one attack to have killed over 140 civilians. The United States puts that number somewhere around 20 or 30. The fact remains that if President Obama is going to chart a new path for United States foreign policy he needs to repudiate any civilian death at the hands of the United States military.


The mere election of Mr. Obama as President of the United States is monumental and done much already to change the perception of the nation abroad. Sadly this will just be a passing fancy if the policy and actions of the Obama administration do not differ from that of previous administrations. President Obama has been in charge of foreign policy a very short time but some of the decisions he has made seem consistent with the failed and disrespectful foreign policy of America's past. Hopefully with trips to long neglected parts of the globe this summer, the president can chart a brave new world in American foreign policy.

High Court Hysteria

Recently President Barack Obama has announced his first appointment to the United States Supreme Court. As many now know the appointee is United States Second Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor is praised for being an example of the "American Dream". Sotomayor's story finds her growing up in a South Bronx housing project. Her father was a manual laborer who died when she was nine years old. Her mother worked and raised Sotomayor and her brother in the housing complex. She matriculated through high school and made her way to Princeton University where she graduated summa cum laude. From there, she went on to study at Yale Law School. From her mere education background most casual observers would assume she had the preliminary level of qualifications for the job.

She was originally appointed to a federal bench position by George H.W. Bush. This came after she served many years as an assistant District Attorney in New York and after she served as a partner in a corporate law firm. As with all things Washington though, a debate must ensue to see if indeed Judge Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. This debate shall prove to be an interesting one as the critiques being thrown at her may have a bit of legitimacy to them but at the end of the day could be the same gender bias that many professional women deal with on an everyday basis.


Some of the initial critiques against her have included the argument that she uses the bench as a place to bully from. For conservative, libertarians, Republicans and whoever will stand to take issue with this point, let us consider the behavior of justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been consistently one of the most conservative judges often offering the dissenting opinions. While it is his job to offer dissenting opinions, the blantant disrespect he has shown for his peers and those who argue before him can not be described as anything other than bullying. In the event those who are Scalia supporters (who are also likely to be Sotomayor critics) will not acknowledge the bullying from the bench that Scalia does, whatever Judge Sotomayor has done should not even enter the conversation.

Another critique that has initially surfaced about Judge Sotomayor is that she is not the smartest of judges. It will be interesting when her critics discuss her intelligence while reconciling the intelligence of Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, who has been called many things, has yet to be called the intellect of the court. One can argue that the opinions that Justice Thomas has wrote have left alot to be desired. Even Judge Sotomayor's colleagues all refer to her opinions as "competent" at the least. Furthermore if the United States is to place such high regard and value to institutions such as Princeton and Yale than the citizens should acknowledge their products as our foremost thinkers. Crowds did not rush to question the intelligence of Justice Alito, and he was a product of those same institutions.

As the debate over the worthiness of Judge Sotomayor to sit on the bench ensues I hope it can stay on topic. I would like to think that the arguments on both sides will be civil and based on the origin, interpretation, intention and application of the law. The Senators in their confirmation hearings should seek to asses whether or not Ms. Sotomayor has the ability to make the best decision based on the information provided. Hopefully the country can engage in this type of debate and not penalize professional women for the same aggressiveness and ambition that men are praised for. I hope during the debate that a woman can have emotions about something without looking overly feminine or not mentally strong enough for the position. If the United States has that type of debate than I'm sure the confirmation or the rejection of Judge Sotomayor will be legitimate.

Dog Eat Dog World

With the release of Michael Vick from federal prison on Wednesday many are speculating as to whether or not Vick deserves a second chance in the National Football League (NFL). The Atlanta Falcons are adamant in their conviction that Vick continue his pro football career (if he still has one) with another team. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says that he must meet with Vick to see if he is truly sorry and remorseful for his actions. With all of this we still wait and see what will happen with Michael Vick's future but above that many will pass judgement on what Vick's place in society as well as football will be.

While we do this though, we must keep Michael Vick's transgressions in context. Michael Vick pled guilty to funding a dog fighting ring. This behavior is inhumane, cruel and malicious. However as a society we have to remember that we currently praise athletes, politicians and citizens who have done far more egregious things. We can start by looking at Sure-fire Hall of Famer Ray Lewis. Lewis is the star middle linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens. In 2000 Lewis was involved in an incident that resulted in a man's death. Lewis eventually accepted a plea deal where he admitted guilt for Obstruction of Justice in order to avoid facing murder charges. A year later Lewis was the Defensive Player of the Year and SuperBowl MVP. From there people seemed to only remember the star player.

In that same vein Leonard Little, a defensive end formerly of the St. Louis Rams was driving drunk and killed a citizen. Little was reprimanded by the court but did not face any jail time. After that Little was again stopped for drunk driving. Recently receiver Donte' Stallworth was driving drunk in Miami and he struck and killed a citizen. These are just a few examples of athletes who have done things that most would regard to be a bit more serious than dog fighting. Despite this, none of these men have served jail time to this day. No organization is threatening to picket in front of stadiums where they play and no one is questioning whether or not these men deserve to make a living at something they are extremely talented in.

Athletes are not the only people who make transgressions and the public tends to look the other way. Famed journalist Bill O'Reilly had a sexual harassment claim brought against him for the way he treated a female producer on his show. There were even tapes of his terribly improper and lascivious conversation with the young lady. The matter was resolved by settling out of court. O'Reilly went on air and apologized for the incident and said he didn't want any other mention made of it. There was no mass mobilization of women's group that organized a boycott of Fox News or even of O'Reilly's program. O'Reilly is not alone, as journalist Rush Limbaugh was found to have an addiction to prescription drugs. Despite this being public knowledge he still serves as a voice and authority on social and public morality.

As Michael Vick tries to immerse himself back into life outside the walls of Leavenworth, there is much that he is going to have to get adjusted to. He'll be working 40 hours a week at a construction job, he'll have to check in with federal officials.He will even have to work to reduce dog fighting among inner-city teens. No one has demanded that Rush Limbaugh work reduce the number of suburban kids on crystal meth. Even fewer people have asked Bill O'Reilly to lead seminars on workplace diversity and gender respect. Mr. Vick will have a difficult time resuming his life and resurrecting his career, he doesn't need any hypocrites and cynics biting his tail.

