Monday, November 23, 2009


Black Teen With GunA blogger that I frequent spoke eloquently, but painfully, about the constant presence of death in his life, as his work brings him face to face with it often. He bemoaned the violence in the black community, and our seeming inability to curb it, or to defeat it.

I think we can all agree: The answer to violence is a complex one. But if we are to combat it, and combat it successfully, I believe that my response to this blogger outlines some of those elements that will need to be present if we're to succeed. I would be interested in your take: What do you feel is missing, and what must we as a society do to rescue our youth, especially our black ones?

Here's my response:

I hear your frustration. It's mine as well. To be sure: The problem is a difficult one to grapple with.

Had we the power to look ahead, to see how far the infection would spread without intervention, we could have taken steps then.

But we didn't.

As we concentrated our energies and collective resolve to fight and defeat the external forces that sought to destroy us, we neglected the forces from within.

The problem as I see it is this: GIGO.

"GIGO (gī'gō, gē'-)
n. Computer Science
An informal rule holding that the integrity of output is dependent on the integrity of input."

Or to put it more graphically, "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

We are what we value. And values are instilled early in a person's life. He or she that gets there first, gets to shape the eventual outcome of that person.

It works that way most of the time, but, of course, not all the time. There are glaring exceptions. Always, there are glaring exceptions to any rule, solution, or remedy.

Having an intact family is not always the solution. It's the family that models certain values, and pass them on to their offspring.

And we know that generations have rebelled against certain values, but mainly did so because the values that their parents sought to inculcate, the parents, themselves, didn't follow, and the hypocrisy invalidated the values, and brought about a backlash.

As you suggested with the "village," nothing short of restructuring our society, and the family model, will bring the healing we seek.

It's not a black problem or a white problem; the problem of our youth is a national problem.

Until we see it from that perspective, I'm afraid that the problem will persist, and grow exponentially.

We all have to get involved in the rearing of our children. We first have to see them as the national treasure that they are, and put a large part of our energies and resources into spiritually, intellectually, and physically enhancing each successive generation.

We can no longer leave that task to the nuclear family construct. Children need many mommies and daddies from those in society who have lived long enough to gain wisdom, as well as intellectual and spiritual prowess.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

DetestaBible Use!

I was prepared to discuss another topic for my next blog entry, but this one caught my eye. I wanted to address the death of little Shaniya Davis, the little missing girl that was recently found dead along a stretch of road.

I'm thinking of other little black girls, the First Children, Sasha and Malia. It seems that the enterprising minds of American capitalism have found a new way to make a buck and threaten President Obama and his family at the same time. We all know that the threats against the president is at an all time high, and that the Secret Service is overwhelmed by the number. And to make matters worse, I understand the agency is understaffed and underfunded.

Why this is so, is beyond me. The fallout that could occur if this nation's first black president, or the first family is intentionally hurt by an assassin's bullet, or a homegrown terrorist's bomb, could be catastrophic. It could set race relations back a number of years, and create a climate of distrust that could threaten the slight closing of the racial divide that the election of Obama has brought us, and, at worse, descend this nation into the unthinkable--a race war.

And I don't think that I'm overstating my case. It's how I see a probable outcome to such a horrible act. Given the insouciance of some in the media, more inclined to fuel the fire than put it out, each day we're brought closer to what could be our national Armageddon.

I've blogged about this before. It's not my purpose to dwell on the negative, but to raise the consciousness of us all to this potential threat.

Here's the latest. It seems that tee shirts and bumper stickers featuring Bible verse citations, following a request to pray for President Obama, is nothing more than a veiled threat against him and his family. The Christian Science Monitor covered the story and Rachel Maddow on her show highlighted it as well.

There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”
A nice sentiment?

Maybe not.

The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with “1/20/09” commemorated President Bush’s last day in office.

