Ground Zero

"Ground Zero." What an intriguing term! The term is often associated with the following:

Ground Zero is "often defined as "the surface directly above or below the point at which a nuclear explosion takes place," the term "ground zero" is also used for the site of the collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers."

Yet, I speak of another Ground Zero. The Ground Zero of which I speak is not the location of where the World Trade Center once stood, and several thousand Americans, and Muslims, lost their lives.

We all know about that one.

And we know, too, that in recent days the proposed site for an Islamic Community Center (also inaccurately referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque), situated a few blocks from Ground Zero, has come under fire, with more Americans opposed to its construction than are for it--some against it completely, while others think it's inappropriate. And, to point out the irony, this growing opposition totally discounts another fact: A building about four blocks from Ground Zero is already home to a Mosque that has resided in that location for years, even before the construction of the now destroyed World Trade Center.

Smelling the blood of a wounded animal, Republicans are already using this oppositional furor to move in for the kill--to score political points, rather than defuse what's fast becoming a controversial powder keg, as controversial as this administration's erstwhile plan to try certain terrorists in New York City, not far from the debris-cleared grounds of the collapsed World Trade Center Twin Towers. The following statement is representative of the position of many, in and out of politics:

"It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero," [Rep. Peter] King [(R-NY] said in a written statement.

"While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much," he said. "The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from ground zero. Unfortunately, the president caved into political correctness."

King was responding to this statement from President Obama:

"As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

There is another Ground Zero--one infinitely more important than the Islamic Center, and its backers who're resisting the public outcry to cease and desist.

This Ground Zero controversy, true to its original meaning, is quickly becoming "nuclear" in its scope and magnitude, whipped up by the various news media that need controversy to keep us watching their carpet-bombing approach to delivering the news--targeted at times, but massive in their coverage of whatever issues they believe will keep us watching around the clock--even if they're the ones to hype the issues supposed volatility, and to keep them front and center in our attention, whether or not the public has demonstrated an interest in what they're pushing.

What the public get from these news media is manufactured controversy designed to pander to our fears, our anger, and our stupidity--all for the moneyed purpose of keeping their ratings high, and their viewership growing.

Although some may feel that Ground Zero is located in California, the home of Proposition 8 (California's Marriage Protection Act), the controversial anti-same-sex marriage proposition that prospered at the polls although it violated a Constitutionally protected right--equal protection under the law, as provided by the "equal protection clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

"The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that 'only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'" [1]

But this passage wasn't the end, but only the beginning, and it may still take more months, or possibly years, before we know the ultimate outcome: It may take that long for a definitive High Court resolution or, more likely, a Supreme Court resolution.

"United States district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger.[10] Judge Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[11][12] The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Judge Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.[13]" [ibid.(1]

As explosive as this proposition has been, it's not the Ground Zero of which I speak.

Although some may point to Arizona as Ground Zero, the home of the "Papers Please Law" that was partially struck down, because of certain provisions that could have led to racial profiling, Arizona--despite the call for boycotts against the state--is not the Ground Zero of which I speak. One newspaper editorialist wrote the following, speaking for many who believed that the law usurped Federal Authority and went too far:

"The New York Times, in an editorial: 'We hope this is the beginning of the end of the misbegotten Arizona rules and what they represent. ... Arizona's law is not a case of a state helping the federal government do a job it neglected. It is a radical upending of immigration priorities, part of a spiteful crusade to force a mass exodus of illegal immigrants. ... Judge Bolton's ruling reminded us all of the unacceptable price of the Arizona way: an incoherent immigration system, squandered law enforcement resources, diminished public safety, the awful sight of a nation of immigrants turning on itself. We hope (President Obama) goes on to make clear to all the states that the Arizona way is not the American way.'" [2]

No, Arizona isn't the Ground Zero of which I speak. That Ground Zero is considerably more important, and considerably more far-reaching than a state law's limited reach.

We can debate endlessly the merits of building an Islamic Recreation Center within blocks of Ground Zero, where Muslim terrorists took so many American lives, the rights of states to protect their borders, even if those borders abut the borders of another nation, and the wisdom of allowing same-sex couples the right to marry in the same way that their heterosexuality counterparts are allowed.

As I've said: We can debate these things endlessly.

