Real Talk with Ray Baker

Todd Bozeman

2010-03-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

Embattled Morgan State University Head Coach Todd Bozeman has had a long road back to redemption. Once the golden boy who was the youngest coach ever to lead his team to a sweet sixteen appearance he had a mighty fall from grace after admitting to paying a player's parents. After years away from basketball he has come to Morgan State and rebuilt not only the basketball program but his character as well.

Todd Bozeman by Ray Baker

Evan Bayh

2010-03-17T19:17:00.000-07:00

Senator Evan Bayh has decided not to seek re-election. We look at just what that means for his constituents and those progressives who have supported him.

Evan Bayh- Commentary by Ray Baker

Community of Nations

2009-09-30T06:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-23T08:07:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-16T07:10:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-17T13:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-03T06:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-27T15:26:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-20T18:52:00.001-07:00

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

2009-05-13T17:02:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-06T17:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-29T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-22T15:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-15T15:43:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-01T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-25T13:58:00.000-07:00

"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

2009-03-18T15:25:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-11T16:22:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-04T09:56:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-25T07:55:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-04T12:24:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-28T17:00:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-21T14:32:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-14T16:57:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-07T18:37:00.000-08:00

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.

The Lessons of History

2008-12-17T14:50:00.000-08:00

Every four years Americans wrap themselves into a frenzy regarding the presidential election. In the last eight years, the presidential election has centered around a candidate disliked by at least half his own country and majority of the world, and a candidate liked by a little more than half his home country and majority of the world. In both the 2004 and 2008 elections, money was spent and attention was paid to each of the two political parties and their tickets. The candidates were intensely scrutinized and their backgrounds were poured through immensely. Yet, despite all this attention the nation seems to give presidential elections, the lower ballot elections go largely unmentioned about if not unnoticed altogether.

These lower ballot elections are sometimes just as important-if not more- than the presidential elections. As we see today with the House and Senate trying to reach a conclusion on whether or not to fund the Automotive Industry. In the wake of home foreclosures and financial institutions failing at every turn, citizens truly get a chance to see just how it is the Congressional body that does most of the legislative heavy lifting. Now more than ever, should citizens be paying attention to newly elected Congressmen and women. Candidates such as Steve Driehaus won Ohio's 1st District seat on the back of President-elect Obama.

Congressmen-elect Driehaus ousted an incumbent who had won re-election in six straight elections. He did so on the back of about a 27% African-American voter turnout in his district. Many of those who turned out and voted Driehaus in were undoubtedly looking for change. It must be noted though, that Driehaus is a self professing fiscal conservative who is anti-abortion. With these principles (particularly fiscal conservatism) it is less than likely that Congressman-elect Driehaus will be supportive of any of President-elect Obama's ambitious and expansive spending packages. Without the support of his own party's Congressmen, President-elect Obama will have a hard time getting anything accomplished.

Unfortunately Obama supporters will have no one to blame but themselves. The reason being is that Driehaus never lied about who he was and how he approached politics. His campaign website and literature was very clear about his position. He also played up his party affiliation with Barack Obama as well. And why wouldn't he, there is no logical reason why he shouldn't. But for voters old enough to remember the 1964 election, this has to feel familiar. A great deal of Congressional seats were filled with candidates running on the coattails of Lyndon B. Johnson. These same Democrats fought tooth and nail against many of Johnson's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" legislative agenda items. Voters voted these people in not because they were the candidate that best spoke to their needs, but because there was a "D" after their name.

Malcolm X was quoted as saying "of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research." This statement is as true now as it was he parted his lips to utter it. Students, citizens, and scholars alike need to pay keen attention to coattail politics. This type of politics that all candidates of a given party are greeted as having the same principles, values and ideas. History has shown us that this is not true. One would like to think that voters have come a long way since Johnson's election in 1964. That voters are politically astute enough to not make the same mistake twice. But the ability of voters to learn their lesson from history is probably best summed up by the current commander-in-chief "fool me once,shame on you; fool me... you can't get fooled again".

Individuals vs. Institutions

2008-12-10T10:01:00.000-08:00

Overthrowing a government can be hard work. This doesn't happen often but history has shown us at various points this can be necessary. For most people though, overthrowing the government isn't the objective. Many are satisfied with a few changes to things. However, many have come into prominence as agents of change only to realize the institution ultimately controls the people rather than the people controlling the institution. Sadly this can alter the actions of a person with even the best intentions. Most observers don't necessarily recognize this though. They see a person and judge them on the final outcome as opposed to the factors that made up that result. People often ignore the institution that serves as the invisible hand controlling things.

We can first look at the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King spent much of his adult life working to tear down the walls of segregation. His early work was based in the South where he saw racism at its brutal and most basic level. He thought by appealing to the nation's best qualities he would be able to right the wrongs of injustice. Dr. King used the media to illuminate the violence and terror experienced by southern Blacks in efforts to rally support of northern Whites. He was largely successful at this. His approach resulted in numerous pieces of legislation that struck down legal segregation. When Dr. King turned his sights to the north he realized a different story. His work in the north convinced him that racism was much larger than simply a few heinous people in the South who did not want to intermingle with Blacks, but rather it was an institutional construct that was steeped in capitalism. King soon fell from grace when he began to make these observations public. Ultimately though, King realized that what he was fighting against was less individuals and their practices but the institutions that facilitated those behaviors.

King is not the only figure to recognize this. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said publicly that there is a need for a Palestinian State. He also said neglect to create one would result in Israel engaging in an apartheid comparable to South Africa's. These are stern words and I am sure that Prime Minister Olmert is well aware of the gravity of his statements. However, what he is also well aware of is how unpopular that idea is in context of the people he represents. What he is then left to do, is try and be as fair as possible while understanding the limits and confines his institution puts on his position. Olmert is not the only world leader to make this recognition. Former United States president Jimmy Carter has been quite vocal on his opposition to some aspects of United States foreign policy. Some of these foreign policies Carter himself had tacitly endorsed as president of the United States. Carter has been regarded as an agent for justice and democracy on the world scene, but it was his administration that secretly funded Afghan fighters that were keeping Soviet Union forces out of Afghanistan.

The conflict in Darfur is one that really magnifies the issue of institutions. Journalist Glen Ford wrote about how much attention is given to Darfur as a world crisis and everyone wants to help. He goes on to say what people often ignore is that the country that does the most to "solve" this problem will more than likely reap the benefits of the oil rich region. In this instance we can see that many who are grassroots activist for ending the terror in Darfur aren't interested in the profits that can gained by oil companies. However a by-product of United States intervention is the economic gains that stand to be made. Ideally we would love to see a humanitarian situation be resolved where the United States doesn't gain anything. However, history suggests that while we hold out hope and continue to be optimistic, we should also be cautious and guarded.

This is not to suggest individuals do not have good hearts. This is not even to say that some people don't go into their jobs with good intentions. This is to magnify the fact that when we look at events that take place on the world stage, be they foreign or domestic, it is important we look at the institution operating behind the scenes. Often times, these institutions make it so that no situation is really just black or white. These institutions have specific interest that need to be examined. Sadly more often than not, history teaches us that this interest is money. Most casual observers can recognize that when money is the interest, morals get perverted. As we examine the way we want to see the world, we should concentrate a good deal on the individuals, but a keen eye must be kept on institutions.

What's the Big Idea

2008-12-03T14:56:00.000-08:00

I had a recent conversation with a friend of mine about exchanging ideas. He expressed frustration at the thought that in college people weren't really wrestling with ideas. I thought this to be absurd seeing as though you hear some of the most far reaching theories, idealogies and viewpoints on college campuses. But he reminded me that a few people hold may hold bold and daring views but students in group, don't really wreslte with varying ideas. I didn't and don't necessarily agree with his assertion , but I do feel he underscored a valuable point. In much of our converstaion (espescially regarding politics) we don't really wreslte with varying and competing ideas. There may be language and rhetoric that suggest we debate points, but a close examination shows we may just be going in circles.

With the nation in a valley of excitement, between the election and inaguration of President-elect Obama we can look start there to examine the thought of competing ideas. Many in the media praise the President-elect for forming a team of rivals with his administration appointments thus far. However that can be debated. As Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post Sen. Clinton, much like Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones all think the best way to restore the United States global image is through co-operation with multinational organizations. They aren't opposed to war by any means, but they all feel that the most effective way to cast the United States in the best light would be through what Gerson called "soft diplomacy."

Let me begin with saying I don't necessarily disagree with that foreign policy approach but there is not much in the way of competing ideas. The goal is the same (which is to be expected): how to get the United States back in the world's good graces. The ideas however are also the same. The premise of a team of rivals is to pit people who would have competing ideas against each other in order to come out with the strongest most viable idea. If the conversation starts with people who have the same idea, than there is nothing to be gained because new streams of thought aren't at play.

Further evidence of this is the 2004 Presidential Election. One thing people didn't like was that both candidates from the major parties were Yale graduates who belonged to the Skull and Bones Secret Society. It becomes quite hard to trust that one idea is different from another idea if they both come the same background and ilk. That was one of the reason (among many) that Senator John Kerry lost his Presidential bid. The 2008 Georgia Senate race was so close that it demanded a run-off...between two collegiate fraternity brothers. The Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss decisively defeated the Democrat Jim Martin in the run-off. In an election galvanized around change, the choice many in Georgia had were one Sigma Chi brother or another. This is no disrespect to their organization, but I'm sure their ideas and views are not that far off, despite different party affiliations.

More than advocating for a particular position, I encourage people to challenge their own thoughts and ideas by informing themselves of differing points of view. Sometime that can be difficult because what we think is different could simply be the same thing packaged in a new wrapper. Those who feel socialism is a great idea should read Wealth of Nations (if they already have not) and begin to engage those points and ideas. Likewise those who live to extol the virtues of free-market capitalism might want to spend some time with Marx's Communist Manifesto. No matter what your thoughts are, ideas are only strengthened when they are challenged. Challenging ideas... now that's a big idea.

Progress with a R but Not G

2008-11-19T08:34:00.000-08:00

Despite being two weeks removed from the 2008 general election it still seems to be a meaningful talking point for not just so called pundits but everyday people as well. In the spirit of "post-election analysis" we have to look back on all aspects of the election cycle. One of the most glaring things we see that many can be excited about was the treatment of race during this election cycle. President-Elect Obama brought race to the forefront of nearly every conversation about the election. Both the media and citizens alike listened intently for what may be subtle racial jabs, and pointed out the moments when the racism wasn't so subtle. Matt Bai from the New York Times wrote an article pontificating if President-Elect Obama spelled the end of "Black Politics", Gwen Ifill made news for her book about President-Elect Obama and his relation to Black Politics, and since President-Elect Obama's historic victory, Newark mayor Cory Booker has been all over television.