But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

On the Rachel Maddow show in the segment, "While You Were Out," we have this. If you haven't seen this segment, it's rather long, and covers among other things, the furor that President Obama raised by bowing to the Japanese Emperor on his recent trip abroad. Maddow's guest during this segment sums up my feelings, and issues a chilling alarm.

Her guest appeals to those who voted for President Obama to take a stand and speak out, and to right-wing evangelicals to condemn the behavior behind the offensive slogans. I said this before. I think the president's supporters have been overly quiet, and have not rushed to his rescue during the months he has been under siege by the Right.

I find it perplexing. The president has made significant strides toward satisfying his campaign pledges, and has generally behaved as he promised, whether, at times, we find the pace of "change" slower than we'd like, or his efforts towards "bipartisanship" frustrating and overdone.

If you'd like to keep track of President Obama's campaign promises, those that he has kept, and how one site is rating them, consider the following link to When you take into account that this is his first year, I would say that to date his achievements have been impressive, although, for many, disappointing.

President Obama has three more years to tackle and fulfill some of these promises. The sticking point, of course, is a Democrat party with too many Republicans calling themselves Democrats. What better way to sabotage your opponent's party than to enter his races, run, and win, and then vote with the opposing aisle, or frustrate the efforts of your perceived party. I swear, I believe some of this is going on. What think you?

Friday, November 13, 2009

Two "P's" In Search of a Pod

Carrie and Sarah are the darlings of the Republican party faithfuls, because they see them as the epitome of conservative values.

They are the poster children of a party desperate to validate its conservative ideology with a base that has in recent months seen many of its champions fall from grace--the victims of one sex scandal after another.

Carrie and Sarah are the antithesis of the Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton "Simple Life" exploits--sure of themselves, and assured that God is on their side, both wearing their conservatism as though it will never go out of fashion, enjoying the distinction that comes with knowing that the world's finest fashion designers had a hand in the design.

What no one will dare tell the two empress is that they have no clothes, and that their crown is constructed of tin foil.

Prejean has sex tapes in her recent past, and Palin a possible scandal, accused of using her considerable power as governor of Alaska in a failed attempt to effectuate the firing of her brother-in-law. One Walter Monegan, Public Safety Commissioner, claimed that he was fired because "he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle with the governor's sister."

Party faithfuls have either been forgiving, or in denial, so eager are they to find someone, anyone, who can carry a conservative standard high enough to show it off to a world increasingly edging toward liberalism, and progressivism, and away from the conservative precepts upon which this country was built, as they would have us believe.

According to these conservatives, small government and laissez faire capitalism should be the backbone on our economy.

Even George Bush has begun to distance himself from the act that might have kept our economy out of the jaws of a recession when he authorized the first "bail-out," saying it went beyond his nature as a "free-market" advocate, and has established a center in his home state of Texas as a way to repudiate his act, and expiate his sin.

Yet, socialism has crept into our economy, spearheaded by social security and medicare. And what is more socialist than bankruptcy that allows others to potentially shoulder some of your entrepreneurial failure, or your failure as head of a household?

Rush Limbaugh, ever the "true believer" in Sarah Palin's credentials to lead this country, lauds her new book, by saying, "This woman, Governor Palin, clearly is jazzed by policy, particularly environmental policy and energy policy, as well as taxes and so forth."

Most critics of the book agree that Rush's remarks lack substance, and is so much puffery. Not the political stalwart she would have us believe, Palin quit the job of Alaska's governor. Some say because of the heat that was coming her way, enough to defrost Alaska, by overstepping her gubernatorial power, and some say to pursue money beyond the Klondike, just east of Alaska, in the lower 48, while her popularity is still red hot.

Rush's willingness to prop up Palin is little more than an attempt to put a "pretty face" on conservatism. He suggests: Palin success in life and in politics is owning to her adherence to conservative principles. If you wish to have a similar "good life," you owe it to yourself to emulate Palin.

Palin's book is not about a winner but a whiner. She blames every one but herself for the distortion of her image as a vice presidential candidate. It was the fault of McCain's staffers or the news media. She knows that she can go "rogue" as long as she has the unfailing backing of Rush Limbaugh, and his considerable blessing.