But, what's not up for debate is the validity and preservation of that other construction that's coming under attack, and is rapidly becoming more and more a Ground Zero all its own--A Ground Zero that has been created as a result of the debates that are now raging in our society--the heated, explosive fervor to change, modify, or reinterpret the U.S. Constitution, now that some of its provisions stand in the way of actions some Americans would like to take, but the supremacy of the Constitution precludes:

Such as the Fourteenth Amendment--which certain Republicans are eager to revisit, if only in their imaginations, as they hope to use the possibility of a reinterpretation of this Amendment to give them a voting edge in the Fall, and to show their opposition to children of illegal immigrants becoming citizens (anchor babies as they're indelicately referred to), by virtue of birthrights--who, upon reaching adulthood, can petition for citizenship for their parents.

"The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. It reflected Republican determination that southern states should not be readmitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. Section 1 made all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of the states where they resided (thereby reversing Scott) and prohibited states from abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from depriving persons of due process of law or equal protection of the laws." [ibid.(2]

Such as the Equal Protection Clause of the aforementioned Fourteenth Amendment--which is cited by proponents of same-sex marriage as their Constitutional grounds to enjoy those rights which are granted to others without cavil, whether or not those rights are sanctioned by the majority.

Such as the Separation of Church and State--which those, Muslim and non-Muslim, who favor building an Islamic Community Center a few blocks from Ground Zero, have solid ground upon which to stand and, from all indications, seem more than willing to stand their ground.

Our Constitutionally protected rights are just that, Rights, and aren't opened to interpretation by any other bodies but the Courts. It doesn't matter how we might individually feel about these Rights, we ought not be able to vote them down, or vote them away, simply because they permit something, or the other, to which we're suddenly opposed. If we can suspend the constitution whenever we choose, or when it's out of favor with the majority, and to encourage others to do the same, then we're not a nation ruled, or guided, by laws, but by the whims of the electorate, and the hubris of legislators. The previously cited Rights have built up a vast history of case law and rulings. These precedences won't be, and can't be, dismissed that easily.

No one can take these Rights from us--not Islamic terrorists, not Muslims, illegal immigrants, or those seeking to have the U.S. Constitution represent them equally. Only we can do that when we take steps to deprive others of these Constitutionally protected Rights.

Rand Paul, the "constitutional conservative," is uncharacteristically silent on this issue. Where is his public stance on the rights of private owners to do what they will with their private property? Why isn't he speaking out about this indignity? It appears that he's experiencing selective amnesia, or that he's not as dedicated to maintaining the inviolacy of the Constitution as he claims, or would have us believe.

But there's another Ground Zero that supersedes our U.S. Constitution and, for many, is always under assault, and under siege, because of various human weaknesses: our indecision, our greed, or our lust for power or fame, or both.

And that's our conscience.

If we were guided by it, and the The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity principle--"Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you"--then such matters that evoke so much social conflict, and contribute to so much social upheaval, such as same-sex marriage, the citizenship of children of illegal immigrants, and whether a Mosque, or an Islamic Community Center can be built near Ground Zero, or any other location, as well as a host of other potentially explosive social issues, would either be resolved quickly--or wouldn't rise to the level of conflict and ill-will to begin with.


[1] Wikipedia
[ibid.(1]
[ibid.(2]
[2] Arizona judge rules. What next?

"(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"

I like McDonald's food as well as the next person (well, maybe not as well) but what I'm not prepared to do, as was Melodi Dushane, is physically attack a McDonald's franchise employee, and a drive-up window, for no apparent reason other than that the Chicken McNugget time of day was a few hours away, and she'd have to postpone her McNugget fix:

"Melodi Dushane really, really wanted her chicken nuggets. So she wasn't loving it when a worker at the Toledo McDonald's told her they stopped serving the meal at 2:30 a.m.

In fact, she was downright mad. The 25-year-old reacted to the news by getting out of her car and throwing punches at the employee, then pounding on the glass with her elbow and then finally smashing it, according to ABC affiliate KSFN in Fresno, Calif."

Fantasia Barrino, one of my all-time favorite American Idols (I love her rendition of "Summertime," overdosed on aspirin and a sleep aid (not identified). For her, the livin' hasn't been easy. Speculation is that she did it, in part, because of an affair gone awry with a married man, one Antwaun Cook, and, in part, because of a "scandalous lawsuit."

Her manager released a statement corroborating Fantasia's recent medical crisis, and ended it with the following words:

"Fantasia will be stronger, smarter, and better for it. Her work has always inspired her and served as a source of strength. Her new album, “Back To Me,” will be released on August 24th.