But as the nation gives itself a collective pat on the back for the racial progress exemplified during this election, we have to examine all the forms of diversity that were called into question. Just as this election was historic for racial reasons, there was history on the matter of gender, and in that aspect the United States is woefully not progressive. Senator Hillary Clinton ran a very meaningful and solid campaign garnering what some analyst call the largest popular vote in Democratic primary history (about 18 million votes). Yet the amount of attention paid to Sen. Clinton's historic campaign paled in comparison to the attention given to President-Elect Obama.

There are many reasons for this. Some argue that Sen. Clinton is in some way "hyper-masculine" on account of her hawkish foreign policy, but the more pointed subtle jokes attack her for her pantsuits and short haircut. People attacked her crying as either being too feminine or faking her level of femininity. A fair number of these analyst commenting on her femininity are men. That idea reeks of male arrogance. For a man to try and define a woman's femininity is as absurd as Ralph Nader suggesting Barack Obama may be an "Uncle Tom" for big corporations. Ralph Nader was publicly embarrassed and chastised for his comments but the treatment of Hillary Clinton went (in large part) unchecked. Major media outlets and nationally renowned columnist wondered aloud what an Obama presidency would do for the self-esteem of young Black men. This is a vital thing to examine but yet equal attention wasn't given to what the candidacy of Sen. Clinton meant to young women everywhere.

Obviously Sen. Clinton was not the only women to be on the national stage during this election cycle. The other is Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Gov. Palin is obviously a polarizing figure; those who support her think she's one of the best things to happen to politics. Those who oppose her feel that she is unfit for managing a grocery store let alone a state or country. But one thing remains true, her politics were remarkably consistent with a very famous Republican governor who made his way from the Governor's Mansion to the White House. In 1980 a good looking charismatic, affable man ran for president from the State of California. The man wasn't trained in politics, didn't hold a law degree and didn't graduate from a prestigious northeastern university. He was none other than Ronald Reagan. Reagan had his share of naysayers but none regarded him as a flat out bimbo. In political terms it's hard to argue that Gov. Palin is a master at her craft, but much of the criticism around her both from mainstream media and everyday voters was not so much in regards to her political positions, but more to her character. In an election where so much was made about the nation's diversity and social growth, the rampant sexism seems a bit out of place to say the least.

There are many reasons why this took place. First we can see that yes, the United States is still a sexist place. It is also still a racist place, but that's material for a different day. There is no reason that someone should have to use equal pay as a campaign promise. It is unimaginable that women are getting paid less for equal work, and yet they are. A second point in understanding this unfair treatment is the candidates themselves. President-Elect Obama has a likeability not seen since John F. Kennedy. As such, the women in this election were his opponents and in the media at least, people sought to tear his opponents down regardless of who they were, using any tactic they could come up with. Finally we see that in very real terms, Sen. Clinton leaves alot to be desired when it comes to her campaigning. Her "win at all cost" motif turned off many voters (particularly Black voters) because she would sometimes use what could be perceived as racially divisive tactics to get votes. This behavior helped to hide her story of a woman candidate breaking the “glass ceiling”. As for Gov. Palin she leaves alot to be desired politically. She lacks comprehensive economic solutions, has no serious stance on anything other than abortion and her foreign policy skills are weak to say the least. However these were all women who sought to politically even the playing field in the United States. Regardless of their policy positions, these candidates should have been treated with respect, and acknowledged for what they were doing for women whether you agreed with them or not. They were not. And that shows that the United States has made progress with a R (race) but not G (gender).

Citizen Change

2008-11-12T08:26:00.000-08:00

President-elect Obama has demonstrated that he is more than ready to hit the ground running. The first indicator of this was his selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief-of-staff. Emanuel is a no-nonsense democrat who has a history of having a liberal approach to politics and hard line approach to bipartisanship. By most indications he is bipartisan as long as the other side agrees with him. Another former Clinton aide, John Podesta is co-chairing Obama’s transition team. Podesta has both White house and Washington experience. With this choice Obama is showing that he wants to hit the ground running and make as smooth a transition as possible in the early days of his presidency.

The real question becomes- for those on the left anyway- how progressive is Obama. Republicans cried all during the election season that this man had the most liberal voting record in all the Senate. Author John K. Wilson, a former law school student of Obama’s who wrote a book about Obama’s political rise, said that fact could be quite misleading. He argues that Obama in the United States Senate tended to vote along party lines a majority of the time, however as an executive Obama is more likely to govern center-left. This means Obama is more moderate than his voting record indicates. He is more a pragmatic thinker who will give earnest audience to both sides of the political discussion. Wilson however, thinks the unique thing about an Obama administration is that those on the left that espouse progressive views can finally be heard sincerely.

That is where the challenge is for progressives. President-elect Obama has not display any willingness to make any major moves to the left politically. However, judging by last week’s election that may just be what many of his supporters were asking for. All indicators suggest that Wilson was correct in his assessment that progressives can get the attention of Obama and move him in a way that they want him to go. Every president has particular interest groups that he responds to. This is not new to Washington. Andrew Johnson was influenced by former Confederate officials thus leading to him vetoing several Civil Rights bills and ignoring key phases of Reconstruction, Franklin Roosevelt was moved by progressives to enact the most expansive government programs in the nation’s history. Lyndon B. Johnson’s ear was had by many prominent Civil Rights leaders, and most recently George Bush has been ready, willing and able to give audience to “big business”.

What all this means is that progressives must be pro-active while they have a president who is willing to hear them out. An Obama administration seems the most likely to be attentive to progressives since Lyndon B. Johnson. The key is that progressives approach the administration with clear strategy and attainable goals. Groups with progressive causes need to be ready and able to articulate their needs to a listening Obama Administration and be prepared to show the administration where their help is needed. If they can do this, it seems likely the administration will be an asset to their cause. Evidence of this is when President-elect Obama met with NBA star Baron Davis. Davis who was troubled about the lack of educational opportunities and resources for inner-city kids asked the then Senator would an Obama administration do anything to give these kids a better opportunity. Obama’s told Davis to make sure the inner city children were prepared to take advantage of resources when they came the children’s way.

In all of Obama’s soaring rhetoric there was one phrase that was the key to his engine of change. He would say “we are the change we have been waiting for.” This was not merely a throw away line. Instead it was Obama tapping into his inner Kennedy for a modern day “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” With this line, Obama put the responsibility of change back on the citizens. For those progressives who campaigned relentlessly for Obama during the election season, he was talking to you. Obama knew his administration wouldn’t necessarily introduce sweeping legislation that would delight progressives everywhere, but what he would do is what founder of the Political Education and Action Committee Chigozie Onyema said and “get out of the way” of progressives who were seeking to make meaningful and significant change. That in and of itself is more than George Bush was willing to do in the last eight years. So the onus is on the citizens. Whatever change that does or does not come will be because either the common people of the nation got aggressive and made their demands a reality, or voted in record numbers and then lost interest in civic engagement. Allowing things to remain politics as usual.

What It All Really Means

2008-11-05T07:58:00.000-08:00

The 44th President of the United States of America will have one thing that previous Presidents did not have. A large dose of melanin. Sen. Barack Obama is uniquely different from past Presidents and that will be evident every time someone lays eyes on him, but what is important to note going forward is what his election means to the people of the United States. Sen. Obama went from being just the third elected African-American Senator in the United States since reconstruction, to being the first African-American nominated for president from a major political party. From there he is now the first person of African descent to serve as leader of the free world.

This means many things to many people. Undoubtedly it means a great deal to Black Americans who have occupied any space in the United States. Many Blacks see this not only as Sen. Obama's accomplishment but as something that all Black Americans have accomplished. Many recognize the direct line between prominent and public figures like Frederick Douglass and Barack Obama. Many see that line as having gone through people such as Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, Dr. Martin L. King Jr., Stokely Carmichael, and Jesse Jackson to get to this point. In keeping the memory of these giants alive, Black folks have also kept with them memories of Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma. These werent' the only places atrocities were happening, they were just places where the heinous behavior of Whites was caught by the national media. Millions of Black Americans carry with them daily the personal humiliation, terror, fear, anger, and disrespect that a racially prejudice nation exacts on a Black person's life day in and day out.

For them, this election means something much more. The election is confirmation of their humanity. Dr. Gregory Carr of Howard University says that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 never told Black people they can vote, it told White people that the Constitution gives Black Americans the right to vote. This election didn't tell Black Americans that a Black man was qualified to be President, it told White voters that a Black man was qualified. That is why this election becomes so special. It becomes special because it was not only Dr. King's dream, but the dream of the 250,00 others who joined with him on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that their children be judged by the content of their character. In many ways, Black Americans feel that they (through Sen. Obama) have been judged by the content of their character. When King joined striking sanitation workers in Memphis some of the men protesting wore signs that said "I Am A Man." That was a declaration that for many in this country needed to be made. For hundreds of years the humanity of Black Americans always existed but was not always acknowledged. Just as their humanity came under question so too did their place as Americans. James Baldwin said that Blacks could never commit treason because they were never viewed by Whites as real Americans. Because of this they could not betray something they never really had in the first place. On the heels of this election, many Blacks living in the United States feel a sense of belonging and acceptance for the very first time.

The pride in this election is not exclusive to Black Americans. Many White Americans too feel a sense of pride and accomplishment at the election of a Black President. For many young White Americans they had to live with the humiliation and embarrassment of the behavior of their ancestors. They listened as the stories were retold of the unimaginable horror and terror that White Americans reigned down on Black Americans for centuries, not counting the institutional racism that pervades United States society. Many young White people wanted a chance to carve out their own niche in United States racial history. They wanted an opportunity to show they were better than the past. An opportunity to display the supposed growth and progression of the nation. This opportunity came in the form of Senator Obama. Mr. Obama offered a racial olive branch to Whites who committed such vicious transgression in the past, while seemingly offering a sense of pride and hope in a people long downtrodden in the United States. This perfect combination helped to fulfill Dr. King's unforgettably poignant and memorable words. "The Negro needs the White man to free him from his fears. The White man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt." Blacks used White Iowans and their caucus night election of Barack Obama to free them from their fears, and Whites used a Black Presidential candidate to free them from their guilt.

