Black Diaspora

InSandity

2012-01-19T14:58:00.000-08:00

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

This nation is in a perpetual loop, in a perpetual tail-chasing posture, a living, concrete example of Einstein's definition of "insanity," as quoted above.

We enter trade agreements that benefit the one percent, or disproportionately benefit those nations with whom we have agreements.

We continue to risk our future to one energy source, fossil fuels, the latest incarnation of that risk, Canadian tar sands, despite grave climate-change concerns, and "earthquakes, in diver places".

I could go on and on, citing one example after the other of this nation's acquiescence to special interest, and its willingness to stay the course--the ship of state veering only when it serves the needs of expediency, or to brandish our bogus American exceptionalism: a self-congratulatory indulgence that could, potentially, list the ship dangerously, inviting the disastrous outcome of this cruise ship.

If you believe the ship of state is listing now, give it another decade or two. What's that old saying, "You ain't seen nothing yet!"

It's not that I harbor pessimism, it's that I see things the way they are, not the way I wish them to be. That's my relative position, not my absolute one. From my absolute position, there's nothing we need do, there's nothing we need say, but focus on what we're being--for it's what we're being that we end up creating.

Regrettably, the sands of time aren't as plentiful as the Canadian tar sands, somber grains gathering ominously along the bottom of our national hourglass, as time runs out on our steadying the ship of state, as it lists starboard, lurching precariously to the Right.

After seeing the video below, I wanted to bring it to your attention, even if you've seen it before, so that we may discuss its proposals on how this nation may avoid walking the plank on one key component of our continued national prosperity--the education of our children, resulting in a well-educated adult population

As part of his 30 Million Jobs Tour, Dylan Ratigan identifies areas of concern--factors that need to be addressed to keep the ship of state from foundering over time, proposing a national initiative, rather than state-sponsored ones, deviating substantially from right-wing solutions that call for the abolition of the Department of Education, and a shift of power to states.

Without a national initiative, Dylan sees a permanent underclass emerging, made up mostly of blacks, Mexican Americans, and other poverty-laden groups, adrift in lifeboats, without land in sight, or rescue-ships on the horizon.

I recommend watching the video. It's not very long, but you may have to endure a short commercial at the beginning. I've appended a transcript of the video, but it won't show the visuals, diagrams that connect the dots, clarifying how we got to this state, and what factors continue to roil the seas upon which this nation must sail, as it struggles to stay on course, and keep the ship's listing to a minimum.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We're back at chegg. a go-to place for students to develop an efficient way to learn and a cheaper and rational way to use it using it cannology and innovation to bring down the costs students face after they pay tuition. first, the students need to make it through elementary and high school 37 we spend more on education than any other nation. but for all that money, there's little to show for it. worldwide rankings, we're 25th in math. 17th in science. so we're taking a page out of our book "greedy bastards" and connecting the dots to trace the money trail in our schools.

the money trail begins in your own backyard. funding for american schools is based on your property taxes. which means schools in low-income areas get the smallest share of resources. so while there's massive resources allocated to the wealthiest, the poor get the least when it comes to education. i call this reverse hot spotting. because those who need it most aren't getting the resources we need, the poorest are neglected in a way to permanently damage their brain development. we know that a child's brain forms 700 synapses per second. that's 700 times a second to process senses, use language, and develop vocabulary and relational and reasonable skills. if that opportunity is missed, that child will be playing catch up literally for the the rest of their adult lives. the same model is true all the way through high school graduation.

if you're lucky enough to afford it, college would be next. but our universities value prestige over learning and mastery. it's a classic "greedy bastards" behavior. they put prestige and profits over skill mastery. and talk about student loan debt. $830 billion collectively across our nation. the bankers are offering easy credit that traps graduates for decades. it's a debt for diploma system. there are proven solutions to all of this. but the "greedy bastards" are so hell bent on paying off, that they refuse to let anything threaten it. it becomes a vicious and destructive cycle for our country. poverty, which creates low property taxes to fund schools, which means little money for poor schools, leads to limited problem solving skills, limited adapt blt, higher levels of unemployment, which lands those folks back in poverty.

but there's a way to fix it. we must end the reverse hot spotting and overallocate to those most desperately in need of help and start funding schools through a national tax structure. if we use it correctly to overallocate to our problems, we can direct assets to those most in need. as suzie buffett explains, it's been proven to work, but politicians refuse to take notice.

it doesn't work in an election cycle. it's going to take 15 years to show it works. it's not very interesting to the politicians.

another fix, we need to force our universities to stop valuing prestige over learning. it won't be easy. you know how university pride runs deep. we have to stop rewarding test taking abilities and encourage a culture of experimentation which will come with mistakes and failures. but those are exactly what we need to ultimately achieve the skills and mastery needed to learn in the fastest-changing world in the history of human civilization. the khan academy has proven this classroom flip is successful right through the university level. finally, we must call out the universities, which means adopting the first letter of. we must refuse schools. two students on the internet before they apply or pay tuition. this is how vici values can restore values while receiving the modern tools of the digital age.

if you want to take another look at this and connect the dots on your own time, go to "greedy bastards".com. they are explained inside the book itself. we show you how to get results and change things as well. and as martin mentioned last hour, "greedy bastards" is going today bu at number nine on the new york best sellers list. we have you to thank for that. thank you so much for enlisting with us in this mission to change the conversation to issues-based problem solving. next up here, we've talked to people who do it right. there's a prime example of a great idea that may be using the opposite of hot spotting as the quest to bring high speed rail to california jumped the tracks.

"The Road Not Taken"

2012-01-13T14:39:00.001-08:00

Robert Frost penned a poem, one of my favorites, that explored the poet's decision to take one road at a fork, and not another.

Whether your life is filled with forks in the road, or not, we can all commiserate with those who have them, as they force introspection, and reflection.

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

The latter road, as described in the poem, stands out as one that's rarely taken when two competing positions collide--racism and stupidity, for example--both representing the fork in the road, becoming rivaling perspectives for how an act, a behavior, or an attitude may be viewed by those exposed to the same information and to the same set of facts.

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

Although I've privately wrestled with whether a set of facts represented racism or stupidity, I've never agonized over whether I should call a set of facts racist. Whites rarely quibble as to what should be called racist and what should be called stupidity, more inclined to call racially-insensitive acts the result of stupidity than racism.

Agreeing with Frost, these whites almost never reconsider their first position, "the road not taken"--that it's stupidity rather than racism that prompted an action by their fellow whites--postponing indefinitely a more thorough examination: "I kept the first for another day!/ Yet knowing how way leads on to way,/ I doubted if I should ever come back."

Blacks, during their earthly travels, find more forks in their roads, than whites (Is this act born of racism or stupidity?), as whites are usually spared this kind of dilemma; yet, whites never tire of telling us what it is that we should believe--and, oftentimes, what they want us to believe is that "stupidity" explains their white counterparts actions or behavior, and not "racism," the most likely choice, and the most likely characterization of the facts.

When I purchased my current home, my white real-estate salesperson presented such a fork in the road. From a tract of homes, she selected the one that she felt represented our income and our taste.

I did my own research, using the real estate broker's web site as my source, copying relevant information about each home in the tract, the number of rooms, square footage, and lot size.

When I told her that I wanted to see each house in the tract before committing to the one she selected, she turned red, suspiciously eyeing the papers I held in my hand.

"What do you have there?" she asked roughly. Before I could reply, she snatched the papers from my hand, and, while rifling through them, asked, "Where did you get these?"

"From your web page," I said, struggling to stay calm, as I knew, with a little more provocation, I was going to either walk away, or find another salesperson.

Reluctantly, and with great exasperation, she walked me through each house. On one house in the tract, I made an offer. No, it wasn't on the one she had selected, but on the one I felt had a better view of the mountains.

She was livid. "The builder doesn't take offers," she said. I insisted. Her anger boiled over, mainly because, as she pointed out, she had already drawn up the paperwork for the house of her choosing, and now I was having her repeat her effort.

Finally, she relented, saying, "Now I'll have to start all over again."

The builder accepted my offer, which I knew he would, and, by accepting my offer, reduced her commission. This was not my purpose, but I wasn't distressed because of it.

When the house was making its way through escrow, unbeknownst to me, my wife had promised to invite this salesperson to dinner when the sale was finalized. When she restated her invitation, I was standing nearby.

"When we move in," my wife told the white salesperson, "I'm going to have you over for dinner."

"Okay," she said, "but I don't eat innards."

That was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, that and a few other racially-insensitive things she had said and done during our brief relationship, splitting the road into a fork that ran as far as the eye could see.

The fork appeared abruptly: Was this a show of racism on the salesperson's part, or gross stupidity?

The article that spurred this blog entry has already made its rounds on several blogs, with some readers taking one road or the other, as to whether the act of some Georgia school teachers represented racism or stupidity.

Some of the comments came from whites, and some from blacks, which at times took an uncomfortable turn, as racism is not an easy topic for many, although most had an opinion one way or the other, all looking for travelling companions where the road forked, now that they had committed themselves to one road or the other.

The title reads, 'If eight slaves pick 56 oranges...' Georgia school under fire for racist, violent math homework [1]

Parents of elementary school students in Georgia are outraged after their children brought home math homework referencing slavery and beatings.
In an attempt to mix social studies with math, students of Beaver Ridge Elementary school in Norcross were asked to calculate such questions as how many oranges and cotton slaves could pick.

[My first thought: Was the question written with Frederick Douglass in mind?]

'I'm having to explain to my 8-year-old why slavery or slaves or beatings are in a math problem. That hurts,' Terrance Barnett expressed to WSB-TV.

Here's another example from the test:

Whether you find the following to be either "racist" or a show of "stupidity," is fine by me. That's not my argument. You're entitled to your view. My position on this, however, remains the same, as it was formed after much thought, and over many years of reflection and rumination:

Given this nation's racist history, and the fact that blacks have, more often than not, been the hapless recipients of racism, when I hear or see racially-insensitive things, my default position is that they're prompted by racism. I don't accept the burden of determining for others whether these things are racist or not, which fork in the road--racism or stupidity--would better describe, or sum up the facts. That's not my burden. That burden belongs to the other, those who did the racially-insensitive things.

Blacks shouldn't be asked to shoulder this burden, and we shouldn't accept it, if asked.

Let the burden rest with them, and not us. Let those in society who behave racially insensitive, show, prove, demonstrate that a racially-insensitive act is not racism. In the case under review here, we're talking about teachers, for god sake! People who know world history and American history, and the various legacies of race.

Would these teachers have said something similar about Jews caught in the throes of the holocaust? I don't think so. For blacks, the legacy of slavery is what the holocaust is to Jews--highly reprehensible, and highly inhumane.

I always assume that white's racially-insensitive acts, behavior, and attitudes are the result of racism, and not stupidity, refusing to ride the horn of a dilemma, taking the road I've traveled often, when faced with a fork that leads to the left and to the right.

Whites, and some blacks, mostly black conservatives, wouldn't have us call anything racist, occasionally reversing the charge, and leveling it at us for having the temerity to call a thing racist, thereby effectively putting a roadblock at one of the forks, forbidding passage, and making it unpopular to even consider taking the more damning road, where "[t]wo roads diverged in a yellow wood."

On the other hand, Blacks are urged to suspend judgment, not to call a thing racist, when another characterization may be more appropriate, like "stupidity." They're told to exercise restraint, to err on the side of caution, to ignore it, to look the other way--in short, take the high road.

Sure we can take the high road, or the road at the fork that whites would like for us to take, but we don't owe them this. We don't owe anyone anything, in matters of deciding what constitutes racism or not.

At times, I take the road rarely taken, the one with the signpost that read, "STUPIDITY," but I don't feel I'm obligated, or obliged to do so. I could, just as well, turn to the left at the fork, and take the road with the signpost that read, "RACISM."

Occasionally, the stupidity is so glaring, a neon flashing bright red, the only conclusion one can derive is that it's what it seems to be--and that unmistakably. At other times, the road sign identifying the road to the left glows equally bright, pulsating in large block letters the word, RACISM.

I know too much about life, and how it works, to hold anger or animosity towards those who are racist, or those who insist on calling racism stupidity, when all the signs are pointing in the direction of "the road not taken."

I feel an overwhelming pity for those so deluded, as they will, one day, perhaps in another lifetime, stand at the fork of the road where, at times, I stand--definitely more often than I care to say--peering down both roads "where they diverged in a wood."

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

[1] A video accompanies this article.

"Easy," Does It!

2012-01-05T12:53:00.000-08:00

For several years, I worked in a penal institution which housed inmates with an age range of about 15 years old to about 25 years old, young men as well adults.

In conversation one day with one of the inmates, the talk suddenly turned to why he robbed homes.

His answer was as unexpected as it was bewildering: "I break into homes," he said, "because it's easy."

There it was, it wasn't just the money, the thrill, or the need to impress his homies, it was, as he put it, "easy."

In a world of moral relativism, this young man's candor stands out, a striking reminder that right and wrong is a constantly shifting concept, so many dunes, here today, but gone tomorrow, as the wind shifts, or we capitulate to the demands of a source, or we seek out our fortunes in a narrowing landscape of opportunities, seen more often as bare, than verdant with hope, infinite possibilities, and endless choices.

Under these perceived circumstances, like the young man who broke into homes, because it was easy, departing from our moral code, or breaking away from our ethical foundation becomes the "easy," convenient, and lucrative thing to do.

Greg L, and I, at his blog, exchanged posts exploring the edges of our moral boundaries, and why some in society behave the way that they do. Greg L, wrote:

"[T]he political system and all other forms of leadership, are ultimately reflection of the moral system that governs us."

Greg L. summed up his position, thusly:

"Morality, in part, involves the ability to objectively examine something to determine if it actually aligns with what you subscribe to. It's these judgments that are sorely missing and that's why we have what we have."

To which I responded:

True, but our morality isn't absolutistic, but relativistic, in as much as we subscribe to several, some of which obtain their relevance and their validity from a source--an existential morality dictated by that source, rather that subject to a morality to which we may all generally subscribe, and which we may all hold in common.

Let me illustrate: There's a political morality. Politics has established its own moral center, where almost anything goes--lies, deception, misrepresentations, flip-flopping, waffling, spin, and propaganda--and, by our actions, looking the other way, excusing it, downplaying it, justifying it, we often dismiss this moral laxity, or moral turpitude in our body politic by supporting and voting for those candidates who have clearly demonstrated that they play loose and fast with either the facts or the truth.

Politics, then, dictates its own morality, for which voters will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they rush to the polls and the voting booth in the hopes of installing their party's candidate into the office for which they're running.

There's an economic morality. Capitalism has shown time and time again that it doesn't subscribe to a moral correctness, saving that which the government imposes, an imposition which it doesn't often enforce, or enforce poorly. People in this country still buy iPads, and iPhones, and it doesn't matter to many that they're produced under almost slave-like conditions or not. Sure there are some who do care, and will put their money where their conscience resides.

Capitalism, then, dictates its own morality, for which consumers will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they avail themselves of its various offerings.

There's an elitist morality. Congress has passed many laws from which it has exempted itself, one in particular as odious as they come--congresspersons can participate in insider trading, an act that would have anyone else arrested, and sent to jail for a time. Congress can be bought to vote against what's in the best interest of those who sent them to congress, and use brinkmanship to wrest from the opposing party concessions it cannot obtain otherwise, risking a potentially expensive downgrade in our national credit rating.

Despite its low approval rating, Congress dictates its own morality, for which its constituents will, all too eagerly, set aside their specific morality as they return incumbents time and again to the office which they held, deluding themselves into thinking that it's not their Representative that's inept and crooked, but the other guy's.

There's planned obsolescence, the use of psychology, and behavioral science, to seduce consumers, to trick them into buying--whether impromptu, or not; there're repairs that we don't need for which we're being charged, low interest rates for which we may qualify, but which aren't offered, loans we're said to qualify for, but which, in the end, will bankrupt us, or force our homes into foreclosure, product insurance which is too expensive, and useless, if we try to collect, health insurance with caps, and for which a preexisting condition may not be treated, advertisements, and commercials that don't live up to the hype, and a variety of other scams, designed to part us from our hard-earned money.

Because morality comes in many shapes and configurations, and oftentimes dictated by a source, life comes with many caveats--buyer beware, test drive before you buy, read the contract, especially the small print, live within your means, know the return policy, don't remove the tag, and, get it in writing.

My Fair Lady

2012-01-01T16:42:00.000-08:00

For all the years I've lived, you'd think I be accustomed to it, but I still find human nature strange, if not bizarre.

I'm still flummoxed by it.

Sure, I'm aware that people can, and will, do certain things out of the ordinary--things for which I'm always scratching my head in total amazement, bewildered beyond words.

And when they do, I'm taken aback, sometimes pleasantly when they offer a kindness (such as holding a door open), and sometimes exceedingly perplexed, especially when people behave in ways that are foreign to my sensibilities, and my expectations.

One instance from my life will serve to illustrate this. I once worked for an organization that required that some of us meet at least once every other month to coordinate system-wide activities. We were a fairly good size group, perhaps as many as thirty or forty of us.

We would meet at various locations throughout the system and the meeting organizer from each location was responsible for providing morning refreshments, and arranging for a restaurant that would accommodate our number for lunch, as it was customary for us all to eat at the same time, and in the same place.

When the collective bill arrived, each would pay for what they had ordered, and, in a similar fashion, each would leave tips, in the middle of the table according to the generosity of each, or how each felt about the quality of the service.

On one occasion, the tip was left as usual, a fairly large amount, as there were many in our number, and the service had been excellent.

Most of us had filed out of the room where the lunch tables and chairs had been assembled, with me and another straggling behind, my companion straggler a well-respected, middle-aged woman, who had stopped suddenly to eye the pile of money that constituted our collective tip, left there by those who, after settling up, fully expected that the money that remained on the table would go to the restaurant staff that brought the food and drinks to our table.

With out hesitation, my coworker reached into the pile and withdrew a handful of the bills deposited there. "That's too much money for a tip," she said simply, and stuffed the money into her coat pocket and walked out.

I was stunned.

Not only did she take an unwarranted initiative, she had, in effect, stole money, stealing it twice--first, from those who waited on the table, and then from those who had left the money as a tip.

Not only did my coworker not pay her fair share, she took from those who had.

Some corporations are like my coworker: Not only do they not pay their fair share (using tax loopholes, and tax dodges), they also take from those of us who do pay our fair share. (Click to enlarge chart.)

Here's how the headline reads from this International Business Times article: 30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010. [1]

By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day -- including weekends -- during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections, according to a new report from the non-partisan Public Campaign.

The Public Campaign, a non-partisan research and advocacy organization, reports 30 major U.S. corporations spent more money lobbying Congress than they did on federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010.

Despite a growing federal deficit and the widespread economic stability that has swept the U.S since 2008, the companies in question managed to accumulate profits of $164 billion between 2008 and 2010, while receiving combined tax rebates totaling almost $11 billion. Moreover, Public Campaign reports these companies spent about $476 million during the same period to lobby the U.S. Congress, as well as another $22 million on federal campaigns, while in some instances laying off employees and increasing executive compensation.

This revelation is enough to make one take to the streets and start a blood-less revolution--a new movement. Perhaps we'll call it the Occupy Wall Street movement. Wait a minute: Don't we have such a movement already?

Not only do we have such a movement, with each passing day, certain information comes to light to justify its existence, and to silence those critics who have done all that they could on behalf of these offending corporations to besmirch the movement.

And if you believed that it is only the federal government that's being stiffed by these corporations, think again:

"Our report shows these corporations raked in a combined $1.33 trillion in profits in the last three years, and far too many have managed to shelter half or more of their profits from state taxes," Matthew Gardner, Executive Director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the report's co-author, said in a statement. "They're so busy avoiding taxes, it's no wonder they're not creating any new jobs."

According to the report, titled "Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010," state corporate tax revenues have been declining for 20 years, due to the passage of multiple state tax subsidies, as well federal tax breaks that further reduce state corporate income tax revenues since states usually accept corporations' federal tax. Moreover, Gardner said multi-state corporations are constantly "devoting their money and legal firepower to coming up with tax avoidance schemes."

Between 2008 and 2010, the 265 companies analyzed paid state income taxes equal to only 3 percent of their U.S. profits, half of the statutory 6.2 percent state corporate tax rate. As a result, these companies avoided a total of $42.7 billion in state corporate taxes over three years.

What is the Republican position on all this? They believe that these supposed corporate job creators shouldn't have to pay more taxes (their fair share)--and, if they had their way, no taxes at all. But are these tax-avoiding corporations actually creating jobs?

Even while dodging most of their state and federal taxes between 2008 and 2010, Verizon (VZ) laid off more than 21,000 U.S. employees, while Boeing, Wells Fargo, General Electric, American Electric Power, and FedEx also let go of thousands of workers. Because companies can be reluctant to make data changes in U.S. employment available, Public Campaign reports it was not able to find up-to-date employment statistics for many of the companies evaluated in the report.

Moreover, as it was laying off employees, General Electric gave their top executives a 27 percent pay raise between 2008 and 2010 -- executives received more than $75 million in compensation in 2010. Wells Fargo increased executive pay by a whopping 180 percent, upping executive compensation from $17.8 million in 2008 to almost $50 million in 2010, while Boeing, FedEx and American Electric Power also instituted lavish executive pay raises while laying off thousands of lower-level workers.

In fact, 2010 year was a record year for executive compensation. The CEO's of some of the largest U.S. corporations made, on average, $11.4 million in 2010, about 343 times more than workers' median pay, according to an analysis by the American Federation of Labor, the widest gap between executive and employee pay in the world. CEO pay has skyrocketed since 1980, when chief executives were only paid about 42 times more than the average blue collar worker.

Corporate compensation is symptomatic of the income disparity that's become a gaping hole in our economy, looking more like a chasm than a ditch. For better or for worse, corporations are now elevated to the status of gods, permitted to do pretty much as they choose with little or no interference from government regulators, and with politicians at all levels tripping over themselves to regale them with gifts of additional tax breaks, some of which come in the form of negative effective tax rates, tax cuts, and a potential tax reparation holiday:

A negative effective tax rate means that a company enjoyed a tax rebate, usually obtained by carrying back excess tax deductions and credits to an earlier year, thereby allowing the company to receive a tax rebate check, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

U.S. House Deputy Whip Kevin Brady, R-Tex., is currently making a last-ditch effort to include a corporate tax repatriation holiday on legislation to extend a payroll tax cut....While those in favor of the corporate tax repatriation provision -- which would give U.S. businesses a temporary tax break on as much as $1 trillion in overseas income -- insist it would boost the nation's sluggish economy and make it easier for corporations to create jobs, the Congressional Budget Office reports tax repatriation holidays ranks dead last among 13 policy options for creating jobs. The CBO estimates that over the 2012-2013 period, a repatriation holiday would, at best, create the equivalent of one-full time job for every $1 million in federal costs.

My Fair Lady, my coworker of many years, not only was unfair, so, too, are many of the corporations that make this fair nation their home. Not only have these corporations transferred the tax burden of supporting this country to the average taxpayer, they have become, despite this, one of the chief recipients of government largess--the backing of the world's largest, and most powerful military, and the support of practically every politician in the country, many in the courts, and, at times, the executive branch.

Unfortunately, these corporations have money to burn, and it's burning the pockets of legislators and judges, who, increasingly, are more anxious to fill their campaign coffers, than fill state and national treasuries.

[1]

A Pavolvian Christmas Award

2011-12-24T22:30:00.000-08:00

One of the first things you learn in Psychology 101 is the "Pavlovian response mechanism," or the "Pavlovian conditioning response." Most of us have heard of this phenomenon whether we've taken a class in psychology or not.

Just to refresh your memory--and mine as well--let's go over Pavlov's findings, and how he came to discover that certain behavior can be conditioned in dogs (and by extension humans) by manipulating actions and the environment.

"Ivan Petrovich Pavlov studied medicine in Russia and Germany, accepting posts in St. Petersburg as a professor in pharmacology and physiology. In 1889 Pavlov began experiments with dogs that proved their reflexes could be conditioned by external stimuli. Specifically, after they were conditioned by the ringing of a bell at feeding time, they would reflexively salivate upon hearing the bell, whether or not food was present. In 1904 Pavlov won the Nobel Prize for his work on digestive physiology, but he is most widely known today as an early influence on behavioral psychology."

In my own life, I've seen the power of "conditioned reflex," but this reflex wasn't induced directly but indirectly. We say people "push our buttons," but what we're actually saying is this: At various times in our life, we have--directly or indirectly--allowed the actions, behaviors, words, or attitudes of others, to trigger certain prescribed responses.

When the environment is suitable for such responses (certain stimuli is present), a prescribed behavior follows as certainly as night follows day.

For most of us, these responses go unchallenged, and unexamined. Were we to scrutinize them we'd fine that many of what we call normal or natural responses to stimuli in our environment are really nothing more than "conditioned responses," prescribed, almost automatic, reactions that come to the fore when certain things, or events occur in our environment. We're a great deal like the salivating dog in Pavlov's experiment--reacting to the "ringing bell" of our own making, whether the bell is heard as words, behaviors, or other stimuli in our environment.

But what does all of this have to do with Christmas? Believe it or not, this is a Christmas story, despite our delving into the mysteries of human and animal behavior, and our departure into the realm of human psychology.

Just to prove it, let me make a casual observation. The lovely Christmas card that's appended to the top of this blog entry is the Obama family official White House Christmas card, featuring the beloved First Dog Bo. Would you believe over at Fox News the card has become the subject of some controversy, nothing short of a "Pavlovian conditioned reflex response"?

In an article entitled, "No Christmas in White House Card," [1] the author--referencing the card--writes facetiously and humorously:

"It's all pretty non-controversial. Boring, even. Unless, of course, you're Fox News—in which case the bookshelf is filled with Lenin's B-sides, the Constitution is burning in the fireplace, Winston Churchill's bust is conspicuously absent, Bo has become dependent on the federal government for handouts, and the empty seat is a stirring reminder of President Obama's nonexistent leadership. I'm exaggerating, but only slightly."

Several of Fox News' talking heads--even one as neatly coiffed as Sarah Palin's--weighed in on the Christmas card:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin told Fox News & Commentary that she found the card to be a bit unusual.

"It's odd," she said, wondering why the president's Christmas card highlights his dog instead of traditions like "family, faith and freedom."
...
Palin said the majority of Americans can appreciate the more traditional, "American foundational values illustrated and displayed on Christmas cards and on a Christmas tree."

As for the Obama card, she replied, "It's just a different way of thinking coming out of the White House."

As Pavlovian conditioning responses go, the Fox News one is comparatively a light-weight one, and not deserving of much attention other than to say that Fox and Company are in the GOP spirit this year--that is, Grinches On Parade.

The response that won my Pavlovian Christmas Award this year is not the Fox News Pavlovian attack on Obama, but the public response to the new Air Jordans that went on sale just days before Christmas, creating some troubling scenes from coast to coast, as anxious shoppers do whatever it takes to buy this pricey footwear.

You can watch some of it here", but videos aren't in short supply if you have the time to Bing or Google them.

In this season that celebrates the birth of Jesus, Joy, Peace on Earth, and goodwill toward men, we find our perennial villain, "conditioned response," lurking among Christmas decorations, scores of presents, festive colors, fake Santas, and merry carolers ready to pounce upon unsuspecting Christmas shoppers at the first sign that something they've been conditioned to do--"shop till they drop, and buy till they die"--reaches a fever pitch when items, as generally desirable as a pair of new Air Jordans, are placed within their immediate reach.

We have seen this buying craze with other items, and we have become witness to yet another soul-numbing impulse compliments of capitalism and the crass commercialism that undergirds it. And--can we say honestly--we want to share this "blessing" of the American Way with the rest of the world?

Are we sure?

[1]

Kingsize Rhetoric and New Government

2011-12-06T14:50:00.001-08:00

On Sunday night, in almost the same timeslot as Sunday Night Football, Larry King aired a Special on CNN. It was called "A Dinner with the Kings". Larry King and his wife hosted the event, and Wolfgang Puck plied his culinary skills in the creation a multi-course meal fit for Kings.

If you didn't have the good fortune of watching the special, you can sample some of the fare here.

Many of the invited guests are arguably kings in their own right, having achieved crowning successes in their respective fields, from sports to television, from the world of fashion, music, and the Internet, to television host.

Tyra Banks, Shaquille O'Neal, Quincy Jones, Russell Brand, Seth MacFarlane, Jack Dorsey, Conan O'Brien--all royal standouts in their various industries, were seated, not around a Round Table, but an oblong one.

The guests responded to questions that Larry passed to them, first to one, and then to another, as one would pass a dish laden with food--after helping oneself--from one person to another.