Give Me Back Your Land

The idea of capitalism as practiced by many industrial nations today is in no way pure supply and demand market economics. It is a system of pseudo-meritocracy based on who has the resources to advance themselves and their loved ones. Likewise since Europe's lustful conquest of all black, brown and yellow parts of the world the natural order of ownership has been seriously altered to say the least. Today we see Bolivia and its president Evo Morales undertaking some of the same efforts of land reform thought about or engaged in by leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.

Between Mandela, Chavez and Mugabe only one is looked at on the world stage (read the west) as a noble figure. That being Mandela. Even with that Mandela is regarded in progressive circles as not having accomplished all he may have wanted to or should have for the apartheid-free South Africans. The other two leaders are looked on by the west as fierce rivals of private ownership. What is also painted in that narrative is the idea that the ownership is legitimate so these leaders are "unjustly" taking land. What doesn't get mentioned in that story all the time is the long term perspective these leaders are bringing to their position of land reform.

Mugabe, Chavez and even Morales of Bolivia are not just seizing land but are seeking to claim land that has vital natural resource that can be of use to all people of the nation particularly poor and indigenous people. With Mugabe, he presided over the breadbasket of the world. A place where the land and climate would allow the terrain to grow almost any crop imaginable. He thought it made no sense that a few privileged families (who gained their privilege from the imperial conquest of Africa) should be the only ones who benefit from the fruit of the land. With all the food that the land produced, Mugabe felt land reform would be great in righting the wrongs of imperial Europe while feeding his people.For this he was demonized. He was made to look like a man with no regard for the individual property of a citizen.

Hugo Chavez has suffered the same fate. As the head of an oil rich nation he seized lands known to have an abundance of oil. He did this in efforts to return some of the profits of the oil rich land to the original and oppressed people of Venezuela. He too has been cast in a light as a man who doesn't care about property rights or individual ownership. The progressive Bolivian President Evo Morales has been making news recently for his government's quest to seize land. His government cites the vast oil reserves beneath some of the lands. Oil reserves that can turn massive profit that would fund many of the social programs his government wants to put in place to ensure the welfare of the Bolivian people.

Sadly those who claim these leaders trample on an individual's property rights seem to ignore the often murky and in some cases blatantly ill-gotten means used by individuals to acquire these lands. Each of the aforementioned leaders represent nations that have been bastardized by the west. In efforts to address the prejudicial economic and social policies, the leaders of these nations are made to look like dictators who have no respect for law. In fact, in many cases they are from the underprivileged oppressed class. Rather than these leaders who having no respect for the law, they have immense respect for history, culture, justice, equality and fairness. Apparently these are things their critics know nothing about.

Politically Incorrect

My grandmother (and I'm sure some other folks grandparents as well) used to have a saying. She would say "you got some nerve".You can pretty much place anything after that statement, but essentially my grandmother was shocked and appalled that I would have the audacity to do a particular thing. My grandmother's words feel more appropriate than ever when you consider recent actions by today's politicians and media. Mainstream media and politicians wagged their metaphorical fingers at Gov. Rod Blagojevich when he seemed to be playing the "politician's" game. The only problem was he got caught.

With Blagojevich out of the news cycle now is as good a time as ever to look back with sober mind to put the actions of the disgraced governor into proper context. His crime was using his position and influence to get a social and/or financial advantage for he or a family member. With that in mind when we look at some recent actions of politicians.Once we examine these politicians and their actions, we may want to rethink the way we casted Blagojevich to lowest ring in the political inferno.

During the Bush presidency many people complained, and rightfully so, about Haliburton receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq. The reason the complaints are so legitimate is because then vice-president Dick Cheney was once the head of the aforementioned company. Most Americans saw this as despicable crony-ism at its highest most disgusting level. Interestingly enough Robert Murtha (the nephew of Congressman Frank Murtha) and his company have also received no-bid Pentagon contracts. These contracts were valued at about 4 million dollars. It seems that Congressman Murtha used his position and influence to get a financial advantage for a family member.

Congressman Murtha isn't alone in using his perverse use of his office. Congresswoman Jane Harmon may have had one of the more embarrassing and disgusting abuses of power in recent memory. Congresswoman Harmon was in negotiations with the powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC. Two Israelis were being prosecuted for espionage by the Justice Department. In exchange for her lobbying the Justice Department to reduce the charges, AIPAC would pressure Nancy Pelosi to give Harmon a prestigious committee assignment. Again this seems like a quid pro quo relationship. According to transcripts Congresswoman Harmon knew what she was doing was so out of bounds she closed her phone call by saying "this conversation never happened".

Clearly foul play is not new to politics but more and more it seems to be the rule rather than the exception. There are numerous cases where there are family members who either individually or as a member of a company reap huge benefits from their relatives political clout. This murky game of politics doesn't seem to be a partisan issue. It affects Republicans and Democrats alike. Politics is a dirty game and the disgraced former governor got caught. The problem comes when other politicians and members of the media stand by shocked to know this "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" behavior is consistent throughout the halls of the United States Congress. It's at times like this when people could heed the words of grandmothers all over the country: "you've got some nerve."

Hundred Day Hoopla

Much has been made about the United States celebrating the first one hundred days of the Obama Presidency. In essence the celebration is becoming much like Valentine's Day. Its a day that has no real meaning or significance but something we've allowed ourselves to observe none the less. In no other job does the first one hundred days matter the way the mainstream media has created this "First 100 Days". Surely there is much to track when assessing the pros and cons of an Obama presidency but to set an arbitrary mark of one hundred days does nothing but give mainstream media outlets something to gear up for. In the coming days here are few things you can expect to see most media outlets ignore when "grading" Obama on his first hundred.

Much of the foreign policy talk has been about three central topics; these topics tend to be torture, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These areas have been identified by much of the press as areas of pressing concern to the safety and security of the United States. Thus when commentators will give Obama a grade on the matter they will be using the affairs of these topics as a rubric. Recently the plight of Somalians became a point of conversation but once the Navy Seals shot them, their story also died. Also Venezuela and Cuba have been talking points but the United States nor the government can (with a straight face) claim a moral high ground on that argument. So the media is likely to have that phased out of the public discourse. So in honor of the 100th day expect the media to center the discourse on foreign policy where the United States can claim moral superiority.