"The lyrics to 'I’m Here' say it best:
'I Believe I Have Inside Of Me
Everything That I Need To Live A Bountiful Life
With All The Love Inside Of Me
I’ll Stand As Tall As The Tallest Tree
And I’m Thankful For Each Day That I’m Given
Both The Easy And The Hard Ones I’m Livin’
But Most Of All
Yes, I’m Thankful For Lovin’ Who I Really Am'

"Fantasia sends her praise to God and her eternal gratitude to her fans, friends, and family.

"God is good."

Providing the birth-date on the Internet is correct, Fantasia Barrino is either twenty-five years of age, or twenty-six.

Her age is not a factor here, only that, if she had managed to kill herself, she would have left undone years of living and experiencing--and would have left on the vine more grapes than she had consumed.

Mental illness, as many of us have observed, should not be taken lightly.

And for sufferers of mental illness, empathy is rarely fully extended, mainly, I think, because so few of us have experienced it directly ourselves.

Although familiar with physical pain, some find it hard to commiserate with those whose pain is said to be mostly mental, than physical.

Here's hoping that Fantasia will find the help she needs for her tempest-tossed life, help to guide her safely to shore.

If the Fantasia Barrino story is true--that her attempted suicide resulted because she was scorned by her married lover--then the two stories, the McNugget incident, and the Barrino suicide attempt, aren't as dissimilar as they might appear at first blush.

The common thread that runs through them both, if we were to connect the two using a needle of thought to stitch the two, is that both incidents revolve around two women seeking a satisfaction of a sort--one in pursuit of Chicken McNuggets, and the other, a man.

In both instance, each woman reacted rashly, and inappropriately. And, in both instances, things could have ended badly for the two.

All this, because their desires and their plans had been thwarted by another.

Interestingly, they both sought to resolve their dissatisfaction using diametrically opposed methods--one by attacking the hired help as though the employee was responsible for making the policy that denied her McNuggets at that time of day (satisfaction by proxy), and the other by attacking herself (results by internalizing the problem, and capitulating to what she perhaps saw as implacable forces).

In short, fight or flight.

I would never make light of another's predicament. The old saw--to walk a day in another's moccasins--is applicable here, as well as in other situations that may cross our paths occasionally--so many black cats with which to contend, and to circumnavigate.

Without judging either method (fight or flight), but merely to select a course of action that resonates, I'd take fight over flight, just as a matter of temperament.

We blacks, when faced with the ruthless, and malevolent beast of racism, have had to make these two choices throughout most of our history in this country, both collectively and individually: Should we fight, and, if so, how--directly, confrontationally, as proposed by W.E.B. Du Bois, or take flight, abide our time by preparing to fight, and becoming so fit that a fight would be averted by our very readiness, as proposed by Booker T. Washington, or head for the shores of an unfamiliar land, as intimidating as that prospect might be, as proposed by Marcus Garvey?

Both methods have their advocates, and their opponents, and both have an upside, and a downside.

Flight may bring a cessation of the pain, although not all pain should be avoided, and fight doesn't always lead to victory, especially if it's done outside the bounds of what's legal, proper, or ethical.

In short, to resist in every arena is not always to win (What you resist, persists!) and to run away is not always to escape--that which set you in flight to begin with, still remains, but now it's larger, and scarier than before.

One or the other of the two (fight or flight) predominates in our life, or they may be said to be balanced--no predisposition to either--but that one or the other may be summoned as the situation or the circumstance dictates.

I propose striving for balance, as extremism rocks the boat, unbalances the seesaw, and tips the scales, although each is welcomed to do as each chooses--and certainly will, despite my proposal.

I find that those who're in fight mode continually, are hard to work with, live with, or interact with. And, too, those in a constant state of flight generally draw our ire as well. More fittingly, it's usually best to test the waters, and place a wet finger to the air, to determine the direction of the wind, before committing oneself to one mode or the other.

If you're facing a formidable foe, or an angry lion, or a mother grizzly, 'tis better to weigh your options (if time permits), whether to "fight," or to employ "flight," as the best course of action. Life, because it's designed to be that way, will present you with ample opportunities wherewith to exercise your judgment in this regard--whether it's better to fight, or take flight--because, as is generally the case, your life, ease of mind, income, freedom, or safety, may hang in the balance.