Of the several questions that were passed from guest to guest, one, perhaps more than others, left a bitter taste in the mouth, and contributed to a likely case of indigestion.

Larry asked one guest: "What gets you angry?"

It was Conan O'Brien's answer to the question that would have had me reaching for a handful of Tums, or an Alka-Seltzer, had I been there:

"I think entitlements is my least favorite. I can't stand it when people think that they're entitled to something. I think our culture is very entitled. I honestly don't think I'm entitled to anything. I come from a culture where you get what you can...and you're grateful for it--but I don't think I deserve anything...we [his family] didn't feel any entitlement. I think in America there's a lot of I'm owed this and this."

O'Brien's statement came from a classic Republican/conservative recipe, a potluck dish secreted in to compete with a dish from one of the world's greatest chefs, Wolfgang Puck.

After the "entitlement" statement, O'Brien revealed: His mother became a lawyer, and his father was successful in his own right. It's easy to slam "entitlements" when your life has had the auspicious beginning that a upper-class upbringing can afford.

Larry King with a followup question asked: "Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"

O'Brien responded: "I don't know where that comes from."

As the camera panned them, Tyra Banks and Shaquille O'Neal appeared visibly uncomfortable with the subject, perhaps prompting Larry King, after a couple of more responses from his dinner guests, to quickly changed the subject.

But not before Russell Brand garnished the topic with a biting remark of his own, interpreting "entitlements" as it may relate to consumerism, and not as it may relate to people's expectations from the government and others in society. Harking back to the question, "Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]? he said:

"I don't know where that comes from...because you're told that you're nothing unless you can consume, unless you can purchase. People see these products and they want them. People are being accidentally marketed to who can't afford the products that they're being sold, they're being told they should have, that they deserve, because you're working, just do it....And there's been a void created, a spiritual void."

Not to be outdone, Seth MacFarlane added a pungent spice of his own to the evening's meal: It comes from "every politician on the planet saying, 'You know what, you're getting screwed, you deserve more, how are you, why are you, tolerating this.'"

Now, I'm willing to admit: O'Brien and MacFarlane may not have had the Arab Spring or the various Occupy Movements and their foreign supporters in mind when they made these statements, perhaps sprinkling a bit too much hot sauce on them, but neither did they answer the question that the host posed:

"Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"

The term, "entitlement," has various definitions:

1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group: "fights . . . to preserve victories won a generation ago, like the Medicaid entitlement for the poor" (Jason DeParle).

The last definition Red Eye would refer to as "earned benefits," and rightfully so, as the term "entitlement" has been muddied by the likes of Frank Luntz.

Rather than argue whether a "sense of entitlement" is prevalent throughout the world (which is absurd), or whether the Occupy Movement or the Arab Spring, or the unrest we see in England, or Greece, is symptomatic of this (which it's not), let me answer the question that the host, Larry King, or his several guests failed to answer to my satisfaction.

My answer will focus on "entitlement" as it pertains to this country, and not as it may be considered in other parts of the world.

To the question--"Where does this come from [this sense of entitlement]?"--I have this answer: It comes from our Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution. Entitlements, loosely defined, are Rights, pure and simple. Entitlements are what one has a right to expect from a government that has established itself as sovereign over the lives of those that fall within the sphere of its governance.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Over the past several decades, our federal and state governments have become "destructive of these ends," and a growing number of the people (especially those in the Occupy Movement) are exercising their rights--entitlements afforded them by their Constitution--"the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," one that hasn't been corrupted by special-interest money.

And there are other Rights, entitlements, at the people's disposal. They're called the Bill of Rights:

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Right to keep and bear arms
Conditions for quarters of soldiers
Right of search and seizure regulated
Provisions concerning prosecution
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
Right to a trial by jury
Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Rule of construction of Constitution
Rights of the States under Constitution [1]

Over a Wolfgang Puck meal, Conan O'Brien assured us that he didn't feel entitled: "I honestly don't think I'm entitled to anything."

Well I do! And I'm not reticent to say so.

I'm entitled to the social contract that was drawn before I was born, one that I didn't have a hand in writing, but which has governed my actions, and those of many of my fellow Americans since its inception--the United States Constitution.

Because I pay taxes, I'm entitled to a government that actually works for the people and not corporate special interests that have more legislators and judges on their payroll, and in their pocket, than did Al Capone at the height of his infamy.

Because I vote, as a civically-minded member of my city, state, and nation, I'm entitled to have my vote count and not suppressed; I'm entitled to representatives--those who I helped elect to office--who will do their utmost to represent me and other constituents to the best of their ability, putting in more time to carry out the people's business than their own.

Because I live in the country in which I pay taxes, I'm entitled to a livable environment--clean air and clean water--and regulatory agencies that actually take steps to make sure that my air is breathable, and my water potable, and a Congress that stands with me against corporate polluters, rather than with them, patiently waiting for just the perfect moment to dismantle them and scuttle their live-saving mission.

Because I worked to become a contributing member of my community, I'm entitled to a government that works to be a contributing force in the lives of its many constituents, by assuring "that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [by affirming equal rights for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual preference], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life [by making health-care universal, and available to all], Liberty [by insisting that no one is above the law, and that all participate in the defense of this country, and help pay for the cost, regardless of social status] and the pursuit of Happiness [by providing opportunities to all, using a criterion of inclusion, rather than exclusion]. [2]

We may never achieve the status of kingliness in this lifetime that would satisfy Larry King's criterion sufficiently to be invited to his home for a royal dinner, or partake of a seven-course dinner created by the incomparable chef, Wolfgang Puck, but we can all do our part to elevate our government so that it is self-correcting, continuously monitoring and rectifying an errant system which is more vested in promoting social, political, and income inequality, where a few arrogate to themselves through their wealth, the people's power, than standing with the 99 percent.

When government fails the people, we the people are entitled by history, and by duty, "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to [what] shall seem most likely to effect [our] Safety and Happiness."

[1] Read more about your Bill of Rights.

[2] See GrannyStandingForTruth latest blog entry

What's in a Name?

2011-12-01T20:51:00.000-08:00

It's hard to admit, but I never really cared all that much for my name. I honor it because the one who named me is someone I dearly love and cherish. Over the years, I have taken on nicknames, and nom de plumes that I believe represent who I am more accurately than my given name.

I suspect that I'm not alone. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that there's been more legal name changes, more uses of substitute names, aliases, and sobriquets, than there are actual baby names in books designed to help you give your newborn the perfect name in combination with a given surname.

Shakespeare may have been the first to ask the question, using the voice of Juliet in his tragedy, Romeo and Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet."

Nevertheless, there's one who may disagree with Shakespeare. One who has built a career on changing the names of things, guaranteeing that even the sweet smell of a rose may lose its attractive fragrance, if only an appropriate name may be found, and applied.

That someone is Frank Luntz, political consultant and pollster.

Wikipedia says in part the following about Luntz in a brief bio:

Luntz's specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”...

Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing audiences to react based on emotion. "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." "If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a freak."

If you conclude from this that Luntz' goal is to shape the perception of others using the persuasive power of words that are charged with just the right emotions, and invoking just the right imagery, you'd be right. Just so that no one will mistake his aim, Luntz gives this description of his methodology:

Luntz discussed his use of the term, "energy exploration" (oil drilling). His research on the matter involved showing people a picture of current oil drilling and asking if in the picture it "looks like exploration or drilling." He said that 90 percent of the people he spoke to said it looked like exploring. "Therefore I'd argue that it is a more appropriate way to communicate." He went on to say "if the public says after looking at the pictures, that doesn't look like my definition of drilling—it looks like my definition of exploring—then don't you think we should be calling it what people see it to be, rather than adding a political aspect to it all?" Terry Gross responded: "Should we be calling it what it actually is, as opposed to what somebody thinks it might be? The difference between exploration and actually getting out the oil—they're two different things, aren't they?"

Recently, Luntz made headlines again, this time before the Republican Governors Association, and on the subject of the Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS):

The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."

Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'
"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'
"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'
"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."
Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'
Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'
"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

10. Always blame Washington.
Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

BONUS:
Don't say 'bonus!'
Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."
"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

Christians are told that the devil is always busy, but I suspect that the devil has nothing on Republicans. They never seem to rest, never seem to take a break from the battle, continually devising ways to defeat their mortal enemy--Democrats.

It could be that Democrats are strategizing to the same extent as Republicans, deploying some of the same undermining, deceptive practices, but I doubt it.

Republicans are a breed apart, calculating and devious to a flaw, not reticent to do whatever it takes to maintain a political edge--and no detail is too small to exploit, whether it's descending upon liberal blogs with a swarm of anonymous locusts to attack liberals and the president, coordinating their attacks with the use of ALEC, or attempting to enact voter suppression laws, "[s]weeping new laws — including an end to same-day registration and cuts to early voting — could disenfranchise millions of voters in 2012."[1]

If we're to defeat a Republican take over of this country, we need to know the party's methods, and work harder than they do to impose a political ideology that works for the 99 percent as well as the 1 percent.

You can be sure: Republicans are willing to use legislation, our language, and our emotions--and not so much our intellect--to achieve their ends. We don't have to operate in the same fashion as they do, but we do have to be willing to expose their tactics, and deploy a counterattack to their attacks, lest the whole nation ends up in an oversize body bag.

[1]

Black-eye Friday?

2011-11-25T19:12:00.000-08:00

Have big retail stores found a way to curb the enthusiasm of thousands of Occupy Movement protesters who may have plans in the making to disrupt what is usually considered their blackest day of the year--Black Friday?

Unfortunately, it seems that way.

With the possibility of business-disrupting protests becoming a growing reality, already these big retailers may be mobilizing an army of lawyers to help protect their bottom line, and send a chilling message to those who may be contemplating sit-ins and other protest tactics to bring attention to how corporations--multinational and otherwise--have conspired with congress to keep the people of this nation captive to crass commercialism and to the might of their congress-corrupting dollars.

In an article titled, "Could Occupy Wall Street protesters be sued for Black Friday tactic?" the dreary prospect is raised, and it offers those who would love to see an ignominious end to the movement yet another weapon--besides police in riot gear, armed with rubber bullets, gas canisters and pepper spray--with which to deploy to defeat this inconvenient movement.

They can also bring lawsuits seeking damages, says John Banzhaf, a legal expert who teaches a class called "Torts R Us.”

Yes, Occupy protesters contemplating illegally squatting in “publicly traded” stores such as Neiman Marcus and Wal-Mart on Black Friday, might want to check to see if the stores are litigious before sitting down in front of a pallet of children’s toys. If the store owner is so inclined, lawsuits seeking damages could be in order.

Yes, a lawsuit seeking thousands of dollars could be filed, says Mr. Banzhaf, who has been called “a legal flamethrower” and teaches at George Washington University Law School.

“It could be a deterrent,” he says. “No one wants to have a huge judgment hanging over one’s head, you can be asked embarrassing questions in court – no one wants to go through that.”

He says the lawsuits can be aimed at a group, if they are organized, or even an individual who can be sued for the total amount of damages. If the damages are intentional, he says, a court could impose punitive damages as well. “Punitive damages are usually more than ordinary damages and that would act like a deterrent as well,” he says.

Banzhaf says he doesn’t know of any lawsuits brought against protesters so far, but he thinks they could eventually happen.

“It will only take one lawyer who gets stuck in an illegal demonstration and suffers a business loss,” says Banzhaf. “Or, perhaps some people can’t get into an office because protesters are blocking the way [and] decide they want to do something about it.”

Banzhaf, who says he is a big proponent of First Amendment rights, says the lawsuits would only deal with illegal activities. “At a university, you have a right to sit-in, to write, to walk around – but not to block people from coming into classrooms.”

One thing that characterizes the Occupy Movement, and has harried its detractors from the very beginning, is that it's near impossible to identify its leadership. As long as the movement remains amorphous (once seen as a negative, but now a blessing), and without discernible leaders, it minimizes its chances of facing litigation from those entities it would highlight for promoting egregious acts against the public good.

The movement would do well to elicit the help of other protest groups--those, for example, seeking to protect the environment from polluters who would would rape it for profit. The ACLU may be persuaded to step in as needed, as well as other sympathizers in the legal community, individuals and well as legal agencies with the necessary expertise to advise and represent the protesters.

For all its potential to derail the movement, litigation may not be the magic bullet to the head of the movement that some detractors may be pinning their hopes on.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, thinks Banzhaf’s idea is “a real stretch.”

Mr. Ratner, who has acted as a legal observer for the Occupy movement, says civil disobedience has been a hallmark of protest in the country practically since the Revolutionary War. During the civil rights era, Americans sat in at Woolworth’s lunch counters to protest discrimination. Animal rights activists have been known to participate in civil disobedience.

“I would consider this a misuse of a lawyer’s time and a misunderstanding of protest in this country,” says Ratner. Read the complete article here.

Recently, we saw what the threat of law suits can do in certain cases, practically silencing the women accusing Cain of sexual harassment, notwithstanding the credibility of their claims:

In general, [Atlanta attorney Lin Wood hired by Cain]...said anyone considering making public accusations of wrongdoing against another person should carefully consider the wisdom and potential consequences in taking such action.

"Anyone should think twice before you take that type of action," Wood said. "And I think it's particularly true when you are making serious accusations against someone running for president of the United States, but I think it's equally true if you are making those accusations against your next door neighbor."

Asked to respond to Wood's "think twice" comment, Kraushaar's lawyer, Bennett, said: "I have not heard his statement, but statements of that nature could intimidate or discourage women from reporting sexual harassment."

And the ploy seemed to have worked: "The two public accusers — Bialek and Karen Kraushaar — had planned to hold a joint press conference, but on Thursday Kraushaar decided against it."

It's my hope that no matter what challenges are thrown their way, the Occupy Movement will remain amorphous enough, flexible enough, and nimble enough (which in hindsight seems more by design than happenstance), to morph into whatever form necessary so that the movement will continue to be a thorn in the side of those who have been a thorn in our side for years.

The Pappafication of the Presidency

2011-11-24T22:58:00.001-08:00

In a recent NPR interview, David Frum, a former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, (hat tip to Greg L at http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com/) said the following about President Obama:

"The president is overwhelm. I don't think he's the man for the job.

"But He's not leading the country on the path of socialist ruin as matter of policy and intention. And the danger of thinking so--that's a very powerful way to mobilize followers and raise money...but it also traps you. Because when you mobilize people to that extent, the leaders find themselves unable to lead.

And we saw that happen most dramatically this summer with the crisis over the debt ceiling, where suddenly Republicans who desperately wanted to make a deal, who understood the consequences, they were terrified, they wanted a deal and they couldn't--because they had a wall of people behind them that would not allow them to step back."

"We need a strong and forceful president."

I hear this criticism of the president crop up again and again. Looking back over the several previous White House administrations--Republican and Democratic--the criticism appears almost gratuitous, something that is said (almost casually) if you're a Republican, and you wish to keep your membership in the Republican party in good standing.

We mustn't forget: Bush I was slammed for lack of presidential fortitude: He was excoriated severely for not invading Iraq during Desert Storm, and deposing Saddam Hussien. Bill Clinton surrendered liberal values to appease a Republican congress, and mostly gave them what they wanted in order to appear "strong and forceful." We know, too, that his presidency, elevated by hindsight, was hamstrung by a sex scandal, one that Republicans exploited all the way to an impeachment. George W.Bush showed his Texas cowboy strength and force by embroiling this nation in two wars, squandering a huge budget surplus and enacting tax cuts in a time of war--bold but foolish actions that precipitated the huge federal deficits that're hounding the nation now.

I heard this criticism again when the congressional Supercommittee failed to reach consensus on a debt-reduction package. It as though the president is expected to take each member of the committee behind the woodshed and give them a good thrashing until they relent and give him what he wants. I call this the papafication of the presidency--where the president, to be considered an effective leader, must find a way or ways to coerce the legislation that's required from a fractious congress, or be considered weak and lacking force.

Without a willing congress, nothing gets done in Washington. What this president needed in order to be seen as "strong and forceful" was to know the dirt on each Republican in congress, and the will to expose it if each refused to give him what he wanted. Anything short of that, we have what we have now--stalemates, and obstructionism.

I agree that the "president is overwhelm." With what Obama inherited from George Bush, it would have been a daunting task for any president to overcome, especially when Republicans in congress are more interested in helping the president "fail" than succeed, doing nothing to stem unemployment, or boosting the economy, in hopes that their inaction will help them achieve their end.

With patriotism like that, one thing is clear: We're fighting the wrong "war on terror." The terror with which this nation must contend is inflicted from the Right, and from within the hallowed halls of congress. The Republican Party has done more to damage this country economically than has bin Laden and his merry band of jihadists.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is a response to this "terrorism," and it's ironic that the full weight of our nation's police forces has been brought to bear to squash it. It's also telling that a large segment of this society is more supportive of the terrorism on the Right than in championing the efforts of OWS to bring this terrorism to an end.

Frum's statement above clearly places the lack of leadership squarely at the feet of Republicans. Their entrenchment--which, by the way, is of their own making--may garner party support, but it also paralyzes their will, and capacity, to do more than that.

The Disappearing Act!

2011-10-31T15:05:00.000-07:00

"Now you see them, now you don't."

Illusionists, such as David Copperfield, Criss Angel, and others, have thrilled us for years with their uncanny feats of magic, making objects disappear that defy logic and commonsense--in the case of Copperfield, the Statue of Liberty. But compared to the disappearing act yet to come, these illusionists have nothing on Life's greatest illusionist, Father Time.

For all of Father Time's illusionist skills, the Disappearing Act won't take place all at once, engulfed within a large cloud of gray smoke for effect, but gradually over a few decades--actually around A.D. 2041, says the Census Bureau.

At that time, this nation's white majority will have disappeared, and, for the first time in a long time, assume a minority status.

And not everyone is pleased with this Disappearing Act, and not everyone is clapping and cheering for what Father Time is about to wrought, chief among them, Patrick J. Buchanan, Republican.

To show his displeasure, Buchanan wrote a review of the coming A.D. 2041 event, writing it long before the event (the disappearing act) has had a chance to crystallize in the record books, and long before it has had a chance to register in the hearts and minds of the Americans of that day.

Back in June of this year, I advanced a thesis--one that I knew would require a book-length treatment if I were to substantiate my position--in the comment section of my blog. I'm going restate it here, and ask that you take a bite of it, roll it around on your tongue, and tell me if it has the taste of authenticity.

But before I do that, let's read a little from Buchanan's review on the Disappearing Act facing white America--an eventuality which Buchanan is now dreading, despite the prediction that it will occur years in the future. He titles his observations simply, .A.D. 2041 -- End of White America?

"John Hope Franklin, the famed black historian at Duke University, once told the incoming freshmen, "The new America in the 21st century will be primarily non-white, a place George Washington would not recognize."

In his June 1998 commencement address at Portland State, President Clinton affirmed it: "In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States." The graduates cheered.

The Census Bureau has now fixed at 2041 the year when whites become a minority in a country where the Founding Fathers had restricted citizenship to "free white persons" of "good moral character."

With publication today of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" this writer takes up what this portends. And while many on the left are enthusiastic about relegating the America of Eisenhower and JFK to a reactionary past, I concur with the late Clare Boothe Luce.

In this world, she said, there are optimists and pessimists.

"The pessimists are better informed."

Clever statement from Pat, sounding the alarm, but what, if anything, can be done to offset the inevitability of the white Disappearing Act? You'd think not much, given the coming population shift, and the ensuing "Incredible Shrinking White Population." But then you'd be wrong. That's where my thesis comes in. I've used every skill and my disposal, my intuition, and my reasoning, to reveal a plot to keep power--especially political power--in the hands of whites.

Next, Buchanan prepares his readers for the consequences of a white Disappearing Act, and what it means for our national economic superiority:

First, the end of a national Republican Party that routinely gets 90 percent of its presidential votes from white America.

California is the harbinger of what is to come.

Carried by Richard Nixon in all five presidential elections when he was on the ticket and by Ronald Reagan all four times he ran, California, where whites are now a shrinking minority, is a state where the GOP faces extinction. John McCain's share of the California vote was down to the Barry Goldwater level of 1964.

When Texas, where two-thirds of the newborns and half the schoolchildren are Hispanic, goes the way of California, it is the end for the GOP. Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, also critical to any victorious GOP coalition, are Hispanicizing as rapidly as Texas.

In every presidential election since Bush I in 1992, Hispanics have given 60-70 percent of their votes to the Democratic ticket.

For Hispanics, largely poor and working class, are beneficiaries of a cornucopia of government goods - from free education to food stamps to free health care. Few pay federal income taxes.

Why would they not vote for the Party of Government?

Second, the economic crisis of California, brought on by an outflow of taxpayers and a huge influx of tax consumers - i.e., millions of immigrants, legal and illegal - will be mirrored nationally.

For though the majority of immigrants and illegals comes to work, and work hard, most now come from Third World countries and do not bring the academic or professional skills of European-Americans.

Third, the decline in academic test scores here at home and in international competition is likely to continue, as more and more of the children taking those tests will be African-American and Hispanic. For though we have spent trillions over four decades, we have failed to close the racial gap in education. White and Asian children continue to outscore black and Hispanic children.

Can the test-score gap be closed? With the Hispanic illegitimacy rate at 51 percent and the black rate having risen to 71 percent, how can their children conceivably arrive at school ready to compete?

Should this continue for three decades, what will it mean for America if Asians and whites occupy the knowledge-industry jobs, while scores of millions of black and Hispanic workers are relegated to low-paying service-sector jobs? Will that make for social tranquility?

Affirmative action is one answer. But this is already causing a severe backlash, and the reason is obvious.

When affirmative action was first imposed, whites outnumbered blacks nine to one. The burden of reverse discrimination on the white community was thus relatively light. Today, however, not only blacks, but Hispanics and women - two-thirds of the entire population - qualify for affirmative action in hiring and school admissions.

And the burden falls almost entirely on white males, who are one-third of the country but three-fourths of the dead and wounded coming back from Afghanistan.

No where does Pat mention the Dream Act, which Republicans detest, and its power to close the education gap that he says exists between Latinos and whites. He suggests, further, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have served primarily to reduce a large number of an essential class of whites, specifically white males, upon which this country will someday depend to fill its "knowledge-industry jobs."

For the sake of this country's future, it would have been better, he seems to say, if Latinos and blacks were the primary fighters in those wars, as they're more expendable than white males.

How close can you come, if you're Pat Buchanan, to saying that blacks and Latinos are intellectually inferior to Asians and whites, without crossing that line?

Pat had a few more things to say, or rather, lament over:

Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind - slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide - may welcome its departure from history.

Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing. Read more here.

Come now, Pat: Are you saying that we should forgive the "sins" of European people, because of what they built ("the crowning achievement of mankind"), and not condemn them for the harsh and brutal tactics that were used to erect these "crowning achievements"?

That the end justified the means?

Here's my contention: Plans are in the making to assure that, with the "passing of the European peoples," it will be business as usual in this country, that the torch of power and control will be passed forward, as it has for centuries, to its supposed rightful owners--European people.

From one of my favorite movies, Dune, we get this line of dialogue: "He who controls the spice, controls the universe." I'm going to make a point here by altering this familiar line from the movie somewhat: "He who controls the jobs, controls everything else."

Here's the full thesis that I promised a ways back. Let me know what you think.

A population shift is now taking place in this country, with a rise of Latinos, and a decline of whites.

The Latino demographic will, in a decade or two, wield most of the political power in this country, with whites falling precipitously to the back of the electoral bus.

What's needed to offset this shift is a new power dynamic assuring that whites will continue to assert their will over the political and social landscape.

Whites will "not go gentle into that good night...[but will] rage, rage against the dying of the light."

How do they preserve their once monopolistic power in the midst of this population shift? Simple. Transfer it to corporations. And this what we're now seeing take place, unabashedly, by the Roberts Supreme Court.

Corporations, recently raised to the importance, and stature of the individual, can now use their collective power to influence the outcome of elections and the passage of legislation.

They already have life's largest bargaining chip--jobs, the creation of the them, and the destruction of them.

Further, any regulations, or regulators that would challenge the new authority of corporations can be bought, or defeated, in some other way.

In addition, because unions support labor, they, too, will have to go in this new power paradigm. A weak, disorganized, labor force won't be able to challenge the power of the corporate purse.

Further, use everything at your disposal to weaken the hand of the Federal Government and those agencies that would stand in the way of the fledgling corpocracy.

I think all of this is by design, and is not happenstance. Look for more shifts of power from the people to the corporations--shifts that will dilute our democracy, and empower corporations.

[In response to a remark regarding the indoctrination of those on the Right, Republicans and conservatives, in preparation of this demographic shift, I had this to say:]

That's easy to do, and easy to understand, in light of the new power paradigm: Whites know that their historical position--Alpha dog, Massa, owners of white privilege--is quickly coming to a crashing end.

What good is a democracy, "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people," if you're not the people to whom it refers.

A race war would go a long way toward assisting whites in their struggle to hold onto what's slipping away.

They would, then, have an excuse to legally suppress minority groups that are threatening to be the majority and the ramifications that shift would entail.

Skin Deep?

2011-10-15T15:36:00.000-07:00

I'm guest speaker over at Granny's place. Follow my latest blog entry, Skin Deep?, there.

"The Single Best Invention Of Life"

2011-10-05T18:23:00.000-07:00

Those are nets hanging from those poles at Foxconn. They're designed to catch people as they jump from windows above--if they're lucky--to their deaths below. I was prepared to discuss another topic, but learning about the death of Steve Jobs of Apple fame, I decided to devote this blog entry to him.

Steve Jobs was not only an uncommon visionary, but an incomparable innovator (two achievements that will survive him), but because he used a company in China to assemble his products (Foxconn), his otherwise stunning reputation will always be scarred by this unsavory business arrangement:

"Terry Gou says he has no idea why so many of his employees are killing themselves. Gou is the founder and chairman of Foxconn, the world's largest electronics contract manufacturer — the maker of iPhones and iPads for Apple, computers for Dell, and countless other devices for well-known high-tech customers around the world.

"So far this year, 10 Foxconn workers have committed suicide. 'From a logical, scientific standpoint, I don't have a grasp on that,' Gou told reporters on May 27 at a press conference at the company's vast production facility in Shenzhen, China. 'No matter how you force me, I don't know.'

"Ask around among the more than 250,000 workers at the Shenzhen complex, and you'll find explanations. One 21-year-old assembly-line worker, who asked that his name not be used, says conditions at Foxconn make his life seem meaningless. He says conversation on the production line is forbidden, bathroom breaks are kept to 10 minutes every two hours, and workers get yelled at frequently." [1]

And if I've inadvertently induced you into believing that it's Apple alone who has resorted to the Foxconn-Chinese connection to boost its bottom line at the expense of some Chinese workers, then let me disabuse you of that misapprehension, because there are others:

"One could argue that Foxconn --the Chinese factory that assembles Apple (AAPL) iPhones, iPods, and iPads, as well as the Microsoft (MSFT) Xbox 360, the Amazon (AMZN) Kindle, Motorola (MOT) cell phones, and components for Dell (DELL) computers -- is the best known of all Chinese manufacturers, which is saying a lot." [2]

Because so many of Steve Job's iconic products were built under slave-like conditions, I've never purchased, or owned, one of his "insanely great" products--not the iPad, the iPhone or the iPod.

When I purchased my newest computer, it was after much research, and after receiving strict assurance that it was American made, using mostly American-made parts.

Actually, I'm not here to "bury" Steve Jobs under an avalanche of criticism, and denunciation, but to "praise him" for a Commencement address he gave on June 12, 2005 for Standford University graduates, touching ever so brilliantly on two of Life's most useful illusions--among other topics--one of which, for him, became an amazing "tool," what he termed, "the single best invention of life," to guide and direct his life, "to make the big choices," perhaps greater than the second illusion he encountered in Life, "failure."

Please give Jobs' address your utmost attention and thought: In it, he offers the distilled wisdom of a lifetime--a message that I'd love to share with the rest of the world--of how he managed to live Life fully, successfully, and richly, and how you can do the same.

'You've got to find what you love,' Jobs says

This is a prepared text of the Commencement address delivered by Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, on June 12, 2005.

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.

And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.

I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.

I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.

I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.

I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.

My third story is about death.

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.

This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope it's the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thank you all very much. [3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

The Bonus That Keeps On Giving!

2011-08-25T14:31:00.000-07:00

It was a historian, speaking from China, practically on the other side of the world, that taught me a thing or two about my own country, and some of its unspoken, and untaught history.

Interviewed by an American, this Chinese historian was responding to a question that the interviewer had posed.

The American asked about the supposed Tiananmen Square Massacre, presumably to prove that there were certain subjects that Chinese citizens were forbidden to discuss (Although it's likely that the violence associated with the movement occurred outside of the Square in the city of Beijing.).