As far as domestic policy goes the media again seems to be disinterested in anything that doesn't pit Democrats and Republican against each other like wild animals. Debates about the budget, government spending, warrant less wiretapping, the bank crisis and same sex marriage are continually viewed through the prism of right/left, conservative/liberal and red/blue. As the news channels acknowledge the 100th day it is safe to expect those that lean left to heap praise on Obama on the aforementioned issues. Those news organizations that lean right will lambaste him on the matters. Either way no new information is gathered and the dialogue is full of partisan rhetoric that doesn't advance the culture or the conversation

With all the conversation about domestic policy surrounding the partisan nature of modern news organizations, it is easy to for see news organizations neglecting questions of whether or not small businesses are benefiting from a flowing credit market. The case against the police officer who shot and killed a handcuffed citizen in Oakland will more than likely be swept under the rug and not receive a great deal of attention. Whether or not the states that refused the stimulus money will be able to survive on their own will be another ignored story. The prosecution (or lack there of) for bankers who were criminally negligent in their actions will also be something that may not make it to airwaves or to press.

A main reason for the void in meaningful dialogue or a thorough look at serious issues is because to truly see them play out takes time. It takes clearly more than 100 days. Unfortunately because so many of us are subjected to getting our news and information from the mainstream media, we are also limited to the news stories that they feel as though shape our life. In this case, we will be paraded through the gamut of opinions and grades on "Obama's first 100 days". All the Sunday morning talk shows are likely to have a roundtable discussion about it as well. This will be all in the name of profit. News networks can count on viewers to watch as they assess Obama's performance over this short time. It is clear that things are bad when James Carville notices the partisan jockeying. This is sadly the media's attempt to generate a story despite most rational people realizing that 100 days is no real barometer in assessing a president. But even I can't complain that much. Even I am writing about it. Looks like everyone is caught up in the Hundred Day Hoopla.

By Culture and By Merit

The Supreme Court is again about to venture into murky waters. They have begun hearing arguments over a case involving 20 firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut and the city of New Haven. The case centers on a test that took place in 2003 to determine command level positions for the New Haven Fire Department. As a result of the test 20 firefighters were to be awarded promotions. Of those 20, 19 were white and one was Hispanic. Seeing a major lack of diversity, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and canceled the promotions. The city of New Haven believed there must be an inherent fallacy of the test if it failed to yield any worthy Black candidates. The 20 firefighters filed a lawsuit saying they achieved the promotions based on the merit of their work and they should be rewarded as such

This case has been heard by two lower courts that dismissed the lawsuit, and now it makes its way to the Supreme Court. A casual glance suggest that this should be a simple case depending upon the lens with which you view the United States. For those with a liberal view of politics and social issues, it only makes sense to promote diversity. In that spirit, any job that does not seek to promote and encourage diversity needs to be reprimanded for it. For those who look at political and social issues from a conservative lens than this is slam dunk. Hard working Americans are being denied something they rightfully achieved. For the conservative observer this is a case of reverse discrimination because the firefighters who scored well on the test did so by their own merit.

The conservative viewpoint makes a lot of sense as an observer. The firefighters did exhibit the merit to serve in the leadership capacity, that can not be denied. In fact I even agree that what the city of New Haven is doing is discriminatory against the white firefighters. What's interesting to note though is how necessary the city's decision was. It was necessary because since 1776 the city of New Haven and the rest of the United States has been practicing discriminatory policies and tactics against Americans of African descent. Sadly this is the tangled web that has been woven by centuries of neglect, mistreatment, abuse and exclusion from the "American Dream" where if you work hard enough you can achieve anything. In fact the reality was (and in most instances is) if your culture permits, your merit can provide.

Sadly, and definitely unfortunately, what the firefighters are learning is a fallacy that many Americans of African descent learned centuries ago. The United States is not a meritocracy. Accomplishments are not based primarily on your ability to work hard, or achieve or perform. Rather accomplishments are the prize of those that have access. They are the reward of culture and privilege. The fallacy is only allowed to maintain because every so often there is a successful person who does not come from the upper class. Often times, those with cultural advantages use this as justification of meritocracy. They argue if John can succeed being at a socio-economic disadvantage so too can everyone else in that position. What goes largely unmentioned is that the success stories are the exception not the rule. As culture relates to this case, being white in America has been and is still a huge advantage. To neglect that would be to neglect truth.

In a feeble attempt to right the wrongs of this nation (and to avoid being taken to court for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) the city of New Haven acknowledge that there is a great probability that its test was culturally biased (as have been most standardized test in the United States) and they wanted to right that wrong. In the process they have (though not intentionally) wronged the 20 firefighters who scored well on the test. There really is no right answer. When a society based on meritocracy doesn't start it's existence based on merit but rather cultural capital there is no way to go back and even the playing field. So now the city is stuck; not so much between a rock and a hard place but they have to decide to reward by culture or by merit.

Terror on the High Seas

Much has been made about the recent developments on the seas and the waterways in Eastern Africa. The United States media has recently taken a keen interest in the affairs of that region of the world. Sadly and unfortunately many of these same outlets only seem to tell one side of the story. Rarely, if ever, does that side tend to be from the African point of view. As the Navy Seals are celebrated and the Maersk Alabama's captain is returned to the United States, key questions such as why and how that were not asked or answered in the mainstream media must be answered here.

The why and how that I seek to answer are less related to the efforts of the Somali pirates in their attempt to take the Maersk Alabama, but rather why they feel the need to patrol the seas and oceans of that area anyway. Initially one's first line of reasoning would be why would pirates patrol an area. Many will rightly say that's the navy's job. However for a country such as Somalia that has been in turmoil as long as it has it has no standing navy. Once we acknowledge that, then we can see a myriad of problems that will develop for Somalia because of a lack of a navy.

One main problem that has served as a key spark in this pirating epidemic is the dumping of nuclear waste. Because Somalia is a nation in chaos and lacks the ability to organize a standing navy to combat foreign navies, many countries (including some western countries) dump their nuclear waste in Somali waters. What this does is pollute the Somali air quality and shorten the life expectancy of Somali citizens. If this isn't bad enough, when other nations don't want to over fish their waters, they send their fishermen to Somali waters. This takes work away from the Somali fisherman and food away from the Somali people. In turn many western "aid" groups step in to provide essentials like food for the Somali people when it is these same aid groups governments that are a factor in causing the starvation of the Somali people in the first place.