Prejean clock, on the other hand, may be losing time, rather than gaining. Her appearance on the venerable, avuncular, Larry King show, which turned sour, may be her undoing. She doesn't seem to have political ambitions, which is a good thing, and is clearly more intellectually shallow than Palin. She has a conservative fan base, but recent revelations about her sex-capades may erode a part of that base, making her a has-been, at least among her conservative fans, but, like Richie, and Hilton, she may find new ones among the progressives she loathe, if the sex tapes are released to the public.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Liberals-Progressives vs. Republicans-Conservatives

Liberal vs. ConservativeI left this post on another blog. I hate to let a post go to waste: It didn't receive that much attention on that blog, so I'm featuring it here. Besides, I'm a little overdue on updating my own blog.

I'm looking forward to Repubs taking back the White House and Congress.

I'm looking forward to giving them the liberal version of birthers, death panels, Town Hall madness, gun-toting, "don't tread on me" idiots, and frustrating every bill the Repubs try to pass by erecting a wall of obstructionism.

I'm looking forward to the liberal protests that will feature Republican elected officials as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and painting their faces with some joker reference, and decrying the inhumanity of conservatism.

I'm looking forward to invading their conservative, Republican blogs and hurtling red-neck references, racist diatribe, and depicting the then president's kids and his wife in some disgusting, Photoshop pose.

As much as I'd like to see a tit for tat, it's not going to happen.

You know why?

And this is going to anger some of the Repubs that hang out here, and their conservative counterparts, regardless of political leaning, but liberals and progressives aren't closed minded enough, not hateful enough, not mean spirited enough, not cold hearted enough, not inhumane enough to do something that cold and calculating on a massive scale.

They're just not!

Liberals and progressives have evolved a little past their conservative brethren on the spectrum of human compassion, and "good will toward all men."

We're not called "bleeding heart liberals" for nothing. The term is used derisively, but it should be held up as a badge of honor.

Liberals care. Repubs and Conservatives don't. They couldn't give a good damn about their fellow man. And where such compassion seems to appear, it's a cover for advancing a conservative agenda at the expense of compassion. Liberals uphold the human element; Repubs uphold property, greed, and a "every man for himself" mindset.

Whether Repubs and conservatives are self-made, or suffer from some genetic flaw, science may some day determine.

But, for now, they're evolutionarily behind liberals and progressives, and only good for starting wars they don't complete, violating the Constitution they're sworn to uphold, spying on their fellow Americans against conscience and the prevailing law, resorting to torture against the collective wisdom of those who say it's counterproductive, overturning legislation and regulations designed to keep our economy healthy (and not a "dog eat dog" free market feeding frenzy), name calling, and allowing their greed to run amok, as they bring a robust economy to its knees, as they use business practices that reward reckless investing and adventurism, and not prudence, and falling back on "too big to fail" as their excuse to be bailed out of their financial woes, using the little guys' tax dollars.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

"What if the woman had been black?"

I'll do my best to honor the restrictions on this story. Here's the caveat: "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." Pretty heavy restrictions, no. Now, I don't think you can copyright a headline, so I'm going to lead with it:

Woman Accused Of Spitting On Deputy
44-Year-Old Hurled Death Threats, Racial Slurs, Officials Say

Tantalizing stuff wouldn't you say. Go here to read the entire story, and please return to discuss it with me. I thought long and hard about an appropriate angle from which to present this story. The story is unusual primarily because of the racial angle, and the attempt at power usurpation, using a familiar nemesis of blacks, the dreaded, and feared KKK. At least, those are the emotions the woman hoped the very mentioning of the Ku Klux Klan would evoke for this black officer.

Apparently, it didn't work. She's in jail, with a hefty bail around her neck, and monetary leg irons in the amount of thousands of dollars restricting her movements. In short, she's not going anywhere, anytime, soon, unless her KKK father is one of those big bonus-receiving CEO's on Wall Street.