At any rate in such an historic time the words of many great thinkers and scholars seem appropriate. None seem more appropriate though than the a simple phrase uttered by a music artist not thought to be particularly articulate, philosophical, or political. Young Jeezy sums things up the best by simply stating "my president is Black." That simple sentence means so many things to so many people. Any well reasoned person will see there is plenty of room to criticize President-elect Obama and his policy positions. Also most people recognize that his election will not end the institutional racism of the nation, but for so many older Black people, they can close their eyes knowing that at least one person of African descent was given the opportunity to do something that for them was unheard of. Those people can smile knowing they can leave the nation they have lived in, fought for, fought against, and demanded better from in better condition than they inherited it. The United States is not yet a more perfect union, nor the mythological shining city on a hill, but it is a majority White nation, that calls a Black man with a Muslim sounding name President.

Making REAL Change

2008-10-29T18:57:00.000-07:00

With this being the last posting before many people go out and vote on Tuesday November 4th I just wanted to take the opportunity to focus people on a topic that is very important to me. Many people are excited to vote for Sen. Obama or for Sen. McCain, as well they should be, but what's important is that people recognize that all the votes they will cast on Tuesday will be equally important. There will be ballot initiatives in states and municipalities that will have a very real and meaningful impact on people's lives.

Another thing to keep an eye is on the Democratic ticket. There are a number of Democrats that are running lower on the ballot that many people will vote for because they are voting for Obama. The important thing for voters to do is to find out who these Democratic candidates are. In an effort to maintain and expand on a majority in the Senate and House the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) are running a good number of conservative Democratic candidates that some Obama supporters ordinarily wouldn't vote for.

Voters need to be able to harness the energy surrounding this historic election. These feeling aren't necessarily limited to Democratic voters. There is a swirl around the Republican party over the historic nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as a Vice-Presidential candidate. For the first time in its history the Republican party is nominating a woman for the second highest office in this nation. It is imperative that supporters to the McCain-Palin ticket know about district Congressional races and municipality races in order to know if a candidate is speaking to their needs. Republican supporters must recognize whether or a not a candidate is sincerely speaking to their concerns and issues, or is just planning to capitalize off of the huge expected voter turnout.

About four years ago, I saw the huge efforts made by Diddy and others particularly in the hip-hop community with the "Vote or Die" campaign. Though I was happy about their civic engagement I thought they were particularly quiet on lower ballot races that would affect voters' lives just as much as the presidential election. In 2006 (politically referred to as "off-year" or "midterm" election) there was not a mass get out the vote effort though there were important Gubenatorial, Congressional and Senatorial elections that changed the balance of power in both chambers of Congress. In no uncertain terms, be it real or perceived did celebrity activist try to drum up any voter attention to these elections. The get out the vote effort was non existent. This type of fair-weather civic engagement will not create real change. It is important to vote for presidential candidates but citizens must be informed of all their elected representatives in order to properly hold them accountable for the decisions that they make, and the way those decisions affect people's lives.

President George Bush has shown us that perhaps a President can affect everyday citizens lives in ways we never thought a president could, or even in ways that the constitution forbids a president from doing. With that in mind, the efforts to rally citizens to vote in this presidential election is more than justified. Citizens should always look to exercise their civic rights. However when going into the voting booth, exercise not only your right to vote, but your right to be educated. I recognize a vast majority of my readers are college educated, and internet saavy. Many of us also have family members who may be voting for the first time, or out of excitement for the presidential election. It is our job to know all the races and ballot initiatives that will be at stake on November 4th in our particular states, cities, towns, municipalities and/or communities. It is important to a democracy to have an excited voter, it is a necessity of a democracy to have an informed one. Happy Voting!

Beaten at One's Own Game

2008-10-22T15:41:00.000-07:00

Rick Perlstein's book Nixonland talks of the atmosphere of the country when Richard Nixon ascended to the highest office in the land. Perlstein talks of the Watts riots and the contentious relationship between pro-war and anti-war activist. Perlstein also looks at the demise of the Republican Party and idea of conservatism after the 1964 election. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater seemed to represent a far extreme idea of conservatism that turned out to be quite unpopular. On the back his landslide victory President Johnson passed three significant pieces of legislation, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The political progress of Black Americans continued to alienate and frustrate many voters that would later be dubbed "the silent majority."

The book's focus was on Nixon and how he was able to use the backlash from of the progressive moments of the 1960's to reestablish conservatism and get himself elected President of the United States. However, Nixon may not have been the best example of the ability to stimulate the majority of Americans. That distinction would go to the man who would be elected president a mere six years after Nixon resigned in disgrace. That man would be none other than Ronald Reagan. Reagan was able to put the bitterness and divisiveness of the previous two decades behind many Americans by emphasizing the good things about the United States and instilling a national pride.

In theme and message, Reagan pardoned Whites from the past injustice against Blacks. He exonerated them from their guilt and put an end to those beating up America for its past transgressions, be them domestic matters of race or abroad with memories of Vietnam. In policy Reagan's campaign used the issues of that time to motivate voters to choose him. He nailed the incumbent on issues like the rising energy cost and the energy supply crisis the nation faced. Reagan also attacked the sitting president and his party on the issue of the nation's reputation with regard to foreign policy. Finally he railed against the country's woeful economic condition (starting to sound familiar). He turned out to be such a transformational figure that a new term was developed for those who crossed party to vote for him; "Reagan Democrats."

Interestingly enough the same issues Reagan campaigned on to create "Reagan Democrats" Sen. Obama is using to mobilize his "Obama Republicans." He has been endorsed by a good number of Republicans none perhaps more prestigious than former Secretary of State and Four Star General Colin Powell. However we see some in the conservative circle crying foul. When Colin Powell endorsed Sen. Obama, Rush Limbaugh called it racially motivated. Limbaugh asked when was the last time Powell endorsed a very liberal white candidate? As I remember Powell admittedly was a LBJ man in 1968, and I don't remember many being considered more liberal than him. Limbaugh goes on to attack on Powell for forsaking the Republican administrations that had elevated him to such high places. Rich Lowry in the New York Post calls Powell's reasons for supporting Obama "lame."

Sen. Obama has been able to excite millions of people across the nation in the idea that "there is more that unites us than divides us." It has worked well for him. It seems straight out of the playbook of Ronald Reagan. His rhetorical and campaign success has also translated into huge campaign finance amounts from a massive reservoir of small donors. Sadly though, we see conservative pundits agitated that Sen. Obama is outspending Sen. McCain 4-1 nationally. With Obama having raised over $600 million dollars some are arguing that Obama is seeking to "buy" the election. This crowd that cries bloody murder now was surprisingly quiet when George Bush outraised both Al Gore and John Kerry. Sen. Obama has apparently learned and mastered the game of presidential politics better than many thought he would. He has used the national sentiment to create a place where “there is no Red America or Blue America but the United States of America.” This place is called "Obamaland" and conservatives hate it. It seemed fine when Nixon had “Nixonland” or Reagan had the “Reagan Revolution.” Perhaps we are seeing a living example of the Mos Def song Mista Nigga. “When theirs start doing it, well its success; when ours start doing it, well its suspect.”

View from Behind the Veil

2008-10-15T17:07:00.000-07:00

Without a doubt, presidential elections are about using soaring rhetoric that excites the electorate to voting for a given candidate. Sen. Barack Obama has been a master of this. With his amazing oratorical skills the Senator from Illinois has amassed a large amount of followers that seem eager and ready to believe in the “change” Sen. Obama promises. In another meaningful but different way Sen. John McCain has a group of eager and loyal followers who have been moved by his rhetoric. Sadly though, his rhetoric is leading to an all-too-familiar yet unpleasant place for many Americans.

Not too long ago Sen. McCain changed his campaign direction from policy based critiques to character critiques. This has been and continues to be a slippery slope for the Senator from Arizona. Sen. Obama has appeared to lead a rather wholesome and decent life, so any character questions raised tend to come with a form of racist or prejudice overtone. The most serious form of character assassination Sen. McCain has attempted is the idea of guilt by association. By linking Sen. Obama to figures such as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, Sen. McCain has ginned up such deep passion and emotion that it has turned into hate.

This can be seen in the hanging effigy of Sen. Obama found on the campus of George Fox University (a Christian school no less). The atrocities do not stop there, after the McCain campaign dismissed one blatantly racist rant in a newspaper as essentially insignificant, the Virginia head of the GOP told volunteers to play up Obama’s connections to Osama bin Laden, claiming “both have friends who bombed the pentagon.” Although there is one rally where Sen. McCain recognized the outrageous nature of what was going on and put a stop to it (or one would like to think). When Sen. Obama was called an Arab by one woman, Sen. McCain responded that he was not an Arab but rather a decent family man. I suppose Sen. McCain thinks Arab men cannot be decent family men. Even if this is reading too deep, the tone of this election and the absurdity in the character questioning is getting out of hand.

What makes this uniquely worst than any other presidential campaign character questioning is the issue of race. Consider that on two occasions supporters at rallies have chanted “kill him” when Sen. Obama’s name is mentioned. Most would agree the idea of killing a candidate is very disturbing. This has a unique meaning to many Black Americans who have seen important figures in the community gunned down by assassins’ bullets. Many remember the feeling of hearing that Malcolm X was pronounced dead, or that Dr. King was gunned down in Memphis. Black Americans are not taking kindly to the kind of “hate” tactics and political games being used by the McCain campaign. Rep. John Lewis eloquently articulated this in his writings to Politico.com. Congressman Lewis says that he is “deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign.” Lewis says they are “growing the seeds of hatred and division.” The behavior of McCain supporters are example of that happening.

It is one thing to get your base riled up. It is a completely different thing to have folks wish ill on your political opponent. In Lewis’ statement a reference was made to Alabama segregationist governor George Wallace. Sen. McCain took offense to being compared to the former Alabama Governor. However in the eyes of many Blacks (and I’d like to think many Americans) the reference is appropriate. Neither McCain nor Wallace has explicitly called for direct violence against Black Americans. However, what is being done is creating an environment that becomes blatantly hostile to those who aren’t WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). I hope this wasn’t Sen. McCain’s intention. And I hope it is in the sincerest faith that Sen. McCain just doesn’t understand the severity of he and Sarah Palin’ rhetoric. Perhaps it’s because Sen. McCain isn’t a Black American who has had to ward off explicit and implicit racism in this nation since its inception, that he doesn’t understand the severity of his words. I hope Sen. McCain really didn’t know how hateful people can be if motivated by words. But I feel a need to be cautious with my hope. After all, it is Sen. McCain who warns us to be wary of hope.