For Mitrice Richardson, whose remains were recently found, not far from where she was last spotted, I send my prayers to her family and friends. I pray that they will find solace in the absolute knowing that life--the perfect essence of who we are--is indestructible, and is eternal, and that options and choices continue, because we are "choice" itself, and more autonomous that we know.

Let's Throw The POTUS Under The Bus!

Years ago, I came across a book that caused me to laugh out loud as well as piqued my curiosity. And that's a tall order. It was the unexpected title that tickled my funny bone, and, when coupled with the cover design, the tickling went all the way down to the bone marrow.

You've got to love the title: Flattened Fauna: A Field Guide to Common Animals of Roads, Streets, and Highways. You can see the cover design here.

On another blog I frequent, the talk is all about those unfortunates that President Obama supposedly threw under the bus during his run-up to the presidency and beyond. I got to thinking about that rather bizarre metaphor. What is the origin of the phrase that has as one of its meanings, according to the Urban Dictionary: to sacrifice some other person, usually one who is undeserving or at least vulnerable, to make personal gain?

When Rev. Wright was all the buzz, and Fox News aired without let up a video snippet that caught the Reverend excoriating the nation, one Newsweek writer took a stab at tracing both its meaning and its origin. This was after then candidate Obama appeared to distance himself from Wright, and was summarily accused of the unpardonable sin of "throwing the Good Reverend under the bus."

"From the tar pits of the blogosphere to the peaks of the mainstream media, one strange phrase has bubbled up in the wake of Sen. Barack Obama's sweeping speech on race in America: "He didn't throw him under the bus." The "him" is, of course, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Obama's former pastor, whose angry and racially charged sermons have sparked controversy that could undercut Obama's presidential candidacy. But the metaphor—"throw him under the bus"—is tougher to explain. Where did it come from? Why is it suddenly ubiquitous? And at the risk of sounding overly sensitive, is it even advisable, given its ugly echo with the "back of the bus" legacy of African-Americans?" [1]

Speaking of back of the bus, I've waited a long time for this nation to elect a black man, or a black woman, as president (Shirley Chisholm being the first black woman to attempt it.).

So I'm not as willing as some to throw this nation's first black president under the bus, the way that some blacks believe he has done to others. It was the image of the president as roadkill that brought the aforementioned book to mind, an image that I didn't long indulge, but others might.

If I might transmigrate a post from another blog and my response, you'll get the flavor of what I mean. I won't identify the author of the post to which I responded. That would serve no purpose.

Commenter: "No matter how much slack you want to give him he [Barack Obama] did raise expectations. And you are right he is not Jesus but he also has no intention nor has he had any intentions on solving the problems of the little person, or the problems of homelessness, the over incarceration of black folks, ending the dirty dealings that caused folks to be foreclosed upon, getting all children educated, stopping US government aggression, or any other progressive forward thinking idea that one may come up with."

My Response: A strong indictment. Putting education aside, which of the other concerns you cited were part and parcel of Obama's pledge to America, black or white?

Here's what I recall. He would end the war in Iraq--our combat mission there. As of this month, he's on target.

He would expand the war in Afghanistan--the real epicenter for our war on terror, as he saw it, during his campaign.

Congress under his guidance did in recent weeks pass a financial reform bill into law. It didn't go far enough for me, but I'm not complaining--but it just might have sufficient provisions and muscle to do what you hope: to end what you call "the dirty dealings that caused folks to be foreclosed upon."

Expectations aren't campaign pledges.

And with those pledges (candidate Obama didn't promise us the moon), blacks voted for him overwhelmingly, and whites in sufficient numbers to seal a win.

With a little more time and a willing congress (Obama hasn't been in office two years yet), I think he'll get around to rehabilitating our faltering educational system, and addressing other progressive concerns.

America's homeless crisis can be taken up locally, and by charitable institutions. Many such institutions are doing remarkable work to provide homes for the chronically homeless, and well as for those recently homeless as a result of foreclosures.

Check around: You may have such an institution in your own city that you can partner with. End of Response

We've all heard the usual responses to these complaints: Obama's not God, or Jesus. He can't walk on water. He can't perform miracles. Yet, a growing number of the disenchanted are calling precisely for him to be just that--God, or Jesus--and to part the Red Sea, for the deliverance of blacks from the hated Pharaohs of Egypt, and to lead them to the Promised Land.