To recap that bit of Chinese history, let me cut and paste a portion of a Wikipedia article:

The movement [for the continuation of "economic reform and liberalization"] lasted seven weeks after Hu's death on 15 April. Premier Li Peng, a hardline conservative, declared martial law on 20 May, but no military action took place until 4 June, when the tanks and troops of the People's Liberation Army moved into the streets of Beijing, using live fire while proceeding to Tiananmen Square to clear the area of protesters. The exact number of civilian deaths is not known, and the majority of estimates range from several hundred to thousands.[10] There was widespread international condemnation of the government's use of force against the protesters.

The Chinese historian responded to the American's question without equivocation, saying essentially that he wasn't afraid to discuss this black chapter in Chinese history (1989), but that America had a similar dark chapter of its own, of which only a few Americans are aware.

It was called the Bonus Army Movement.

The what? I remember thinking. What a strange name for a movement. And who were the people in this "Bonus Army"? And how in the Hell did we, in this country, have a response from our government that was similar to what occurred in China, even if it was on a lesser scale? From that moment, I knew that I wouldn't rest until I had the whole of the story. Here's what I learned.

Before I go further, let me tell you what the Bonus Army Movement was a precursor for: The integration of whites and blacks in the military; The taking of organized, mass grievances to the very footsteps of our nation's government, Washington D.C., the Capitol and the White House; and the G.I. Bill.

There's a series of You Tube videos that I would like for you to watch. They give actual film footage of our own Tiananmen Square. If you haven't seen them, you'll want to see all three of them. The history that the three videos represent, should be taught in every school, to every student, rather than the sanitized version that we were all subjected to.

After the horrors of the Holocaust, the Jewish Defence League's (JDL) Motto became, "Never Again."

We can't say "Never Again," if we don't know what has gone before. Without that knowledge, we don't know what to be cognizant of, and how far governments are willing to go to suppress the actions of its citizenry.

To set up what you're about to see, here's a little historical background:

Six years after the end of World War I Congress enacted a bill that would reward veterans of the conflict a cash bonus for their service. However, the legislation stipulated that the veterans would not collect their bonus until 1945.

This delayed gratification was acceptable to the World War I veterans during the prosperous '20s but the onslaught of the Great Depression changed their attitude. Out of work, destitute, and with families to feed, the veterans organized a march on Washington in May of 1932 to force Congress to immediately pay their bonus. An estimated 15,000 made their way to the nation's capital and dubbed themselves the "Bonus Expeditionary Force."

Using scrap wood, iron and any other loose materials they could find, the veterans set up ramshackle camps throughout the city. The largest housed an estimated 10,000 people. They waited in vain for Congress to act. On June 17 the Senate voted against the House-passed bill that would have given the Bonus Marchers immediate payment of their benefit.

Having no other place to go, the majority of the Bonus Army remained encamped in the city, despite the fact that Congress had adjourned for the summer. Finally, President Hoover ordered the Army to forcibly remove the veterans. On July 28 a force of tanks and cavalry under the command of General Douglas MacArthur stormed the camps and drove the veterans out. Their makeshift houses were then set ablaze. More here.

Many economist believe that we might suffer a double-dip recession. If we can't dig ourselves out of the economic hole that Bush dug, we may very well find ourselves falling deeper into the hole, but one without a bottom--a depression. Were that to happen, this nation's government may resort to the unthinkable, if people take their grievance, as did the Bonus Army, within the shadows of our nation's institutions, our Capitol, and White House.

In the interest of revealing "actionable intelligence" to guide future behavior and actions, if the people of this nation are faced once again with similar actions from our government, let me offer the following three, timely videos for your illumination:

"Win One For the Gipper."

2011-08-11T00:02:00.000-07:00

In a nail-biting finish that saw Democrats fail to recapture the state senate in Wisconsin, winning only two of the six Republican seats that were up for recall, I'm reminded more of a basketball game, a baseball game, or even a football game between bitter rivals, than an actual political contest.

Democrats failed late Tuesday in their effort to gain control of the Wisconsin state senate as Republican incumbents won four of six recall elections.

The outcome was a big setback for Democrats, organized labor, and progressive groups who'd sought retribution against six GOP allies of Gov. Scott Walker, who earlier this year enacted a labor law overhaul that ended collective bargaining rights for many public sector workers.

The recall elections attracted millions of dollars of investment from both liberals and conservatives across the nation.

Most at risk as voting started Tuesday appeared to be three Republicans, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper and Dan Kapanke, all of whom had barely won their races in 2008.

Kapanke and Hopper lost, but Darling won with 54 percent with most of the precincts counted, partly due to her outperforming her 2008 majority in heavily Republican Waukesha County.

In 2008, Darling had won her district by a mere 1,007 out of more than 99,000 votes cast. Her district went narrowly for Barack Obama in 2008.

Three other Republican lawmakers also survived the Democratic recall effort: Sen. Robert Cowles, Sen. Sheila Harsdorf and Sen. Luther Olsen.

With the split in Wisconsin’s Senate at 19 Republicans and 14 Democrats as the day began, a turnover of three would have changed party control.

Ronald Reagan, himself no friend of unions,[0] immortalized the saying, "Win one for the Gipper," a line he delivered in the movie, Knute Rockney, All American. [1]

Rather than take inventory of the direction in which coach Walker was taking the state at the behest of the front office (the Koch Brothers), it appears that Republicans, by the legion, turned out to support the Home Team, incumbent Republican candidates. Clearly, not all Republicans resorted to boosterism, but a sufficient number did to assure that the Wisconsin State senate would continue to fly the colors of the Home Team--Red instead of Blue.

In one hotly contested district, some believe that the win for the Republican incumbent was staged. That district's results, which should have been one of the first, was the last. To raise suspicions further, and a few eyebrows, the delay in tallying votes in that district came from one Kathy Nickolaus.

Kathy Nickolaus, the county clerk in question, has a "history of secretive and erratic handling" of results, says John Nichols at The Nation. She was responsible for skewed results in a 2006 Assembly race, and tallies votes on her home computer. What's more, she "apparently knew of this 'mistake' for 29 hours before reporting it." Who needs a conspiracy theory? "The facts raise the questions."[2]

Both Teams, Right and Left, will, from their trunk of expediency, unpack their smiley faces, and attach them to the Wisconsin results. For all the hurrahs of victory, the real losers, as usual, are the American people--those mired deeply in a morass of ideological quicksand, more vested in winning, regardless of the personal cost, and those with no ideological ax to grind, and with no demons to destroy, whose only goal is to pursue what's best for the American people, despite the canons of party politics.

Republicans--in Wisconsin and elsewhere--don't seem to understand: They're working against their self-interest, even as they struggle to reconcile the self-inflicted blows to their self-interest with a conservative philosophy that asks for nothing less than total commitment, even if that commitment kills them, and the nation in which they live.

The Wisconsin elections were seen as an early indicator (weather vane) of the direction political winds favored in the upcoming 2012 national elections. In that case, I say the Democratic Party will need its own "Gipper" to inspire and galvanize its base.

Despite the drive, to begin in November of this year, to collect more than half a million signatures of Wisconsin registered voters to recall Scott Walker, it will be pretty near impossible for Democrats to unseat Walker in a recall election, given the almost unanimous support for Republicans, and Republican ideological solutions (which have failed time and again), rather than what works, evidenced by the recent elections there, in a state known for it historical support of union ideals and collective bargaining.

Nevertheless, I'll do my part, and hope for the best, because I believe that the Scott Walkers of this nation (and we have several in our state and federal governments), would do whatever is in their power to crush the democratic process, and govern more from fiat, and threats, than consensus.

Primed to believe that the economy's descent into an economic Hades was caused by satanic union demands, onerous, and evil government regulations, and diabolically liberal, but misguided legislation to extend unemployment insurance for indolent, work-evasive, unemployed workers, Republicans, themselves, have crossed over to the "dark side" along with those they believe are possessed by the demons of liberalism.

This country is sliding into an economic Hell of its own making. Our wounds have been self-inflicted (consider the eleventh-hour raising of the debt ceiling to avoid defaulting, the resulting S&P AA+ downgraded rating, and the Dow's reaction to it, as well as to world-wide economic upheavals that we had a hand in creating). These wounds were inflicted so that one team (the Republican party) would be crowned the winner in a game where everyone loses, if the Home Team wins.

The nation's demon isn't liberalism, but a Republican ideology which is fiercely fought for and defended by Right-leaning Fans, and the Home Team, one which has enshrined a dogma of small government, free trade, and laissez faire economics, although it's clear that these failed principles serve the special interests of major corporations more than people, some of which have shown by their actions, that they don't give a damn about anything but their profit margins, and the size of their executive bonuses.

When the chips were down, and their back was against the wall, and the momentum was felt to be on the side of their opponents, Wisconsin Republicans were told to go out and "Win one for the Gipper!"

Which they did. The score was 4 out of 6.

And the outcome: Those Fans who cheered and boosted the Home Team, actually lost the game. They lost by winning.

[0]

[1]

[2]

A "Special Comment" that'll K.O. You!

2011-08-03T00:23:00.000-07:00

Keith Olbermann, now on Current, in one of his signature special comments, gives his impassioned analysis of the debt-ceiling deal recently struck by President Obama and Speaker Boehner.

The outcome of this deal was never in doubt: The president would capitulate, Boehner would get 98% of his demands (according to his assessment), and the Tea Party faction within the Republican party--actually operating as a third party aligned with the Republican party--get to keep all their marbles with which to play another day (as the deal didn't include any revenue increases, a "balanced approach" upon which the president insisted).

I'm convinced that had Speaker Boehner been able to move the Tea Party Caucus in the House, the president would have negotiated the "really big deal" with which he teased the Tea Party, and upon which they refused to bite. The deal presumably would have increased the age recipients could first begin to draw down their Social Security, and would have shaved a bit off the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) rate, in return for new revenues.

The Super Congress (a twelve member panel) that emerged from this deal, which the law gives the authority to recommend cuts, with triggers that could force cuts to the defense budget, and social programs, if other cuts aren't agreed to before the triggers take effect, is congress once again abdicating its duty to do the hard work of governance. No where in our constitution is there a provision for such a Super Congress, but that didn't stop one from being formed.

With cuts to the budget's non-defense, discretionary fund, it's very unlikely that congress will have the funds or the will to enact another stimulus program that went to states for shovel-ready infrastructure projects, shoring up bridges, repairing roads, and levees--to name a few.

Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network (NAN) are, once again, organizing a March on Washington on Aug. 27th, with Co-host of the March Tom Joyner. The focus of the March will be on jobs, and the need for congress, now that the debt-ceiling isn't using up all the oxygen in our nation, to turn its collective attention to this pressing national emergency. Learn more here.

However, no jobs will be forthcoming from this congress. I've said this repeatedly. Reducing unemployment works for the president and against the Republicans who're staking out the White House in 2012. An improved economy and job outlook will assuredly give President Obama a clear path to reelection. To thwart this outcome, and to keep their promise to "take back the country," and to make President Obama a one-term president, Republicans have taken to doing some rather shady things (i.e. Koch brothers' financed absentee voter applications with erroneous return dates.).

Across the nation, Republicans are gearing up for the 2012 election with a vengeance, with strict voter I.D. requirements in place. Republican-controlled state houses are doing whatever else they can legally to suppress voter turnout, as a large turnout generally favors Democrats and incumbents.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment can be watched by clicking on this link or, if you choose, you can read the full transcript below. Of course, you can do both, listen while you read. Regardless of how you tackle it, please take the time to absorb and measure his words. It's rare that we hear pundits from the Left speak with such candor, and with such insight.

I close, as promised, with a Special Comment on the debt deal.

Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong.

We have, in this deal, declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all political incumbents are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Re-nomination, re-election, and the pursuit of hypocrisy.

We have, in this deal, gone from the Four Freedoms to the Four Great Hypocrisies.

We have superceded Congress to facilitate 750 billion dollars in domestic cuts including Medicare in order to end an artificially-induced political hostage crisis over debt, originating from the bills run up by a Republican president who funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex by unfunded, unnecessary, and unproductive wars, enabled in doing so by the very same Republican leaders who now cry for balanced budgets - and we have called it compromise. And those who defend it have called it a credit to a pragmatic president who wins some sort of political "points" because, having stood for almost nothing here, he gave away almost nothing for which he stood.

It would be comical if it were not tragic.

Either way, it is a signal moment in our history, in which both parties have agreed and codified that the political structure of this nation shall now based entirely on hypocrisy and political self-perpetuation.

Let us start with the first of the Great Hypocrisies: The Committee. The Republican dogs can run back to their corporate masters and say they have forced one-and-one-half trillion dollars in cuts and palmed off the responsibility for them on this nonsensical "Super Congress" committee.

For two-and-a-half brutal years we have listened to these Tea Party mountebanks screech about the Constitution of the United States as if it were the revealed word and not the product of other - albeit far better - politicians. They demand the repeal of Amendments they don't like, and the strict interpretation of the ones they do, and the specific citation of authorization within the Constitution for every proposed act or expenditure or legislation.

Except this one.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the two houses of Congress can, in effect, create a third house to do its dirty work for it; to sacrifice a few Congressmen and Senators so the vast majority of incumbents can tell the voters they had nothing to do with this?

This leads to the second of the Great Hypocrisies: how, in the same breath, the Republicans can create an extra-Constitutional "Super Congress" and yet also demand a Constitutional Amendment to force the economic stupidity that would be a mandated balanced budget. Firstly: pick a side! Ignore the Constitution or adhere to it.

Firstly, pick a side, ignore the constitution or adhere to it. And of what value would this Mandated Balanced Budget be? Our own history proves that at a time of economic crisis, if the businesses aren't spending, and the consumers aren't spending, the government must. Our ancestors were the lab rats in the horrible experiments of the Hoover Administration that brought on the Great Depression, in which the government curled up into a ball while it simultaneously insisted the economy should heal itself, when, in times of crisis - then and now - the economy turns out to be comprised entirely of a bunch of rich people who will sit on their money no matter if the country starves.

Forgotten in the Republican Voodoo dance, dressed in the skins of the mythical Balanced Budget, triumphant over the severed head of short-term retrenchment that they can hold up to their moronic followers, are the long-term implications of the mandated Balanced Budget.

What happens if there's ever another… war?

Or another… terrorist attack?

Or another… naturaldisaster?

Or any other emergency that requires A government to spend a dollar morethan it has? A Constitutional Amendment denying us the right to run a deficit, is madness, and it will be tested by catastrophe sooner than any of its authors with their under-developed imaginations that can count only contributions and votes, can contemplate.

And the third of the Great Hypocrisies is hidden inside the shell game that is the Super Congress. TheSuper Congress is supposed to cut evenly from domestic and defense spending, but if it cannot agree on those cuts, or Congress will not endorse them, there will be a "trigger" that automatically cuts a trillion-two or more - but those cuts will not necessarily come evenly from the Pentagon. We are presented with an agreement that seems to guarantee the gutting of every local sacred cow from the Defense Department. Except if the Congressmen and Senators to whom the cows are sacred, disagree, and overrule, or sabotage the Super Congress, or, except if for some reason a 12-member Committee split evenly along party lines can't manage to avoid finishing every damned vote 6-to-6.

We're cutting Defense. Unless we're not.

The fourth of the Great Hypocrisies is the evident agreement to not add any revenues to the process of cutting. Not only is the impetus to make human budget sacrifices out of thepoor and dependent formalized… but the rich and the corporations are thus indemnified, again, and given more money not merely to spend on themselves and their own luxuries, but more vitally, they are given more money to spend on buying politicians, and legislatures, and courts, buying entire states, all of which can be directed like so many weapons, in the service of one cause and one cause alone: making bystatute and ruling, the further protection of the wealthy at the expense ofeverybody else, untouchable, inviolable - permanent.

The White House today boasted of loopholes to be closed and tax breaks to be rescinded -- later.
By a committee.

A committee that has yet to be formed.

There are no new taxes. Except the stealth ones, enacted on 99 out of 100 Americans by this evil transaction. Every dollar cut from the Safety Net is another dollar added to the citizen's cost for education, for security, for health, for life itself. It is another dollar he can't spend on making a better life for himself, or atleast his children. It is another dollar he must spend instead on simply keeping himself alive.

Where is the outrage over these Great Hypocrisies? Do you expect it to come from a corrupt and corrupted media, for whom access is of greater importance than criticizing the failure of a political party or defending those who don't buy newspapers or can't leapwebsite paywalls or could not afford cable tv?

Do you expect it to comefrom a cynical and manipulative political structure? Do you expect it from those elected officials who no longer know anything of government or governance, but only perceive how to get elected, or how to pose in front of a camera and pretend to be leaders? Do you expect it from politicians themselves, who will merely calculate whether or not it's right based on whether or not it will get them more contributions?

Do you expect it will come from the great middle ground of this country, with a population obsessed with entertainment, video games, socialmedia, sports, and trivia?

Where is the outrage to come from?

From you!

It will do no good to wait for the politicians to suddenly atone for their sins. They are too busy trying to keep their jobs, to do their jobs.

It will do no good to wait for the media to suddenly remember its origins as the 'free press,' the watchdog of democracy envisioned by Jefferson. They are too busy trying to get exclusive DETAILS about exactly how the bankrobbers emptied the public's pockets, to give a damn about telling anybody what they looked like, or which way they went.

It will do no good to wait for the apolitical public to get a clue. They can't hear the clue through all the chatter and scandal and diversion and delusion and illusion.

The betrayal of what this nation is supposed to be about did not begin with this deal and it surely will not end with this deal. There is a tide pushing back the rights of each of us, and it has been artificially induced by union-bashing and the sowing ofhatreds and fears, and now this ever-more-institutionalized economic battering of the average American. It will continue, and it will crush us, because those who created it are organized and unified and hell-bent.

And the only response is to be organized and unified and hell-bent in return. We must find again the energy and the purpose of the 1960's and early 1970's and we must protest this deal and all the God damn deals to come, in the streets. We must arise, non-violently but insistently. General strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperation take-overs - but modern versions of that resistance, facilitated and amplified, by a weapon our predecessors did not have: the glory that is instantaneous communication.

It is from an old and almost clichéd motion picture that the wisdom comes: First, you've got to get mad.

I cannot say to you, meethere or there at this hour or that one, and we will peacefully break the back of government that now exists merely to get its functionaries re-elected. But I can say that the time is coming when the window for us to restore the control of our government to our selves will close, and we had damn well better act before then.

Because this deal is more than a tipping point in which the government goes from defending the safety net to gutting it. This is wrong, and while our government has now declared that it has given up the concept of right-and-wrong, you and I… have not, and will not, do so.

Good night, and good luck.

"All we want are the facts, ma'am."

2011-07-25T13:17:00.000-07:00

Dragnet's Joe Friday character used the statement, "All we want are the facts, ma'am," fairly often--not to be confused with a variant of it, "just the facts, ma'am," which he never used, but which has, over the years, been imputed to the Jack Webb character.

The need for facts permeates our society to such a degree, that we now have the Car Fox urging used-car buyers to ask for the CARFAX before buying a used car, with the now familiar demand, "Show Me the CARFAX!".

With politicians shading the facts, and shaving them to spin them for the consumption of their base, into cotton candy, or into a Castor-oil concoction, depending on whether they wish to repulse, or to entice, a new site was developed primarily to sift through their various claims, and expose them to the light of truth.

That site is politiFact. Unfortunately, I couldn't find on the site a slogan that equals that of CARFAX, or a phrase that's as catchy as the one used by Joe Friday. To correct this obvious oversight, and to assure that the site remains as trendy as possible, I created one: "PolitiFact: Where Facts and Politics Merge."

Okay, it needs work!

Recently, I spent some time prowling a few blogs (Now, that's an interesting image!). I wanted to see what issues were capturing, and captivating, the minds of black conservative bloggers. During my prowling, I came upon a black conservative blogger with an entry titled:

"The Debt Ceiling Debate - Liars and Losers on display"

I was moved to leave a comment in response to his entry, but learned that the blog employed comment moderation. Rarely do my comments slip pass the watchful eyes of the blog minder. For that reason, I don't take time to respond.

As these bloggers are careful to include only like-minded posts, other bloggers err in the other direction, permitting all kind of disgusting, racist, homophobic, misogynist, anonymous, and not so anonymous, comments in the interest of free speech, not realizing the simple truth--speech may be free, but not a platform.

What was once a great blog for liberal and progressive blacks to meet, talk, and vent, has now become a cesspool of fecal matter. Sensible, reasonable, thoughtful, and intelligent commenters (a few have stayed behind, holding their nose) have deserted the blog, for pastures that are better kept, free of noxious weeds, and more fit for intellectual grazing.

I digress, but not much. The black conservative blogger on "The Debt Ceiling Debate," provided this scathing, blistering, opening statement:

I have been watching the debt ceiling debate with absolute disgust. Seriously, I am on the verge of vomiting from the outright lies, distortions, political games and typical Washington foolishness. Never in my life have I witness such dysfunction!

First we have Obama who has now taken to flat out lying to the American people. Today on CBS News Obama was asked a straight forward question about whether or not Social Security checks would go out next month and here is what the Liar In Chief said:

CBS News: President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Undeterred, our blogger unleashes the full force of his rant, sparing no one he believed was responsible for allowing Democrats to dictate what is factual about the debt ceiling and what is not.

This is a bold face lie, plain and simple. The Social Security Administration claims to have $2.5 trillion surplus. Monthly expenditures for Social Security is about $60 billion. How then on God's green Earth can Obama say with a straight face that he cannot guarantee seniors will receive their on August 3rd?

Obama should be shown the door immediately for lying to the American people like this and CBS News should have their licence revoked for not calling Obama out on such a lie. It is absolutely disgusting!

Aside from a lapdog media, Obama is comfortable lying to the public because he knows he is dealing with a bunch of loser Republicans. The Republican leadership is a bunch of losers because they immediately went down the road of agreeing to raise the debt ceiling from the get go.

Back in January when they took control of the House, Republicans were quick to agree with the left's lie that calamity would befall the world if the debt ceiling was not raise. Now we have Republican leadership willing to abdicate it constitutional authority of the purse strings to the president in order to avoid political heat.

I don't believe that I ever called Bush a liar, although it's documented that he lied about many things. If I did, I'm pretty sure that I phrased it more delicately. I can say, however, with absolute certainty, that I never called Bush "Liar-In-Chief."

In my comment section, it's been discussed many times, how the news media fan the fires of anger, because this emotion, above all others, serves the agenda of government and of corporations that are busy extracting money from our economy at a rate that's both frightening to behold and contemplate.

Earlier, I mentioned PolitiFact. Had our black conservative blogger consulted that site, he might have modified his accusation (but I doubt it), and would have, perhaps, given the president the benefit of the doubt, as to whether the government will meet its legal obligation to seniors, and others who look to a government check once a month to live on.

After Rep. Joe Wilson bellowed his now infamous "You lie!" the ice was broken, and chunks of it has floated in Tea, and have since iced other, not so soft, drinks. We have yet another Joe, Rep. Joe Walsh, stirring the ice in his glass, telling President Obama to Quit Lying." And Sarah Palin scooping up several pieces of the ice, to call Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama liars in one of her Fox News interviews. If you want to see it, you'll have to endure a short commercial for the trouble.

Remember, our blogger accused President Obama of "flat out lying to the American people." So certain was he, he didn't bite his tongue, or moderate his statement,

As it turns out, it's not quite that simple--but then, very things are, especially when they're as complex as our federal government.

Rather than taking the president's word, or the word of Sarah Palin, or of either of the two Joes, PolitiFact subjected President Obama's remarks to very careful scrutiny, and concluded that he didn't lie, but that his remarks are only partially true, receiving a HALF TRUTH on the TRUTH-O-METER. A closer reading suggests that the Obama statement, depending on some very iffy technical stuff, may prove to be wholly true.

So here's what we have, according to PolitiFact:

Social Security is a mandatory program supported by a trust fund, so Social Security benefits don't have to be formally approved by Congress every year. However, Social Security Administration employees are paid through appropriated funds. The real question about a government shutdown was whether those employees would be kept from going to work and if so, whether the checks would sit idle rather than arriving in mailboxes nationwide. The rules that cover government shutdowns provide some leeway for federal workers to carry out core Social Security functions. This flexibility allowed checks to go out during a 1995 shutdown, even as less-urgent agency functions lagged.

However, the two scenarios -- a government shutdown caused by the absence of funding approved by Congress and a debt ceiling impasse that prevents new borrowing -- are different. So the consequences of one do not necessarily match the consequences of the other.

Will the issuance of checks need Social Security Administration employees to make it happen? If so, the issuance of checks might not take place, if a shutdown ensues from the "debt ceiling impasse that [will, in all likelihood] prevent new borrowing."

Here's more:

Delaying certain payments, even while making others, could ripple through the economy and drag down already weak economic growth. "Removing a portion of government spending from the economy would leave behind significant economic effects and would have an effect on" gross domestic product, CRS wrote.

There are also some specific technical challenges for shifting funding into and out of the Social Security Trust Fund, which our friends at the Washington Post Fact-Checker column looked into here.

Most of the experts we interviewed agreed that the federal government, if push came to shove, could probably find a way to prioritize Social Security or other payments, though none expressed absolute certainty. However, most of the experts also acknowledged practical challenges of using such tactics.

While he thinks the GAO's green light for payment prioritization carries significant weight, Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute added that "with so much being borrowed, it is hard simply to pick on a few programs" to continue in the face of a debt ceiling impasse.

Ronald M. Levin, a professor at the Washington University School of Law said, "I interpret the president to be saying, 'Stopping Social Security checks would be hugely costly, but other curtailments would also be hugely costly. ... Something will have to give, and I cannot responsibly guarantee that it won’t be Social Security.' That is not quite what he said, but to my mind it’s close."

Where does this leave us? The critics likely have a point when they say Obama is playing up the risk to the most sympathetic potential victims -- Social Security recipients, 23 percent of whom live in households that depend on the retirement system for 90 percent or more of their income. While it's not a certainty that the Obama administration could prioritize cutting checks to seniors, there's a reasonable shot that the administration could do it.

On the other hand, doing so would likely cause a lot of collateral damage to other American creditors, federal workers, students, Pentagon vendors and countless others -- and could also hamper the broader economy at a particularly sensitive time. The president is probably justified in saying that the possibility of an un-raised debt ceiling jeopardizes Social Security checks -- after all, it hasn't happened before, so no one knows for sure. But we also think the president probably has tools at his disposal to avoid the worst-case scenario for seniors that he expresses concern about. Acknowledging that there are a lot of uncertainties, we rate his statement Half True. Read more here.

I think it's better for the president to express "uncertainty," rather than certainty, just in case he can't deliver--putting aside the possibility of earning political capital by equivocating. Saying that he can deliver, and learning later that he can't, would have a far greater impact on check recipients.

When you realize that this debt ceiling crisis has been purposely manufactured (all Congress had to do was simply pass what would have amounted to no more than a two-page bill to raise the debt ceiling), the catastrophic fallout could have been prevented.

If by defaulting, our credit rating tanks, this will have a long-term, deleterious effect, not only on the price government will have to pay for borrowed money, but the price that all American will have to pay to buy a house, a car, or new appliances, if they're compelled to buy them on credit.

As I prepare to publish this, House Speaker Boehner is preparing to speak. It appears that a breakthrough in the debt-ceiling talk has been negotiated.

ALEC! What's In A Name?

2011-07-17T00:05:00.000-07:00

In college I befriended a fellow student. We were both pursuing a degree in the same academic subject. This student was one of the most organized persons I had ever seen. His class notes were a thing of beauty, crafted with highlights of various colors, succinctly recording the most important information that was discussed in class that day.

Compared with my notes, his notes were GQ, while mine needed a makeover on the scale of "How do I look?"

Visiting his apartment one day, I found it to be small, but well organized. Even his mail was treated to this excessive, but precise, organization, which he was proud to show off. Amazingly, he sorted his mail in drawers by sender. He could quickly find, among his several senders, an electric bill, or a gas bill, by year and day, with the same ease that one might find a book using a library catalog.

I didn't envy him. I knew my limitations. I knew, further, that I could stumble through life--perhaps encountering far more frustration than my fellow student would encounter, because he could always find what he was looking for and I couldn't--but, despite stumbling, I would still succeed, notwithstanding this unfortunate, but manageable, impediment of being disorganized.

Yet, in life, organization has its place. If you're on a mission to run the country, and to impose your political ideology on the American people, organization can come in handy. In fact, the better organized and focused you are, the greater your potential success.

Let me make an observation, and a painful one at that: Republicans are organized. Republican are better organized to "take back the country," than Democrats are to keep them from doing so.

And how are Republicans actually going about this? In state houses across this nation they've turned to ALEC to give Republican-dominated legislatures the means to move in a common direction, with similar goals, seeking complementary outcomes.

ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is the secret, organizational weapon Republicans are using to effect this takeover of state governments, and possibly our national government.

As the states go, the nation isn't far behind.

How successful ALEC has been in out-maneuvering Democrats is made clear in this open letter from CMD's (Center for Media and Democracy) Executive Director, Lisa Graves:

About ALEC Exposed

An open letter from CMD's Executive Director, Lisa Graves

In April 2011, some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. met behind closed doors in Cincinnati about their wish lists for changing state laws. This exchange was part of a series of corporate meetings nurtured and fueled by the Koch Industries family fortune and other corporate funding.

At an extravagant hotel gilded just before the Great Depression, corporate executives from the tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, State Farm Insurance, and other corporations were joined by their "task force" co-chairs -- all Republican state legislators -- to approve “model” legislation. They jointly head task forces of what is called the “American Legislative Exchange Council” (ALEC).

There, as the Center for Media and Democracy has learned, these corporate-politician committees secretly voted on bills to rewrite numerous state laws. According to the documents we have posted to ALEC Exposed, corporations vote as equals with elected politicians on these bills. These task forces target legal rules that reach into almost every area of American life: worker and consumer rights, education, the rights of Americans injured or killed by corporations, taxes, health care, immigration, and the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.

The Center obtained copies of more than 800 model bills approved by companies through ALEC meetings, after one of the thousands of people with access shared them, and a whistleblower provided a copy to the Center. Those bills, which the Center has analyzed and marked-up, are now available at ALEC Exposed.

The bills that ALEC corporate leaders, companies and politicians voted on this spring now head to a luxury hotel in New Orleans' French Quarter for ALEC’s national retreat on August 3rd. In New Orleans, Koch Industries -- through its chief lobbyist -- and lobbyists of other global companies are slated for a “joint board meeting” with a rookery of Republican legislators who are on ALEC's public board. (ALEC says only the legislators have a final say on all model bills. ALEC has previously said that "The policies are debated and voted on by all members. Public and private members vote separately on policy.") Before the bills are publicly introduced in state legislatures by ALEC politicians or alumni in the governor’s offices, they will be cleansed of any reference to the secret corporate voting or who really wrote them.

With CMD’s publication of the bills, the public can now pierce through some of the subterfuge about ALEC, and see beyond the names of the bills to what the bills really do, alongside the names of corporations that lead or have helped lead ALEC's agenda and accompanied by analysis to help decode the bills.

Many of the bills have obvious financial benefits for corporations but little or no direct benefit to the constituents that a particular legislator was elected to represent. Still, it may be tempting to dismiss ALEC as merely institutionalizing business as usual for lobbyists, except that ALEC’s tax-free donations are linked to it not spending a substantial amount of time on lobbying to change the law. ALEC has publicly claimed its “unparalleled” success in terms of the number of model bills introduced and enacted. But seeing the text of the bills helps reveal the actual language of legal changes ALEC corporations desire, beyond what can be known by the PR in their titles. ALEC says it has created a “unique” partnership between corporations and politicians. And it has.

It is a worrisome marriage of corporations and politicians, which seems to normalize a kind of corruption of the legislative process -- of the democratic process--in a nation of free people where the government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, not the corporations.

The full sweep of the bills and their implications for America’s future, the corporate voting, and the extent of the corporate subsidy of ALEC's legislation laundering all raise substantial questions. These questions should concern all Americans. They go to the heart of the health of our democracy and the direction of our country. When politicians -- no matter their party -- put corporate profits above the real needs of the people who elected them, something has gone very awry.

If this piqued your interest, you can find the rest of the article here.

While Democrats and liberals are napping, dreaming of a world where the beauty of democracy reigns supreme, others are plotting to put forth their well-organized agenda, policies that are an anathema to the souls of liberals and progressives.

We can respond in kind, or sloppily, but in a world where one's opponents never sleep, but are continually striving for the edge politically, using the vastly superior power of organization to achieve their ends, it becomes incumbent upon us to remain vigilant, and sort our goals with impeccable organization, so that we may later find them upon the political landscape in the form of successful legislation that actually benefits people rather than special interest.

Horace and Gabe, Cousins [1]

2011-07-10T23:10:00.000-07:00

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.” [2]

One fine afternoon, enticed by the blue sky, and a tepid sun, Mr. Rabbit slipped his favorite hat over his long ears and tentatively stepped out his front door.

As he closed it, the door squeaked a little, but still too loud for comfort, thought Mr. Rabbit. And with a swift movement of his right hand, he inserted a wide, rusty key into a rustier lock; and, although the key turned with difficult, the lock finally clicked, giving him all the assurance he needed that his home, the one he had dug out of the high side of a hill, would be secure during his short absence.

Mr. Rabbit rarely ventured beyond his hillside home during the day, and certainly not by his front door, but usually under the cloak of darkness, and then from a concealed opening he'd built for such stealthy egress, relying only on the light of a moody moon, and surly stars to guide him.

He and the Mrs. had lived there happily until a hunter's aim, finding its mark, had left him a widower. Now grown, their several kids lived in burrows of their own.

Hopping to the end of the sidewalk, he paused momentarily to test the direction of the wind, using a wetted, upturned foot.

Taking the wind's advice, Mr. Rabbit set out to his right on the heavily trodden path that led through the forest to the river.

As he approached the river's muddy edge, Mr. Rabbit spied two strange creatures; both were reclining in lounge chairs, and using long straws to drink a frothy reddish liquid from tall glasses, clearly hoping that the sun would, after a languid morning, turn up the heat on their naked, scaly bodies.

Yielding to his instincts, and his better judgment, Mr. Rabbit lowered his head and began to retrace his steps, already regretting his decision to leave the comfort and security of his home during daylight hours.

"Mr. Rabbit!" yelled one of the scaly creatures through a pointed, v-shaped snout, beckoning him forward with a massive leg. "There's nothing to fear."

"That's right, Mr. Rabbit," said the other scaly creature, flashing a toothy grin from a rounded, u-shaped snout.

Doubly assured, Mr. Rabbit hopped closer to the two, confident that he could scurry away faster than the two could rise from their lounge chairs to give him chase.

"What kind of creatures are you?" asked Mr. Rabbit, furrowing his brow more emphatically than caution would have suggested.

"I'm a crocodile and my cousin's an alligator," said the creature to his left.

"No, I'm a crocodile, and my scaly cousin is an alligator," protested the creature to his right, contradicting the claim of the first. "Just in case you might ask, my name's Horace. I'm on vacation, and a goodly distance from home, spending a little time with my cousin, Gabe.

Mr. Rabbit scratched his white, furry head, and with a serious, searching frown, eyed the two, Horace, and his cousin, Gabe. "The two of you must be related," he said, finally. "It's hard to tell you apart."

"That's because you're standing so far away," said, Horace. "Come closer!"

Mr. Rabbit, still believing that he could outrun any danger the two cousins could pose, hopped within a couple of feet of the two.

"Now take a closer look," urged Horace, as he sucked on the straw, loud, exaggeratedly, filling his mouth with an extended swig of the reddish drink, while shifting his considerable weight in the lounge chair. It was then that Ol' Jim, Mr. Rabbit's neighbor, flew overhead, navigating an invisible highway that only crows could see, and use, as he sounded an alarm so loud that it startled Mr. Rabbit.

"Kaw, kaw, kaw," came the warning, one that Mr. Rabbit could still hear long after Ol' Jim disappeared into the blue distance.

"Hmm," said Mr. Rabbit stroking his chin with his left foot. "Up close I can see that you are different." He looked first to his right at Horace, and then to his left at Gabe, searching intently for any small detail that might have escaped him.

"Well?" asked Horace, baring his sharp teeth, which passed as a disarming grin to the increasingly unwary eye of Mr. Rabbit, who was gradually lowering his guard.

"You, Sir," addressing Horace to his right, have a narrow snout and a protruding tooth on either side of your mouth."

At that, Horace grinned again, as he struggled mightily to suppress the twitching in his tail.

"And you, Sir," said Mr. Rabbit, now addressing Gabe to his left, eager to impress with another burst of insight, "your snout isn't as narrow as your cousin's, more rounded, I'd say, and all your teeth fit inside your mouth the way teeth should."

Mr. Rabbit could hardly contain himself. So pleased was he, that he attempted another step forward to confirm his clever, oh so clever, observations.

It was at that moment that Mr. Rabbit realized the unthinkable: His feet were stuck, shackled in mud. Unknown to him, they had sunk way too deep into the gluey mud for him to make a hasty retreat, if such a retreat became necessary; and it was also at that precise moment that Horace, correctly reading Mr. Rabbit's sticky predicament, swung his powerful tail across Mr. Rabbit's small, furry body, pinning him deeper into the mushy mud.

"Aha! We have you now!" exclaimed Horace, pressing his tail a bit harder on Mr. Rabbit's stuck body to stress his advantage, and to punctuate Mr. Rabbit's tight situation.

"Please, Sir!" pleaded Mr. Rabbit. "Let me go!"

Horace looked at his cousin, Gabe, and they both broke out with a wide grin that showed off their gleaming, sharp teeth.

"He wants us to let him go," said Horace, his voice feigning pity, mocking the entreating tone of Mr. Rabbit.

Sitting up in the lounge chair to bring his eyes on a level with Mr. Rabbit's, Horace continued the mockery, "What do you think, cousin? Should we let Mr. Rabbit go?"

"On one condition." said Gabe, with the air of one who's suddenly become aware of his importance. "We'll let him go, if he can tell which one of us is the croc, and which one the gator."

"Not fair!" cried Mr. Rabbit. "Before today, I've never seen a croc or a gator."

"Don't matter," said Horace, "that's the condition."

Gabe clapped his strong feet together gleefully, fully appreciating Mr. Rabbit's predicament and the growing promise of rabbit stew for dinner.

"All right, I'll do it," said Mr. Rabbit, poignantly aware that his opportunity for freedom had been chained to one hopeful venture, "but I'll need a minute or two."

"Take all the time you need, Mr. Rabbit," said Horace, with a grin, "you'll be sticking around for a while."

The moral: Whether you can tell the difference between crocs and gators won't matter much, 'cause, in the end, they'll both grow fatter, serving you up with brocs and taters, and such.

[1]Original story by Black Diaspora. Copyrighted July 2011.

[2]

89405

2011-06-28T17:09:00.000-07:00

When I moved a few years ago, I was assigned a new telephone number to replace the one I used in the old location--definitely understandable: a new service, a new phone number.

But little did I know that the phone number I was given was a recycled one--and, wouldn't you know it, the number belonged to several of what is commonly referred to as "deadbeats."

Bill collectors harassed me night and day for months, which quickly turned into years, and even now, after about five years, I still get a stray call or two for one of the several women who have since moved on, taking their bad credit ratings, but not their harassing phone calls, with them.

As is often our human plight, I, and not those who were being sought, was the one who suffered, as I intercepted all those ill-tempered calls that should have gone to them.

Over time, I got to know all their names, and, using the Internet to probe, and collect valuable intelligence, I found that they all had once lived, or was still living, within my new burg.

For all my inconvenience, it didn't come close, no, Sir, not even by a mile, to the inconvenience that some have suffered, and will suffer, because they now have a new zip code, or a new telephone number, not because they voluntarily moved, but because they found themselves uprooted--ejected from their town, their homes, their church, their golf course, their jobs, and even their zip code, which has also been suspended.

With the closing of the local post office, the zip code 89405 is not currently receiving mail--the mail will, most likely, be forwarded, returned, or given a tiny tombstone in the dead-letter file--perhaps the fate of the town itself.

The End of an Empire, at Least For Now

This state is scarred with remnants of quests to unearth riches beneath the desert.

Scores of Nevada gold- and silver-mining camps boomed momentarily before the ore petered out and the prospectors scattered. Yet, about 100 miles north of Reno, on the edge of the Black Rock Desert Wilderness, the community of Empire worried little about the ephemeral nature of other mining towns.

Theirs had bustled along since the 1920s — when Empire was named for a brand of plaster — and building materials giant U.S. Gypsum Corp. had run things for more than half a century. When Mike Norman was asked on his application in 2006 why he wanted a job here, he wrote: "To be able to work without fear of company closure; have been told this is a great company."

Norman, now 57, and his wife, Barbara, 54, moved from Montana so he could work at USG, the sole reason for Empire's survival. Employees would unearth gypsum at a nearby quarry and truck it to the large yellow plant with rust-colored smokestacks. There, assembly lines churned out plaster and drywall, key components in home construction.

Workers lived in the shadow of the whirring plant, and USG essentially served as mayor, police chief and landlord. Norman did a little bit of everything for the company, including tending to trash and sewers.

Before long, the Normans had woven themselves into the community, where almost everything sat on company land: the two churches, the nine-hole golf course, the store selling hot dogs and DVDs, the two-bedroom apartment that the couple rented for $125 a month. They planned to stay until Mike Norman retired.

They didn't foresee the housing crash that would rip apart the American economy — and Empire along with it. There was, after all, still gypsum left to mine.

Empire was founded by Pacific Portland Cement Co. for the gypsum. When Chicago-based USG took over in the late 1940s, it continued the town's singular focus. There were few other reasons to decamp off State Route 447, which skirts little more than brown peaks and bulbous tufa rocks on its path north of Interstate 80.

In time, there were enough households, here and in the neighboring blip of Gerlach, to fill a two-page phone directory. (The combined population grew to about 500 by 2000, with the majority in Empire.) Locals survived partly on pluck. The Lions Club, for a time, provided ambulance service in a station wagon.

Just as the residents of Empire didn't see the housing crisis coming, they were not unlike many homeowners scattered around the nation, homeowners who had bought their homes during the housing boom, only to find themselves homeless, or looking for new homesteads, as foreclosures left numerous homes boarded up, and the recession plunged yet other homes underwater, as the value of homes across the nation foundered below sea level.

A decade ago, hurt by multimillion-dollar asbestos claims, USG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It emerged in 2006, its sales booming, just before the real estate market began to collapse. "There are just too many homes," said USG spokesman Robert Williams. "The whole country overbuilt."

In 2010, USG announced the permanent closure of five facilities nationwide, including one in South Gate.

It was early December in Empire, and quarry manager Steve Conley had a rotten feeling about the upcoming company meeting. The housing crisis had continued to shred USG's profitability. Sales had plummeted from $5.8 billion to $2.9 billion in four years.

The recession pummeled Nevada harder than most states. Not much need for drywall when two-thirds of homeowners were underwater on their mortgages, and entire neighborhoods were deserted. Operations here had recently been trimmed to a few days a week. Read more here.

I'm sure that it didn't help the U.S. drywall industry that China was able to export to this country inferior drywall. Aggravating the problem is our growing trade deficit with China, it's manipulation of it's currency, and the grossly unfair import tariffs it has imposed on U.S. goods entering their country, 25 percent to our 2.5 percent.

Not a day goes by that someone on television isn't decrying this imbalance, seeing it as one of the primary ways to tackle what ails our economy. Also in the same breath, President Obama and his administration are attacked for not taking remedial steps to offset what is seen by many as China using unfair measures to beef up its own economy, and to build up its infrastructure, at the expense of the American consumer.

How many more Empire, Nevadas are out there, existing one manufacturer away from becoming virtual ghosts towns? The loss of manufacturing jobs in major metros is staggering:

Major metros are losing 878 manufacturing jobs per day.

America’s 100 biggest metropolitan areas lost 3.2 million manufacturing jobs during the past decade.

That’s the equivalent of 878 jobs disappearing each and every day.

A total of 6.71 million workers were employed by manufacturers in the 100 major markets in March 2011, according to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s down 32 percent from 9.91 million in March 2001. More here.

My guess is, a mainly service industry cannot sustain a large middle class, and that in time the workers in this country will be no better off than their counterparts around the world--and could find themselves in worse shape.

For years, the U.S. has fretted about its large trade deficit — the excess of goods imports over exports — an imbalance of roughly half a trillion dollars in 2009. The mirror image of that deficit is that America has become the world’s largest debtor. You can’t buy more than you sell year after year without either running down past assets or borrowing, and the U.S. has done it mainly by borrowing. So we have also fretted about the unsustainability of continued unprecedented international borrowing.

About 45 percent of our trade deficit is with China. So when we fret, China is inevitably the target. From time to time, the U.S. indicates that it would like the Chinese to allow their currency to appreciate against the dollar sufficiently to eliminate the imbalance. Sometimes the Chinese respond — but only a little. Sometimes they bluster. At the moment, Congress is threatening the Chinese with tariffs if they do not fix the exchange rate problem. But the Obama administration fears a confrontation with China at a time when we need that country’s cooperation in dealing with North Korea, Iran, and other world problems. It also fears a trade war in which the Chinese impose retaliatory tariffs for any that we might put in place.

Unlike many such articles that merely complain about the problem, this one actually proposes a solution, one provided by the famed Warren Buffet, no less. I'm no expert, so I can't say that the solution, in real world terms, would actually work, but it's refreshing to have one, nonetheless. Read more about it here.

China may continue to be an economic thorn in our side for years to come, and Empire, Nevada, may rebound one day, and have it's zip code restored to it's rightful place, whether or not the Chinese drywall industry survives its fallen reputation. Nevadans, despite this severe economic blow, can still count themselves one blessing up on Arizona, the state that jags theirs: Sarah Palin won't be gracing their state with her presence, since, by all accounts, she's moving to Scottsdale, Arizona, which many see as a clear signal she's running for president.

Arizona may yet become infamous for more than it's "papers please law," and it's colorful governor, Jan Brewer.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see!

Christmas in July?

2011-06-24T01:05:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid, I couldn't wait for Summer to start, and the school year to end.

It meant the longest holiday of the year, Summer vacation. Only Christmas could compete with Summer vacation for popularity, as we kids anticipated a Christmas tree, and several gifts under the tree.

Like us kids, some megacorporations have their favorite holidays, too. No, it's not Summer vacation, but something better. It's called a "Repatriation Holiday," and like Christmas, it comes with millions of gifts, and not the paltry few that I found under my tree on Christmas morning.

These corporations have a tree, too, but its not called a Christmas tree. Their tree is called a "Money Tree," and instead of being decorated with shiny, colorful bulbs and lights, garland, and artificial icicles, and an angel on top, their tree comes decorated with a shiny bonanza for stockholders, colorful opportunities to buy stock back, and an angel called work-arounds so that top executives can participate, too, in the windfall holiday.

"What is the gift under the tree," you ask. Nothing greater than a 5.25 percent federal income tax on corporate profits returned to the United States.

"Some of the nation’s largest corporations have amassed vast profits outside the country and are pressing Congress and the Obama administration for a tax break to bring the money home.

"Apple has $12 billion waiting offshore, Google has $17 billion and Microsoft, $29 billion.

"Under the proposal, known as a repatriation holiday, the federal income tax owed on such profits returned to the United States would fall to 5.25 percent for one year, from 35 percent. In the short term, the measure could generate tens of billions in tax revenues as companies transfer money that would otherwise remain abroad, and it could help ease the huge budget deficit.

"Corporations and their lobbyists say the tax break could resuscitate the gasping recovery by inducing multinational corporations to inject $1 trillion or more into the economy, and they promoted the proposal as “the next stimulus” at a conference last Wednesday in Washington."

Hallelujah, a repatriation holiday for these corporations will give our nation a reason to celebrate as well. Or will it?

The last time this grand inducement was offered, the only thing taxpayers received from these corporations were lumps of coal, and a "hard-candy Christmas":

"But that’s not how it worked last time. Congress and the Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.

"Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, according to a study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research.

"This money comes from overseas operations and in some cases accounting maneuvers that shift domestic profits to low-tax countries. The study concluded that the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”

"Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to just 15 of the largest United States multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more of their profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday."

Do I have to tell you which side of the aisle is for this repatriation holiday, and is looking to Scrooge the American people again?

I didn't think so.

"The Obama administration has been uncharacteristically harsh in its criticism of the idea. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner have said they will support it only if it is part of a corporate tax overhaul that results in no decline in federal revenues.

"The prospect of profitable corporations getting a break as social programs are being cut has aroused tax protesters and labor organizations like the Service Employees International Union, which say it would reward companies for moving jobs and investment overseas."

Read more here: Companies Push for Tax Break on Foreign Cash

Okay, let's see a show of hands: How many of you reading this think that this country can afford another national holiday, not for all Americans, but for a select group of multinational companies?

Come now, holidays are fun! We can fire up the barbie, settle back in the shade, drink a few piña coladas (I don't drink, so a Pepsi for me.) and roast a turkey or two over an open flame.

What's that I smell? It doesn't smell like turkey. Wait...it's a new breed of turkey, it's called the American people.

Why Guns: "To Prepare For Tough Times...That's Why."

2011-06-15T23:51:00.000-07:00

Recently, under the heading "Race & The Right Wing," Ed Schultz used his Ed Show to highlight a growing problem within this country: The pitting of whites against blacks--sometimes indirectly, and with innuendos, and sometimes openly, and direct.

I wanted to feature Schultz's video segment on this blog entry, but the "clip & share" applet copied the wrong embedded code to my clipboard--the copied code was for an entirely different segment.

If you haven't seen it, you can watch it here. I would highly recommend that you do, because the video segment is central to my argument.

Commenting on Greg L's blog to one of his entries, titled, James Carville: Economic downturn might cause civil unrest, I responded thusly to the nature of the "unrest" that might occur--that it would more than likely manifest itself as violence against racial groups, than toward the government, and Wall Street, the real culprits, and progenitors of the "economic downturn":

Traditionally, black unemployment has led the pack. Estimates have the black unemployed as percentage of the labor force at 16 percent. For those 16 to 19 years of age at 43.0 percent, those 20 to 24 years of age at 26.0 percent.

Admittedly, these conditions are a tinderbox of potential unrest that could ignite with the slightest provocation. Yet, these explosive responses in the past have provided temporary solutions at best to a perennial black-community problem. Many blacks, therefore, have become almost inured to these conditions, and without a target--other than the merchants in their communities--to direct their rage against, it's very unlikely that blacks will, en masse, resort to a street solution (generic violence) to draw attention to their plight.

Whites, on the other hand, although experiencing high unemployment (8.7), are in better shape in the labor pool than blacks or Latinos. This group, especially the unemployed white youth, are more likely to attack Latinos, who will be perceived as "illegal aliens," as the cause of the problem, than the system itself, believing wrongly that it's this group that is militating against them finding gainful employment.

Yes, there's "anger," but the anger is being misdirected, thanks, as you've stated, to the media provocateurs who have concentrated this anger and have painted bullseyes on the backs of blacks, Latinos, and Muslims.

A race riot is more likely than civil unrest toward the government. The news media, led by Fox News, and an assortment of Republican and conservative blowhards, will instigate this racial disquiet.

I'm convinced that the Republican Party will do almost anything to effectuate absolute control of government, despite the level, and transform this nation into the philosophical, and ideological image it has always imagined--even if it kills us!

A "race war" would achieve two outcomes for Republicans: (1) They can "take back" their country from the encroachment of people of color, and (2) they can set themselves up as the rightful party to handle the crises which they helped to create, and to suppress those voices that would condemn a loss of civil liberties.

What a way for Republicans to assure their political monopolies in state houses, the courts, the congress, and the White House!

Already laws are being enacted to "stop" and "reverse" illegal immigration, and "Americans for Legal Immigration" is at the forefront of this fight. Its mission statement says in part:

"We are dedicated to fighting against illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens and seek a peaceful solution to the crisis that involves Americans of every race, Party, and denomination working together."

In times of crises--whether they have been manufactured or not--opportunities open up to shape and transform government for the benefit of one party.

The question that comes to mind is this: Can those affected, the electorate, set aside their biases, and their bigotries--which the media will certainly exploit and manipulate at every turn--so that they might look penetratingly into the dark hearts of those who are truly responsible for the crises that beset us, or will they continue to allow themselves to be pawns in a chess match that's rigged by players on both sides of the chessboard, and egged on by corporate money?

Where there's a lack of vision, the people perish....

2011-05-26T02:42:00.000-07:00

There are so many things that I could blog about tonight: so much is going on in our world. Alas, time constraints compel me to focus on just one thing--a story that many of the popular blogs aren't running.

It's such an important story that I wanted to highlight it here, to make up for the lack of attention it's receiving, and to use it to respond to several remarks that a commenter has made on another blog.

Over at The African American Clarion Call blog I'm having a fun discussion with Constructive Feedback, and the blog author, Greg L.

Constructive Feedback describes the black electorate-Obama dialectics with the following observation in response to a statement proffered by the blog author:

"Black People SUPPORTING A "RIGHT WING DEMOCRAT"? PLEASE!!!!!
It is more accurate to say BLACK PEOPLE - knowing that they are going to get some measure of PROGRESSIVE policy AND seeking to retain their VICARIOUS LIVING through OBAMA'S EXPERIENCES - are SILENT over Obama's actions as COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE."

To underscore his position again, Feedback offered this followup observation:

"What we have today are Black people who are looking at Obama as KING Jr but failing to realize that KING turned AGAINST the man who seat Obama now sits when King could no longer accept his actions as Commander In Chief. King prioritized global JUSTICE over 'The Great Society'"

Undeterred by the utter brashness of his position, one shared by other black conservatives, I responded thusly:

I guess you're using an exclusionary clause, exempting yourself from the society of "Black People." But that's to be expected given your ideological propensities. Nevertheless, I would expect someone other than a black person to write the aforementioned statement. It reveals a total ignorance of black people, and their rationale for voting for now President Obama.

Would you say that you're living "vicariously" through Obama, and are waiting for some "progressive policy" from him? No, you wouldn't, but you don't hesitate to confer this dubious honor upon liberal blacks.

Other than being the best president this nation's ever seen--where most have been white--blacks want nothing from Obama: no handouts, no reparations (although Fox News insist we do), and no special treatment.

I didn't make this statement just to provide a counter to the one Constructive made, it's a position I've held from day one. Here's another:

Blacks did not, are not, pinning their economic, social, or political hopes on Obama. Were that the case, we would have deserted him months ago.

Yet, that's what you'd like to believe, because it fits the narrative you've contrived, and it buttresses your ideological predisposition. Blacks saw in Obama, not an opportunity to advance so much, but as confirmation that blacks can reach for the highest office in the land and achieve it, despite the obstacles, the hurdles, and the impediments that are often strewn in our path by the majority society.

That assurance along will drive the vision of blacks now being born, and those who, even now, are aspiring to do great things. You can't see that because you're wearing ideological blinders, and can only see what you've placed in front of you.

I dare to have more faith in our people than you; to believe in their eventual success; to know that a new energy has been unleashed, and a new vision of their potential brought before them.

Where there's a lack of vision, the people perish.

To support my position, let me offer the following:

MEMPHIS (CNN) – A hundred and fifty-five Warriors from Booker T. Washington received a high school diploma and a handshake from President Obama in Memphis today.

"Just a couple of years ago, this was a school where only about half the students made it to graduation. For a long time, just a handful headed to college each year," the President pointed out in his address to the students.

The schools graduation rate is one reason the President came to Memphis on this cool spring day. Booker T. Washington High School is credited with a jump in graduation rate from 55% to 82 % in just four years through the use of gender based classrooms and increasing teacher effectiveness by moving teachers that seem to get more than a years growth out of their students to the core classes of English and mathematics.

"Because you created this culture of caring and learning, today we are standing in a very different Booker T. Washington High School. Today, this is a place where more than four out of five students are earning a diploma – a place where 70 percent of the graduates will continue their education."

The President has set a goal of having the largest percentage of college graduates in the world by the year 2020. Booker T. Washington is an inner city school, is a low-income neighborhood with high incidents of teenage pregnancy and violence.

I believe that a part of their success as students results from this new vision of their potential, but I must also credit the hard work, and persistence of their principle and teachers.

Please watch the following video from CNN. As usual, you'll have to endure a short commercial before viewing it, but it's time well spent. When President Obama makes his entrance, one of the girls in the graduating class breaks down in tears.

Tell me that these young people will forget this special visit and honor, and won't go forward to do great things with their lives!

"Obama Got Osama!"

2011-05-02T15:02:00.000-07:00

The headline for the St. Petersburg Times newspaper read simply and briefly,

DEAD

over a picture of Osama bin Laden. It was the most pithy statement of Osama's death I've seen to date, and perhaps the most eloquent for its brevity.

Although I'm happy to see this almost decade-long chapter in American history finally closed, and the families of the victims of 9-11 find a measure of closure that Osama's death brought, we're all painfully and keenly aware that the fight continues against terrorism, and Islamic terrorism in particular.

Human nature being what it is never amazes me, but, in all honesty, it does surprise me from time to time. That was the case following the revelation that Osama had been killed in a U.S. led operation, by an elite military group (probably Navy SEALs taking the lead) to either capture or kill Osama.