The Darkest Invisible People

2008-10-08T09:27:00.000-07:00

Much has been made of the recent Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. Republicans have clamored over how well Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are able to "stay on message" and get their point across to the American people. Democrats have praised Sen. Obama's regality and the way Sen. Biden comes off as a no-nonsense candidate looking to fix things on Main Street. However on the matter of foreign policy one place has been woefully ignored. The continent of Africa has received little to no meaningful attention and a sparse amount of rhetoric. The VP debate got things started when Gwen Ifill asked the question about Darfur. Sen. Biden responded with a suggestion about putting air support in place to cover African Union soldiers doing the peacekeeping work on the ground. This seems like a great suggestion, one that would should be immediately brought to the attention of the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. The ironic thing is, Biden is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He has introduced one piece of legislation on the matter of Darfur. He called for multinational peacekeeping mission with enough size, resource and leadership to protect the civilians of Darfur. The interesting thing is that Sen. Biden is not a multi-national Senator; he is a United States Senator. His proposed legislation has no real effect on other sovereign nations. In breaking down this piece of legislation we see it really holds no water because it doesn't demand anything in the way of specifics from the United States. As a little sidenote there were 39 sponsors of this legislation, none named Obama or McCain.

Sen. Biden is not the only one who has turned a blind eye to crises on the continent. In the same VP debate, Gov. Palin claims that she had Alaskan state money divested from holdings that did business with the Sudanese government. ABCNews found this to be not true. They spoke with a state legislator who said "the [Palin] administration killed our bill." Gov. Palin has long list of issues she has shown herself to be uninformed on, but now we move into the dangerous place of lying about records. Palin's deputy revenue commissioner called the bill "well intentioned" and said it was "noble" but cleared up that "mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination." Clearly there was no long range threat to the citizens of Alaska financial security because the investments could have simply been moved from one holding to another. But apparently when money is involved, morality and Black faces just aren't "a good combination."

The issue of Darfur has essentially served as a one stop shop for matters on the continent of Africa. When addressing foreign policy Sen. Obama made it a point to visit several European nations, even touring parts of Asia on his trip to the Middle East. That is all well respected but when discussing Africa; Darfur seems to be the only place worth mentioning. This seems a bit outlandish considering the human trafficking tragedies that are taking place in Kenya. One would think Kenya would be of particular interest to Sen. Obama considering he has family roots there. He even has a brother still living there. In fact when American writer Jerome Corsi went to Kenya to dig up dirt on Obama, the Kenya government had him deported for what they called "not having a work permit". Here is Kenya looking out for Obama, and yet Obama has failed to at least mention the atrocities in Kenya. Sen. McCain is no better, in fact if anything he is worse. Repeatedly in the most recent debate did Sen. McCain echo how he would never let a Rwanda happen again. Yet right now, Equatorial Guinea is drawing huge oil revenues yet the people there are living in some of the worst poverty of the world. The leader of that country has such distrust in his people that the guards who protect him are from Morocco. Despite all of this Sen. McCain is silent.

McCain talked during the debate about how he stood against his hero Ronald Reagan when Reagan sent troops in to Lebanon. McCain focused on how he was committed to not using troops when the situation wasn't one of direct consequence to U.S. national security. With that I wonder why he was mum on his hero Ronald Reagan's invasion of tiny Grenada. As Reagan and his administration made it seem like Grenada posed a threat to the United States, a vast majority of the world saw it as intervention into a sovereign nation, which happened to be not only Black, but anti-U.S. In that same debate Sen. McCain brought up the United States' failure in Somalia. Many believe this to be the reason the U.S. was inactive in Rwanda. Sen. McCain talked about how the U.S. went to Somalia to be peacekeepers and ended up having casualties. Despite this, the Senator from Arizona continued to echo there will be no more Rwanda. Sadly what the candidates are either unaware of or neglectful to is the horrific transgressions taking place in the Congo. Journalist Glen Ford goes into detail about how in the name of diamonds and other precious minerals, up to five million Congolese have died. For a candidate where foreign policy is supposed to be his strength Sen. McCain is noticeably absent when it comes to international issues regarding Black faces. There is so much left to be desired by the candidates from the major parties and we haven't mentioned Haiti. The United States has had a particularly aggressive and hegemonic position to the island nation since it first threw off the shackles of enslaved oppression.

I recognize that there are a plethora of domestic issues that are of grave concern to many people in the United States during this election season. Homes are being foreclosed on, jobs are being lost by the hundreds of thousands, energy prices are astounding, oh and the collapse of modern capitalism is taking place before our very eyes. With all of these issues I don't expect that foreign affairs will dominate our debates, or campaign speeches. But when there is conversation about foreign policy, the conversation should be about more the European markets, and Middle East battlegrounds. And in this election with so many candidates promising change, it would be nice to have a candidate who changes the United States' national view of African people around the world. But maybe the U.S. can't do that because they could be the ones living in the “Heart of Darkness.”

Black Athletes Crossing the River Jordan

2008-10-01T13:39:00.000-07:00

Charles Barkley famously said "I am not a role model." This came at a time when professional athletes were trending away from social responsibility. For Black athletes Barkley's comments were a departure from social responsibility. Since sports became national phenomena Black athletes have made their voices heard on social and political issues of the day. We can trace this back as far as Moses "Fleetwood" Walker. Walker was the first Black man, to play professional baseball in the United States. Though an extremely talented baseball player Walker was also a scholar having studied at the University of Michigan Law School. After his playing days Walker presented an essay that espoused Marcus Garvey's cries for Black Nationalism and even called for Africa for the Africans as the best way to solve the United State's race problems.

With the topic of race and baseball, the name Jackie Robinson is going to inevitably be mentioned. As race neutral as Robinson sought to stay, even he involved himself in politics and fighting for the poor at the end of his career. However, we can really see Black athletes starting to flex their collective power in the late 1960's. Understanding this may have been one of the most militant periods for Black Americans, we can see how this decade would provide fertile ground for athletic activism. During this period we see the creation of the Negro Economic and Industrial Union. This was an organization started by Jim Brown, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Russell. The purpose of this organization was to provide funding to aspiring Black business who would get denied Bank loans because they were Black.

Funding Black business may have been their intention but one of their greatest moments was standing in solidarity with Muhammad Ali in his 1967 refusal to fight in the Vietnam war. Here today Black politicians are often on the losing end of the "love my country" debate, so it must be easy to imagine the sacrifice stars such as Russell and Abdul-Jabbar were making. Their sacrifice still may not measure up to John Carlos and Tommie Smith's Olympic defiance. While accepting their gold and bronze medals at the 1968 Summer Olympic games, Carlos and Smith walk to the podium without their shoes but with Black socks. As the flag of the United States raised and the star spangled banner played, both men, bowed their heads and raised a clenched fist in the air. They donned Black gloves over their fist. The men made a statement of Black power to protest what was happening in the nation at the time but the men lost all future endorsement deals because of their actions.

This brings us back to Charles Barkley and his good friend Michael Jordan. Both of these men came to fame in the Reagan/Bush era. This is a period when the people of the United States were at their most individualistic. People lost the sense community that tied groups together in the 60's and 70's. This sense of community had been so vital to the Black community in making many of the gains that were made during that time. It appeared that extremely lucrative contracts won out over potential benefit to the collective. The individualist, materialistic approach was brought to a head when Michael Jordan refused to endorse a progressive Black Senate candidate who sought to take the seat from conservative (and in many Blacks opinion openly racist) Jesse Helms. When asked why he wouldn't support Helms' opponent Jordan infamously quipped "republicans buy sneakers too."

Many think today's' athletes to be cut from the same self-serving, money before community ilk as Jordan was. Some cite Lebron James' refusal to sign a petition condemning China for their complicity in the Darfur genocides. People suspect he won't do this because shoe titan Nike does a great deal of business in China, and James signed a $90 million dollar deal to endorse Nike tennis shoes. However what many people aren't aware of is the work athletes like Dikembe Mutombo have done. Mutombo has built and primarily paid for a $29 million dollar hospital in his home of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even more are unaware of pro football player Ed Reed and how his Eye of the Hurricane Foundation has rebuilt houses that were entirely destroyed during Hurricane Katrina, only so the family that was originally living there could return. Reed is doing this at no cost to the victims of the hurricane. What may be most encouraging, is NBA star Baron Davis' response when told that his community and political involvement would cost him corporate sponsorship. Davis replied "who gives a sh*t." To know there are athletes once again recognizing their kinship with the community gives us all hope that Black athletes are on their way to safely crossing the river Jordan.

Ignorance Isn't Bliss

2008-09-24T08:49:00.000-07:00

There is a Haitian proverb that says "ignorance doesn't kill you, but it does make you sweat a lot", that has been true for many Americans, and it has been particularly true for Black Americans. We can see this magnified by the demise of the United States economic system. As the financial crisis strangles the American economy, a sizable number of Blacks (college educated and non-college educated) admit to not being intimately familiar with economics. There is no problem with not knowing, the problem comes when people don't actively seek the information.

In a recent conversation I had with a friend, I informed them about a wildly successful Black owned energy company based out of Houston, Texas. Their response was "well how am I supposed to know about that?" That type of thinking is unacceptable. With the Jericho-like falling of United States financial institutions many political conversations are turning into economic dialogues. Sadly, folks are rehashing the infamous John McCain line "admittedly I don't know as much about economics as I should." yet people are not seeking out the information to better inform themselves.

In order to have your own analysis on the financial freefall, one has to evaluate their feelings about government's role in capitalism. Those who feel it is government's job to reign in over-ambitious speculators and investors feel that the government fell asleep at the wheel and allowed Wall St. to get out of control. If you are a strong proponent in government intervention than you probably would be supportive of the $700 billion dollar "bailout". Conservative columnist George Will appearing on ABCNews' "This Week" said that if the government continued to bail out financial companies, than the top executives there should be paid the same as a GS-15 (the highest level salaried civilian government employees). However, there are those who are more of libertarian in their economic views. They feel that governement regulation is one of the things that got us in the financial bind we're in now. These are people like Rep. Ron Paul. Paul believes that the bailout is bad business and that the free market is such a way that it will correct itself.