Although I questioned the advisability of Obama continuing the war in Afghanistan, I only wanted him to fulfill just one of his campaign promises: to end the war in Iraq. Anything else was icing on the cake.

Therefore, I'm amazed that some blacks actually voted for Obama with the hope that he'd address all the wrongs that blacks have been subjected to since the formation of this country.

"Obama listens to whites," they complain. "He listens to their concerns, as well as the concerns of other special interests, but he has no special interest in blacks."

Regrettably, we're not a race-neutral society. As a result, Affirmative action came under fire because it was seen as advancing one race at the expense of another. It didn't matter that Affirmative Action sought to remedy years of white advancement at the expense of blacks. Paradoxically, this program benefited more than just blacks, although not all these non-black groups that benefited suffered equally, or to the same degree as blacks.

If President Obama targeted blacks specifically to reduce the double-digit unemployment rate that haunts blacks, or the inner city for redevelopment, the political heat and fallout that would ensue for his administration would be enormous. It would be seen as a severe blow to the entire Democrat Party--a wound, it seems certain, he wouldn't have the party bear. Already the criticism of black preferential treatment is rampant--health-care reform, for example, has been described as a kind of black reparations.

A white president, if he targeted blacks, wouldn't have to brook this kind of political blowback with the same virulent, racial animus that would greet an Obama effort, although a similar measure may meet with the same resistance, and certain defeat.

Already there's talk from the Obama administration that 75 percent of the oil spilled into the Gulf has dissipated or has been dispersed. This claim, coming in advance of the November 2010 elections, places the Obama administration at risk, if later this claim is found not to be true, but such a claim takes the Democrat Party off the hook, and increases Democrats chances in the upcoming Fall election. So it's not surprising to see the administration risking so much to keep the party viable. As they see it, and despite claims to the contrary, no one person, group, segment of society, or special interest, are more important than the party, and it ongoing survival, and viability.

Criticize the president, sure, but let it be honest and effective criticism, criticism backed up with e-mails, letters, petitions, and any other vocal or written means at your disposal to bring your issues to the attention of the president and congress. Complaining without making an effort to effect a remedy may be cathartic, but, in the end, it's merely a useless exercise.

In response to another commenter, I had this to say:

If the [news] media is the fourth branch of government, then the people, at the very least, are the fifth branch.

Rather than sitting back and watching things being done to us, we should shoulder our responsibility in the governmental equation, and, as citizens, step up and do our part to round out the equation--to make government responsive and accountable to the people.

Anything short of that is nothing more than sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.

End of response.

Preview of coming attractions: a multipart examination of what's needed to create a black economy, and, at the same time, develop the black community.

[1] ‘Under the Bus’
Add to Rev. Wright's legacy this suddenly inescapable phrase.

The Defacing of an American President

There's more than one way to deface the image of a president. It can be done with spray paint, with words, and thorough the use of an assortment of negative images.

It's not enough to do it once. To have a lasting impact, it's important that it's done, over time, again and again--the way that time, rain, and wind, together, can wear down almost any structure that stands in their way.

For our president, that wearing-down, destructive force of time, rain, and wind, has come in the form of the Tea Party Movement. Recently an organization has come to the president's defense--one other than MSNBC, and liberal radio personalities. In an uncharacteristic move, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), apparently fed up with the Tea Party's racist assaults upon this nation's first black president, has backed a resolution to "curb its enthusiasm:"

Tea Party members have used "racial epithets," have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protesters have engaged in "explicitly racist behavior" and "displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically," according to the proposed resolution.

"We're deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we've made," NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. "We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in coordination with 170 other groups, including labor unions, is planning a protest march in Washington, D.C., Oct. 2 as the next step in building momentum against the Tea Party.

The "One Nation" march is designed as an antithesis to the Tea Party, and it's about "pulling America together and back to work," McDowell said. More here

Now that the resolution has been adopted by those attending the NAACP's annual convention, it was not surprising that the Tea Party leadership, and other supporters, Fox News for one (no surprises there), are condemning the NAACP for their stance, and for calling for the Tea Party to repudiate those racist elements in its midst.

I applaud the NAACP for the resolution. Other groups should follow its example, and insist that the Tea Party distance itself from this kind of racist behavior by calling it out, and condemning it.

But that won't be happening, and here is why:

The wave of public acclaim that swept Obama into the White House had to be met with a force equal to, or greater than, lest he and Democrats for the next five national elections continue to ride high in the hearts and minds of the American people.