The crowd that quickly gathered outside the White House, Ground Zero in Manhattan, and Times Square in New York as well as other locations throughout the United States to celebrate Osama's death, struck me as another of those moments of human interaction that I find puzzling, but not out of the realm of possible human reactions.

I found the jubilation, and the jubilant mood emanating from the throngs surreal and foreign to my sensibilities. Although I should have expected it, it nevertheless caught me off guard, and I wasn't immediately prepared to digest it. I'm not judging their actions. I'm merely sharing my response to their actions.

For one, learning of Osama's death didn't plunge me into a celebratory mood. I experienced a moment of disbelief as I read the announcement on my television screen, "Special Alert, Osama bin Laden is dead." My thoughts like a pendulum swung between the surreal and the real. Is this true? Are they mistaken? Did they get this wrong? How much should I believe?

My sister summed it up nicely when I notified her of Osama's death. "This isn't April first!"

Questions surrounding this successful military operation are already being formed:

How much did the Pakistani government and military know, and were they instrumental in assisting our forces with the capture of the compound where Osama lived, and in his death?

How much should we support a supposed ally that surely knew that Osama was living this close to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, and a mile from a Pakistani military training academy?

How far will the success of this mission, the completion of a campaign pledge to either capture or kill Osama bin Laden, go toward silencing Obama's critics who say that he's known for "leading from behind"? This operation was not only gutsy, for all the things that could have gone wrong, and the political fallout that could have ensued, but for the further tarnishing of our already sullied image abroad.

At some point, depending on the aftermath of Osama's death, we can expect a movie or a made-for-television recounting of what took place internally and externally to kill "the most wanted man in the world."

It's hard to say, now, if the death of Osama bin Laden will result in a political coup for Obama in 2012. Yet, this can't do much to hurt his image, and his approval rating this close to that pivotal election for him and democrats who may be running for office at that time.

I hope it will put to rest the oft-stated lie that only Republicans can keep America safe from terrorists. Republicans have already gotten more mileage from this lie than a bald tire with frayed steel threads exposed.

This has been a surprising several days all around, first the release of Obama's birth certificate, and now the death of Osama bin Laden.

Trump Trump'eting

2011-04-27T23:04:00.000-07:00

Having received only three comments for my last blog entry with two of them my own, I seriously considered not blogging about this or any other subject.

By now you know that I capitulated, and this blog entry is proof of that capitulation. Many bloggers are blogging tonight about President Obama releasing for public viewing a copy of his long-form birth certificate.

The short form (certification of life birth) should have been sufficient, but this is America after all, home of the frightened and the bigoted.

What we have seen for the past two and a half years from the Birthers, the bottom feeding members of the Tea(2)Party is what

My country, 'tis of me,
Sour land of calumny,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my black fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' loss of pride,
From every mountainside
Let calumny ring!

Orly Taitz, the Birthters' favorite daughter, and chief exponent, was fast tracked for U.S. citizenship after she immigrated to the United States in May 1987. Citizenship was bestowed upon her in 1992, five years after arriving here from Israel. I guess it helps if you're a dentist and a lawyer.

What Taitz learned early on, it seems, is how willing some Americans are to keep blacks in their place, and how she could use this American penchant to believe the worst of blacks to build a reputation on exposing the newly-elected black president as an interloper, and a fraud--one who placed the crown of citizenship upon his brow without the requisite document to prove that he was part of the illustrative many who could. Had Obama not been black, this opportunity for self-aggrandizement would have had to take another turn, delaying Taitz' rise to fame and fortune.

But Taitz knew her adopted country well. She knew that her birtherism claim that the president wasn't born here, would be met with general acceptance, given how willing some Americans are to delegitimize a black man who had the temerity to rise above his station.

Hence the Boyification of President Obama began in earnest. Seeing what the birther claims did for Taitz and others, Donald Trump aspired to be the poster boy for the group, calling on President Obama to deliver, or forever be discredited as a cheat, and a fraud. The certification of live birth wasn't sufficient for Donald and others who wanted to see the president meekly surrender to the demands of his white critics and detractors.

No sooner was the birther claim laid to rest, following the release of the president's birth certificate, that Taitz and Trump (What's with people whose last names begin with "T"!), planted other conspiratorial mines in hopes of doing what they failed to do with the birther claims.

They have the president by the toe, and they won't rest until he hollers. And when he hollers, they still won't let him go, but find another toe to "catch" and persecute, even if they have to attach a bogus toe to the ten he already has.

Now, this whole nation would be well served if Taitz' citizenship was annulled, and she was shipped back to Israel, or to Russia.

Fear: Far and nEAR

2011-04-04T21:27:00.000-07:00

On the sidebar some bloggers reveal that they're reading a book. Other bloggers have gone a step further: They not only reveal their reading du jour, but offer a review.

For now, I'm going to break with a part of that tradition: I'm going to reveal the book I'm reading, but postpone a review for a later time. Instead, I'd like to excise a portion of it, and get your response.

Written by Manuel G. Gonzalez and Richard Delgado, the book explores how Bush-era Republicans used fear to win seats in congress and hold fast to the presidency. The book is titled, appropriately, The Politics of Fear: How Republicans Use Money, Race, and the Media to Win.

Copyrighted in 2006 by Paradigm Publishers the book is written with the insight, and uncommon examination of one published only yesterday.

What I'd like to bring to the fore is a statement made on the very last page of the book (the Conclusion chapter). The statement introduces a quote. Keep in mind that the quote predates the book's copyright date, and could very well have been published months, perhaps years, before.

"Every four years, Republicans present their party platform very openly and clearly before the electorate. Moreover, the GOP agenda, as we have seen, is one that has been articulated throughout the years by party strategists representing the various factions that collectively make up the New Right, and these operatives have been unusually forthright in some of their public declarations about their common vision: 'an America in which the rich will be taxed at the same rates as the poor [Be sure to watch the accompanying video], where capital is freed from government constraints [regulations], where government services are turned over to the free market [Watch the several videos highlighting the book, "The Shock Doctrine." Learn that Crises may be real, imagined or manufactured.], where the minimum wage is repealed [Some of the comments posted there are as inane as the proposal to replace adults with children and pay them less (less than minimum wage, that is)], unions are made irrelevant [I could have selected from thousands of articles with a similar focus.], and law-abiding citizens can pack handguns in every state and town.'57" [p. 132]

To show you just how far Republicans have come in realizing their vision for America, I have provided supportive articles that might be accessed within the previous statement by clicking on one, or all, of the highlighted links. The articles prove one thing: The persistence of the Republican Party, and its drive to establish One-Party Rule in this country.

57.Scherer, "Soul of the New Machine," 44.

Not Free Unless the Courts Agree!

2011-03-08T16:31:00.001-08:00

A recent Supreme Court ruling affirming free speech rights in a controversial case, one pitting freedom of religion against freedom of speech, comes as no surprise, but what was surprising was the one judicial hold out, the lone dissenter, associate justice Samuel Alito.

You remember Justice Alito, the lone dissenter again (ostensibly, that is), during one of Obama's presidential speeches before congress, shaking his head and possibly mouthing the words, "not true," to a statement Obama made expressing disapproval of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to that controversial free-speech ruling, we can all rest easy tonight snug in the assurance that our free speech rights will continue unabated and untarnished.

Corporations can continue, without fear of reprisal, to spend massive amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections and the viability of certain legislation; Sara Palin, the run-away Alaskan governor, can continue to insist that President Obama "pals around with terrorists;"[1] Mike Huckabee, an ordained minister, can continue to say falsely (forgetting: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.") that president Obama grew up in Kenya and was heavily influenced by his father and grandfather who opposed British imperialism;[2] and Michele Bachmann, the flower of American patriotism, can continue to cast the president as un-American, and his administration as "gangster-"like.[3]

Of course they do it, because there's a segment of the population that thrives on this mendacious fare, and upon whom much of it is heavily lavished: it sells millions of books, if you're Huckabee, Palin, and George Bush;[4] sets you up as a Tea Party Caucus leader of a rather "anemic" group, if you're Michelle Bachmann[5]; and puts millions of dollars into political war chests, if you're Scott Walker, or a growing number of other politicos, Scott Brown, for example, vying to be the political darlings of the Koch brothers.[6]

Rights are rights, but oftentimes they conflict. For example, when does our right to express our religious beliefs, vouchsafed by the same document that guarantees our freedom to speak, takes precedence, if, and when, those rights clash, as in this case? To my knowledge there's no hierarchy of rights. As such, they all stand firmly on an equal footing, one independent of the other.

If we take reckless liberties with the right to speak (in this case in writing or print, or on a sign), we may be accused of libel, brought into court and sued. This is a limit to free speech that all courts recognize and support. But since the decedent in this case, once dead, has no reputation to protect, and, therefore, cannot suffer an infliction where damages may be assessed, the case is moot.

If we take reckless liberties, as did the Westboro Pastor Fred Phelps and other church members, that encroach upon a person's right to bury a loved one according to the precepts of his religion, then that expression is protected, all the way to the Supreme Court:

"In a case pitting free-speech versus privacy rights, the nation's highest court held that the picketing at a private funeral and even hurtful protest messages were protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

"The decision by an 8-1 vote was the latest in a long line of Supreme Court rulings that free-speech rights protected even outrageous or offensive conduct, including the burning of the American flag.

"The ruling was a defeat for Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq in 2006. He sued after the family's funeral service at a Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland, drew unwanted protests by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas."[7]

Although one of the pillars of our democracy has been strengthened by this ruling, not all are satisfied with the outcome, and have been rather vocal with their opposition. Under the title, Schieffer: First Amendment Rights Gone Too Far?, Bob Schieffer gives expression to my view as well:

"(CBS News) I've spent most of my life defending the First Amendment. But when the Supreme Court ruled last week that it gave a church group the right to picket a dead soldier's funeral with signs that said, "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," I was appalled.

"The group believes our soldiers are dying because God is punishing America for tolerating gay people. That anyone would have the audacity to claim knowledge of God's reasoning is ridiculous, but here's what I don't understand.

"The courts have long held that free speech can be limited in rare circumstances. We can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire, because it would endanger public safety - people might be trampled in the chaos.

"The First Amendment has done just fine with that limit.

"But if that is so, why isn't public safety endangered when a mob hurls brutal abuse at an innocent citizen who could be scarred with severe and lasting emotional damage?

"We must obey the law, because we are a nation of laws. But whatever the laws, what these military families have endured is not right, and every community must now move quickly to establish buffer zones (which are legal) to keep these protesters as far as possible from military funerals.

"When there are those among us so selfish and cruel they are willing to use one of our most cherished freedoms to intrude on the grief of parents who have lost a child just to promote their cause, we must do everything legally possible to deter them.

"The court has ruled, but the effort to protect these families must go on."[8]

[1]"Palin said today, according to a transcript distributed by the campaign. 'These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do — as the greatest force for good in the world.

"'This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country,' Palin concluded, in the hardest shot of the statement."

[2]"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says President Barack Obama's childhood in Kenya shaped his world view -- despite the fact that Obama did not visit Kenya until he was in his 20s.

"The potential Republican presidential candidate told New York radio station WOR that Obama was raised in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather.

"Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya whom he would barely know. He spent his youth in Hawaii and Indonesia and did not visit his father's homeland until 1987, well after his father's death."

[3] "MR. GREGORY: You, you've referred to the Obama administration as a gangster government. You've said that this president has anti-American views. Do you believe that still?

"REP. BACHMANN: I believe that the actions of this government have, have been emblematic of ones that have not been based on true American values. Just consider Obamacare. Over 900 waivers have been given out to unions and protected special interests that are linked to the president. That's not right."

[4] "'America by Heart,' Palin's new memoir, has logged disappointing receipts since it officially went on sale late last month, publishing sources say. Although the book is second on the New York Times bestseller list this week (behind former president George W. Bush's memoir, "Decision Points") , its publisher, HarperCollins, hasn't ordered a second printing - a sign that sales haven't been overly brisk.

"By contrast, Palin's first book, "Going Rogue," became the second-fastest-selling political book in history upon its release last year, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks industry sales. It went into a second printing three days after its release and went on to sell 2.2 million copies in hardcover, according to the publisher."

[5] "That is pretty anemic! In fact, it means that Tea Party Caucus ranks have actually diminished under the "leadership" of Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06), which is really remarkable given the constant fluffing the Teabagger contingent gets from the national press. Seriously, who would have guessed that there would be fewer members of the caucus in this Congress versus last?"

[6] "At the public dedication of MIT’s David H. Koch Integrative Cancer Institute last Friday, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) effusively thanked conservative billionaire David Koch for supporting his election in 2010 and made a plea for help in his re-election campaign next year."
[Watch exclusive video here.]

[7]

[8]

Dread Scott

2011-02-22T01:44:00.000-08:00

I write a lot about the American dream, and how we expend our time and energy in pursuit of it. The "dream," itself, isn't good or bad, it's just a dream. What makes it either good or bad, is what we give up to attain it. If we give up integrity in the pursuit, it's bad. If we give up what's good and decent in our being, it's very bad.

Sometimes, the price that's paid to realize the dream becomes bigger and more expensive than the dream itself.

In walks Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin. Assuming the office on January 3, 2011 Walker has already made a splash with his party, and has grabbed a large portion of the national mega-media spotlight. Palin did it by becoming John McCain's running mate. Walker is doing it by becoming the first Republican governor to challenge his state's time-honored reverence for employee unions. Other Republican governors are expected to follow his lead.

A recipient of Koch brothers money during his run for the governorship, Scott Walker came to the position bought, if not bossed. Barack Obama is often described as a Manchurian candidate. We could say, with a measure of accuracy, that most elected officials, those who have taken vast sums of money from a cadre of donors knowing full well that pay-back is expected, or, once in office, taken large sums of money from lobbyists with similar goals, are effectively Manchurian candidates. The difference: these public officials knowingly do the wishes of their benefactors; a Manchurian candidate, unknowingly.

I put Governor Scott Walker in the "knowing" category.

Thank you, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, for waking a sleeping giant.
Thank you for the awesomely uplifted spirits of Wisconsinites from Superior to Kenosha and Eagle River to Platteville, who trekked to the state capital to defy your union-busting grab.

Thank you for the caravans from North Carolina and New Jersey and Utah who came to a small city in the Snowbelt to join the cause. They know this is not Wisconsin's fight alone. They know that in fifty states, we all are targets of a nasty national conspiracy to destroy unions and the middle-class society unions have built.
Thank you for those whose signs proclaim, "Former Republican."

Gov. Walker, when you concocted a fake budget crisis to have an excuse to rush a union-busting bill through the Legislature, you showed yourself to be as deaf as the Hosni Mubarak so many signs have compared you to.

I've never felt so rejuvenated as when marching with thousands on cold evenings in Wauwatosa and Menomonee Falls shouting, "This is what democracy looks like." It evoked my memories of long-ago marches for civil rights at home and peace in Vietnam. [1]

This much I know: Were it not for unions, the American dream which undergirds American exceptionalism, a term we hear thrown about now with the ease of a baseball, would not be something in which this country takes pride. Unions gave us 40-hour work weeks, weekends, pensions, and other concessions from Big Business, hard-won worker benefits too innumerable to recount.

I don't happen to believe, as some Republicans do, that unions are bad--bad for businesses, and bad for America. Without unions, compensation for a days' work would have been at the pleasure and munificence of employers. The rise of the middle class would have looked more like a molehill, than a rolling hill, and American exceptionalism and the American dream wouldn't have entered our national, political lexicon.

George Carlin, now deceased, says it best in the following video clip. "A high school dropout, Carlin enlisted in the army, [where he] got his high school equivalency....[O]n June 22, 2008, Carlin died of heart failure," most likely the result of a broken heart, given the deep disappointment he carried for his beloved country.

Although a comedian, Carlin had a Solomon's wisdom grasp of the American condition and an amazing insight into what makes our country tick, and what is needed to seize the American dream.

The audience laughed, clapped wildly, and cheered. It would have been better had they resolved to be M.A.D. as hell, but they weren't. Under the heading of TrUSt?, I warned that government shouldn't receive our unquestioning trust.

On another blog, I posted this observation on the current political scene unfolding before us:

Unfortunately, politics is a game. It’s a game that’s played for the players and not for the spectators, who can find their fortunes reversed and sacrificed so that the players can assure a win.

The difference between Repubs and Dems is that the Dems don’t play as ruthlessly as the opposing team: they usually follow the rules of the game, don’t foul as often, and believe that the spectators should have some stake in the outcome of the game. But make no mistake about it, Dems are as eager to play for the sake of the team, as Repubs, but Repubs are out to play for themselves and themselves only, and the spectators be damned, if they get in their way.

[1]

The "Father of Black History"

2011-02-07T18:01:00.000-08:00

This is Black History Month. It was once known as Negro History Week. Rather than highlight Martin Luther King Jr, and other civil rights leaders this year, I thought I'd take a closer look at the founder of this national observance, Carter G. Woodson.

I have Woodson to thank for all those stern black faces on posters that once a year, during Negro History Week, looked down upon me disapprovingly, as I walked the halls of my high school.

How would I ever live up to the fierce demands that those inquiring eyes imposed upon me, a mere lad of the south?

Perhaps this was why Woodson founded Negro History Week: to sear into the black consciousness a challenge that asked: "How will you use your life to continue the work that these civil-rights stalwarts and pioneers began and you inherited?"

For his part, Woodson is rarely mentioned in the context of black history, nor is he given proper credit for his contribution to Black History Month. This year I wanted to make up for this oversight. You'd think that the person responsible for Black History Month would, at the very least, receive some "love", too, during this time of the year.

In the spirit of doing my part to restore Woodson to his rightful place in black history, and as the "Father of Black History," and the founder of what is now Black History Month, let me offer this background information--a brief summary of his life as a gifted scholar, and educator, and as an unlikely activist:

Carter Godwin Woodson founded The Journal of Negro History in 1916 and began Negro History Week (later Black History Month) in 1926, earning him the nickname "The Father of Black History." The son of enslaved African Americans, Carter Woodson earned undergraduate degrees at Kentucky's Berea College in 1903 and at the University of Chicago in 1907. He also studied at the Sorbonne in Paris, and after he earned a graduate degree at Chicago (1908), he went on the earn his doctorate in History from Harvard University in 1912.

Woodson taught in public schools in Washington, D.C. and served as a dean at both Howard University and the West Virginia Collegiate Institute. But his greatest impact was as the leader of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, an organization he founded in Chicago in 1915. (The name was changed to the Association for the Study of African American Life and History -- ASALH -- in 1972.) Woodson and his colleagues were energetic advocates for the study of black history as its own field, and they spread the word through their Journal, as well as through articles in Marcus Garvey's Negro World, public lectures and an ambitious community outreach program that welcomed students and non-academics. He also used the study of history as a spark for social activism, as evidenced in his most famous book, The Mis-Education of the Negro (1933).

Carter Woodson began Negro History Week in 1926, designating a week in February, because that month held birthdays for Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. That went on to become Negro History Month and then Black History Month, designated as February each year by presidential proclamation. Carter G. Woodson's other books include A Century of Negro Migration (1918), A History of the Negro Church and The Negro in Our History (1922).

Carter G. Woodson was the second African American to earn a Ph.D. at Harvard -- the first was W.E.B. DuBois... Woodson served as an education administrator in the Philippines from 1904 to 1907... He launched the publication The Negro Bulletin in 1937 as a way to reach younger audiences... President Gerald Ford began the tradition of declaring February to be Black History Month in 1976.

Wall-ed Street? No more!

2011-02-02T22:52:00.000-08:00

For most of the day, MSNBC televised pictures from a part of the crime scene, Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, as Molotov cocktails from a bridge rained down upon anti-Mubarak protesters.

I say part of the crime scene, because the full crime scene extends far beyond the Square, and Egypt, to embrace most of the world, including the United States.

The most perfect crime is one where no suspicion is raised, and the perpetrator escapes the long-arm of the law (now shorter, by design), and is never brought to justice.

We saw evidence of the crime months ago, August of last year to be exact, but little was done then to prevent further crimes from taking place, or to soften the blow to potential victims:

Wheat prices continue to rise as Russia has set a ban on the exports of the crop. Wheat hit a 23-month high of $8.25 and the price could go higher. It is not clear if yields from farms, particularly in Canada and the US, can make up the shortfall. The perception is that demand will outstrip supply this year. Wheat futures are up nearly 25% this week based on that assumption.

The question arises over how much the shortage is to blame for the run-up and how much comes from simple speculation. In mid-2008, crude futures rose from $80 to $140, and that was not solely the result in an imbalance between supply and demand. Oil prices may have been artificially inflated, but that did not keep gasoline prices from spiking and that undercut profits in fuel-dependent sectors like airlines. It also took gasoline prices to over $4 a gallon, which made life for average Americans even worse than the recession alone.

Crude prices moved back down as speculators took profits.

The price of wheat will cause at least temporary inflation in food prices including bread and cereals. Inflation in the US is low now, but so is the rate at which real wages are growing. Any cost burden put on consumers due to higher food prices is likely to cut purchases of other goods and services.

If you're the sleuth I think you are, you have already identified both the crime, and the perpetrators--Wall Street speculators. Wall Street not only created the economic meltdown we're experiencing here at home, but it contributed to the world-wide woes gripping other parts of the world.

If you take another step back, you'll see that capitalism--as it is currently run by unscrupulous corporatist practitioners, recently freed from the bars of restraint that once held them in check--is the overarching criminal:

As Nouriel Roubini who was among the first to predict the financial crisis while others were pooh-poohing him as “Dr Doom” says don’t just look at the crowds in Cairo but what is motivating them now, after years of silence and repression.

He says that the dramatic rise in energy and food prices has become a major global threat and a leading factor that has gone largely unreported in the coverage of events in Egypt.

"What has happened in Tunisia, is happening right now in Egypt, but also riots in Morocco, Algeria and Pakistan, are related not only to high unemployment rates and to income and wealth inequality, but also to this very sharp rise in food and commodity prices," Roubini said.

Prices in Egypt are up 17% because of a worldwide surge in commodity prices that has many factors but speculation on Wall Street and big banks is a key one.

Here's the big question: How long will it be before the excesses of our economic system, and this rapacious Wall Street criminal--the one we have locked up from time to time, and walled, where appropriate, with various laws and regulations--plunge us all into a Third World War?

"create the conditions that promote"

2011-01-26T22:02:00.000-08:00

Paul Ryan's response to President Obama's State of the Union address, representing the official GOP response, stuck pretty close to Republicans stated, but not always practiced, view of government, and our Constitution:

We believe government's role is both vital and limited — to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders ... to protect innocent life ... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well. It's no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.

Under a Republican president and a Republican congress, Republicans violated what Ryan states is a "vital and limited" role of government--"to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights"--by spying on Americans and resorting to torture, as unreliable as that method is, when it comes to extracting actionable intelligence from detainees.

In addition, Some Republicans are considering a revisit of the Constitution, declaring that parts of it, the fourteenth amendment in particular, begged to be reconsidered, to undergo a new interpretation, in light of the many children of undocumented immigrants who have been born, and now reside in, the nation.

Although subject to Republicans pressing a "reinterpretation," Ryan's reference to providing "a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves," startled, almost as much as the anachronistic placement of a cellphone at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It not only seemed out of place for a Republican, but clearly out of character. In the months ahead, I'm sure Ryan will be given many opportunities to expound on his meaning, given that Tea Party activists would like nothing better than to slash away at Social Security and Medicare, and end government's involvement in these two entitlements altogether by privatizing it.

In place of "promote the general welfare," Ryan particularized this part of the Preamble to the US Constitution by stating without ambiguity what he believes "general Welfare" to mean--nothing short of, and to the exclusion of all other, "entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility."

Entrepreneurship, and upward mobility is promoted, that is, corporate and business interest, but for individuals, "you're on your own."

Ryan's statement encapsulates Republicanism in a few words. And suggests why a commenter on another blog says he finds Republicans "objectionable": "[I]'s the content of the Republican character."

So there is after all a role for government, that of "promoter," one who actively supports and advocates. But that's not what is often heard from those on the Right. Ryan sees government's role more narrowly: to promote business and let "individuals" fend for themselves, to "create the conditions that promote", rather than support a government hands-on approach to governance and the promotion of the "general welfare."

We shouldn't be surprised at this reinterpretation of this portion of the Preamble (Among Tea Partiers and Republicans it's now commonplace.) as it was done to fit an ideological predisposition, and to round peg a square hole.

Yoking "individual liberty" to a "limited government" hasn't held up in practice, although Ryan sees one as promoting, and assuring, the other. A "limited government" didn't prevent the institution of slavery, or black codes, or promote women's suffrage, but an expanded government did.

A "limited government" didn't prevent the outsourcing of jobs to China, and other climes, prevent our economic disaster, that followed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act [1], and brought us too big to fail, nor did it prevent the death of miners at Massey Energy Co.'s Upper Big Branch mine [2], nor the Gulf of Mexico resembling a giant ink well, the result of gushing oil from a failed blow-out preventer, a massive oil spill that threatened and damaged a fragile coastal ecosystem for months, but an expanded government would have.

It appears that just the opposite is true regarding the size of government: Rather than praising the virtues of a "limited government," perhaps we should be extolling the virtues of an expanded government, one that works for, and on behalf of, the people, and not the army of corporate special interest that usually pursue their interests at the expense of the people.

It's not the "size of government" that has diminished the people's "trust in government," but the "all-time high" corruption that has infested the government for years, a corruption that is as pervasive as the size of government that Republicans say they wish to limit.

[1] "The repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks and has been blamed by some for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007–2010."

[2]"CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The U.S. coal industry had its deadliest year in nearly two decades in 2010, with much of the death toll stemming from a single explosion.

"As of Thursday, 48 miners had died in the nation's 1,500 coal mines over the past 12months — including 29 who were killed April 5 in a blast at Massey Energy Co.'s Upper Big Branch mine. This year's was the highest death toll since 55 were killed in 1992, according to information compiled by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. And it was much higher than the 18 killed in 2009, the industry's lowest tally since 1900, according to federal records."

The Tea Party will be No Party for the Poor and Middle Class

2011-01-21T23:23:00.000-08:00

Recently I was directed to a blog owned by a Tea Party activist. I use the term activist to denote the efforts of this blogger to defend the party, as well as reach out to those he'd like to recruit.

In his latest blog entry the blogger supposes that progressives dislike the rich. He enumerates several areas where this dislike manifests itself. After admitting that the "issues" could be anything he lists several:

Healthcare
Internet connections
Housing
Transportation
Food
Power
Influence
Entertainment
Lawyers
Etc, etc, etc,... just fill in the blank.

He sums up his position rather tidily with this statement: "More often than not, whenever there's an issue on their [progressives] radar screen it includes a statement about some perceived unfairness of the rich having something that others do not."

This statement suggests that the progressive movement in this country revolves around class envy--not envy of just anyone, but primarily the rich. The wealthy few, then, is the target of progressives. What the blogger won't admit is that the system is rigged--rigged and tilted heavily toward the rich. Wealth distribution is one indicator, but it doesn't tell the whole story:

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1%of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Frankly, the poor and the middle class are the ones with the bullseye on their behinds, and the rich are the ones with them in their sight. (Don't you just love these gun metaphors?) If progressives have an objective it's this: to make people relevant again within an economic system that cavalierly, impersonally, and unconscionably, uses and abuses them to enrich their bottom line, and discard them when they don't.

The Nation has an article, titled, "No To Oligarchy." It should be mandatory reading for every American across the full stretch of this nation:

The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, some 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps for their food.

And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

But, not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.

Progressives aren't about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but about protecting the common man from the rapacious machinations of those rich few who will stop at nothing to secure their wealth, who will wield their vast wealth as their weapon of choice--a weapon that has been used, and will continue to be used--to consolidate into their hands as much power and control as their wealth will garner.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said in a short story: ''Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.''

To suggest that liberals (as in the Democratic leadership) have a beef with the rich is laughable on its surface. To state further that liberals are seeking a redistribution of wealth by targeting the very rich among us, is laughable still. As long as the rich are rich (a tautology) they will always have the edge when it comes to defeating those occasional legislative policies that might impact their wealth, or, God forbid, have them pay their fair share.

The rich are different from you and me: They have the money to finance their own movement (the Tea Party) in an effort to unshackle themselves from all those oppressive government regulations that were imposed to preserve our environment, regulations that serve only to restrain their wealth-building efforts, and their ability to add further billions to the billions they already have.

How do you do that? You start a movement and finance it. That's what the Koch brothers of the Tea Party movement did:

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States.