In order to fully understand the issues we need to familiarize ourselves with the work of companies such as Lehman Bros., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bears Stern. From there we as a people we can make a more informed decision as to what direction we would like to go with our money, if we would like to do business with one of those companies, or if we feel we'd be better suited in trusting our money to a smaller Black-owned company such as Brown Capital Management in Baltimore or Smith, Graham & co. in Houston that has not had some of the problems these major financial institutions are having. But this decision making process starts with us being an informed group of people conscious of what's going on in the world around us.

With the treasury secretary teetering on what some are calling the closest thing to socialism since the New Deal, there is no more important time than now for those in the Black community to inform themselves of the economic makeup of the United States. One probably won't learn overnight the ins and outs of free market enterprise, asset management and financial holdings; but we must familiarize ourselves with at least a pedestrian understanding of the country's financial situation. If for no other reason than because the government may very well be using your money, as a taxpayer, to bailout the struggling financial institutions. If more of the United States economic infrastructure continues to crumble, the Haitian proverb will be the truest words ever spoke for Black Americans because our ignorance may not kill us but it will make us sweat.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/; http://www.browncapital.com/; http://www.smith-graham.com/

What Black People Should Do Now

2008-09-17T16:14:00.000-07:00

As you read that title please don't think for a moment that I am arrogant enough to believe that I know what all Black people should do now. Rather I just finished a book by the same name written by the late Ralph Wiley and this was my humble way to pay homage to him. Also given the topic at hand I figured the title would be more than appropriate. Generally I like to not only assert a point in my writing but also to inform. This time however, I see it fine time to seize this opportunity to address something of concern to many people. With Sen. Barack Obama's meteoric rise to the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, many young Blacks are interested in politics and social issues in ways not seen since the late 1960's. With this opening I urge all my friends to my political left to act now!

Recently I was listening to the new album by Young Jeezy called "The Recession." The album is littered with tracks discussing the need for fair drug sentencing laws, new economic agendas, and a more humble and diplomatic foreign policy. This may be regular material for rap artist to tackle but the artist in question is the least likeliest to touch on such topics. Although I am admittedly a fan of some of Jeezy's work, I recognize he is not now nor will he ever be an authority on social and political issues. But what his new found interest in more than "hood politics" tells us is that Sen. Obama has gotten his attention. On an appearance on Saturday Night Live Jeezy met Sen. McCain and reportedly asked him "what he was gonna do... people are dying out here?"

One may wonder why such keen attention is paid to an artist like Young Jeezy. Jeezy serves as a metaphor for the everyman of many young Black men in urban America. After talking with several young men from inner city Baltimore, and neighborhoods of Washington D.C. I have found that Jeezy is more than a rapper, he sincerely has his finger on the pulse of urban Black America (translation the hood). This being so we can see that Sen. Obama has engaged and awaken many previously disengaged Blacks to political issues. My friends to the left of me cite Sen. Obama's relatively centrist views and his willingness to conform to mainstream politics as evidence why he should not be considered a serious Black leader. To that point I agree, but what I urge is that my friends speak loud and clear to capture the attention of the previously apathetic public while they have it.

In my travels I came across a quotation from whom I don't remember. It simply said when you have the world's attention, what will you say? That is the question I ask those to the left. There is an opportunity now with the emergence of Sen. Obama to draw serious light to issues that have affected Black Americans that even fellow Blacks have ignored. Now is the time to really galvanize brothers and sisters to seriously involved themselves in meaningful community building efforts in New Orleans, now is the time to awaken an army of sleeping legal giants reminiscent of Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall to ensure that Marcus Dixon and Genarlow Wilson never have to see someone relive their horrific fate, now is the time for business giants to revisit the idea of Tulsa's Black Wall Street, or Memphis' Peoples Grocery, now is the time to cultivate the Black journalist that will channel the spirit of T. Thomas Fortune and Robert Sengstacke Abbott to ensure that a Black perspective is always present to inform our people of what is going on.

I recognize all the things I call for are in motion. There people doing vital and important work in New Orleans, there are many fighting for Blacks in the courtrooms of the United States everyday, there are business leaders trying to bring quality respectable businesses back into the Black community and there are writers who relentlessly "tell it like it is" often to be ostracized by their own people. But what I would like to stress to my friends on the political left, is that now is the time. We can agree that Sen. Obama is not the answer but what must be acknowledged is that he can deliver an audience that desperately needs to hear your message. Some of the folks you try to address may be so engulfed by what has been termed "Obama-mania" that they may not be ready to grapple with the harsh realities social revolution demand, but there are an abundance of even tempered and well intentioned brothers and sisters that are ready for your message. The people are listening, WHAT WILL YOU SAY?

Enemies of My Enemy Become My Friends

2008-09-10T13:32:00.000-07:00

The United States has long been apart of the vaunted "west". That global superpower that has-depending on how you view world matters- either spread its territorial claim and influence across the world, or been a pillaging and destructive entity forcing its culture onto others they deem not "civilized". Generally the term "the west" references the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands and a few other Western European countries. Recently though global power has been traveling from the west. Those nations are still considered "developed" and deem themselves the class of the world. Yet there is an undercurrent of growth going on where other countries are becoming stronger forces and now stand in direct competition to these western nations, particularly the United States.

Many nations are growing and developing as major players in the world with the help of the United States. Among these nations are India, China, and South Korea. These nations have blossomed and are now players on the world scene. Yet there are other parts of the world that the United States have not been so kind to. Interestingly enough, leaders of some of these nations have had particularly strong ties to Black Americans. History first shows that Kwame Nkrumah used his ivy league education to return to his native Ghana and fight against Britain's occupation of that land. Once he rid the country of British influence he moved markedly away from U.S. ideals of free market enterprise and sought to develop major national infrastructure. One way he aimed to do this was by granting any Black person born in the United States (and the world for that matter) dual citizenship to Ghana as well. Nkrumah encouraged skilled Blacks in the United States who faced oppression and racism to come to Ghana so they could use their talents free from the problems of the racist society.

Nkrumah was heavily watched by U.S. foreign officials and it is believed by many that his overthrow was backed by the U.S. However many Black Americans has also held a fondness or at the least respect for some that the United States declared to be the worst people in the world. In 1977 preacher and activist Andrew Young served as the United States 14th Ambassador to the United Nations. He was forced to resign from that position because he was meeting secretly with officials from the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Meetings were forbidden according to United States foreign policy, yet Young did this anyway. Here we see an example of Blacks who had serious grievance with the United States meeting with those who were supposedly known threats to the U.S. and U.S. interest. This feeling ran so deep among Blacks at the time that even appointed diplomats were willing to mislead the State department to take part in these meetings.

Young also faced controversy when he lauded Cuba and their army's support of Angola. When the minority White army of South Africa attempted to claim land in Angola, Cuba sent troops and helped the Angolans push back the White minority army. Again, the United States had (and still does have) a policy of not engaging Cuba diplomatically so to even throw praise their way got Young in trouble. But it would not be the first nor the last time Cuba would align themselves with Blacks in the U.S. or in the world for that matter. Besides the aforementioned military support in Angola, Cuba has also used its abundance of medical resources to tend (repeatedly) to the nation of Haiti. More famously Cuba played nice with longtime U.S. adversary Russia. In 2005 Cuba offered millions of dollars worth of both personnel, and medicine to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Cuba is not the only nation to take an interest in the plight of Blacks in the United States. Alleged "despot" and United States enemy Hugo Chavez recently provided heat to low income Black Americans in Queens, Harlem, and Chicago back in 2004.

Again the practice is reciprocated by Blacks in the United States. In 1986 Min. Louis Farrahkhan took a trip to Libya to meet with another U.S. enemy Muammar al-Gaddifi. Gaddafi offered Farrahkhan $250,000. The U.S. treasury denied it but in 1997 U.S. Congressman Earl Hilliard from Alabama also visited Libya at a time when diplomatic relations were still forbidden. That brings us to present day, where we see Hugo Chavez, aligning himself with not only Russia but Cuba and South Africa. Much of this unification is strategic for trading purposes and to put products in each others market place. More than that though, we are seeing a rebellion against the United States its philosophy of "western" hegemony. First Cuba and Venezuela merged, seeing a common enemy in the (in their words) facist and imperial policies of the United States. They then saw a kinship in struggle with South Africa that fought off Britian's oppressive apartheid regime for more the 25 years. These nations have since created many tri and multi-lateral arrangments that aim to promote fair-trade, universal balance and above all cooperation. It looks like the United States has done much to unify the world. Sadly for the United States, the world seems to be unifying against the U.S.

Handcuffed by Hypocrisy

2008-09-03T15:34:00.000-07:00

Much has been made about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin being John McCain's vice-presidential pick. Many have chimmed in their opinions on how either she is far to inexperienced to be a vice-presidential candidate, let alone a vice-president. Others have argued that she has the executive experience necessary to be ready to handle such a high position. No matter how you see politics, or how you see Sarah Palin as a nominee for vice-president one thing is true. Her place in this election has put the hypocrisy of rhetoric and politics on full blast.

The most obvious example of hyprocrisy is by the conservative values crowd (that trends politically to the right) on the matter of the teenage pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter. Sen. Obama has asked that the Palin's family privacy be respected, proving he has opted for class on the matter. However, there is one thing that must not go unsaid. Gov. Palin's daughter Bristol is no worse than any other young lady who is a pregnant teenager. She is no more a social outcast or misfit than any other young woman to be impregnated during her teenage years. The apparent class that it takes to say that, is something that many on the right have been lacking. They are willing to say Bristol Palin made a mistake, but other young women must have some deplorable moral compass.

For years many conservatives commentators and politicians have made themselves famous by chiding teenage pregnancy in urban (read Black and Latino) communities as evidence of the lowering values of the nation, and poor parenting. Some politicians even believed that out-of-wedlock birth becomes a drain on our economy. Bill O'Reilly in his talking points section criticized Mary Mitchell for race baiting when she noted the hypocrisy to teenage pregnancy. O'Reilly instead suggested that "as long as society doesn't have to support the mother, father or baby it is a personal matter. Once the taxpayers do have to support the young family it becomes a public policy matter." O'Reilly's remarks reek of condescension, and sublminally suggest that when White teenagers get pregnant their families can handle the financial burden of a baby, thus making it a private matter. But when Black teenagers get pregnant and need financial assistance from the government they lose all right to privacy.