Okay, let's get the preliminaries out the way. The woman may be suffering from a mental illness, and missed her mandatory meds that's keeping her mentally balanced. Mental illness is not a subject I treat lightly. I've known several people over the years who have struggled with schizophrenia, and, without regular medical intervention, or treatment, could spend days, even weeks doing some rather bizarre things.

And her father could be an Imperial Wizard of the KKK. That would go a long way toward understanding the outrage she felt when ticketed by the black officer, and ultimately arrested by him. I suspect that it's the former, though, but one can never be sure. More information will have to come to light in the days ahead, before we can fully know the reason for her bizarre behavior.

But give this some thought: What if this caught on? The use of intimidation to stop blacks from acting, whether as officers of the law, or as potential candidates for local, state, or federal office.

How many blacks are now eager to run for the presidency witnessing the threats against President Obama and his family? Could this be one of the Republican's schemes: To discourage another black from seeking this nation's highest office again, unless he's Republican? Or to discourage President Obama from seeking a second term?

Colin Powell was this nation's first star-quality black to be considered a shoe-in for president. If not a sure bet, at least a candidate with a real chance: Both blacks and whites had mad respect for Powell (at least for a time). Black democrats would have embraced him, unlike many black Republicans, who attack President Obama with as much gusto, or more so, as any white Republican. Of course, they trumpet their reasons: He's for abortion; He's an empty suit (whatever than mean); He's the wrong black at the wrong time (He'll fail so miserably at the job, that a really qualified black, in the future, won't even be considered.) This call for a black presidential candidate to have the qualifications of God before he or she can run for this nation's highest office, is a little perplexing to me.

But it is part and parcel of the black American experience, and part of the pathology that says we've got to be better in every category to be taken seriously by whites, and, if we fail, we give them more ammunition to level against us, if and when we try again.

One writer sees it this way:

"It should be remembered that thirty years ago the mere suggestion of a black candidate running for the presidency would have made liberals wistful, moderates edgy, and conservatives heatedly indignant. Besides, the probability of a black president living out his term of office was as remote a possibility as a man walking from the earth to Pluto. It seems pragmatic to think that, under such glaring political and media scrutiny, every decision Powell made would be called into question. The president would spend more time defending old positions than creating new ones, as the sad case of former New York City Mayor David Dinkins immediately brings to mind. Perhaps Powell wanted to avoid such a fate, and who could blame him?"

This writer's assessment would be more true for President Obama, than for a President Powell. I don't believe that Powell would have met a similar fate: No Birthers, Tea Baggers (I understand Republicans find the term offensive, hence, the use), or health care reform, or verbally explosive Town Hall meetings, or gun-toting loonies, Hitler references, or "I want my country back" sad cases. And if Powell had been controversial in some way, Democrats wouldn't have attacked him with the same vitriol with which President Obama has been attacked, nor would his life be threatened to the same extent. Sure there would be some white supremacists who might attempt something, but that wouldn't be because of his politics, so much as for his race and his color.

Julie Hubbard, if a Republican, might have accepted Powell as president, but I'm thinking not. She was too quick to threaten the black officer with the vengeance of the KKK. And let's not forget all of the other things she did: cursed him, spat on him, and urinated in his squad car. This does not sound like a woman who would accept any black man as president, whether Republican or Democrat.

This is America, after all, and I'm always reversing these incidents. Many blacks do it. I'm no exception. I think I may blog about this one day, to examine why we do it. We're often called out for it. But that's too bad. We didn't create the propensity. It was foisted on us by too many white on black situations that left us scratching our collective heads: "What if the woman had been black, and she cursed a white officer, threatened him, used racial epithets, spat on him, and urinated in his squad car?"

I wonder if the parrot found in the back seat of Hubbard's car can be called as a witness? And if called, would he spill the beans, or should I say, the bird seeds?