The rich are different from you and me: Even when regulatory legislation is passed to rein in their excesses (Wall Street reform), it misses the mark by such a large margin that it might even end up benefiting them, once lawyers, and other Wall Street wizards are invoked, leaving in place "too big to fail," and a worldwide, 600 trillion dollar unregulated derivative market with the excuse, and plaintive wail, that no one understands it--not even the players in that market.

But the most esoteric derivatives - which also are the most profitable for banks to create and trade - have little economic purpose other than to let investors place financial bets, critics say.

A more complex type of derivative helped to inflate the housing bubble in recent years, as Wall Street repackaged high-risk mortgages into securities that speculators could use to bet on the direction of the housing market. Financial institutions earned millions of dollars in fees for creating the securities. But many of the derivatives became worthless when foreclosures skyrocketed, leading to billions of dollars of losses - and taxpayer bailouts - at the banks and insurance companies that owned them.

Now, these obscure and largely unregulated securities - more than $600 trillion of which are tucked into investors' portfolios, according to the Treasury Department - are at the center of the fight over financial reform led by the Obama administration.

I can't think of a more compelling reason for regulating this supposed unregulatable behemoth.

The rich are different from you and me: For all the good things in the healthcare insurance reform law, health insurers aren't going to go broke, but will, by all estimates, grow richer from all those that are now required to have health insurance, even if the government ends up providing subsidies to offset their cost.

Health insurers will benefit due to the following reasons:

1. Additional 32 million Americans will be required to purchase insurance.

2. New restrictions such as the placing of lifetime limits on coverage or denying adults based on pre-existing conditions will not become effective until 2014.

3. Many insurers are expected to raise premiums in order to maintain profits. Recently Anthem Blue Cross raised premiums by as much 39% in California for some customers.

4. Some insurance companies will go out of business since they would not be able to compete under the new regulatory environment and others may merge with the big players leading to a bigger consolidation in the industry.

The five largest health insurers in this country are Aetna(AET), Cigna(CI), Humana (HUM), UnitedHealth Group(UNH) and Wellpoint(WLP).

Despite this mostly rosy picture for health insurers, this hasn't stopped Republicans and Tea Partiers from expending congressional energy and time in repealing this "job killing legislation."

The rich are different from you and me: They get bailed out with the use of billions of taxpayer dollars, but the extension of unemployment insurance to millions of the unemployed is met with cries of socialism, the coddling of the lazy who would, were it not for this insurance, busy themselves in finding meaningful employment.

A certain Tea Party member takes umbrage at the accusation that the Tea Party supported, or, at the least, tolerated the bail out of banks, yet the first order of business in this new congress, comprised of many Tea Party-elected legislators, is not to rescind these bailouts (at least those not already repaid), but to repeal health insurance reform--notwithstanding the millions of Americans who go without health insurance annually, or who, because of pre-existing conditions, don't qualify, or who, because of a catastrophic illness, is forced to spend all that they have, fixed as well as liquid assets, toward their health care, or that of a family member.

Republicans and Tea Partiers have no compunction when it comes to lowering the hammer on the lives and welfare of taxpayers (the "low-hanging fruit"), while the rich and the powerful are advocated for with full press--the extension of the Bush tax cuts which will increase this nation's deficit hole, although economists are mostly in agreement that such an extension will do little to stimulate our lethargic economy.

The goal of the Tea Party is to pare down the size of government, to eviscerate it--a move that will result in a huge loss of federal jobs from what they consider the non-productive sector of society. Such a paring will achieve two objectives: Corporations can then divest themselves of those onerous regulations imposed by the FDA, the USDA, and the EPA, and other alphabet-soup agencies. Apparently, not even the the FBI, the DEA or the CIA are exempt. Another goal is to shift power to the states. By reducing the size of the federal government, power will be decentralized sufficiently to allow states to have the upper hand--a provision that will put blacks and other minorities at the mercy of state and local governments, and subject them to their legislative whims.

The 1980 presidential campaign provides us with a glimpse. In 1980 David Koch ran as the vice presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket. In his campaign, he advocated for the abolishment of social security, welfare, the FBI, the CIA, public schools, and finally, federal regulatory agencies.

This will allow the Tea Party to "take their country back," as well as roll the clock back, which has been their objective all along.

The rich are different from you and me: And the difference is the difference that money makes. And if Republicans and some Democrats have their way, this difference will, in all likelihood, continue indefinitely.

So it appears that the rich, after all, have "something that others do not." They have ownership of the government. They have ownership of the courts (recent Supreme Court rulings make this clear). And they have ownership of most of the money generated in this country, and the power that accompanies such ownership.

There Are Birthdays and, then, There Are Birthers

2011-01-16T22:34:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow our nation will observe Martin Luther King's birthday.

Leading up to his birthday, public schools discussed both his life, and his contributions to the civil rights efforts that became a movement under his leadership.

Not to detract from King's legacy (which stands unparalleled in our nation's history) a long line of civil rights leaders existed years before Martin Luther King, Jr., found himself swept away by the exigencies of the moment.

Some of those civil rights leaders were white, and some were black. That more were black that white speaks volumes about the wall of resistance that was erected to keep blacks in their place, and just how entrenched was the notion. That some were white tells another story: It seems this country hasn't always lived up to its constitutional ideals--not where women were concerned, and not where gays and lesbians are concerned. Even now, some states are denying this group equal protection under the law.

For example: It was an uphill fight that passed legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell", and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Same-sex marriage equality is still not a reality in every state in our nation.

It's tempting to speculate on what Martin Luther King would have thought of our time were he alive to witness it. Without a doubt, he would be pleased with some things, while finding displeasure with others. A little over a year ago, I looked at King's "dream speech" in an effort to assess this nation's progress toward a realization of that dream. I titled it: "Are We Dreaming Or Is It Real? An American Report Card.".

What I wrote then still stands. In fact, since the election of President Obama, this nation's behavior in certain quarters may qualify it for a lower grade.

How many times in our nation's history has the birthplace of a sitting president been challenged to the same extent as President Obama's? The Tea Party pursued it so aggressively that a new word was inserted into our lexicon, "birther." Their fanaticism around this issue called their whole movement into question.

And one Tea Party adherent in particular is making it her personal crusade, one Orly Taitz. This Moldovan-Jewish woman, born in the Soviet Union, immigrating to the United States from Israel in 1987, now a U.S. citizen, is leading the charge to expose the president as a fraud.

Why her, and not someone born here is, too, a matter of speculation. Could it be that she's envious of Obama? He's president, this black man with a Kenyan father, but try as she might, she'll never qualify to hold the office, let alone pursue it.

I believe that Orly Taiz, and her crusade, would be one of those things that would displease Martin Luther King were he alive today. It certainly is one of those things that, despite its conservative make up, displeased the Supreme Court. Just in time for the observance of Martin Luther King's birthday, we have this:

January 11, 2011
Agence France-Presse
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to take up the question of President Obama's citizenship, which a core group of skeptics continues to challenge despite presentation of his U.S. birth certificate.

The high court, without comment, rejected the request by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer who has emerged as a leader of the "birther" movement of mainly rightwing protesters who question where Obama was born.

She had asked the court to annul a federal judge's $20,000 penalty for filing a "frivolous lawsuit" by her client, a U.S. Soldier who refused to deploy to Iraq because she viewed the commander in chief as illegitimate.

The U.S. Constitution allows only "natural born" Americans to be elected to the presidency. Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in the U.S. state of Hawaii.

Judge Clay Land in the southeast state of Georgia determined in October 2009 that Taitz's pursuit of the case was "breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional," and scolded her for expressing "no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct."

She had filed a stay of deployment request on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes, an Army medic who challenged Obama's legitimacy as president. When Land threw the case out, Taitz publicly branded it "an act of treason."

In her petition before the Supreme Court, Taitz asked: "Is the whole nation de facto reduced to the level of slaves or serfs when one without valid vital records, without Social Security number of his own and without a valid long form of birth certificate is able to get in the position of president?"

On Monday, Taitz said she would not let the case rest.

"I will file a motion for reconsideration," she said on her website, adding that she has "evidence of highly suspicious activity in several federal courts."

"If we don't clean up corruption in the judiciary, in the White House, citizens of this country will have no trust in the system and will take justice in their own hands. This is dangerous," she wrote.

Sometimes, justice prevails, even here in the United States of America.

GUNstitution

2011-01-13T20:24:00.000-08:00

So many things have happened over the past several weeks that it's hard to know where to begin.

During that time, we've had the tragic shootings in Arizona, leaving six dead and fourteen wounded; we've heard the president speak at a memorial for the fallen, praising heroes, and asking the country to live up to the innocent, idealistic vision of democracy that the youngest victim of the tragedy undoubtedly held--"nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, a little girl born the day of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."

Rather than assign blame, the president urged Americans to "talk[...] with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

Although the president didn't mention any group in particular, those on the Right expressed certainty that he was addressing his words to those on the Left.

As the Right has often done at times, using Martin Luther King's words to attack the Left, a similar thing is now occurring--the president's words are being used to silence dialog that might be critical in nature, rather than encouraging it: the very opposite of what the president intended.

Throughout his speech, the president struck a tone that even his most ardent critics couldn't use against him, even if they yearned to do so.

The brilliance of the president's remark, and his overall speech, is that either side may use them to find within them whatever they choose to find--perhaps the reason why the Right has collectively and individually embraced his speech.

And to add insult to injury: Some Republican pundits, while praising the president's words, are also criticizing the "raucous" environment and the "pep rally" atmosphere of the memorial, likening it to a "political rally" rather than a memorial.

So much for civility.

And why did congress allow the assault weapons ban to lapse, and along with it high-capacity ammunition clips? The answer may be found in an article titled, "Who Killed the Assault Weapons Ban?"

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) dismissed the ban as "a feel good piece of legislation" and flatly told the New York Times that it would expire even if Bush made an effort to renew it. "If the president asked me, it would still be no," he said. "He knows, because we don't have the votes to pass the assault weapons ban. It will expire Monday, and that's that."

"His role in ending the ban made DeLay a hero among gun nuts, who printed up bumper stickers that said, "I'm for NRA and Tom DeLay." The NRA invited DeLay to keynote its annual meeting in 2005, just as ethics investigations were ramping up against him. He took the podium and choked up slightly as he proclaimed: "I've been in elected office for 26 years, and this is the highlight of my career."

"Ever since, things have certainly been downhill for the Hammer. On Monday, DeLay was sentenced to three years in prison for conspiracy to commit money laundering. Time will tell whether cohabitation with hardened criminals will temper his love for high-powered guns."

Karma can leave you kicking and screaming and ignored.

And although Sarah Palin in a video response to the Tucson shootings disavowed ("refudiated") any responsibility in the shootings (although Gabrielle Giffords, herself, had expressed concern about the gunsight image over her district), some Tea Party folk are threatening a black Republican, forcing him to resign his chairmanship:

The sole black Republican Party district chairman in Arizona resigned from his post in the wake of Saturday's shooting, citing threats from the Tea Party faction and concerns for his family's safety, The Arizona Republic first reported.

Republican District 20 Chairman Anthony Miller was not the only party official to resign following the shooting that killed six and wounded 14 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge. But Miller had been an especially dedicated campaigner for the GOP, and said he only stepped down in the face of "constant verbal attacks" and other forms of intimidation.

"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," he said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

Miller, 43, told HuffPost he decided to resign after his wife expressed concern for their safety. Miller had been the target of heavy criticism from Arizona Tea Partyers, in part because he worked on Sen. John McCain's campaign last fall. (The Tea Partyers favored McCain's opponent, J.D. Hayworth.)

But the attacks also took on a racial hue. One critic referred to him derogatorily as "McCain's boy," Miller said. Other language was even less ambiguous. At an event in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., Miller said someone called out, "There's Anthony, get a rope."

Yet Miller balks at crying racism.

"To say that anyone has been racially motivated, I can't really draw a conclusion," he said. "But a lot of people told me 'You're not a conservative, you're a RINO.' In my mind, that's just as bad as being called a n-----, honestly. When you call someone a n-----, it's saying they're less than, and RINO is the same thing."

One would think that, in the aftermath of this tragedy, the gun-control debate would be leaning toward fewer guns, and smaller-capacity clips, right? In a sane world perhaps. But ours is not a sane world. What the Right is proposing, instead, is the possession of more guns--on the floor of congress, and at political rallies.

"If only more guns, other than the shooter's, had been at the rally in Tucson that day," the Right ventures. Actually, there were other guns present. And one of those packing almost shot the wrong person, because he believed the one holding the gun, just wrested from the shooter, was the shooter. "I almost shot the man holding the gun," the man later averred.

More guns, then, could possibly have made matters worse--could have created a bedlam of mistaken intentions, and mistaken perpetrators.

"Political discourse doesn't lead to violence," so says the Right. But it's not any "discourse" that's under scrutiny, but discourse that uses references to violence, or violent images and imagery. Although we can't be certain if the poisonous political climate in Washington, D.C., and throughout the nation, triggered the violence in this case, we do know that it has spurred violence in the past. The death of Dr. Tiller readily comes to mind, but there are many other examples I could cite.

Regrettably, this nation is steeped in a gun culture. Even our Constitution was amended to highlight gun ownership:

Article [II]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Although often quoted and referred to, the first part of Article II is often omitted. Even a cursory reading reveals that the first part of the Article is a prelude to the second part, and that the second part is justified, and supported, because of the necessity of the first.

With a national standing army provided for, you'd think that this necessity to "bear Arms" would have undergone an amendment of its own. At the very least, those who "keep and bear Arms" should be required to serve in the military, and stand at the ready to do so.

But the NRA would never stand for that. However, such a provision and requirement would, I'm sure, cut back on the number of guns in society, estimated to be around 293 million or so, almost one for every person.

As a kind of concession to the new members of the new congress, a large number of which are Tea Party disciples, the US Constitution was read aloud--although omitting the embarrassing parts, such as slavery.

Boyce Watkins, PhD, reflected on this gesture in an on-line article, offering the following observation:

"The language of the Tea Party has consisted mostly of thinly-veiled animosity thrust toward the black man in the Oval Office who doesn't seem to know his place. The idea of "taking back America" and 'returning America to its roots,' can be translated to saying that America isn't a country that's supposed to be run by that 'hoity-toity, high fallutin, black guy with the Muslim name.'"

Reading the Constitution aloud--despite its intent--seemed a colossal waste of time: before the reading was complete, the chamber was mostly empty.

So much for patriotism, and the recent enunciation from the Right that the Constitution would be strictly followed, and would form the basis for every new bill considered, and every law passed.

What can I say about the violence that seethe in this nation, which our love affair with guns has come to symbolize?

Violence is in our national DNA. This country was born in blood. And violence was used to extend this nation's boundaries from sea to shining sea. Violence brought slavery to these shores and violence maintained, and expanded this "peculiar institution," which saw a South grow both in wealth, and political power because of it.

Guns played no small part in the formation of this country, and its supremacy over all who would stand in its way. As a result, a Gunstitution existed right alongside our national constitution, each buttressing the other.

Small wonder, then, given our historical, national preoccupation with guns, that guns are still an indelible and intricate part of the fabric of this country, and an innate part of our national image:

AMERICANS OWN LARGEST NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN WORLD

"It [a Swiss study] said 80 per cent of the estimated 84 million firearms in Europe are in civilian hands, with Finland leading with 39 guns for every 100 citizens, followed by Norway with 36 guns, Sweden with 24 guns and Denmark with 18 guns.

"But the United States, which the study estimates has between 83 and 96 guns for every 100 people, still has far more guns per person than Europe, where the survey estimates there are 17.4 guns for every 100 people.

"The study said Americans are most armed in the world, followed by Finns and Yememis.

"The National Rifle Association, the leading U.S. group representing gun owners, says there are more than 200 million privately owned firearms in the United States. These guns are owned by about 60 million people, NRA statistics posted at the 4-million-member organization's website say."

"Good Hair"

2011-01-04T02:52:00.000-08:00

Good Hair, the Chris Rock movie (documentary), makes many statements about black folk preoccupation with their hair. No, I don't think blacks are the only racial group with this fixation--the beauty industry, which hair is a large part of, crosses racial lines, pulling in billions of dollars from many ethnic groups, regardless of color.

No, I'm not going the discuss the right or wrong of this fixation: I don't care about that as an issue--I'm well aware that we're not our bodies (We're more than that!), and that we don't get to take them with us when we vacate this world, leaving behind pierced ears, noses, tattoos, as well as hair, whether it's our personal hair, or whether it once belonged to another.

"When Chris Rock's daughter, Lola, came up to him crying and asked, 'Daddy, how come I don't have good hair?' the bewildered comic committed himself to search the ends of the earth and the depths of black culture to find out who had put that question into his little girl's head. Rock visits hair salons and styling battles, scientific laboratories, and Indian temples to explore the way black hairstyles impact the activities, pocketbooks, sexual relationships, and self-esteem of black people. Celebrities such as Ice-T, Kerry Washington, Nia Long, Paul Mooney, Raven Symone, Maya Angelou, and Reverend Al Sharpton all candidly offer their stories and observations to Rock while he struggles with the task of figuring out how to respond to his daughter's question. What he discovers is that black hair is a big business that doesn't always benefit the black community and little Lola's question might well be bigger than his ability to convince her that the stuff on top of her head is nowhere near as important as what is inside."

I would urge you to watch this film, even if you have seen it once before (It's now on cable.), not because you'll learn more about weaves, extensions, the hair-dressing industry, the latest beauty-shop gossip, or any such thing, but for the statements it makes about us as a people--candid observations, visual, as well as spoken, about how well we serve our own economic self-interest.

E. Franklin Frazier, sociologist, author, and university professor, once posited this thesis, and I paraphrase: As integration (racial intermixing) becomes a greater reality in this country, black institutions will become less important--will, as a result, disappear. A safe thesis to be sure. Upon reading that, I countered: black institutions, for that reason (the on-going existence of segregation), won't disappear altogether, any time soon, because full "integration," for all its promises, will be slow in coming, and dearly bought.

And, for the most part, that has been the case--defacto segregation often rules the day within our nation, despite federal legislation and court rulings to the contrary.

Until such time that true and full integration is our lot, it behooves blacks to operate in their best economic interest--an interest that has been largely ignored over the years, notwithstanding the status of racial integration. Rather than focus on what is best for us as a people, we pretend, to our financial and economic detriment, that we're an integral part of the mainstream, when in fact we're a mostly isolated people, crowded into various enclaves throughout this vast nation.

From the documentary, you will learn that the black hair-styling industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and that others (non-blacks) outside of the black community are banking most of those billions that this industry produces.

You will learn that there are only four black hair-care product companies, out of a hundred or so, producing their own black hair-care product lines, and that blacks aren't fully represented in an industry of which they're the principal consumer--not at the production, nor the distribution end.

Unfortunately, what is true for the black-hair industry is also true for other industries--clothing, food, housing, banking, what have you. Until we own the production and distribution end of what we consume, we can't hope to improve measurably our economic condition in this country in a major way, but, rather, give to others our hard-earned income--money that will be reinvested, not within our black communities, but beyond our boundaries.

And, sadly, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Happy New Year One And All!

2010-12-31T17:09:00.000-08:00

The regulars here don't need the following message: Your magnanimity, and love for humanity shine through much of what you post. I subscribe to Today's Highlights from Answer.com. Each day, thanks to this site, I'm treated to information, facts, and knowledge--a good way to begin any day.

It's the "pledge" that I want to bring your attention to. It's making the news round, and garnering deserved attention. It should give us all hope: Even the super rich see a need to give back. Yet, we mustn't forget: Our small amounts multiplied a thousand fold, and given with the right spirit--the spirit of generosity, love, and caring--will reach as many people, if not more, as do billions of dollars.

Blinders Off posted this in the comment section of the previous blog entry:

"I talked with a mentor of mine last week. I was questioning why I do what I do and how there are times I do not understand it, but the feeling I get when I witness the results of helping others is extraordinary. The following day he said, 'It is time I give you this, you will know why after you finish reading it.' He handed me book titled 'The Greatest Miracle in the World' by OG Mandino. I did find the answer to my questions after reading that book."

I responded in part to her "questioning," and to the answer she received from her mentor. I'm not sure exactly the answer she received, but I'm certain that it resonated with her deepest feelings. Not to upstage her, but to share why I do what I do, I offer the following:

I choose to be the grandest version of the greatest vision ever I've held of who I am, and who I wish to be.

Here's the beauty of this: I get to revise the version at will, making it grander and grander each time, fully aware that I'm only limited by my "vision;" fully aware that I have an eternity with which to create myself anew, again and again.

Now before I forget why I began this blog entry, let me say this:

The Pledge:

What did you do this year to make the world a better place? You still have a few hours left to end the year on a positive note. There's time to do a good deed or make that one last tax-deductible contribution in 2010. It's okay if it's not as much as one of the members of the Giving Pledge campaign. That's the group of billionaires recruited by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to pledge at least half of their wealth to charity. One of the newest and youngest members of the group is Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. In September, he pledged $100 million to the Newark, New Jersey, school system, and more recently he pledged to give away most of his nearly $7 billion fortune. The 26-year-old computer whiz became even more famous this year as the subject of one of the year's hottest films, The Social Network. And, now Time magazine has named Zuckerberg its Person of the Year for 2010. No wonder he looks so happy.

Quote: "When you give everyone a voice and give people power, the system usually ends up in a really good place. So, what we view our role as, is giving people that power." — Mark Zuckerberg

"Good Hair"

2010-12-30T02:33:00.000-08:00

THIS, TOO, I'VE SEEN

2010-12-24T03:26:00.000-08:00

Christmas is but a couple days away. I was composing another entry, but decided, at the last minute, that I should write something more in keeping with the season. More years than I care to recall, I wrote the following poem.

For all its failures, with a few lines, it offers an insight into my being that would require a tome to match. If you find the meaning of it, you will learn more about me in a few minutes of reading that years of observation, and study would never yield.

I'm humbled that you think enough of what I write here to come by from time to time to read it, and leave your comments. A blog author can't command a readership; he or she can only hope that a gem or two of worth may be found among the cloddish earth of prosaic words that variously pass as opinions, fact, insight--and, with a little luck, something approaching wisdom.

Christmas is not my favorite day. Every day is my favorite day. Yet, Christmas is special: It brings a message of hope, peace and goodwill. Each year Christmas reminds us of what life on earth could be were we to dedicate ourselves to bringing more of that hope, peace, and goodwill to our world--first as a new born (a new resolve), and extending that resolve throughout the year.

Merry Christmas to all!

Now my poem:

THIS, TOO, I'VE SEEN

I want to show you where I've been,
And tell you all the things I've done.
I've saddled up the westward wind,
And ridden high above the sun.
I've haunted dusty halls of times gone by,
And left my footprints there.
I've trampled fences of the future with a vagrant's glee;
This I've done without a care, without a moment's empathy.
I've seen the silver cord of life:
I've watched it leave a trail behind,
And follow as some burdened wife,
Along the passageways of time.
My ears have thrilled to music never heard before;
Heard voices sing sweet melodies that made sad hearts to soar!
I've heard eternal sages,
Recite their catechisms ageless.
These things I've seen and heard, and more!
These things are hidden in the Word,
And locked behind your door.

This, too, I've seen, and wish to tell and share:
Of all the things I've seen and heard,
Of all the places been and seen,
No sight has been more fair,
No wisdom's been more keen,
Than the sight of those who love,
And the sound of those who care!

E-Mail Wars: DADT

2010-12-09T22:53:00.000-08:00

I wrote this blog entry some weeks ago. Upon completion, I decided not to publish it. Since that time, new developments have brought a change of mind: Don Ask, Don't Tell has come up for a vote twice in the Senate only to be blocked by Republicans.

The video below is at the heart of this blog entry. When first I heard it, I'll admit, my blood boiled a bit, not because the speaker, Alex Nicholson spoke untruths, but because he seemed to make a conscious decision to lay the repeal of DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) squarely at the feet of the president.

I'll concede, readily, that I, too, feel that President Obama hasn't done enough, and hasn't gone far enough, to effect a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't tell, but what I'm not prepared to do is zero in on him as the prime culprit in this melodrama.

Congressional Republicans, I believe, have stonewalled the repeal, and, at least on one occasion, filibustered it. Congressional repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have, by now, been a foregone conclusion had Republicans stepped up and voted for the repeal--the Congressional remedy, I believe, that Obama is seeking, rather going over Congress' head, or using his executive power for a quick, but not a lasting, fix, that could be easily overturned by a future hostile congress.

So it was balance that I saw missing when I listened to the exchange between Alex and Keith Olbermann. As a member of the Log Cabin Republicans group, Alex appeared downright obsessed with blaming Obama, rather than Republicans, more intent on drawing partisan lines in the discussion, rather than identifying all those who're really to blame.

Harry Reid, at the behest of Lady Gaga (who has on a number of occasions used her considerable celebrity power to advance a repeal of DADT), attached the appeal onto the Defense Authorization Bill—including the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Reid says that the repeal provision in the bill was already scheduled, and that Lady Gaga's request was not the reason why it was included.

The following information comes from Fox News' web page. It's a breakdown of how the bill fared in Congress:

massive defense spending bill that includes a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law banning gays from serving openly in the military stalled Tuesday after failing to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate.

Senate Democrats were unable to corral the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican objections blocking the package from advancing to the floor. The bill failed in a 56-43 vote.

The vote makes it all the less likely that Congress will take any substantive action on "don't ask, don't tell" or the broader defense package before adjourning for the November midterm elections.

Had Republicans not objected, DADT would have been one step closer to being reversed, and a repeal of DADT one step closer to becoming law.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins was seen as a key 60th vote because she has voiced support for repealing "don't ask, don't tell." But she ended up opposing the bill out of concern that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid limited debate and did not give her colleagues opportunities to offer amendments.

Accusations flew after the vote. The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP organization, accused Reid of refusing to compromise. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the Republican filibuster leaves gay members of the military "forced to lie about who they are."

According to Log Cabin Republicans, DADT went down to defeat for something Harry Reid did, not something the Republican Party did. Keep this in mind as you proceed here. This outcome was another reason why I responded as I did to the interview you're about to watch below between Keith Obermann and Alex Nicholson.

After watching the video, I promptly e-mailed the Log Cabin Republicans and expressed my outrage over the partisan way that Alex had acquitted himself. After watching the video, you can read the e-mail exchange that took place between myself and Alex. Initially, I sent the e-mail to Log Cabin, and not to Alex, hoping, at the very least, that someone would relay by displeasure to him at what I saw was a partisan attempt to score political points, rather than garner broad support for a repeal of DADT.

With the background in place for a better understanding of what's to follow, I must clarify one thing first before proceeding: I'm not looking for agreement here on the position I took. If you agree, that's okay, and if you don't, that's okay. Had I availed myself of a longer cooling-off time, I probably wouldn't have voiced my objection at all.

Congressman Barney Frank, who was interviewed after Alex, saw Alex's response as partisan, too, a position that I held before Frank spoke, which he confirmed, and which prompted Alex to characterize my position as "spoon-fed," and "regurgitated."

Here's my initial e-mail to the Log Cabin Republicans:

I'm pleased with the court's recent ruling to suspend DADT. But I just listened to the plaintiff in the case and a member of your organization who used his interview to MSNBC to make the issue partisan, and to slam the president and his administration. As someone who has taken a stand with e-mails to my representatives, including the president, I'm angry as hell.

I'm a liberal. How many Republicans have stood up to end DADT? It could have been history months ago if John McCain and other Republicans had supported a repeal.

Perhaps you can justify being a Republican in light of their resistance to ending DADT, but it would be better to place the blame where it's deserved--on your own party.

Disgusted, but not surprised at how you have used DADT,

Xxx Xxxxxxx

Here's Alex' response to my response (It's getting harder to keep up with the responses.)

As someone who has dedicated five years of his life to work on repealing DADT full-time and without pay, your comments are what an objective observer would find disgusting. Despite the talking point that Barney Frank spoon-fed you and which you regurgitated in your email about my appearance, there was nothing partisan about what I said. I run a non-partisan organization, Servicemembers United (the largest gay troops and vet organization) and I simply laid out the facts. If holding up a mirror in front of you makes you see partisanship, then that should tell you something about who's really being partisan. Everyone who has commented on that interview, except for you, agreed that it was Frank that brought the party politics into it. If you REwatch the segment, I talked plainly and clearly about ALL sides that held blame. I mentioned Republicans, the Senate leadership, and the President.

I am at the epicenter of the DADT repeal fight. I'm in all the meetings with the White House, the issue leaders on Capitol Hill, leaders in the Pentagon, AND I'm at the center of the court battle as well. I, more than anyone, see with a crystal clear view what's going on with DADT and who is (and is NOT) doing what they CLAIM they support. This issue is not about McCain. He's a lost cause and he's not movable. Smart activists concentrate their time and energy on those who are movable, and especially on those who SAY they support us but are not acting on that claim. That would be, first and foremost, the President. Anyone who thinks he has done all he can to get DADT repealed is just plain crazy.