When examining this issue one may argue that you can not get too caught up in race. The real issue is class. This (like almost every other issue that involves race) means we see race and class going hand in hand. That would mean many White conservatives would lambaste fellow Whites as "poor white trash" . However it is not safe to assume that Blacks with financial means would escape the judgemental wrath of the "values voters". One can safely predict that if Sen. Obama were to run for vice-president, senator, or even congressman with a pregnant teenage daughter he would have to drop out of the race because of all the questions surrounding his and his family's moral standing.

The hypocrisy isn't limited to the commentators, nor is it limited to speculation as to what would happen should the shoe be on the other foot. The hyprocrisy is tangible and legitimate. Take for example Congressman David Dreier who suggest that Bristol Palin's pregnancy shows that her mother is someone who "understands the challenges of the real world." This must be political spin, because I'm sure the countless Black mothers weren't appreciated for their ability to "understand the challenges of the real world" when their teenage daughters got pregnant. This hypocrisy rises to all new levels when you consider that Rep. Dreier voted for the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill. That bill sought to, among other things, discourage teen pregnancy by denying welfare to teen mothers. This behavior and rhetoric is shameful and speaks to the hypocrisy that makes it difficult to take seriously those who argue the nation has lost its moral values. Apparently it has also lost its sense of fairness.

The Quiet Rumblings in Pakistan

2008-08-27T09:04:00.000-07:00

This week people will pour into Denver by the thousands, to celebrate the ascension of Sen. Barack Obama to the head of his party. On August 28, 2008 he will accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The very next week Sen. John McCain will be in St. Paul, Minnesota to accept his party’s nomination. Despite all of this, major occurrences are happening in the world around us. Recently controversial and United States supported Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf resigned. This happening in the midst of convention celebrations should not mean it gets lost on us.

This issue is paramount to many in the United States. The first reason this is paramount is because Pakistan has been a supposed ally to the United States. This relationship has seemed to be more in word than deed as many in the Taliban have taken refuge and regrouped along the Pakistani border. The United States has been unhappy with the way that Pakistani officials have not vigorously pursued United States enemy combatants. President Musharraf has gone on record in interviews and in his memoir “In the Line of Fire: A Memoir” saying that the United States essentially bully-ed Pakistan into being an ally. Musharraf claimed that both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell drew a clear line in the sand, and in the case of Armitage even threatened Pakistan if they did not side with the United States.

These are accusations from Musharraf’s point of view. Armitage has categorically denied this and President Bush won’t even address it. But if you look at the behavior of Pakistan it doesn’t seem to be very ally-like, which would lend credence to Musharraf’s claims. Furthermore with Musharraf stepping down, that leaves open a place for a new president, and that process has been a great deal of controversy thus far. A coalition that was a significant portion of the governing body there has split, and now confusion and potential chaos is on the brink. For the first time in recent memory, in a place where the United States has an immense interest, they have vowed to stay hands off and allow the people of Pakistan to work their way through the potential governing issues. Although the United States has said publicly that they will not intervene (diplomatically or otherwise) a casual observer would note that as being inconsistent with recent United States foreign policy.

This comes full circle when you think of the two men vying for the presidency of the United States. McCain has made no qualms about continuing a hawkish foreign policy and going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban. Obama has not been as aggressive but has not ruled out going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban should he feel the Pakistani government is not doing enough. What this could mean is that we could see a situation similar to Iraq playing itself out in Pakistan. There will be a sizable disgruntled population that does not want to see the Unites States there and will take offense to occupation. Despite the United States noblest attempts to justify its presence, it will be seen on a world stage as more invasion even if it is sanctioned by the “candidate of change”.

Pakistan has demonstrated that it is not a state to be taken lightly as they have the same willingness to assassinate their leading political figures just as the United States does (see Benazir Bhutto). What’s more is that Pakistan (unlike Iraq, and probably Iran) actually has nuclear weapons. This is not a state that would take United States intrusion lightly. This issue demands that regardless who the next United States president is, we hold them accountable for their actions and policies, to be sure that we avoid military imperialism in the name of “fighting terrorism”. As the Pakistani people determine their new leadership, the United States should pay close attention. Who they choose as their leader can tell us much about their attitudes and the best way to treat them as partners in the global community.

The Swinging States

2008-08-20T19:23:00.000-07:00

Around this time of year during a presidential election season, people begin to discuss the swing states. A general definition of a swing state is a state that is not overwhelmingly and consistenly won by a particular party. In the two most recent elections swing states have been a major point of interest because they have secured the election for George Bush. In 2004, people protested the election results in Ohio citing the unfair distribution of voting stations based on population. The Ohio results were also called into question because of then Secretary of the State (of Ohio) Ken Blackwell's on the record proclamation that he would do everything in his power to see that George Bush won Ohio. The conflict of interest comes because it is the Secretary of State's job to oversee elections and ensure the fairness of elections. In 2000 Florida was at the center of controversy as the hotly contested election results were taken all the way to the Supreme Court

This election cycle swing states are still expected to play a huge role. Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committe have committed to their "Red to Blue" program which aims to make red states (states that usually vote Republican) blue (states that vote democrat). With this intiative states such as Virginia, Nevada, and Indiana which were won by Bush in both of the past two elections are very much in play. Those states along with Colorado, Montana and to a lesser extent Kansas, Georgia, and Alaska, are all reasonable for Obama. As always places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Missouri and Florida will receive a good deal of resources from both campaigns. This is understandable considering that of the last nine presidential elections the candidate who has won Ohio and Missouri has won the election. Florida has voted in favor of the winner in eight of the last nine presidential elections. Altogether these states are sure to be the center of much conversation in the coming months.

In order to get a grip on the states that may be significant points of interest, you can begin to look at Colorado. Many will say that Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania matter more because of the amount of electoral votes they posses, but those states will be throrougly examined in the coming months. Colorado is a little tougher to figure out. In the past two elections Colorado has voted with the Republican ticket. However, Colorado has a Democrat in the Governor's mansion. Its two senate seats are divided with one held by a Democrat and one held by a Republican. Although a Democrat, Gov. Ritter is known for having a pro-life stance, despite threatening to veto any legistlation that sought to completely ban abortion. The state is the true epitome of a swing state. It has a very "green" record, yet holds the second amendment with the highest regard. It will be difficult to tell who will come out on top in this state.

Virginia is another state that will be under a close eye. All political trends point to Obama taking the commonwealth. Obama will be joined lower down the ballot by a wildly successful former Governor seeking a Senate seat, he (Obama) was endorsed (while the primaries were still up for grabs) by the current Governor and won his primary there by 29 points. Those factors alone would lead someone to think Virginia is his for the taking. The only problem is that Virginia has gone for the Republican candidate in the last nine elections, and is generally thought to be a rather conservative state. Though the state seems to be trending to the center, Sen. McCain positioning himself as the "maverick" and not as an prototypical Republican gives him a better chance to win a state which looks like it should be going for Obama.

The two states examined provide just a glimpse into the endless possibilites swing states hold. Because of these candidates unique appeal to voters of both of the major parties, many more states are in play than normal. Pennsylvania, for example is considered a major swing state this election cycle despite going for the Democratic candidate in the last four election cycles. As the topic of swing states gets mentioned, one thing that creeps into the minds of many is the question of fairness. As previously mentioned Florida and Ohio were the source of a great deal of controversy in 2000 and 2004. Whatever state turns this year's presidential election, let's hope the cloud of controversy avoids it.

Defining Black Politics

2008-08-13T08:24:00.000-07:00

In recent days some White writers have sought to define Black politics. The most famous of this was Matthew Bai's piece in Sunday's New York Times Magazine. In the piece Bai discusses the "new Black politics". He cites Sen. Obama and others as a changing of the guard of Black politicians. Bai argues that the new generation of Black politicians, who are the beneficiaries of the struggles of years past, are at odds with those same elders who provided them this opportunity. The article had been throughly and eloquently dissected and dismissed by journalist Glen Ford on Black Agenda Report so my interest is not to seek to discredit Mr. Bai's piece. Instead I question why so many mainstream and "highly respected" news organizations are seeking to define Black politics.

Mr. Ford in his repudiation of Mr. Bai's article cites the absurdity in thinking that Whites know Black generational relationships better than those groups know each other. More than that, what's troubling is that so many Blacks will see Mr. Bai's work published in the New York Times and assume it to be true. Mr. Bai and others have asserted that Sen. Obama's support is not as strong among an older "civil rights" generation of Blacks. This flies in the face of known statistics that more than 90% of Blacks have voted for Senator Obama during the primary season. Mr. Bai is not the only one to have erroneously sought to define Black politics by pitting one generation against another. Jodie Allen, a senior editor at the Pew Research Group did a study to find out who's more in touch with the African American community. The premise of the study pitted Sen. Obama against Civil Rights Veteran Jesse Jackson. The fallacy of the study is the assumption of Black Monolithic views. Black politics is more than just a choice between either Sen. Obama's trans-racial rhetoric and Rev. Jackon's cries of racial injustice.

Jonathan Tilove tries his hand at explaining how Sen. Obama and racial politics will affect racial scholarship. He does better by getting out of his own way as his piece is littered with opinions spanning a decent spectrum of Black thought. He gets input from the quasi-conservative economist Glenn Loury, the completely conservative John McWhorter and the progressive Adolph Reed. The trouble with Tilove's piece is that HE identifies who HE deems to be a "leading race scholar from the left". With no disrespect intended to Dr. Howard Winant, the man who was given the laudable title, but few who know or are familiar with Black politics would be hesistant to call anyone other than Dr. Ron Walters a leading "race scholar from the left".

Though Mr. Tilove lives up to the his journalistic responsibilities by gaining points of view from a wide spectrum of thought, he fails in his intial attempt. He is trying to ultimately define something that he apparently does not have the knowledge or experience to speak on. This has been a recent and recurring problem especially in the mainstream media. As Sen. Obama continues to travel down paths never before traveled it seems many mainstream media outlets have become interested in the Black lived and political experience. The fault is not in the exploration of such topics but rather the definition of these topics. The outlets seem to be dreadfully off base. From CNN and their Black in America series, to Matthew Bai questioning "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?" these media outlets seem to not recognize the enormity of what they are tackling.