The Somali people's response to this is to fight back. As has been belabored the Somalis do not have a navy to formally fight with, so they fight with improvised tactics. The United States first faced improvised tactics with the Vietnamese and guerrilla warfare. Since then other organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda have fought back using improvised techniques because they lacked proper armed forces. All of these groups have also been labeled as terrorist mind you. Sadly what happens in these cases is that otherwise innocent people are are the victims of the loose organizations (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Pirates) on account of the policy decisions these innocent people's government have made. The United States mind you is the same government that armed and trained the Afghan people to fight against the Russians during the cold war in the 1980's. Then they were freedom fighters fighting off oppression. When they fight the United States they are called terrorist. What has changed? Nothing but the oppressor.

This is not in any way to condone or excuse violent behavior against innocent people. Perhaps (and one can only hope) the crew members of the Maersk Alabama were not on the high seas to dump nuclear waste and were there in fact as reported to deliver aid. If that is the case it is terrible that innocent people had their lives threatened. It was a shame that there were innocent victims in the numerous attacks across the world. In no way is this meant to praise the work of the Somali pirates or the Middle Eastern fighters. All we want to do, and it is our responsibility as citizens to do this, is look a little deeper than the obvious and find out the truth. The west and particularly the United States have never had clean hands when dealing with "third-world" or undeveloped countries. It is unlikely they'd start now.

Honoring A Hero

Last week John Hope Franklin past away. He is best known as a historian and an ardent student of history. Dr. Franklin did more than just study American history he owned and mastered it. He was born in Oklahoma in 1915. His parents were both literate and educated and they sought to make their children's lives as comfortable as an African-Americans life could be at that time. In those pursuits they moved to an all Black section of Oklahoma. Unfortunately the vicious and insidious racism would find them there as Franklin's father's law office was burned during the Tulsa race riots that decimated much of the burgeoning Black commerce community.

Brother Franklin's parents instilled the idea of education in him at an early age and he became valedictorian of his class. After being rejected from the state university because of his race he went on to study at Fisk University before ultimately getting his PhD from Harvard. Dr. Franklin went on to publish some very serious and meaningful work. One prized piece that is used even in collegiate classrooms across the nation today is the book "From Slavery to Freedom". One of the greatest contributions that Dr. Franklin made however was less about his scholarship and more psychological.

Dr. Franklin embarked on his scholarship at a time when Blacks suffered a more blatant and painful self-loathing. The American Negro (as African-Americans were termed at the time) knew nothing of their self or their existence, culture and meaningful contributions in the United States to say nothing about their African history. Dr. Franklin would rewrite history not in a fantasy vain that would glorify Black people through lies and untruths, but rather by charting the impact Blacks made on the development, growth and expansion of the United States. As recent as 2006Dr. Franklin was still agitating the nation for honesty. He lamented how some 200 plus years after the nation's founding there still was nothing in the nation's capital to show what happened to African-Americans.

His work was not limited to scholarship though. He marched with Dr. King from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. Prior to that he worked side by side with such luminaries as Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall to prepare the legal briefs for the landmark Brown v. Board of education decision. He said that working on public policy issues was a healthy combination of spirited activism and scholarship. His political and social work didn't stop there as he was appointed by several presidents to several commissions and councils investigating matters of history, society and race.

Dr. Franklin's work was not without legitimate criticism. Critics have argued that looking at the Black people's progress and calling it freedom is short cited considering the legacy and greatness of many African cultures. Beyond that though, even Dr. Franklin's critics respected him. Some even used his text in their classes. He sought to and was successful in retelling the historical narrative of America with a sincere truth and honesty about its treatment of non-Whites. Our only hope (no pun intended) is that in death his message words and legacy will not be tamed to accommodate the guilt of others. If he is indeed honored for his life and his life's work; let him be honored for who he was, not who others want him rembered as. It wouldn't be right because that had been what he was fighting against his entire life.

The Matriculation of James Crow Esquire

"Racism still alive, they just be concealin' it". Kanye West said this back in 2004 on his debut album The College Dropout. Since then time and again both White and Black people will agree that there is still racism in the United States. However it has become more difficult for all people to see incidents of racism. Where one sees racism, another may see an individual's poor decision. Gone are the days where all reasonable people regardless of race could look at a situation objectively and collectively conclude the racism present. Today some see racism others see unfortunate happenstance.

The apparent evidence of this can be seen in the rebuilding of New Orleans. With the Superdome having hosted two seasons worth of NFL games, and the New Orleans Arena been the home for the 2008 NBA All-Star game, some may feel that the city is back up on its feet. However, if you look closely you will see that only a certain section of the city is doing well. A vast part of the residential sections including the Lower Ninth Ward is still in shambles and goes largely unmentioned by mainstream national press. Even still, nearly four years after the hurricane colleges still organize alternative spring break trips down to New Orleans to help rebuild the large parts of the city that is has been neglected. Many of the lower to moderate income African-American residents who moved to places like Atlanta and Houston have not come back. The city is repopulating with middle and upper income Whites.

This is racism for the 21st century. The United States no longer bears witness to Jim Crow. Instead the country watches his son James Crow Esquire run amok. This new racism can be seen across the country. In Jena, Louisiana six African-American boys faced adult charges after several fights involving both Black and White students. In one of the fights a White boy brought a gun into the fight. That student was disarmed and beaten yet the only charges stemming from that incident were levied against the Black boys. James Crow Esquire no longer needs racist cops to hose down African Americans in the street, he no longer props up governors who will stand in the doorway to the state colleges and universities. Instead James Crow Esquire uses the subjectivity of the criminal justice (or lack thereof) system and the stinging effects of gentrification.

Another masterful trick created by James Crow Esquire is that the racism present in the United States is no longer executed by individuals on a person to person basis. Rather this new racism is institutional. With this being institutional, people and groups of people are now allowed to absolve themselves from any wrongdoing because it is not them the individuals doing anything wrong. The best examples of this lie in the numbers.The national high school graduation rate is about 80%. White American graduate high school at a rate of about 82%. As of today only 53% of African-Americans graduate high school. That means nearly half the African American students in this country do not graduate high school. This number alone should appal people. Keeping in mind the United States is no longer a place that manufactures a lot of its products, people without education or skills training cannot be expected to provide for themselves. More evidence of James Crow Esquire at work is the research done by the Center for Responsible Lending. They found that African Americans with fair to good credit and middle to upper middle incomes were still more than 35% more likely to be subject to predatory lending than their White counterpart.