And as to your closing remark ("Disgusted, by now surprised by how you have used DADT.")... I was DISCHARGED involuntarily under DADT. DADT came to me, I didn't seek it out. Are you kidding me? You should be ashamed of yourself for such a senseless and irresponsible remark. Do your homework!

Alex Nicholson

Now, here, again, is my response to Alex responding to my response (whew!).

As someone who has dedicated five years of his life to work on repealing DADT full-time and without pay, your comments are what an objective observer would find disgusting.

You, it seems, are the one who's not an "objective observer." You're too close to the problem for that kind of clarity. Further, your political propensities color the issue with a political bias--very disturbing when you say repeal of DADT is your aim.

Despite the talking point that Barney Frank spoon-fed you and which you regurgitated in your email about my appearance, there was nothing partisan about what I said.

Clearly your objectivity has been severely compromised, and severely crippled. Barney Frank spoke eloquently for your cause, more eloquently than you, laying out the path ahead. Would you not agree were it not for Republican filibustering on this issues it would have been resolved weeks ago? It's my firm belief that you have placed politics above your stated interests.

I run a non-partisan organization, Servicemembers United (the largest gay troops and vet organization) and I simply laid out the facts. If holding up a mirror in front of you makes you see partisanship, then that should tell you something about who's really being partisan. Everyone who has commented on that interview, except for you, agreed that it was Frank that brought the party politics into it. If you REwatch the segment, I talked plainly and clearly about ALL sides that held blame. I mentioned Republicans, the Senate leadership, and the President.

Your mirror has flaws. It's distorted by biases that you have projected on me. I'm not the problem. You are! Barney Frank, like me, saw what your unstated, but manifested, intentions were during the interview. Everyone who commented, obviously, are as politically biased as you are, and are from your political neck of the woods. No surprise there, that they would run to your defense. I have no dog in this fight (I'm not gay), and can approach this issue with far more detachment than you, and a helluva lot more objectivity than those who ran to your defense.

I am at the epicenter of the DADT repeal fight. I'm in all the meetings with the White House, the issue leaders on Capitol Hill, leaders in the Pentagon, AND I'm at the center of the court battle as well. I, more than anyone, see with a crystal clear view what's going on with DADT and who is (and is NOT) doing what they CLAIM they support. This issue is not about McCain. He's a lost cause and he's not movable. Smart activists concentrate their time and energy on those who are movable, and especially on those who SAY they support us but are not acting on that claim. That would be, first and foremost, the President. Anyone who thinks he has done all he can to get DADT repealed is just plain crazy.

Smart activists would, in addition, point out all those who stand in the way, not just those who're still active in the fight--unless, of course, other considerations preclude that--such as scoring cheap political points, for example. I have supported you, and have acted consistently on that claim, but that hasn't stopped you from berating me, after I offered you my perspective on your performance. Your response--which has been more focused on maintaining a defensive posture than in retaining an ally--is further proof of your political bias, and myopic view. You know that old statement, "The enemy of my enemy...," but you clearly see all those who might criticize you as an enemy, and fodder for your customary knee-jerk reaction which is to treat them with the same heavy hand, and dismissive attitude as those opposed to your stated goals.

And as to your closing remark ("Disgusted, by now surprised by how you have used DADT.")... I was DISCHARGED involuntarily under DADT. DADT came to me, I didn't seek it out. Are you kidding me? You should be ashamed of yourself for such a senseless and irresponsible remark. Do your homework!

How condescending! How presumptuous! You have, in ways impossible for me, made my case, and proved my point. I will continue to push for an end to DADT in spite of your response, and my belief that you shouldn't be the torchbearer for the cause. You have shown yourself to be more petulant than helpful in advancing your interests. If you're on the front line battling the forces that oppose you, God help your cause--you lack civility, and the reserve required to bring people together. Further, by making DADT a partisan issues (which you did, despite protestations to the contrary), by not calling out all those who are an impediment, regardless of politics, then you do the cause a disservice, a cause that would be better served if you stood down, and allowed others who know how to "win friends and influence people" to take the lead.

Still disgusted, and now mortified,

Xxx Xxxxxxx.

No, he hasn't responded to my response, and I don't think he will. I think he realizes that e-mailing me at all with his diatribe was ill-advised, and that his e-mail could be used in the manner in which I'm now using it--giving it a broader readership than he intended, but I don't think I owe him confidentiality, since he, too, can do with what I wrote to him in anyway he sees fit.

A postscript: Alex, during the interim, has appeared on MSNBC several times since this exchange. On those occasions, he was careful to point his anger, and his frustration, to the Right as well as the Left. Who could ask for anything more?

"What the fuck has Obama done so far?"

2010-11-15T23:30:00.000-08:00

If the title of this piece seems a bit out of character for me, well, you'd be right: it is. It's the reason why I put it in quotations. I'll come back to the title in a bit, but first I have a few observations I'd like to share:

Was it only me? It appears that President Obama and the Democrats were shocked that they didn't do better in the mid-term elections. We all know by now that the House lost so many seats to Republican and Tea Party candidates that the news media had to go back several decades to recall a similar drubbing delivered to a political party. And it didn't stop there: Democrats lost several seats in the Senate.

By all estimates, here was a political party and a president who had accomplished much--an extension of unemployment insurance for millions, a successful cash for clunkers program to keep our automobile industry from going under, "tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage." But Democrats still lost heavily at the polls.

And what did they do in response?

Democrats did what the Republicans did when they lost miserably a few years back, right? Moved more in the direction of their ideological center, which for the Right is right, and the Left, left. I hate to break it to you: Democrats are doing no such thing--they're doubling down on their decision to hold fast to their failed tactic of appeasement, and compromise, with them as the only ones appeasing and compromising, as members of their base continue to flake away like so much old paint.

I won't belabor the point, and make you nauseous, by taking you back through the Left's misery brought on by watching Democrats cave again and again to Republicans to make their legislation as palatable to the Right's political taste buds as is humanly possible, hoping that Republicans will like the results enough to cast much-needed votes for passage, only to watch the Right spit out the mess they helped cook up, calling such legislation like health-care, and wall street reforms "vile," and "evil," promising to repeal the legislation, and replace it with their own confection, if anything at all.

Obama stated in essence that he and members of his party were so busy getting things done, that he and they didn't take time to properly inform the public of what it was that they had accomplished during the first two years of his administration.

Now, here is where the title of this blog entry comes in. That title is the name of an actual site. It's the site's URL. If you haven't seen it, here's a brief description: The site hopes to do what the president and the Democrat congress failed to do--beat the drum for the Democrats by enumerating their many accomplishments over the past two years.

On the site, I like the way the information is packaged. It's like being a visitor, a tourist, in a strange city out for a walk around town, not sure what you'll find, but excited about the possibility that just around a corner something interesting, something surprising, something unexpected, may leap out of the ordinary and the mundane, to give you something to remember and to talk about once you're back home, engaging the family, or a neighbor across a common fence or wall.

Here, take a walk through the town with the funny name, "What the fuck has Obama done so far?"

What's White About It?

2010-11-07T19:42:00.000-08:00

The polarization of this country along racial lines, or how it's usually stated--along the color-line--not only points our the insanity of racism, but how this nation over its long history chose to compete with the rest of the world by virtue of tying one hand behind its back, the result of not fully utilizing the black talent within its midst.

Blacks and whites alike decry the supposed lack of black youth involvement in this society. Is what we're seeing a rebelling against a social norm--a norm that has a white vs. black element to it?

A recent study supports that conclusion. It states that violence among young people, blacks in particular, is a direct result of their feeling alienated from the larger society--seen as outcasts.

In our past, blacks have had to resort to extreme measures to become contributing members of this society, and to maximize their potential (some passing as white, if they could). Black Voices featured one such black, and detailed his travails. In fact, he was this nation's first black doctor.

His story is interesting on several levels: One, it points to the necessity of recording family history (Granny's passion), and not allowing family members to fall out of the family tree (regardless of color) lest they remain lost; and, two, it points to the need for any country to appreciate its talent (regardless of race or ethnicity), if it wishes to remain a strong, vibrant, and competitive force among the world communities.

Recently, the country's first black doctor was properly memorialized.

Relatives of the doctor were unaware that they were related to a man who had been the subjects of several books. Consequently, the doctor lay in an unmarked Brooklyn grave for 145 years.

White descendants of James McCune Smith gathered Sunday to unveil the new tombstone on his grave site. The scourge of racism is largely responsible for Smith going unnoticed for so long.

If you're white, and you find out that you're related to someone black, it's a damn sight better to discover that he's a doctor than a horse thief. But the story doesn't end there.

The AP writes:

The story of why Smith was nearly overlooked by history and buried in an unmarked grave is in part due to the centuries-old practice of light-skinned blacks passing as white to escape racial prejudice. Smith's mother had been a slave; his father was white. Three of his children lived to adulthood, and they all apparently passed as white, scholars say.

Greta Blau, Smith's great-great-great-granddaughter, made the connection after she took a course at Hunter College on the history of blacks in New York. She did some research and realized that James McCune Smith, the trailblazing black doctor, was the same James McCune Smith whose name was inscribed in a family Bible belonging to ... her grandmother.

Her first response was, "But he was black. I'm white."

This story can probably be retold thousands of times in this country. How many white families have a member of the black race somewhere among the branches in their family tree, either long forgotten, or long ignored?

Smith was denied entry to medical schools in the United States and earned his medical degree in Glasgow, Scotland.

He returned to New York to practice and also became an anti-slavery advocate through his writings:

"As early as 1859, Dr. McCune Smith said that race was not biological but was a social category," Dr. Vanessa Northington Gamble, a medical doctor and historian at George Washington University told the AP. "I feel that I am standing on the shoulders of Dr. James McCune Smith."

Blau theorizes that all of Smith's descendants began passing for white after his death -- and for good reason. More here.

My mother resides in an unmarked grave. It's on private property, but the marker, if there ever was one, has long disappeared, covered over by the ravages of time, and neglect. She was buried in a place--on a few acres of land--that whites owned and set aside for slaves. She wasn't a slave, herself, but this place was, during her time, the only place where blacks were allowed to bury their own. It wasn't a cemetery, as we often think of the word, but more of a final resting place, because blacks didn't have their own cemeteries at the time of her death in the place where she died.

At least Dr. James McCune Smith is, at long last, recognized, claimed, and properly honored by his long-lost family members. There are other blacks waiting, too, who haven't been lost all these many long years, to be welcomed into the family of this nation, and to be recognized, claimed, and properly honored.

Actually, the time is long overdue.

Who Has The Mandate?

2010-11-04T15:47:00.000-07:00

Most of the Republicans who spoke on Wednesday about their recent victories in the House and the Senate, all insisted: The American people gave them a mandate. John Boehner was so moved by it, that he cried.

Pollsters, those who ask the questions and crunch the numbers, believed that the "whipping" would be greater. There's no denying the beating that Democrats took in the House--but, in the Senate, they survived. They weaker now, but they survived. There was a 10% likelihood that they wouldn't. Many pundits felt that the Senate, as well as the House, would fall to the Republicans. They were wrong. To be sure, Democrats received a spanking in the Senate but clearly not a whipping.

Their defeat is easily explained: Many Democrats who voted in the 2008 election sat out this time. This clearly made the difference. They were young, and they were mostly minority. You might reason then: It wasn't the Republicans or the Tea Party who defeated Obama and the Democrats, it was their base. It's hard to say that the low turn out for this group was all about the economy, and not about the inability of Democrats to pursue a progressive agenda, or change how the system works. In the days ahead, Republicans will characterize their victory as a referendum on Obama, on his agenda, and on Democrats generally.

Once again, I think pundits are misreading the tea leaves: They're insisting that Republicans will have to abandon their obstructionist tactics and actually do something. "Surely the Republicans will cooperate now. Surely they want a record on which to run in 2012." I admit: I didn't anticipate the American people falling for this tactic. But now, I'm beginning to take Republicans at their word, whether they're Tea Party Republicans are old-brand Republicans. Early on, these old-brands made clear their position: They said, unequivocally, that they wanted Obama to fail, and, to date, they're making good on their words. With their new congress, Republicans are now threatening the unthinkable, not to compromise, and to make Obama a one-term president.

If I wasn't a believer before, I am now. A true believer. Why should Republicans abandon what has been working for them? Rand Paul, Tea Party candidate, and now Senator-elect, has put Republicans on notice. In his victory speech, he said, essentially, the Tea Party will take no prisoners, and they won't surrender. One thing is clear: It's the Tea Party that feels it has a mandate from the people, and not the whole of the Republican Party. Rand Paul has thrown down the gauntlet. For the Republican establishment the message is unambiguous: The Tea Party is now in charge. It's Tea Time. You'll either do it our way, or we'll show you the highway.

What we have, then, is a prescription for gridlock. The Tea Party, to keep its promises, will have to do something to give the appearance of reducing the size of government. For one, they will attempt to repeal health-care reform, which will, of course, fail. For two, they will attempt to whittle away at the size of the Federal government. Some Tea Party folk have actually gone so far as to call for the abolishing of the Education Department and the EPA. Were this to pass, it would make the Koch brothers happy, as well as some other wanna-be polluters. Republicans may want this, too, but they're not under any pressure to deliver. Expect some infighting on these issues.

Here's my prediction: The Republican Party will soon be obsolete. It will be replaced by the Tea Party. The Tea Party will be the Republican Party on steroids--more intransigent, more conservative, more aggressive, and less likely to reach across the aisle, if at all. Already the Tea Party has made significant inroads--to be followed by one incursion after the other, until they've replaced the Republican establishment.

Before the curtains were drawn on the Democrats, Obama managed to pass two key pieces of legislation (health-care reform, and wall street reform). Mid-term elections, traditionally, present incumbent parties a real challenge to hold seats in either house, regardless of party. It explains one of the reasons for the much-criticized haste to pass legislation before the mid-term, and the reason Obama and the Democrats didn't tackle other major legislation, such as immigration reform (which wasn't popular anyway with the electorate), and is now, after the recent Republican victories, on indefinite hold.

I firmly believe that the reason that jobs weren't pursued with all the vigor that the president and the congress could muster was the perception that the financial sector needed rescuing first to avoid a depression. They may have believed, too, that the much-lauded stimulus bill (which economist agreed was too small) would accomplish that task--but job losses came faster than anticipated, and the stimulus managed only to keep the losses from becoming a tsunami, merely replacing jobs that were being lost, rather than creating new ones.

To make matters worse: Votes passed in the Democrat-majority House were in-boxed in the Senate--because, it was explained, the votes necessary for passage didn't exist. The Democrat caucus gave Democrats 60 votes to defeat filibusterers in the Senate, but "blue-dog democrats (Republicans in my book)," and moderates, may have kept many of these bills from going forward, especially with that nasty mid-term election on the horizon. As an aside: Blue Dogs were unseated in the recent race with a vengeance, twenty-four in all.

Here's a thought: Should progressives start their own movement within the Democrat Party to move it more to the Left? I say: Why not? The country can't be more polarized than it is now. This would be one way to exact change (to assure accountability, maintain transparency, and take the money out of politics) without armed conflict, that second-amendment remedy, once suggested by Tea Party candidate, now defeated, Sharron Angle.

Undeservedly, Obama and the Democrats were stand-ins on Tuesday for Bush and the Republicans. Democrats took the beating that should have gone to Republicans. You can say that the previous mid-term elections and Obama's rise to the presidency was payback for what the Republicans did during their tenure, but, in my view, it wasn't enough. I can recount several things, from the two wars in which we're stilled mired--not so much in Iraq as in Afghanistan--to the economic woes this country still faces, all having their genesis under Bush. So to see Republicans rewarded for their failings is the ultimate slap in the face to Democrats. It further crystallizes my belief that the electorate still doesn't get it.

Will Obama abandon his liberal agenda, move closer to the center, and lean Right? It's no secret that the country is more conservative than liberal, but this hasn't always translated into political capital for Republicans, who, this time around, garnered more of the independent votes than did Democrats.

Rush Limbaugh, the oracle of the Right, states it something like this: "Where is there room for any compromise with Marxism, or socialism, or liberalism? Where is there compromise with evil."

Bullying is in. Issuing threats is in. Hard-line resistance is in. Statesmanship is out. Compromise is out. Working together is out. The Democrats are in a brawl, a bar fight, and they still want to characterize it as a misunderstanding. They say: The Republicans down deep want to work with us. They just don't know it yet.

Unless Republicans are in power, they will hold this nation and its economy hostage. It's clear, at least to me, that what they're after is a one-party nation, where they control both houses of congress and the presidency in perpetuity. We have moved into an era of one-party politics, where the Republican opposition party is just that--in complete opposition to any efforts to reach across the aisle to advance legislation, unless it initiates the legislation, unless it shapes the legislation without interference or input from the opposing party.

If you doubt me, listen to their rhetoric: It's defiant, definite, and deliberate, the four "D's" of a destructive policy.

The Scariest People Award

2010-10-31T23:51:00.000-07:00

TONIGHT IS HALLOWEEN. A blog I visit frequently, in celebration of Halloween, offered its list of "scary people," enumerating them, not necessarily in order of who is scariest, but because that's the simplest way to make a list.

Some on the list did not surprise.

Some I didn't know--and that's probably a good thing--since over the last several months, after watching Barack Obama ascend to the office of president, I've come to know many "scary people," and why they're considered scary, and, frankly, my "scary-folk list" is all full up.

Not to be outdone, I picked up on the theme, and countered with my own, now to be an annual observance on Halloween, Scariest People Award. Read on:

For me, The Scariest People Award goes to those folk on the Right (with their failed policies, policies that they'd like to resurrect, if they take over the House and Senate), those folk on the Left who might sit out the election coming up in a couple of days, because of an "enthusiasm gap" (Whatever in Hades that mean!), and those Supreme Court Justices who recently finished off our democracy, of the people, by the people, for the people, for now, by giving to corporations free-speech rights to spend as much money as they wish to impact legislation, and to seat politicians of their choosing.

What the people of this nation will witness, if we're to take Republicans and John Boehner at their word, is a Republican 'no compromise policy,' a kind of "Republican Revenge," if you will, against the liberal policies, and liberal legislation which Republicans steadfastly resisted, using every obstructionist tactic in their playbook, especially the use of the filibuster in unprecedented numbers.

I say pick your poison: Do you wish to die slowly, by supporting the Left and receive a few palliatives, from time to time, to fix our broken, political and economic system, with the hope that, with time, we can change course, or die quickly, by sitting out the next election, and doing nothing, thereby allowing Republicans and Tea Party folk to call the shots--to repeal health-care reform by not financing it, to reduce the minimum wage, standing at $7.25, to God only knows what, to privatize Social Security, to repeal what little was done to rein in Wall Street abuses, and to embroil this nation in another war?

It's strangely emblematic that Halloween and the next election are only days apart.

The grim, unsmiling, faces that the Republicans have been wearing for the last two years, like so many Halloween masks of Horror Movie characters--Freddie Krueger, Jason, and Pumpkinhead--will appear angelic by comparison, if Republicans carry out their threats to punish the American people, liberals in particular, for having the gall to insist that BP set aside billions to cover losses to Gulf Coast residents, for extending unemployment insurance for those out of work, and for forcing health insurers to actually insure people.

Such liberal policies from the Left, that actually put people first, and corporations last, cannot stand. It's un-American.

Speaking of Africa, And Looking Right at You....

2010-10-25T14:03:00.000-07:00

Recently, a blogger managed, successfully, to entice me to another blog with this description of the blogger's post:

"Have you ever read a post that moves your spirit? That seems to engulf your soul from all directions, like a jazz composition… jazzuloo. You listen to it over and over again, mesmerized by the notes, nuances and lyrics… not exactly sure that you are actually hearing what you are hearing, but knowing that you are hearing something unique, real… from the heart."

With a pitch like that, it's nearly impossible not to bite. And I wasn't disappointed: The post was precisely as the blogger had recounted, prose set to music--that is, until I came to the following jarring lines:

"When you speak of Africa, do not look at me, I do not want their stereotype to splatter on my being. I am not the martyr of their corruptions and own shortcomings. I have my country and my culture to look after."

I'm not here to chastise, or to castigate my black brother. He spoke his mind. He spoke from his heart. He conveyed his truth. And that's a good thing. Yet, there are other truths, truths that are held just as passionately as his. And that, too, is a good thing.

Over the years, John Donne, in one of his "meditations," has spoken my truth for me, and I'd like to share it with you once again. I'm sure that I have, at least on one occasion during the months that I've posted here, shared this, my truth, with you:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Like Donne, I, too, "am involved in mankind." It matters not from whence they hail, be it Africa, still troubled by its colonial past, and European oppression, or China with its billions of souls, or Iraq with its fallen thousands, a number which, incidentally, Wikileaks, only days ago, updated for the world community--correcting and revising the official count of war dead, using leaked military documents as its source:

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.

The writer of the blog described an amalgam of races, and cultures, to which he belonged, the whole of which, he suggests, is now greater than the sum of the parts:

Africa has always remained a standstill from the time it was the cradle of humanity, a kingdom of spears, a colony and independent. My ancestors [those of the Black or African Diaspora] moved and shake the world. They went from the cradle of humanity, chased out with spears, broke the chains of slavery and gained liberty. Do you have another name for freedom?

And with one final thrust, one final act of divestment, and repudiation, one final act of defiance, the blogger threw off the yoke that is Africa, and aligned himself fully and completely with the diasporic black people around the world:

"Africa calls 'come back, come back to mama Africa. Give to mama Africa'.
I don’t understand their languages. My tongue moves to English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Portuguese and few others which my culture created. I am not going back; I don’t want to be Africa’s house Negro. I will not give either. I will not give back the sweat and flesh of my ancestors. I am European, from the West Indies, and quite happy about my diversity!"

And his words were seductive: The many who commented there were enchanted by his words. For, in his words, they found their own truths validated. His words were so many Sirens beckoning their hearts and souls toward the rocks of an unshakeable certainty.

Yet, as I read, all I could hear were the words of John Donne, speaking eloquently of the interconnectedness of life, and of the oneness of humankind. Almost daily, it's becoming clearer that we humans are connected at the three levels that comprise our humanity--at the level of the body (We now know that it's highly probable that "all humans alive today are descended from a single African man"; at the level of the mind (A book asked once, "What do all people have in common?" The answer: "They're all conscious at the same time"; and at the level of the soul (We're emotional beings: All things being equal, we can all feel happiness, and sadness, love and fear equally.)

If I were to expand upon John Dunne's words, and apply them to nation states and to the people of the world, I'd say this:

"No nation is an island, entire of itself; every nation is a piece of the continent, a part of the world. If a nation be washed away by the sea, the world is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any nation's demise diminishes us all, because, whether we like it or not, we're involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

U.S. [S]Chamber of Commerce

2010-10-08T22:12:00.000-07:00

If the reports are correct, then we're seeing President Obama's prediction come true, as well as the predictions of a number of other Washington insiders, who warned--giving First Amendment, free-speech rights to corporations will engender a strain on our democracy never before seen in this country, as corporate and foreign money is used to influence policies and elect candidates who can contribute, in some fashion, to their bottomline.

When Obama sounded the alarm during one of his addresses to the American people, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito visibly shook his head--a serious breach of decorum. Alito had to know the can of worms that he and the court had opened. Yet, his shake of the head was a clear indication that he was deeply perturbed to have it brought to his attention in a forum that didn't allow him a rebuttal. If Alito could have looked ahead to the following article in the Christian Science Monitor, would he have ruled differently?

The focus of particular attention this week is the US Chamber of Commerce, a powerhouse in campaign financing with funds directed largely to the coffers of Republican candidates.

Liberal groups say the Chamber – which has budgeted $75 million to support its favorite candidates this year, almost exclusively Republicans – is using foreign money as part of its huge campaign war chest, which would be illegal. Chamber officials deny the charge.

But it's hard to know for sure, because under federal law the Chamber doesn't have to detail the sources of its campaign spending.

At the time of the Supreme Court decision, I wrote about this under the title, Whose Country Is It, Anyway?, and scolded Jonathan Turley, noted U.S. Constitution scholar, for praising the decision, seeing it as a victory for free speech. With this recent revelation, I wonder if Turley still believes that free speech was served as a result of the Supreme Court decision to extend a First Amendment right to corporations, effectively paving the way for an eventual corpocracy, if steps aren't taken by Congress to bring a halt to this corporate take over of our most precious freedom--to practice our democracy without undue influence either from within or without our country.

Embattled Democratic candidates, the target of Chamber-funded campaign ads, are crying foul, some pointing to the need to revisit last January’s US Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, which makes it easier for corporations and labor unions to influence elections through campaign advertising.

Why must there be this supposed natural-enemy battle line drawn between labor and management? One of the reasons: Management has never been reluctant to put profits ahead of workers, treating them more as disposables than assets. Now that these multinational corporations have the workforce of countries like China, India, and others, from which to draw their labor, outsourcing of production is becoming more and more commonplace. So it follows that these multinational corporations, as well as government-backed foreign corporations, will do whatever is necessary to influence outcomes favorable to them.

And if that means backing "free-market" forces within our country with money--which is mostly synonymous with Republicans, their more likely targets--so be it. We have Tea Party Goers chafing at the idea of socialism, but backing a "free market" ideology which is nothing more than an "outsourcing" of American jobs. How long will it take them to recognize the real enemy to our democracy, our economy, and the continued growth of our middle class?

What we're seeing is an assault upon our democratic process--Supreme Court decisions that favor corporations, and government entities (think the recent eminent domain ruling), lobbyists paying out record sums of moneys to buy off legislators, and now, insult upon insult, foreign money pouring into our elections--so much so that what we now have is not an actual democracy, but a democracy in name only.

Multinational corporations will fly the flag of any country that will give them the most bang for their buck, whether it's China's cheap labor practices--demanding from some of its workforce 35-hour shifts at 31 cents an hour to make an American corporation's products to be sold back to us--or India's cheap labor practices.

Not only can't American workers compete in this global marketplace, they're virtually at a disadvantage--one of the reasons why we're hearing such terms as "economic patriotism" being thrown about these days. Unions, and out-of-work Americans, are often seen as the problem, with the results that they're viciously attacked from some quarters. What these workers need, instead, is more time to retool, or, in some cases, extended unemployment insurance.

The irony: I'm told that many American jobs aren't being filled, because too many Americans don't have the requisite skills, training, or education to fill them. And these aren't a handful of jobs, but millions of them--enough to put quite a dent in our unemployment numbers.

Who's Your President?

2010-09-28T17:32:00.001-07:00

I'm witnessing a very disturbing trend--and on MSNBC of all places. It's not enough that Republicans are doing all they can to bring down President Obama, some liberal pundits are pitching in, as well.

David Corn of Politics Daily, and other liberal pundits are quick to compare Obama with President Clinton, and, you guessed it, Obama is coming up short in every category: Obama's not as politically savvy as was Clinton, not the leader he was, and not as politically focused.

Why this sudden need to elevate Clinton at the expense of Obama?

Forgotten is the Clinton sex scandal that rocked the White House; forgotten is Monica Lewinsky and the stained dress that was preserved as proof of Clinton's infidelity. Gone is Clinton's failed attempt to provide health-care reform, and a host of other failures and scandals that marred his presidency. Remember e-mailgate, and few other gates that plagued his administration: Cattlegate, Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Troopergate, and Chinagate.

Because of Monicagate Clinton had to face down an impeachment. I'm not saying that Clinton was guilty of any of these political indiscretions, but that they have mostly been forgotten, as the New Clinton takes the stage in his new role of Obama defacer. In the clip below, you can hear a little bit of this, as well as an explanation for why Clinton's reputation is undergoing a rebirth.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you don't wish to watch the whole vid-clip, here's a transcript of the part where Obama is compared to Clinton--a comparison that's mostly unwarranted, and unnecessary.

SIMON: I agree with almost all of that, except one small point I would like to make. One reason Bill Clinton is doing so well now is that he's not viewed as a political figure anymore. He's viewed as this philanthropist, this man who's raising hundreds of millions of dollars to, you know, cure AIDS, to solve environmental problems, things that are not especially political. Sure, he's going to go out on the trail for Barack Obama, but I might -- I think, once he does, you might see those figures shift a little.

FINEMAN: Well, I hate to disagree with Roger--boy, we are really disagreeing a lot -- but I haven't seen the poll numbers on that. I can't imagine that there's anybody in the United States who doesn't still regard Bill Clinton as a political figure. Bill Clinton oozes politics out of every pore. And that's what made him infuriating, but what also makes him charming, and also what makes him able to explain in kitchen-table language what Barack Obama can't always seem to do. And it's a fascinating thing. It's a mixed blessing for Obama.