The easiest response is because they are not going through the lived experience that makes up Black politics than, they miss the target in trying to define it. I believe though with all of their "resources" and the "committment to diversity" present in various mainstream media outlets that having intelligent qualified African Americans to explore Black politics should not be a problem. Perhaps more than that, the media outlets should reaffirm their positions of journalistic integrity and concentrate rather on the policy matters of the election. With a volatile economy, energy issues, foreign nations aggression, so many uninsured Americans, and the consistently rising cost of food there seem to be plenty of substantial policy issues for these media outlets to concentrate there intellectual resources on. It seems when the media is fascinated by a charming and charismatic Black candidate (Sen. Obama) they try to make up for the decades of neglect it has paid to the Black community, to horrendous results. Black politics do not need to be defined and contrary to many both Black and White, Barack Obama is not the epicenter of it (Black Politics). As long as there has Black Americans trying to make sense of the world around them on the local, statewide, and federal level, there have been and will continue to be Black Politics.

The Sweet (but inexact) Science

2008-08-06T19:08:00.000-07:00

Boxing is often referred to by sports enthusiast as "the sweet science", politics has something of its own science, however it perhaps is much less sweet, and even more inexact. That science is predicting who will be a candidate's running mate. Some pundits and so called experts like to look at what a potential VP can bring to a ticket. Some think that a strong VP choice can cover a candidate's weakness or magnify a strength. Others think a VP choice could move a state from being a swing state to one that's solidly for one candidate. All of those items can be factors in the choosing of a VP this election cycle, and there are interesting and qualified candidates on both sides

The Republican situation is very simple. There is one clear choice and that is Gov. Bobby Jindal. He would be perfect for the Republican ticket. He is young (37 years old) intelligent, and has a good amount of charisma to offset Sen. Obama's candidacy. It is not necessarily in Jindal's or the Republican party's best interest for Jindal to be a VP candidate right now. Jindal's career is mirroring Sen. Obama's back in 2004 and it would actually do more for the candidate to have Sen. Obama win in 2008. Then Gov. Jindal and the Republican party can ride the nation's "wave of diversity" and run in either 2012 or 2016. Either way that leaves Sen. McCain with some familiar choices.

One choice is fmr. Ohio Congressman Rob Portman. Portman seems logical because he has been a longtime ally of McCain's and could prove pivotal in helping a swing state like Ohio go McCain's way. Portman also has served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This would lend credibility on the issue of economics which is one Sen. McCain admittedly doesn't know as much about as he should. Another name that's been thrown around that would help McCain on economics is fmr. Governor Mitt Romney. Romney was a rival of McCain' s in the primary but his fiscal prowess could prove to help the Senator in the general election. There are a few others on the list as names being thrown around for Sen. McCain's running mate including Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Crist is another ally of Sen. McCain but has questions regarding his personal life that may turn conservative voters off. We'll get back to Gov. Pawlenty later

Sen. Barack Obama is in a unique position. As the first man of African descent to be the Democratic Party's nominee for President his choice has to balance not just policy or geographical differences but it must also be a comfortable choice for whites who are still unwilling to vote for a man of African descent. Some pundits have gone as far as saying that Sen. Obama should choose a "traditional, boring white male politician". With that being seemigly the popular logic, many expect to see Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana named as his running mate. Bayh supported Sen. Clinton in the primary so he would be able to bring back some of her disenchanted base. Also he has served on the Armed Forces committee, so that could speak to the foreign policy credentials that Sen. Obama's critics say he lacks. Furthermore Sen. Bayh is popular in his home state of Indiana, a state that could be pivotal in the 2008 election. Another popular name thrown around is that of Sen. Joseph Biden. Sen. Biden is currently the chair of Senate Foreign Relations committee, and is a veteran of the Senate and Capitol Hill having served on the Hill for 35 years.

There are still wild cards for each candidate. Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic party's nominee for VP in 2000. He is a friend of Sen. McCain and has even gone out campaigning for him. Some speculate that McCain could choose Lieberman because of the appeal he would have to independent voters. To that end Sen. Obama has a very good working relationship with Sen. Chuck Hagel. Sen. Hagel accompanied Obama on parts of his overseas trip. Sen. Hagel also said it is possible he could endorse Obama, but doubts that would happen. Sen. Hagel has been one of the loudest voices of dissent about the war in Iraq from the Republican party. Also, choosing a Republican VP would be consistent with Obama's claims to be above partisan politics. One of the names swirling the fastest on the rumor mill is Va. Governor Tim Kaine. He and Sen. Jim Webb from Va. are supposedly very high on Obama's shortlist. With all of these possibilities it seems a bit ironic that its called a "shortlist" For what its worth I see the VP's being Tim Pawlenty for McCain and Evan Bayh for Obama.

Pawlenty is young, charismatic, has executive experience from servings as Governor of Minnesota, and he is popular in a swing state. Regardless if a McCain/Pawlenty ticket were to win, you can expect to see Pawlenty on the national scene for quite some time. Sen. Bayh wins because he is everything Barack Obama is not without seeming too far off from Obama's message of change. Though it would be very enticing to select Gov. Kaine, the issue of foreign policy may outweigh executive experience. Also with Sen. Bayh, you get both because of his time as Governor of Indiana. Also extra bonuses Obama would get with Bayh, is a moderate midwesterner who President Clinton asked to deliver the keynote address at the 1996 Democratical National Convention.

After all of this reasoning and speculation the VP choices could have nothing to do with region or adding anything new to the ticket. President Bush chose Dick Cheney and Republicans had safely won Wyoming (Cheney's home state) in the two general elections prior to the Bush Administration Politically Bush and Cheney were cut from the same cloth and its not like Cheney added anything new or different from an ideological standpoint. Fmr. President Bill Clinton chose fellow southerner Al Gore as his running mate and he won two consecutive terms in the White House. This just goes to show you that trying to predict a VP choice is simply just for fun. It allows so called pundits and experts to show how right (or wrong) they are at understanding this sweet inexact science we call politics.

The Lesser of Two Evils

2008-07-30T19:45:00.000-07:00

Every four years people professing to be pundits pontificate on what we the voting public will do in the fall election. This year has been no different in that department, however the cast of characters has changed some. The historic campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have been well documented. Sen. Obama even earned his party's nomination becoming the first person of African descent to do so. With that he faces Sen. John McCain in the general election. Much of Obama's success can be attributed to his message of change. With the notion of change comes the idea that Sen. Obama will be able to respond to the issues facing the country with an approach that everyday people would come up with. This idea has many thinking of "outside the beltway" solutions to "inside the beltway" problems. However, a radical thought that few have given serious consideration to is perhaps a more impactful change would come from a candidate outside of the two major parties. This is thought to be blasphemy on the surface, but a careful examination of the issues suggest that maybe a third party candidate speaks more directly issues that matter to you the voter.

If you are a free market enthusiast and would like to see capitalism grow and thrive you may think your only horse in this race is John McCain. However, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr is for no government intervention in the free marketplace. According to Barr's website the role of government in capitalism is to "protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected". This seems to be on par with McCain but where they differ is Barr advocates for a suspension of business subsidies and the scaling down of the military as ways to cut federal spending. Sen. McCain is not interested in removing business subsidies and it goes without saying that he has no interest in scaling down the military; thus it'll be less than likely that Sen. McCain will take the real steps to cut federal spending as his rhetoric suggest.

Sen. Obama has throughout the primary season called for universal health care. Yet he has been shy to call for the single payer system. He has consistently laid out plans that will more than likely ensure many more Americans health care but would not offer a solution that would provide health care to the 47 million uninsured in the United States today. Cynthia McKinney is in support of the single payer system and wants to move insurance companies out of the health care conversation saying in November of 1999 that health care is a "right not a privilege". She also supports trimming the federal budget by drastically reducing defense spending. Both Sens. Obama and McCain argue they want to rid Washington of lobbyist influence and pork barrel spending. However none of them have proposed increased funding for the Department of Justice's Corporate Crimes division to pursue corporations and lobbyist illegally influencing Washington. Ralph Nader has proposed strengthening this division.

Many well reasoned Americans will look at the evidence presented and find a candidate that speaks to their needs more than the major party candidates. Ultimately the response will be that a third party candidate will never win, so why waste a vote. The main reason a third party candidate never wins is because so many people think of it as a wasted vote. If the people who truly supported the positions of third party candidates actually voted for those candidates the United States would have elected officials that represent more than just Democrats or Republicans. But until the voters assert what power they do have in a democracy, decisions will stay limited to the lesser of two evils.

http://www.runcynthiarun.com/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
http://www.blogger.com/www.votenader.org

To Be Black In America

2008-07-23T12:56:00.000-07:00

As CNN gears up for their "Black in America" presentation to take place tonight and tomorrow , I can't help but feel this will be another half-hearted attempt to try to know or understand Black people. Some may applaud CNN for their efforts, but maybe its the cynic in me that sees CNN capitalizing on the popularity and historic (arguably) run of Senator Barack Obama. Some may counter by suggesting that this production has long since been in development with the earliest promotions for it coming as far back as March. However, if we think back to March, Sen. Obama had just broke even in Super Tuesday and was marching toward the nomination.

Regardless of the reason the production itself seems to be lacking. One of the first and most key points to look at is the choice of commentators. There are a few names and faces that are regularly paraded out to translate Black to many White Americans. Many of these people are the same folks who MSNBC, and FoxNews use to try to translate Black culture to White Americans. Such people include the everpresent Cornel West, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Tom Joyner, and Dr. Eddie Glaude. Many of these men are famous precisely for being able to translate Black culture to White audiences. There are many others who would do a better job conveying the emotional, mental, physical and most important spiritual spectrum of Black life to a viewing audience. Some of the others may not be the famous academic types but people who simply call it as they see it.

Ask for example why Bill Rhoden, a sports columinst for the New York Times is never asked to speak at these type of affairs. It would only make sense that if Black Americans are the overwhelming majority of the two largest grossing sports in the United States (70% NFL, 80%NBA) that someone with a level of expertise in sports would be asked to provide their opinions. However many people don't know about Rhoden. Probably because of his suggestion that integration (in sports) did more to harm Black institutions than help. Most in the mainstream won't want to hear this because it threatens racial harmony (translate as White economic triumph). He also referenced athletes as "40 Million Dollar Slaves. He has always been critical of subtle and implied, and often times not-so-subtle and implied racism that is inherent in the United States.