What we are finding here is that the United States is invariably tied to the subjective criminal justice system, the inconsistent and faulty education system and the subjective lending and financial institutions. Numbers show that these institutions are now carrying out the racism that individuals carried out decades ago. Sadly good hearted people with the best of intentions find themselves working in and for these institutions that are perpetrating these atrocities against Black and Brown people in the United States. Individually they may see themselves as simply doing their job, but their job is the product of James Crow Esquire. Here in the 21st century racism is indeed still alive and its legacy is being preserved by the more crafty intelligent son of Jim Crow, James Crow Esquire.

Please Pass the Pork

In my diet I tend to avoid pork at all times. I have nothing against those who enjoy it, it just is not for me. However pork in politics is a completely different animal. Recently with all the talk about appropriations bills, omnibus budgets and stimulus money, some people in the media have been making a big deal about something that is termed pork barrel spending. This generally references pet projects. This is basically spending on projects that are unique to the needs of a given municipality, city, county or state.

The thing that has me lost is why this is such a problem. On a recent taping of Meet the Press South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham found himself in a tough situation. He voted along party lines by voting against the appropriations bill claiming is was laden with pork. Graham however included in the bill $900k for work on a South Carolina convention center. Beyond the obvious hypocrisy of the situation, Graham should be proud to be bringing a bit of the money back to his home of South Carolina. People elect representatives to act on behalf of a constituents interest. I'm sure a convention center in South Carolina would do good things for the community. In the macro-economics level we can see that it will create work opportunities which will create workers. With workers you get more income that then becomes taxable increasing the national revenue for the government to create more opportunities and benefits for people struggling during these tough economic times.

There are many valuable and unique contributions that can be made by directing funds to specialized projects. As the stimulus package was being discussed in detail a main facet of the package was infrastructure improvements. This basically means rebuilding roads, schools, hospitals and making physical improvements to these types of places. These are all necessary to not only get people working again but to ensure that the infrastructure that is in place is working at its most optimal level. It would make no sense for the nation to try an judge on a macro level where and how to disperse of that money. That is why various congressional representatives try to include their districts needs at a time when stimulus money is being given out.

I understand that a study of mosquitoes in Utah may not impress the taxpayer in Florida. However when a Florida congressperson or senator brings huge subsidies for orange farmers the people of Florida are overwhelmed and as well they should be. When Iowa and Idaho congressional representatives direct federal funds to their districts for corn and potatoes respectively I have no problem with that. That is what they were elected to do. Their constituents want their voices heard at the national table. Pet projects show that the representatives are remembering their districts and bringing something back to the people there.

John McCain generated some deal of fame talking about earmarks and pork barrel spending. He made enough of a deal about it that others took on the fight against earmarks. However, in the essence of representative democracy earmarks is the representatives way of showing he or she intends to bring a slice of the federal pie back to his or her district. As we can also see these things also are much more useful than they are given credit for being. As long as the pet projects are pointed to a specific need of a district or community, I have no problem with it. Pass the Pork.

Criminally Minded

With Omar al-Bashir recently charged with crimes against humanity, I began to wonder when if ever former President George Bush was going to be charged with comparable crimes. Initially Bush supporters respond to this claiming that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were completely justified. Although there is a state of mind that says that even the Afghanistan war was unjustified, I'll just concentrate on the matter of the Iraq war. Beyond violating the sovereignty of that nation Bush entered the United States in a war of false pretense. The meaning behind the war continued to change. Initially there was a case made for the Al-Qaeda connection and despite then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claiming that he knew with a degree of certainty that the weapons were near Baghdad and Tikrit,that proved to be faulty. Then there was the Operation Iraqi freedom.

This premise was loaded with fallacies. The first thing you can find is the audacity of the United States to try to correct someone else's problems when the U.S. is (and at that time was) loaded with its own problems. Second you wonder what qualifies a nation's people to deserve to be "liberated". The atrocities suffered under Sadaam Hussein were awful. Then again so too were the ones observed in Rwanda, Tibet, Palestine and India where the United States has been unwilling to comment on let alone do anything about. That begs the question why the United States is so eager to "liberate" the people of Iraq. Then we are presented with the idea of spreading democracy. Interestingly enough one of the U.S.'s strongest allies in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia which has a history of denying women rights as well as being an existing monarchy that in no way supports democracy.

Thus far we are clearly able to establish at best lies and at worst war crimes. This is all done without addressing the way United States treated prisoners of war. A word that has been thrown around quite a bit without any substance or merit is the talk of torture. Human rights groups across the world and inside the United States have concluded that what the United States has done to enemy combatants can easily be called torture. Republican Senator John McCain even denouced the Bush administration for any torture they have done. This seems to be plenty of evidence for the International Criminal Court to pursue criminal charges. The good news is (in actuality it's bad news) that there are even United States laws that Bush violated. The past president's handling of the Justice Department, and its federal attorneys was simply deplorable.

At this moment the head of the House of Representatives Judiciary Chair is none other than John Conyers. Chairman Conyers is the same person who every session introduces a piece of legislation called H.R. 40. That bill calls for reparations for the African-American descendants of slaves. When asked why he continued to sponsor the legislation despite it having no chance of winning, Chairman Conyers replied because it was simply the right thing to do. With this type of narrow-minded determination and focus it should be anytime now that we can expect some legislation to come from the Judiciary committe bringing charges against Bush. Those who are in Chairman Conyers district should implore the Chairman to use his position to do what is not only fair but just.

The mainstream media has made much noise about Harriet Miers and Karl Rove testifying before a House panel, however this is not serious justice on the matter. It comes off as merely a bone to appease critics of Bush who showed how he was beyond immoral but unjust and blantatly illegal. House members (outside of Dennis Kuinich) have been either unwilling or too cowardly to bring about impeachment charges against Bush. Now that he is no longer in office we can only hope that members of the House will act on the courage of their convictions.

Change on the Continent

With the nation being in such dire economic conditions very few Americans take the time to observe the international world around them. Depending on how you look at the world though, one would think that economic crisis sums up the events of the world at large. This isn't exactly true, particularly when looking at the continent of Africa. There is a lot happening there and with the continent's abundant resources, many eyes will be on the United States to see how President Obama and his administration responds to the changing world and environments. Ironically (or perhaps not so considering the abundance of resources the land is blessed with) there are a good numbers of African markets that are doing more than merely surviving as the world around it flounders and fails. But at this moment we are better suited examining the politics on the continent.