Not only is President Obama's accomplishments--only two years into his presidency--towering over Clinton's presidential years, the challenges facing his administration dwarf those of Bill Clinton's, and Ronald Reagan's administrations combined.

And I think that that is the nub of the problem: Obama's achievements to date, although not as impressive, or as progressive, as many would like for them to be, clearly has him standing out among those in the pantheon of presidential achievers.

First, it was comparing Obama to Woodrow Wilson, and, of late, to Bill Clinton. No matter whether it is on the job-creation front, or handling the Gulf oil spill, or protecting this nation from terrorists, or the handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--President Obama finds himself being measured by the shadows cast by his white predecessors.

It's as though the conversation has taken a sudden turn, for both liberal and conservative pundits (We have always known where Republicans stand!): "We can't have a black president eclipsing the white ones of the past. We can't have him achieving more. We can't have him succeeding where others have failed. We can't let him achieve the stature or the greatness that's reserved for those of a much lighter hue."

Perhaps I'm reading this all wrong--that it has nothing to do with Obama's race--but I'm hard pressed to find another motive.

Pathways To A New Black Economy: The New Way (2)

2010-09-21T22:36:00.000-07:00

The Black Town Square

The proposed Black Town Square will stand out as the largest Town Square in the world, having pathways and roadways that lead to a variety of shops, buildings, institutions, and highways that extend out beyond the Square into the black community, and back again. It's not possible in this limited space to describe every shop, building, or institution that's likely to find a location within the Town Square, or to explore every destination that the roads in and out of the Square will take you.

For now, I will describe a few of the places that will make the Square their home, and leave it to your imagination to divine the scope and magnitude of what is possible, once the Square has been constructed, and visitors pour through its gates seeking out treasures, information, and kindred souls with which to bond and collaborate for the purpose of enhancing the lives of those blacks seemingly trapped within the various black populations centers throughout this nation.

Because the Town Square is virtual, rather constructed of actual bricks and mortar, its size and dimensions are practically limitless, and its uses constrained only by our imaginations.

I chose Disney's Town Square, U.S.A., and the above picture in particular, to represent the visual of my imaginary and virtual square, mostly for its warmth (albeit below a cheerless sky), its friendly and welcoming ambiance--and mainly because it has the Town Square feel that I wish to project, and it shrouds in ambiguity the ethnicity of those entering the Square.

Shops--the Retail Component
Near the entrance of the Square, you'll find shops and stores featuring ethnocentric, and Afro-centric clothing, many of which have been designed by blacks for blacks. Next door to these shops are toy stores with the black customer in mind--boasting a variety of black dolls, games with a black emphasis, and a variety of other toys with definite black themes--all designed by blacks, and manufactured in the black community by blacks, for blacks.

Across the square, several jewelry stores are opened, and through their windows may be seen jewelry of gold, silver, precious and non-precious stones of every conceivable price--designed by blacks for blacks, with an eye toward creating designs with a unique black appeal, and fashioned in the black community.

Farther down the square, and off the main street--because the aroma of freshly baked goods have an attraction all their own--are located bakeries with every conceivable variety of baked goods under the sun: pies, cakes, cookies, and every child's delight: cupcakes.

Competing with the bakeries for attention are several candy stores, a confectionary lovers dream--rich chocolates, caramels, nougats, and chocolate covered nuts.

An Art Gallery is set up in an open-air area near the bookstore. Sculpture, paintings, drawings, prints are everywhere. Some are framed, while others may be framed or used just as they are. Photographs featuring blacks in a variety of situations and poses may also be purchased and used to illustrate web pages, blogs, books, magazines, posters, etc--to be used online or off.

Next to the Art Gallery, a Gifts and Greeting Cards store draws in customers looking for that ideal gift or perfect card for the observance of, or celebration of, a variety of occasions, events, or situations--to say thank you, or to say I'm sorry, or just to congratulate.

The Town Square will be designed around the visuals of an actual town square (although an imaginary one), so that it will have the feel and atmosphere of one. The retail component of the Square will be the core of it, although the Square will be designed for a much larger purpose (A purpose I'll make clear in subsequent articles). Approved black businesses will sell their products on consignment. Although these products will be featured on the site for sale, and sold using the site's basket technology, the orders may be filled at any location within the United States.

For our service (advertising, using our point of sell capability--a basket feature), and the placing of the order, we will exact a fee. This activity will constitute our main source of income for the Square, although not the only source.

Here's my aim: to provide an outlet for black products and services. In order to do that, we need a serious web site with a huge database capacity, and filtering capability--where all the elements are working together to promote the site: it's products and other offerings.

We have many blacks who are making things. And many of them are located within black communities. With a Black Town Square, they now have a single place from which to offer their goods, thereby expanding their customer base, and building a demand for their products--the result of a broader market. As demand grows, it will lead to an expansion of business, and a hiring of new people to meet that demand, contributing to the community's economy, as people have more money to spend with those businesses residing within their local communities.

Because these products are now featured on the Internet, blacks around the world, those from countries with Internet access, will have access to these black products, creating possibly a foreign market for goods made principally in our black communities by black workers.

Because the Square will give businesses new customers--not just within their own sphere of influence, but over a vast area--they can now invest more in the black community, spurring job growth, and adding to the local black economy. These black businesses now have market penetration in areas that have been, up to now, closed to them because of distance.

Why a Black Town Square?

On the Internet, as well as off the Internet, location is everything. No matter how wonderful a site may be, if you can't direct Internet traffic to your location, then all is lost. That would be equally true if you had a store in your neighborhood but it was off the beaten path--that is, the main thoroughfare. This is why shopping centers, malls, and what have you, put so much energy into attracting anchor stores, stores already with an identity, and plenty of money to advertise their sales, their product lines, and their location. As a result, anchor stores can risk being a little out of the way, because people will go out of their way to find them.

For example: Applebees generally locate it restaurants near a Wal-mart. Not only does Applebees pretty much serve the same targeted customer as Wal-mart, it allows Wal-mart to do most of its marketing research for it. Therefore, when you find a Wal-mart in your neighborhood you can almost always find Applebees.

Clever, don't you think?

Further, having an anchor store in an area also mean that those smaller, less recognizable stores that surround it will stand a greater chance of being noticed. And it's also the reason why to lease space in those areas will cost more than a side street that gets very little traffic.

Our virtual Town Square will serve the same purpose as these anchor stores, but on the Web. We will advertise. We will use every device at our disposal to bring attention to our Black Town Square--and, whenever possible, to capture such attention without having to pay for it. Because of the novelty of the Square, that in itself will make it newsworthy, attracting to the site those we have targeted--blacks from various locations around the nation, regardless of state, or city within which they dwell.

We will, however, advertise where blacks are likely to encounter an advertisement for our Town Square. That will be one way to attract new visitors, but another will be word-of-mouth, if we can make the Square The Place to visit, for old and young alike.

Any black person with a computer and access to the Internet will be able to find his or her way to the Square and partake of the various things within the Square, some of which will be free--while some will bear a price tag.

Once there, it's only natural for browsers and window shoppers to investigate other areas of the Town Square. Curiosity is a powerful motivator. Ads strategically placed throughout the site will direct attention, and fuel our visitor's curiosity to know more about other Town Square features, and offerings.

What we'll create, then, is a multipurpose site (a Mega-Site), one that offers as many things as is possible--even things for amusement--that, once there, visitors will be tempted to stroll through the various areas of the Town Square in search of value, information, and ways to stay informed about matters that impact blacks generally and specifically.

The Town Square, then, becomes a Hub, an Economic Center, a Clearinghouse, a Central Source, a One-Stop Shopping Experience, and a Black Meeting Place, to name a few. The concept of a Hub is not unique: My research turned up several such ideas. What's unique to the proposed Town Square is its size, and its ability to provide a point of sell for many products, without having to redirect potential customers to another site. Some of the sites featured here--as examples of the concept--also have point of sell capabilities, or a basket approach to making purchases. Yet, they have no mechanism for customer feedback--a way of assessing the level of service from a business, or the satisfaction with a product purchased--an important feature of The Black Town Square. Later, I will provide links to a few of these sites so that you can make your own independent assessments.

A positive trend: Online sells are up 7.2% over last year. Not all blacks will be able to take advantage of this trend, but enough will, which will be the difference maker for those blacks eager to expand their market, and grow their business.

"Over the last year, the broadband-adoption gap between blacks and whites has been cut nearly in half," according to a new survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Broadband is generally defined as high-speed Internet access.

"'Broadband adoption by African Americans now stands at 56%, up from 46% at a similar point in 2009," the study said. "That works out to a 22% year-over-year growth rate, well above the national average and by far the highest growth rate of any major demographic group.'

"The increase has implications for media targeting African Americans, black-owned and otherwise." [1]

It also has "implications" for businesses targeting blacks.

Here's my vision: And I will continue to bring this vision to life in subsequent articles. It is my hope that the Town Square concept will spur new entrepreneurial activity within the black community, leading to more employment of blacks, and a revolution in the economic revitalization of the inner cities, and black communities generally, as it provides broader markets for those who choose to participate in this endeavor--markets that were unavailable to them because of the impediment of distance.

We will sell ad space. We will redirect traffic to other sites. And we will charge for this service. We can take every successful idea on the Internet and repurpose it with a black slant.

We will actively seek out those blacks with a business or a service, and offer them the Town Square advantage--to either have a redirect from the Square, to sell products from within the Square, or to use the Square to promote their business or service.

Therefore, those who wish to Buy Black (also known as the Ebony Experiment) [2] will be able to locate black businesses, black professionals, and others with whom they may do business. If this database is available online, it can be manipulated to generate a variety of information--information that can be used to direct customers to physical or Internet sites. The Ebony Experiment, which may have started this whole Buy Black phenomenon, seems to have morphed into the Empowerment Experiment (EE). The site features some excellent black directories for locating black businesses and professionals--a source that may be useful in our endeavor. Unfortunately, many of the links that I tried are inactive. Hat tip to Ernesto for reminding me of the Buy Black movement.

On this site, I found iZania Market. It has a concept similar to the one I'm proposing, but not many businesses participating.

The Black Business Network, also on this site, comes closest to the concept I have in mind, although participants are few. Where possible, I will reach out and support those businesses featured on the Network. I tried to join the Network, but to join required that I give out information that I preferred to keep secret. The sign-up form assumes that I'm a company with a mailing address. Because sign-up is at least a two-stage process (I couldn't get passed the second stage.), it was hard to tell exactly how to become a member of the "online community" without being a business or, at the very least, fudging.

For our part: We will actively search out black businesses and services that may benefit from having a central location for what they offer--a location that actively promotes itself, and its content.

Further, we will provide for customer review of products and services (a feature that seems missing on many of the sites). This will reduce and discourage fraud, and will be one of the conditions for selling, advertising, or being redirected from within the Square. For example, if there's a black home improvement contractor operating unsatisfactorily, that contractor's shoddy practices will become a part of his or her record. Rating information will be available readily to those who seek it--partly to determine with whom to do business (those with a better rating or review), and partly to expose those who have questionable business practices.

I fully expect the Square to have customers beyond its targeted group, but only those who can be said to have a black business, or is a black professional, or a service provider, will be allowed to have an address or a location within the Square, or be allowed to promote their business, or service.

Ads and other information will be interspersed throughout the Square, regardless of the area in which visitors may find themselves.

[1] Surge in Blacks Using Broadband

[2] The Ebony Experiment domain name expired on 8/15/2010 pending renewal or deletion.

Pathways To A New Black Economy: The New Way (1)

2010-09-15T21:38:00.000-07:00

Let's continue using the hand analogy from the previous blog entry. In many ways it's an excellent visual representation of what I'm trying to accomplish here--create a model for black economic development and autonomy, which draws upon the collective resources of the entire black community.

The cupped hand visual, in the upper left hand corner of this page, is the perfect image for my purpose: It represents the position the hands must be in to give something away, or to receive something that's given. Splayed fingers--fingers spread out and apart--pretty much represents the challenge facing us, as we attempt to bring blacks together in a cohesive manner to work on behalf of the black community in a collaborative way.

To form a cup, the fingers of the hand must be pressed tightly together, with little or no space between them. To form a black collective something similar must occur. But first we need a cup. We need to build a structure that will encourage, and promote, a coming together of members from the black community who have common interests, and aspirations--all working to achieve prescribed goals and objectives.

The cupped hand, then, represents the Black Collective Motto: To Give and To Receive. The fingers pressed tightly together to form the cup suggest the level of black cooperation that's needed to further our economic interests. If we're to progress at a pace commensurate with our need, we'll have to find ways to contract the distance between us--spatially, as well as educationally, socially, and economically.

Here's another visual to give us all an appreciation of the problem, the blue representing black population density. Click or double click on the map to enlarge it.

This next visual will make the above density map a bit clearer, and show those states with the largest black population.

That blacks are densely populated works to our advantage. It makes collaborative efforts that much easier. To the degree that we're splayed, so to speak, primarily East Coast, West Coast, works against us, but even that impediment to black cooperation can be overcome.

Any model constructed for the purpose of black economic development and autonomy, must take into account the construction of a New black Synergy, one that will rebuild black interactivity; a New Black Ecosystem to restore the brain drain that has devastated inner city population centers when blacks abandoned their communities once their economic situation made it possible; and a New Black Cooperation, one built on the Main Ingredient of Trust [1], which undergirds, and gives impetus to, The Indispensable Factor. [2]

During my research, I came across an article by one Hayward Derrick Horton, professor, titled: A SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO BLACK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: PRESENTATION OF THE BLACK ORGANIZATIONAL AUTONOMY MODEL. [3]

Under the following heading, Implications For Community Development Practitioners, Horton discusses his model for black economic autonomy:

The BOA [Black Organizational Autonomy] model has three implications for community development practitioners. First, efforts to address problems of the black community are more likely to be successful when indigenous groups are empowered to plan and act independently of external factors. This empowerment is derived from economic autonomy. To reiterate, economic autonomy is not separatism. Nor does it imply that the black community should either reject or ignore external supporters and allies. In fact, the evidence suggests that being economically autonomous is the best basis for gaining external support and building lasting alliances. Otherwise, the black community has a subordinate, dependent status. One might argue that such is the current status of the black community. Recent studies documenting the attitudes and opinions of white America toward black America certainly demonstrate that dependency makes the black community vulnerable to scapegoating (Gans, 1988; Kluegel, 1990).

I agree largely with the professor's description of what an Autonomy model should look like--first, that it's not "separatism," and, second, the black community can be economically autonomous, and still have "external supporters and allies."

In the following abstract of his article, the professor offers this overview:

This paper presents a sociological model of black community development: the Black Organizational Autonomy (BOA) model. The BOA model argues essentially that viable black communities are those with organizations that have the following characteristics: 1) economic autonomy; 2) internally developed and controlled data sources; 3) a focus on black history and culture; 4) the development and incorporation of females in leadership roles; and 5) socially inclusive leadership. A case study is presented that supports the model. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the BOA model for community development practitioners. [4 ibid]

In the comment section of an earlier blog entry, I left these words. Now seems the perfect time to resurrect them, and give them new life:

Here's part of the problem [to black economic development]: Blacks have never enjoyed complete [economic] autonomy. Not even Marcus Garvey could achieve such a feat, although he did make the attempt with the formation of the "Universal Negro Improvement Association and began speaking out publicly in favor of worldwide black unity and an end to colonialism." [...]

Worldwide black unity is still a great idea, and should be the goal of blacks in this country, as difficult as that task might be--with black unity here being so elusive.

Our dependence on whites in this country in order to advance materially is too all-inclusive. Think of the power blacks would possess, if the black nations of the world could come together and forge alliances with black people scattered around the world--as a result of what has been called the black or African diaspora--for the advancement of blacks throughout the world, regardless of their nation of origin.

There's a United Nations. Why can't blacks create something similar: A Union of Black African Nations (UBAN), with black delegates from black nations, and non-black nations, setting health, social, economic, and political goals, and developing the organizational structure, and mechanisms to achieve those goals.

Now, if we could pull something like that off, using the vast black resources (the intelligentsia, and natural resources) available to blacks worldwide, we'd be a powerful force to be reckoned with.

The New Way

The New Way will forge new relationships, and a new cooperation among blacks using the technology at our disposal, primarily the Internet. Because distance will no longer be an impediment to black cooperation, black synergy can now exist across miles of separation, allowing blacks to interact in ways never before thought possible. Had the Internet been available during Garvey's time, he and his contemporaries would have found it considerably easier to achieve their rather ambitious goal of uniting blacks for the purpose of building a sustainable black economy.

The New Way will bring black resources--social, political, cultural, economic--under one tent, recognizing that, although the tent will be pitched in the midst of the larger economy, it doesn't have to take on the amoral and immoral character of the whole, but strive to create an economy that's humane and life-supporting.

With The New Way leading the way, I propose the following concept, The Black Town Square, a concept that I'll explore in greater, but not exhaustive, detail in subsequent articles. The proposed town square will be a virtual town square--not one built from bricks and mortar. And that's a good thing: It will make the Town Square accessible to blacks across the nation, and from any part of the world that offers access to the vast networks of the Information Highway. In the United States, the town square will be called The Black Town Square of America--America, because it's here that the concept will first be tested, Black, because blacks will be the racial group targeted, and Town Square, because the name projects friendliness, welcomeness, and warmth.

I propose further that, with the success of the American model, we expand it to other areas of the world that have high black concentrations. For example, in South Africa, the town square there might be known as The Black Town Square of South Africa. Taken together, the various town squares will be known as The Black Town Squares of the World.

How is that for thinking big!

Just as I did in previous articles, I will now leave you with something to chew on. It constitutes a rather large mouthful, but it will give us something to sink our teeth into as we explore ways to address those issues that are unique to blacks, and the black community--all with an eye toward constructing a model to foster black community development, empowerment, and economic autonomy. No date is given for the article below, but it seems to have been written sometime during the first half of the current decade. Although many blacks may have seen their fortunes reversed as a result of the recession that now grips this country, I wanted to present the information below, despite its sanguinity. I wanted to show what we can do collectively, if the economy is healthy, and we invest appropriately.

African American Wealth: Powerful Trends and New Opportunities

African Americans are steadily increasing their wealth, boosting their holdings in real estate, stocks, and savings vehicles, as they seek to fund college educations for their children and create a secure retirement for themselves. It's a process of becoming ever more keenly aware of the need to save, invest, and plan for the future. "The level of interest in financial independence, economic empowerment, and investing has just exploded," said Duane Davis, founder of the Coalition of Black Investors quoted in a 2003 article that appeared on www.IMDiversity.com. Davis characterized this growth as "a real groundswell."

Investment

Davis' view was reinforced by results of the 2002 Ariel Schwab Black Investor Survey cosponsored by Ariel Mutual Funds and Charles Schwab. The Survey, published annually every year since 1998, publishes data on African American households earning $50,000 or more a year. According to findings from 2002, the percentage of African Americans investing in the stock market increased 30 percent between 1998 and 2002, from 57 to 74 percent.

Unfortunately, that number dipped to 61 percent according to the 2003 Survey, as many African Americans left the market, no doubt bruised by the poor returns that characterized the stock market for the second consecutive year. Equally unfortunate, many stayed on the sidelines this past year and missed the recent market rally. "The recent market upswing shows that you may have to go through the valleys to reach the peaks," said Charles Schwab vice president Carla A. Foster, in the Survey's analysis section.

Home–ownership

Homeownership among African Americans, however, has shown a steady increase. The percent of African Americans who own their own homes increased from 42 percent in 1990 to 48 percent in 2003, according to data compiled by the Consumer Federation of America and BET.com, and cited in an October 2003 press release.

Savings

African Americans spent $645.9 billion in 2002, an increase of 104 percent from 1990, according to Target Market News, a black consumer market research and information company (www.targetmarketnews.com) However, as noted African American author, speaker, and financial advisor Brooke Stephens points out in her book Talking Dollars and Making Sense, making money is important, but saving it is more important. Stephens cautions that while the African American community can be proud of contributing hundreds of billions to the nation's economy, it's essential not to lose sight of the importance of savings in creating economic empowerment and building personal wealth. "You're not building wealth if you use all your money for consumption," she writes. "Real wealth is being able to say, 'I have the freedom to do what I want with my life, and I don't have to stay in this job if I don't want to.'"

The 2002 Ariel Schwab Survey noted steady progress in the area of personal savings among African Americans, with the average monthly savings increasing from $200 per month in 2001 to $237 per month in 2002. (2003 figures aren't available yet.) Building a secure retirement ranked highest among the respondents (46 percent) as their primary reason for saving, with sending a child to college ranking second at 19 percent. [...]

Black Enterprise magazine has created the Circle of Wealth, a black wealth initiative that seeks economic empowerment for African Americans by changing attitudes toward money management. The Circle is an ongoing cycle comprised of 1.) Knowledge, 2.) Commitment, 3.) Investment, 4.) Portfolio Management, and 5.) Wealth, all enabling Reinvestment in Children, Businesses, and Community.

As part of this powerful initiative, the magazine developed the Declaration a Financial Empowerment, the following 10–point wealth–building pledge:

"I, from this day forward, declare my vigilant and life–long commitment to financial empowerment. I pledge the following:

To save and invest 10 to 15 percent of my after–tax income.
To be a proactive and informed investor.
To be a disciplined and knowledgeable consumer.
To measure my personal wealth by net worth not income.
To engage in sound budget, credit, and tax management practices.
To teach business and financial principles to my children.
To use a portion of my personal wealth to strengthen my community.
To support the creation and growth of profitable, black–owned enterprises.
To ensure my wealth is passed onto others.
To maximize my earning power through a commitment to career development, technological literacy and professional excellence."

(Source: www.blackenterprise.com) [5]

[1] The Main Ingredient: Trust is the element, the ingredient upon which a New Black Economy may be built--as well as nation states--and form the basis upon which all enterprises may flourish, provided people of goodwill have developed the will to put the good first.

[2] The Indispensable Factor: It's a black collective willingness to collaborate in large enough numbers, on a broad enough scale, to push our economic agenda forward with great deliberation, and great haste, taking advantage of those means at our disposal to expedite this push.

[3] A Sociological Approach To Black Community Development: Presentation Of The Black Organizational Autonomy Model.

[4 ibid]

[5] African American Wealth: Powerful Trends and New Opportunities

Pathways To A New Black Economy: The Indispensable Factor

2010-09-10T03:14:00.000-07:00

Hands are fascinating things, more fascinating to me than feet, although feet, too, have a fascination all their own.

When you give it some thought, you realize that we rarely use one finger to accomplish much. We can use one finger with which to scratch, but an itch of any magnitude wouldn't long stand for that, and would cry out for more than one finger, or all of them at once, to bring faster relief.

Similarly, with one finger we can type in a "hunt and peck" kind of way, but if you've learned to type, even in a rudimentary way, you know that typing, using all eight fingers and two thumbs, is a quicker, and more efficient way to transfer letters onto sheets of paper, or along imaginary lines of cyberspace.

I don't think I have to belabor the value of hands working in unison, and toward a common purpose (Rarely does one hand not know what the other is doing.) to drive home the point that individual action alone--although desirable at times--cannot surpass, or compete with, the concerted effort of even a few participants committed to a common cause.

On such occasions, committing both hands to the task (all digits on the hand working together), makes an arduous task easier, efficient, and quicker. In the picture above, Ali is cradling a writing pad in his left hand, while penning something with his right--a cooperation of mind and body that runs deeper than this simple act.

And, too, nature knows a thing or two about things working together to achieve common goals. Our ecosystem is designed for such cooperation, and when man intrudes upon this system, as is often the case, and upsets this carefully balanced cooperation, and interrelatedness, disaster may strike, and the whole may suffer because a part of the whole has either been ignored, or has, in some way, been damaged.

The next two blog entries (articles) will explore one of the means available to us to create a Black Synergy, a Black Ecosystem, and a Black Cooperation that will allow us to overcome the hurdle of distance, and help us create a structure, a system, and a mechanism by which we may combine our energies, and our resources, so that we may integrate them to create a New Black Economy using our collective will.

We often hear the oft-repeated saw: "There's strength in numbers."

True. And when those numbers are in agreement, working toward one purpose, with one mind, pursuing the same goal--the intention that is built up around that common idea is virtually unstoppable, and irrepressible.

And we're reminded of that other saw: "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

It's that kind of devotion to a cause that's often required to achieve on a large scale, but that level of achievement only comes when we can put aside our differences, and our individual pursuits long enough to create and develop the kind of synergy required to carry out, and carry through, a common purpose.

So, as someone has already mentioned, finding those of like mind, with a similar desire to pursue a common goal is requisite, and would permit the Fourth Pathway to a New Black Economy to be a piece of chocolate cake.

Muhammad Ali, and Malcolm X appearing together in the photo above are emblematic of the kind of cooperation that's needed among our people if we're going to seriously advance our cause with diligence and speed.

Ali, the cocky prize fighter, and Malcolm X, a student of race relations in this country, both, at the time, representing a breaking with the economic and political power structure of their day--one that dominated black life, and frustrated the realization of black economic autonomy.

Ali used the system to earn millions of dollars, a fortune that would assure him a life of luxury, and financial independence. Malcolm, on the other hand, opposing the system, achieved the same end--financial independence--but with an additional advantage: Malcolm possessed the knowledge of how best to use his fortune, and invest it back into the black community, so that all blacks could prosper. Had the Nation of Islam not been a religious movement, but, instead, an economic movement, for the betterment, and advancement of the black community, I believe we'd be farther along in our efforts to build a mostly independent black economy.

The Indispensable Factor

If you've come this far in the article, you have certainly intuited what factor represents The Indispensable Factor: It's a black collective willingness to collaborate in large enough numbers, on a broad enough scale, to push our economic agenda forward with great deliberation, and great haste, taking advantage of those means at our disposal to expedite this push.

Just as the hand rarely operates efficiently and quickly by relying solely on one finger to bear the burden of the whole, neither should we rely on the efforts of one individual (even if he's the president of the United States), if we're going to progress at a pace that's meaningful, and ameliorative. If we don't find ways to conflate our sundry interests, then progress will be slow and laborious--not unlike what it's been up to now.

I believe that Booker T. Washington, and W.E.B. Du Bois, would have expected more from us, although Du Bois believed that issues around the "color-line" would dominate the previous century, when he wrote: "The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line—the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea."

And their vision for blacks in this country--Washington, and Du Bois--wasn't all that incompatible, although Washington was seen as an accommodationist, and Du Bois an agitator for social change. Both visions could have stood side by side, and should have.

Had the two men found ways to meld the interest of both, and worked on behalf of the other, social, political, and economic progress would have come in leaps and bounds, rather than small, halting steps.

I've always contended that the Negro has no problems, at least not an inherent one. His problem exists as an existential one. Yet, it's a problem that he has within his grasp the means of besting. We've heard the saying, "There's safety in numbers." Well, there's another thing that recommends "numbers," especially numbers of great size, representing millions of people with a common cause. Those numbers are the kind of numbers that force others to take notice, and give their respect.

The next article will serve as the flagship article for the series of articles exploring the development of an autonomous black economy. But for now, let me leave you with more statistics for consideration, but this time giving background information on blacks as consumers.

The Black Consumer Market

"The Black population is younger than the rest of the U.S population. In 2008 the median age of the Black population was 41 compared to the general U.S. population at nearly 45. In addition, females represent a greater percentage of the Black population in the United States. While the Black American median household income is lower than the U.S. average, the percentage of Black American households with an income of $50,000.00 or more grew 13.5% between 2003 and 2009, compared with 8.4% for the total U.S. households.

"According to the University of Georgia’s Selig Center for Economic Growth, the buying power of Black Americans was $855 Billion in 2008 and estimates the buying power in 2012 to reach $1.1 trillion. In that same year, the US Census Bureau estimated the number of Black residents at 40.7 million, comprising 13.5% of the total US population. The number of Black-owned businesses was 1.7 million in 2008, a 58% increase since 1997 and Black businesses generated revenues of $92.7 Billion that year. Black Americans are also gaining ground in education. In 2008, 18% of Black Americans held Bachelor Degrees and 1.5 million held advanced degrees (Master’s, J.D., M.D. PhD).

"Black Americans are attracted to companies that represent their lifestyle with targeted messages and images. It is the responsibility of marketers to attract and maintain a relationship with the Black consumer.

"'Black folk are not just dark-skinned white people. Marketers who consciously establish a relationship with this lucrative yet under-served market, by better understanding the African-American culture, mindset, attitude, behavior and lifestyle, will reap significant long-term rewards from a loyal, influential, increasingly affluent customer base,' - Herbert Kemp, Founder & CEO of What is Black about IT? LLC." Source