Ask again why you rarely hear from Walter Williams. Williams is a conservative professor from George Mason University. He writes columns and appears as a guest on radio and television shows extolling the virtues of capitalism. He also cites real life examples of how government programs have worked to the detriment of Black Americans. Yet you don't hear from him at these types of forums possibly because he clearly exposes holes in the White Americans theory that they (exercised through the government) are Black people's only salvation. There is extremely little I agree with Dr. Williams about but I do appreciate any man who will call for Black economic independence, and at the least he provides a new viewpoint, that differs from the traditional African American school of thought (whatever that is)

These two brief examples serve only to illustrate how off the mark networks come when trying to broadcast an accurate representation of Black life. The main reason being that Black life is so diverse and all inclusive that it cannot be told through commentators and translators. The best and only teacher of Black life is lived experience. Tonight CNN will try to capture everyday people and use them as the new translators of Black culture. It may even be a valiant attempt but in the end it will fail because Black life is much more than a 30 second soundbite, or a one hour program or even a two day special. To be honest its even much greater than a 617 word Essay. Because Black culture and life cannot be translated, however for what its worth, I think it can be described in one word. BEAUTIFUL

Before Judging Zimbabwe

2008-07-16T19:15:00.000-07:00

Many people have rushed to judgement in the matter of Zimbabwe. Looking at the information being presented its easy to see why. Much of the information many Americans are getting are in simple and non-complex terms. In the narrative we see a good guy, Morgan Tsvangirai, trying to bring "freedom" and "democracy" (holy words in the United States) to a people who suffer under the hand of a despot, Robert Mugabe. That seems to be simple enough. We should probably align our nation's public opinion and resources against the bad guy.

Unfortunately nothing is that simple and much of the United States media(for whatever reason) has decided to not flush out the complete details of the situation in Zimbabwe choosing rather to retell the narrative in efforts to drum up support for Mugabe's opposition. The only problem with this is that the people closest to Mugabe and Zimbabwe refuse to condemn him in the same way much of the Western Media has.

The Washington Post recently did an article looking at Robert Mugabe's relationship with South African president Thabo Mbeki. Throughout the article they reference Mbeki's association with Mugabe as tarnishing a great legacy. As Mbeki tries desperately to convince Mugabe that retirement is both honorable to his legacy and beneficial to his people, many in the west consider Mbeki "dirtying" his own legacy by involving himself with Mugabe. However, it is not so easy for Mbeki to part with his elder as it is for the world to turn their back on Mugabe.

Perhaps it was the refuge that Mugabe allowed Mbeki to take as the Apartheid government of South Africa had exiled members of the ANC. Perhaps it was the raucous reception Mugabe received at Mbeki's inagural in 2004. Perhaps it was Mugabe seizing control of white owned farms in Zimbabwe in efforts to redistribute the wealth to the common people of Zimbabwe. Whatever the reason, and there seem to be quite a few, Mbeki is not yet ready to call Mugabe the terrible tyrant that the American media has already crowned him.

Let me be clear, this is not a piece about why we ought to support Robert Mugabe. Instead it is a call for all Americans to seek out truth that our media does not always present in its entirety (particularly on matters pertaining to Africa). Just as there are quite a few good reasons why some African leaders still support Mugabe, there are also legitimate reasons why he is unfit to continue being the leader of Zimbabwe. What we must do is try to open our minds to various sources of information in order to come away with the most complete story, not just the narrative that our media paints for us.

Why Vote Black

2008-06-28T08:51:00.000-07:00

"Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm proud". That line resonated with many within theAfrican American Community. It was a statement of racial and cultural pride, at a time when many in the African American community felt they were under assault. Today many Black Americans are expressing that same sentiment but in the voting booth rather than on popular hit records. Barack Obama has energized a voting bloc of African Americans that has long been apathetic to the United States electoral process, and many people Black and White alike are unhappy with the reason so many Blacks support Obama. One of the main critiques some in the media have thrown out is that Blacks are supporting Obama simply because he is Black. To that we seriously have to ask how out of the norm of American politics is this?

Various groups rally around candidates from their ethnic circle regurlarly. George Stephanopoulos writes in his book "All Too Human" about his glee at seeing Michael Dukakis ascend to the governor's mansion in Massachusetts. He also talks about the pride he was filled with seeing Dukakis make a bid for the presidency in 1988 and how Greek Americans everywhere were supportive of Dukakis and his efforts. And to be honest there is nothing wrong with that. It makes complete sense to be supportive of one from their own ethnic community.

A comparison that is even closer to Obama is that of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was an Irish Catholic that galvanized a nation with his youth, energy and his ethnic heritage. Kennedy had a politically active family but it was his charisma that gave him that unique quality that so many Americans fell in love with. Kennedy also drew criticism because of his religious affliation. That same affiliation energized his Catholic supporters to rally around him in part because he was like them... he was Catholic.

When many Americans, particularly Black Americans take to the polls this November, they will more than likely be voting for Obama. He's reported to have the support of about 92% of Blacks. Yes, many will say he is the most qualified candidate but a large part of the reason they will vote for him is because they feel he is the most qualified candidate, who also happens to look like them or share the same cultural heritage as they. And to be honest, there is nothing wrong with that.

For many of the critics who feel Blacks should not be supporting Obama on the basis of race, they need to first be honest with themselves about the way many White ethnic groups have gotten behind a candidate that came from their ethnic clan. Second, people must also realize that because of the circumstances that African Americans came to this country they can not rally around people who come from the same country as they do, so in turn Black Americans support people who are also of African descent. Ultimately people should not have a problem with that, unless hyprocrisy is on the loose.

What's Going on Lower Down the Ballot

2008-06-24T16:16:00.000-07:00

Many Americans are gearing up for an historic presidential election in the fall but little is being said about equal and in some ways just as important elections that will be taking place that same day. On November 4, 2008 many people will cast their ballot for President of the United States. People are excited about both presumptive nominees from the two major parties. One option is, to many, "a maverick", a war hero, a veteran who is strong on ethics; the other candidate, to many, is a beacon of hope and an example of all that can be good about the United States. With all of this, there still may be more important votes cast on that day.

On that day many will choose the next president, but soon after that choice people in 35 other states will also vote for a senator. This is huge because regardless who the next president is, he will only be as effective as the Congress he is working with will allow him to be. Some of the seats are thought to be pretty secure with either a well-known incumbent or a state that generally leans to one party, but many seats are in play this November.

One of the more interesting Senate races will be in Virginia. Virginia is already on the tongue of many political anaylst as they look forward to the presidential election. Virginia is a state that has gone decidely Republican in the last two presidential elections but the overwhelming popularity of Sen. Obama and the resounding primary win he had there leads many to think he may steal that state. Furthermore there were three Virginia politicians who were rumored to be on Obama's shortlist as VP choices. Sen. Jim Webb, Gov. Tim Kaine, and Fmr. Gov. Mark Warner. Warner has since withdrawn his name from consideration choosing instead to concentrate on his run for the senate seat. Opposing Warner will be former Gov. Jim Gilmore. Gilmore has a considerable amount of work cut out for him as Warner has the advantage of his success in the governor's mansion being fresh in the mind of many Virgnians.

Another key state to keep in mind is Mississippi. Pundits are saying this is another state that normally leans Republican in presidential elections but could be very much in play for Democrats this year. Outside of the presidential election, Democrats in Mississippi are excited about fmr. Gov. Ronnie Musgrove . Musgrove will be facing incumbent Roger Wicker who is finishing Trent Lott's Senate term. Democrats have already won a special election to fill Wicker's former congressional seat. Democrats in Mississppi have much to be excited about, whereas Republicans are counting on stalwart and Senior Senator Thad Cochran to retain his seat as both Mississippi Senate seats are up for election.

There are many other states that are in play and many other surprises to be had this election season. As Sens. Obama and McCain rally new groups of voters to inform themselves on the issues and stances of candidates be sure to notice what happens lower down the ballot because that could be the real tell-tale sign of what a true leader can do, or what kind of change to look forward to.

The Republican Answer to Barack Obama

2008-06-18T15:31:00.000-07:00

Bobby Jindal has been gaining much national attention as the Republican Veep sweepstakes heats up. For those unfamiliar with Jindal, he is the 37 year old Governor of Louisiana. He is making waves across the nation for embracing a "new politics" made popular by politicians such as John F. Kennedy and current Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Many took notice of Jindal during his first bid for Louisana Governor in 2003. He lost to Kathleen Blanco but established himslef in the Louisiana political scene. From there he went on to serve as a U.S. Representative from the 1st District. Prior to that Jindal had served in a number of appointed positions including Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, and arguably most impressive President of the University of Louisiana System.

This makes excellent material for a resume but as recent elections have shown, many Americans are impressed with qualifications just as much as charisma. Jindal has much of the latter as well. In keeping with the idea of "new politics" Gov. Jindal offered praise to Sen. Obama on last Sunday's Face the Nation calling him "earnest, genuine...a incredibly gifted speaker". These words sound consistent with the post-partisan theme Sen. Obama and his camp have been espousing since his candidacy for United States Senate in 2004. Though he gave credit to Sen. Obama, Gov. Jindal did throw his full support behind his party saying that he supports Sen. McCain because "he [Sen. McCain] is more likely to cut our taxes, defend our interest overseas effectively, more likely to keep the government out of healthcare..."

And thats what makes Gov. Jindal so appealing. Much like Sen. Obama he eloquently articulates his respect and appreciation for the suggestions that the other side has to offer, but at the end of the day he is consistent with his party's core positions. His willingness to praise the efforts of those on the other side of the aisle help him look more bi-partisan and moderate, yet a thorough examination of his politics makes conservatives very comfortable putting their confidence in Gov. Jindal.

But let us not forget the ever-present elephant in the room (no pun intended). Gov. Jindal is Indian and helps promote the diversity of all-inclusiveness of the United States. As much as many people would like us to move away from identity politics (including Gov. Jindal) he fits perfectly as the Republican answer to Barack Obama. The Republicans take your charismatic and eloquent African American Candidate and raise you an accomplished, Rhodes Scholar Indian American political rising star. Some are mentioning Gov. Jindal as a vice presidential choice, regardless if he is on the ticket or not, you can expect Gov. Jindal to be in Minnesota this September giving a keynote address and Republicans everywhere will join in their own chorus of "yes we can".