We can first start by looking at the new head of the African Union which is Muammar al-Gaddafi. He has been vocal about the need for African nations to control their own resources, and be the ones who sell the goods created by those resources on the world market. He is also an advocate for socialism. Most recently upon being named head of the African Union he has promised to not waver in his quest for both one form of African currency and for a United States of Africa. Mr. Obama's relationship with figures across the continent like Mr. Gaddafi will tell whether or not a true change is coming to the United States and the world. Observers will be able to see this by examining the way the United States does business with Africa. One of the points Mr. Gaddafi touched on was the need for nations to control their own resources.

Right now, Ghana is in a modest debate as to whether or not to increase rice production domestically to avoid paying for a crop that could be grown at home. Mr. Obama needs to come out and adamantly encourage the West African nation to work to be self sufficient. In the U.S. many have made good points questioning why the United States should continue to spend money to import energy when it can be found or generated here in the United States. If it is good for the U.S. to be self reliant, it should also be good for Ghana to be. Another issue Mr. Obama needs to be pro-active on is supporting the peace sharing agreements taking place in Zimbabwe. He should instruct his ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remain silent observers as the people of Zimbabwe settle their own conflicts. Both Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Tsangvari leave much to be desired but the hope is that they can both contribute their strengths to a well functioning government that serves the people of Zimbabwe free from Western influence.

Still Mr. Obama will have to act courageously on the criminalization of Omar al-Bashir. Although this may be years late in coming, Mr. Obama needs to ensure that all who were responsible for the atrocities in Darfur (both implicitly and explicitly) are held accountable and punished according to international law. In keeping with respect for international law and organziations, it is imperative that the President be not only vocal but supportive on the United Nations World Racism Conference. The President has said that the United States would not participate on account of language from the last conference that condemned Israel and came off anti-Semitic. However the UN's top human rights official called the boycotts and negative media unwarranted. Ironically, this is exactly what U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was calling for. A frank and earnest discussion about race. It seems though if truth is told about the U.S. and their allies on the matter of race; the U.S. doesn't want to hear it. Now is the time that Mr. Obama should break through the notion of false racial transcendence. He should send a delegation to the conference and allow all parties to truthfully speak their piece.

On November 4, 2008 the entire continent of Africa rejoiced because a native son was elected to the highest office in the strongest empire in the west. This brought with it great pride, but also an expectation that things would be different. An expectation that a native son would not allow capitalist interest to pillage the welfare of his homeland. With the awesome task of saving the U.S. form of capitalism already on his plate. Mr. Obama must also balance that with the responsibility to provide fair trade agreements for African nations as well as allow them the room to be self-sufficient, self determining people who can be PARTNERS WITH rather than PUPPETS TO the United States.

Tracking the Stimulus

After many days of debate, deliberation, and indecisiveness there is finally a stimulus package. It totaled about 787 billion dollars of government spending and tax cuts. People on the left of the political aisle hail this as a package that will generate and maintain jobs. They repeat the Obama administration's claim that this package will create or save 3 million jobs. As with all pieces of legislation the other side of the political spectrum has its problems with the package. They claim that it demands the nation continue to spend money although a majority of their spending is borrowed money. They also claim there is not enough tax breaks to small business and individual citizens. These mostly Republican law-makers feel as though they were shut out of the decision making process in creating this package, and argued that for President Obama to be politically non-partisan, they feel this bill was "hi-jacked" by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats.

On the state level this bill is also met with mixed reviews. Democratic governors across the nation, praise the bill as they face statewide furloughs and budget shortfalls. Some Republican governors including Alaska's Sarah Palin and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal have gone so far to refuse a portion of the money being given by the federal government. The aforementioned governors don't agree with the permanent expansion of unemployment benefits on a statewide level. They acknowledge that the federal government will pay for the expansions now, but when the stimulus money is no longer there, they worry that they the states will be left footing the bill. Meanwhile Florida governor Charlie Crist has broken from his party to support the President and the stimulus. On a recent appearance on Meet the Press Crist acknowledged he had some concerns about the stimulus but warned that inaction at this critical time would be worst than a bill with some flaws.

Despite all of this, little has been said about the way the bill will impact specific communities. As the nation looks at about a 7% unemployment rate the Black community faces an unemployment at 14%. While about 80% of White Students graduate high school, only around 53% of Black students complete that same level of education. With this type of disparity there is a special and unique need to ensure that the stimulus package is benefiting all Americans the same. The nation as a whole needs help, but the Black community is in a dire state that needs a specific type of attention. Southern Christian Leadership Conference President-Emeritus Joseph Lowery says "when America stubs its toe, Black people break their foot, when America has a cold, Black people have pneumonia." These numbers suggest that Rev. Lowery's words have never been more appropriate.

What needs to happen now is those progressive organizations who worked so hard for President Obama to get elected need to do their part. NAACP chapters on college campuses and in cities and states need to keep track of the money proposed to benefit the urban and rural underserved communities. Organizations such as the National Urban League should not only track but post the flow of capital from the stimulus bill. This is an arena even hip-hop artist should get into. Hip-hop artist are among the best and brightest, if not the best and brightest when it comes to marketing and promotions. They employ street teams to hang posters on lightpoles and flood city streets with promotional materials. They can also employ these same street teams to post information in and around the cities and suburbs as to how money will be coming into and being used in the Black community. Black Churches can contribute by reading the information pertinent to their community during their morning announcements. Fraternities and Sororities can even have moments during their step shows that stop and inform the audience how the stimulus is being used in and around the community.

This is something that every citizen can do. Once the information is spread around, the hope or idea is that people who are struggling in the community can know where to go to get some form of help or aid. Another benefit of knowing is that if the money is not reaching or impacting Black communities, Black voters can be informed and hold their elected politicians accountable for that during the next election. Ultimately this should be something every voter and community should be engaged in. Regardless of their race color or creed. With so drastic of economic times, now more than ever should all citizens, but specifically Black citizens be engaged, aware and active. Now is the time that organizations and groups who advocate on behalf Black Americans stand up and earn their keep. Now is the time that these organizations be of service to humanity.