This offense to the Republican party, and conservatism, could not stand, and would not stand.

Liberalism was a bigger threat to the sanctity of the American Way, the Holy Grail of the U.S. Constitution, and the honored memory of our Sainted Forefathers who fashioned this document to govern the affairs of men--than al-Qaeda, the Iranians and their persistent effort to enrich uranium to build nuclear bombs with which to destroy us and Israel.

This threat wasn't lost on Rush Limbaugh. His was the first shot across the bow of Obama's freshly formed "regime," which was soon picked up in sundry incarnations:

"I want him to fail."

Sensing that the Republican party had played too nicey-nicey, allowing the liberal (now socialist) takeover of the presidency and the congress, the Tea Party Movement (more edgy, and more conservative than the mainstream) was given birth.

They in the movement had one goal: Topple Obama.

If he was seen as an icon (Shatter his image!). If he was a unifier (Brand him a racist!). If he galvanized a crowd with words alone (Call him the anti-Christ!).

For months now the destruction of a president and his party has been well under way, the assaults occurring daily--here a little, and there a little, a chipping here and a whittling there.

And the method has been sinister, a Machiavellian plot that Machiavelli himself would have endorsed, and would have been proud to call his own.

The opposition party resorted to several tactics, using a stratagem that would be the envy of Tricky Dick, were he alive, and will, over time, be inducted into the Hall of Fame of Dirty Tricks

The method was simplicity itself: The Tea Party Goers would, until the next national election, put all their collective energies toward the following: the radicalization, the Islamization, the socialismization, the Hitlerization, the blackenization, the racialization, the foreignization*, of Obama.

It didn't matter that, by associating Obama with Hitler and the holocaust, that it marginalized both--the horror that emerged as concentration camps, and the mass extermination of Jews, and the evil that was Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Predictions have it, from the White House Press Secretary himself, Robert Gibbs, that the Fall elections could result in a hand over of the keys to the U.S. House of Representatives to Republicans.

Although I, for one, am not certain of the outcome of the election for the House or the Senate come this Fall, I have never underestimated the power of bad press, and its destructive potential, especially when those who would wield it, wield it unscrupulously, and with deadly intentions.

A late but timely revision to this blog entry, thanks to "Blinders Off". If you watch only one You Tube video this week, this is it: "What if the Tea Party was Black"? Who says our young people aren't paying attention.


*Some words created just for this blog entry.

L.S./M.F.T.

Some of our nation's young people still act as though it will take immeasurably longer for their brain's development to catch up with their over-all physical development, than others in their peer group.

It's as though we have spoiled six-year olds inhabiting adult bodies, but, unlike six-year olds who're physically limited, these mental juveniles can plan, organize, and otherwise use their adult cunning to challenge cops, damage and destroy public and private property--all the while giving the proverbial finger to parents, whom, I trust, would disapprove of this type of behavior, and a protruding tongue to the quality of their rearing, or lack thereof.

Having reached the limits of their prodigious patience, some cities are preparing to fight back:

PHILADELPHIA — It started innocently enough seven years ago as an act of performance art where people linked through social-networking Web sites and text messaging suddenly gathered on the streets for impromptu pillow fights in New York, group disco routines in London, and even a huge snowball fight in Washington.

But these so-called flash mobs have taken a more aggressive and raucous turn here as hundreds of teenagers have been converging downtown for a ritual that is part bullying, part running of the bulls: sprinting down the block, the teenagers sometimes pause to brawl with one another, assault pedestrians or vandalize property.

On Wednesday, the police here said that they had had enough. They announced plans to step up enforcement of a curfew already on the books, and to tighten it if there is another incident.

They added that they planned to hold parents legally responsible for their children’s actions. They are also considering making free transit passes for students invalid after 4 p.m., instead of 7 p.m., to limit teenagers’ ability to ride downtown.

Lucky Strike, now more often referred to as "Luckies," introduced a message on its cigarette packs in 1917.

It was: L.S.M.F.T. (Luck Strike Means Fine Tobacco).

Now what does all this, a brand of cigarettes, "Luckies," have to do with the topic at hand. Well, not much.

Just this: A book I read years ago said that Lucky Strike's popular message could be used as a mnemonic device to remember something more important than a cigarette message; the initials of the message representing something infinitely more valuable--a key to understanding human behavior, and a reminder of a methodology that would allow one to respond in a way that could defuse a human interaction gone awry.