With Liberty and Health Care for All

Amid all the talk about stimulus and the debate on Capitol Hill about the most effective way to create jobs, one important campaign topic is being ignored in much of the mainstream media. The issue of health care has been pushed to the background of much of public political discourse in favor of the ongoing economic troubles. However a recent study done by the research arm of the California Nurses Association shows us that those two issues may not be as mutually exclusive as once thought. Their study chronicles how the single payer system of health care can not only solve the current health care crisis but also the economic crisis.

For those unfamiliar with health care talk, the single payer system refers to the government being the sole financial provider for everyone's medical needs. This is an idea that has been supported by many for quite some time and with good merit. Such elected officials as Congressman Dennis Kucinich(D-OH) and former Congresswoman and Green Party Candidate for president Cynthia McKinney as well as current Senator Bernie Sanders have all supported at one time or another the single payer system. If the single payer system could help the economic peril the United States is in, there is little argument as to the effectiveness of such a change in health care policy.

The actual research done by the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy make a compelling argument as to the financial benefits of the single payer system. The first point they make is of the impending job growth that would result. The study claims that 45 million new jobs would be created directly into the health care industry as well as to other related industries. The study also shows that this job creation would provide the needed boost in tax revenue that so many local, state and federal governments desperately need. According to the study in 2006 alone, taxes from the health care sector totaled $824 billion dollars.

In addition to the growth and stimulant it can be to the economy, converting to a health care for all single payer system would actually cost less money than many of the "bail-outs" that are going on now. To convert the nation to a single payer system would cost the government about $63 billion dollars. Mind you, this is after AIG was given $150 billion and Citigroup was given $350 billion. In fact, if the federal government only sought to provide for the 47 million Americans who do not currently have health care, than the price tag would go down to about $44 billion. All of these figures don't begin to address the money private business owners would save in real profit since they don't have to worry about insurance packages for their employees.

Through all of this analysis we haven't begun to touch on the social relevance of having a healthy society. I understand that in the United States the business of America is business. However some things should be so necessary to everyday life that they simply shouldn't be "for-profit". The health and welfare of a society is one of those things. Generally, this type of issue is largely debated by conservatives who aren't for the type of government spending it would take to do something like this, but even the most cynical observer would agree that the United States is already in a "spend or die" situation. Since the nation must spend, why not do it in a way that not only address the economic needs but finally puts an end to ridiculous reality that one of the richest nations on Earth has some of the poorest health care around. This should be the type of bi-partisan effort everyone rushes to get behind.

To read the study for yourself:
http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

The Burden of Double Standard

On Tuesday most of the mainstream media celebrated the "one week anniversary" of President Obama. However in other circles there was a different type of chatter. Some critics of the President pointed to his decision to drop bombs on Pakistan as an act of unprovoked aggression that was synonymous with the most recent more hawkish past president. On top of his policy decisions the first family (specifically Michelle Obama) was even publicly chided by the Black Artist Association for her not wearing a Black designer during the inauguration.

Before any real discussion on the matter starts, let it be clear that the Black Artist Association does not represent fashion designers, instead it represents painters. However founder Amnau Eele said it was necessary to speak up for the fashion designers and that's why she spoke out. Now this brings a very interesting dilemna to the table for the Obamas and any other Black family with upward mobility. Should Michelle Obama have to wear a Black designer whenever there is a significant function of occasion? Should she be expected to give Black make-up artist, fashion designers, and organizations top preference when it comes to making appearance decisions? Does Barack Obama need to speak to issues that affect Black Americans in ways unique to White Americans?

It is telling that we stop to ask this question because it is a question that Black Americans have been wrestling with since there were Black citizens with upward mobility. It is even more interesting that this is a question Michelle and Barack Obama themselves wrestled with. What seems to be at odds is the African spirit of communalism versus the United States (and some may even argue western) spirit of individualism. There is a Sub-Saharan African philosophy called Ubuntu. It has come to mean in english "I am because we are". One of the most popular western philosophers Rene Descartes was famous for the phrase "cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am". Clearly these positions run counter to each other and here is where we find the Obamas.

Barack himself wrote in his book Dreams from My Father that when he went to Kenya he felt he owed his family something. He talks about how he felt that same obligation to the people he worked with and for as a community organizer in Chicago. He felt that since he was "privileged" enough to have an education, he should be using that educatin to be of some use for the community. For her part Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton centered on the connection that a Black college graduate from a prestigious school such as Princeton had with the Black community at large. She wrestled with the ideas of seperatist and intergrationist in search of what was most effective for Blacks who were becoming upwardly mobile.

The result of all this studying and all this theorizing is that there will be no consensus answer. People from Pan-Africanist circles will say the Obamas do owe something to the Black community at large. They will draw to points made by Cheikh Ante Diop, John Henrik Clark and Acklyn Lynch that people of African descent are still to be communal, as evidenced by the same cultural continuity that has preserved so many other African cultural influences over the years. At the same moment others to the right of that point of view will feel that Black Americans are still and above all "Americans". As Americans Blacks can purchase from, socialize with, and engage any one of any race and that decision has no consequence on other Blacks. Both arguments make solid points, but the fact remains that these are issues the Obamas will face for the next four or eight years. It is not an issue new to upwardly mobile Black Americans, but for the first time, it may be a conversation played out before a mainstream audience.

Reading is Fundamental

We are so often shaped by the information we expose ourselves to. This can be as personal as the choices we make in regards to what we watch on television, or as expansive as the type of company we decide to keep. Either way, that which we expose ourselves to have a pivotal hand in shaping not only who we are or what we know, but how we will react when presented with new information. This concept is something I've been wrestling with for quite some time now and I've come to the conclusion that despite how blatantly corny it is, the NBA's old theme that "Reading is Fundamental" is a culturally vital and meaningful phrase.

I have a friend who constantly stresses to those he is conversation with that if you have not wrestled with the information, or done the proper research about a given topic than please keep your opinion to yourself. I thought about that and wondered whether or not that was an arrogant statement. I concluded that it wasn't for one main reason. Dr. Gregory Carr of Howard University says that when you open your mouth you put your brain on display. I would like to think if I displayed my brain it would show people that I am an active seeker of knowledge not just someone who wants to hear themselves speak.

This topic is more meaningful at this time, than if at no other time. The nation has witnessed a community organizer from Chicago go from State Senator, to Senator, to President-elect now finally President Obama. With that comes the feeling that the country will enter into a new world of "posts". People feel that we will be "post-racial" or "post partisan" or even "post modern". However, in order to get to that place we have to move forward with a consistent and well informed view of history. This seems logical. It only seems right that one can't be post-anything unless they know what they are moving past.

This is where reading becomes a key point. There is much work done on a bevy of topics. Too much for any one person to seriously think themselves an expert on everything. However, in order to be beyond partisanship in politics, we must know how it got there, who introduced those concepts and for what reason. Any efforts to move to a “post-partisan” government without that knowledge are nothing other than empty dreams. This example goes for politics, sports, music, finance or any other topic of choice. Without a serious analysis of the topic, one's opinions are rendered useless because they have no foundation for their existence.

On the surface this idea of reading to gain a more intimate familiarity with a topic may seem obvious. This is not always apparent though and with a new President who demands that the citizens hold he and his administration accountable the burden of being informed doubles in its value. Being informed is more than simply catching the latest Keith Olbermann program; it is also more than having the news on in the morning when you get ready for work. Being informed is looking beyond what is presented in front of you, to find out as much as you can about a given topic. Don't be mistaken though, there will be things you simply don't know or weren't able to catch. That is not a problem. In those instances simply reserve your opinion until you've had the opportunity to fully inform yourself. In these days of information, facts are always around. It is our job to find them.

To Serve and Protect

The Police in the United States have had a strenuous relationship with Black Americans. It has never been "all good". Even at times when the issues and circumstances surrounding an incident were all but but black and white (no pun intended) many people of African descent had a serious distrust of law enforcement officers. For their worth, law enforcement officers also carried with them a predisposition that Black citizens at best didn't like them, and at worst sought to do them harm. In the opening days of 2009 we see this already restive relationship stretched to its limits.

As many may know on New Years Day at least two Black men were killed by police. The first and perhaps most discussed of the two is Oscar Grant. Grant was a 22 year old man who was shot in the back by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer following a fistfight on a BART train. Grant was not armed and there is even video of his murder on the Internet. While handcuffed, Grant was shot. The officer believed to have done the shooting has resigned from the force and gotten himself legal representation.

The other case is that of Adolf Grimes III. Grimes was also 22. He was sitting in a parked car in front of his family's New Orleans home when police officers fired on him. There has been discussion as to who fired first. Police did find a legally registered gun in Grimes' possession. Grimes was shot 12 times in the back. New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley disputes the coroner's claim that Grimes was hit 12 times in the back saying that of few of the rounds hit him in his legs, side and torso. However, it wasn't until a report aired on CNN about Grimes' murder, did Riley and New Orleans police officials agree to meet with Grimes' family to discuss the incident.

These cases seem rather self-evident that sadly in some places Black males are still seen as a threat to the police officers. The way officers have been responding to those threats is by killing the people they feel threaten them. This is not a new phenomenon. In 2008 we witnessed as the murders of Sean Bell went free. Before that there were numerous cases of police brutality from Amadou Diallo to Timothy Stansbury. Even in our nation's capital young DeOnte Rawlings was shot in the back of his head by a police officer. All of this mind you takes place after the now infamous Rodney King beating.

Some will no doubt say that a few bad apples do not represent the entire law enforcement community in the United States, this is true. But I do feel bad for the men and women who go out every day with earnest hopes to do right by people. Right now their comrades are behaving as if it is their sworn right and privilege to murder Black males. In the midst of the riots that broke out in Oakland following Grant's murder, one woman said "we live a life of fear, and we want them to be afraid tonight". That doesn't sound like a knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident. So to the countless numbers of law-abiding law enforcement officers, I suggest you do a better job of policing the "few" rogue officers if you want to keep riots out of the streets and hate out of the hearts of our communities.

Minority Report

Black Americans have voted for the Democratic party in bloc for several decades. Many cite the ideals of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal proposals as what drew Black voters. Others say it was cemented a few decades later when John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson made serious strides in civil rights legislation. No matter the reason why, Black voters have turned out strong for Democratic candidates for many years now. Recently though, Republicans wondered why Blacks supported Democratic tickets despite Democrats not running many Black candidates for statewide or national office. And then came Barack Obama.

Obama was a candidate that Democrats not only ran for a statewide position but also for a national position and obviously is the current President-elect. This quieted much of the conversation about whether or not Democrats were sincere and deserved the support of Black voters. But if you dig a little deeper beneath the surface some meaningful questions need to be answered regarding which party (if any) should receive the support of Black voters.

Before any serious discussion about "the Black vote" begins we have to acknowledge that there is no "Black vote". Black voters are not monolithic and do not all vote or think on one accord. History has shown that Black voters tend to be more communal in their approach to voting. That is to say Black voters tend to support candidates that speak to issues that disproportionately affect people of their race. Despite all this, Republicans challenged Blacks to get more "bang for their buck". In 2005 then Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman went on speaking tours to such places as Howard University and the NAACP in efforts to bring more Blacks into the Republican party. The idea may have been noble but polling shows that Mehlman wasn't successful.

If we look today though, we see that Black voters still may not have a "home" so to speak among Democrats. Last week the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Senate majority leader Harry Reid told Gov. Blagojevich not to pick certain candidates including Congressmen Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones. All three of these men are Black. It stands to reason that Reid didn't think any of these candidates could win re-election in 2010. Again despite nominating a Black candidate for president only to see him win, Democratic leaders appear to think a Black man is not good enough to fill that seat. This says nothing of the way the Democratic party has treated Black women politicians. A careful look at Shirley Chisholm and Carol Mosely-Braun's political careers would show that Democrats have not given Black politicians as much support as Black voters give the Democratic party.

As we speak the Republican National Committee is waiting to choose a new party leader. Among the six candidates two of them are African American. Republicans can also lay claim to Maryland's first African American Lt. Governor and in 2006 they ran African Americans candidates in statewide Senatorial and Gubenatorial races in Maryland and Ohio. With all of this the Republican party, platform and campaigning techniques have been at worst utterly disrepectful to Blacks and at best, neglectful to Black voters. Some may read this and assume I advocate for Blacks to join the Republican party. That is not what I am doing at all. I am asking that all people who are affiliated with a party, step back and examine what their party is doing for them as individuals and the community they belong to. If we take a close look, we'll see that neither major party is doing a good job on their minority report.