It is this: Low Self-esteem Means Friction and Trouble (L.S.M.F.T).

This little bit of knowledge has served me well over the years, and have extricated me from some rather sticky situations that could have spiraled out of control, but for it.

For all the laboriously slow methods available to us to win fame and success (college, starting a business), we seem to be living now in an era of instant gratification. And, too, quite aptly, we have been called the "throw away society," and that, too, may also be true. We, as a society, it seems, don't value anything as much as we used to.

Now we want things quickly without resorting to the tried and true methods of the past--hard work, elbow grease, true grit, or moxie.

For better or for worse, we're living during a time, thanks to the Internet, and a twenty-four hour news cycle, and cameras and cellphones everywhere, as ubiquitous as portable transistor radios used to be, where the average Joe or Jane can now become a celebrity over night.

Consider the 'Barefoot bandit' with a cult following on Facebook of around 60,000 fans, and a reputation rivaling that of Bonnie and Clyde, and the sudden success and fame of a homeless man caught on camera folding an American flag, military style, that had come unmoored from it's mooring during a storm.

Now captured in the Bahamas, there's talk of the existence of a possible movie deal for the "Barefoot bandit," and most likely a book deal, as well, and that the homeless man is receiving job offers, and other outpouring of largesse from grateful strangers around our usually jaded nation that were moved by his uncommon display of patriotism.

Reality T.V. shows, often featuring the common man and common woman, who, in past years, would have been dubbed "Everyman," can now garner a following to equal that of movie stars.

Jon & Kate Plus 8 is one of those shows, that, at its peak, attracted as many as 9.8 million viewers.

With all this allurement of instant fame and monetary success just a video away, or a Reality T.V. show away, or a foolish stunt away, or an eluding of the cops away--who needs to work hard, study hard, and sacrifice time, and energy to bring one's self-esteem up, and launch it into the stratosphere of public acclaim, and monetary rewards.

Instead, all that is now needed is luck, a gimmick, and a good agent.

TrUSt?

Our latest spy caper, now all the rave--comprised of ten Russian citizens--is not your usual cloak and dagger escapade.

It's certainly all of these--invisible ink, secret code words, fake names--and it's also this: quiet family time in the burb, hot dogs and hamburgers on the grill, and other concessions to American culture to allow these Russian spies to blend in. One person has described one husband-wife team as a "nice couple."

That's us: "Nice."

"'They’re such a nice couple,' Susan Coke, a real estate agent who sold a home in Montclair, N.J. to two of the suspects — who called themselves Richard and Cynthia Murphy — told The New Jersey Star-Ledger. 'I just hope the FBI got it wrong.'

"Prosecutors say that for the past decade the alleged Russian spies, while passing as everyday people in suburbia and elsewhere, engaged in secret global travel with false passports, secret code words, fake names, invisible ink and encrypted radio messages." More here.

What does these arrests on espionage charges say about governments' ability to forge understandings--treaties, and other international agreements--when they don't trust each other?

And if governments don't trust each other, what does that say to a people who place their trust in governments so that they may have their common defense, and their common welfare secured?

I say: Take your lead from governments around the world. These governments are actively engaged in knowing what the other is about using surreptitious means, if necessary, to do so.

We don't have to go that far, however, but it behooves a people to use whatever democratic means that are at their disposal to maintain those checks and balances to which the founding fathers were so partial.

And staying informed--our becoming a knowledgeable electorate--should be an indispensable part of holding governments accountable. If the Russian government is willing to go to such great pain, to such amazing lengths, as to insert spies in our midst to stay informed about our government's intentions, and to gather sensitive information, how much more us, the people, the one's who'll suffer the most for government's missteps.

Wikileaks is one of those organizations that is on the frontline of that information gathering, and a young Army private, one Bradley Manning, faces "an Article 32 Hearing, which is similar to a grand jury" because of an alleged leak to Wikileaks which it promptly brought before the American people.

The U.S. has formally pressed criminal charges against Army Private Bradley Manning for allegedly leaking secret military files to Wikileaks, including the hugely controversial video of U.S. helicopters killing civilians in Iraq. Manning faces several charges, including espionage, that could carry a sentence of up to 52 years in prison. These charges, however, raise more than they resolve about the complicated case. Here's what we still don't know.

Private Manning charged with disclosing iraq-slaughter video. Trigger happy Apache crew remain uncharged. More here.

How far the people should be willing to go to gather information on government activities, and coverups, will always be debatable, but what is not debatable is the role of the people: We the people should be the final arbiters, the ultimate checks and balances to counter the potential tyranny that's always inherent in power, and within the confines of government, because of the power that it wields in our names.

Be certain of one thing: Government will not always work in the best interest of the people it claims to serve. It will always exercise power that's not in the interest of the people--from illegal wiretaps, to a financial reform bill that still leaves the country exposed to rapacious Wall Street bankers, to a laxity of regulatory policing of Big Oil (to name a few), who will still seek to drill in environmentally sensitive areas, without appropriate safeguards, or the means to respond responsibly, and adequately, to catastrophes when they occur.

And they will surely occur.

Just as other countries spend millions watching what other governments are doing that may be inimical to their welfare, it behooves us to do the same with equal enthusiasm.

The news media is often seen as the fourth branch of government, but there's a fifth branch that's often overlooked, and--for all its usual diminished positioning--is the most important when it comes to buttressing our democratic superstructure: the American people.

As citizens of this country we have a duty to perform--a duty that's more important than the duty of government. That duty is to be vigilant. That duty is to insist that government works on behalf of the people, and not just on behalf of other societal entities, whether they're corporate special interests, or non-corporate special interests.

We the people--our interests--should always come first, and not last, which is too often the case in our current political climate.

It's when we take our eye off of government, and allow it to operate in secrecy, striking deals behind closed doors--just as Cheney did with Big Oil, and Obama with Big Pharma--that our democracy is put at risk.

Further, we need to take a proactive role in our own governance. Always we should insist that government is responsive to the people, and beholding to us. At the end of the day, it is us, the people, that will either succeed or fail when government succeeds or fails.

Where there's trust--real trust--governments don't need spies to guarantee that trust. Where there's trust--real trust--the people can relax their vigilance. But that day isn't yet upon us.

Until that time, as Jefferson warned, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." It's also the hallmark of a democracy.

Watching the Byrd-ie!

The passing of Senator Byrd plunges the Black Blogosphere into a morass of mourning. Well, I exaggerate. Actually, I'm exaggerating a lot.

The senator's passing is, however, being marked by black bloggers, in much the same way that James (Strom) Thurmond's passing was marked, with a looking back over the lives of those who, at some point in their lives, supported a way of life that made life a living hell for many.

The thought comes to mind: The good die young, while evil live long, and from life the last drop is wrung, before we can truly say they're finally gone.

Tupac looked at this phenomenon of the young dying young, as did Billie Joel, Joel's lyrical observations speaking seductively of postponing sexual gratification, and Tupac speaking regrettably about the vicissitudes of life.

I'm reminded, too, about a famous passage from one of Shakespeare's plays, delivered by one Mark Anthony:

Mark Antony:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ...

This, too, will probably be true for Senator Robert C. Byrd.

I'm not sure what Byrd's legacy will be--what will stand out, whether it'll be his political legacy, or his racial legacy, or both. Many in the press and the media marked his passing, if not with flourishes of praise, certainly not with damning criticism. Several noted his evolutionary, transformational progress--from that of a former Klansman to one who opposed the war in Iraq, and had several civil rights voting achievements under his belt.

For my part, I'll let Byrd's life speak for itself--those long and short passages with which he elevated his life, and those with which he plumbed the depths of racial animus. At one point in his life, Byrd is quoted as saying:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side…Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

I left the following observations at another blog. I debated whether I should include them here, even though it seemed appropriate. I rarely discuss my encounters with racism, and the incidents that follow will be familiar to whites and blacks, alike, but these examples are "tip of the iceberg" instances, and I could have, just as easily, presented more horrific examples. Although, over my life, I've become rather adept at spotting racism, I rarely dwell on the subject.

Here's the black reality as I have lived it, and continue to do so:

In this country, even before we're accused of anything, we're guilty of something: We're guilty of being black.

We're told in our legal system: We're Innocent until proven guilty.

For blacks the reverse is too often true: We're guilty until proven innocent, or until we can prove our innocence.

We were born guilty. We grow to manhood, and womanhood, guilty, and, for many us, we die guilty.

That's why we're followed around in stores by white store clerks. It's because we're guilty.

That's why whites cross the street, rather than come within an unsafe distance of us. It's because we're guilty.

That's why whites yell out the invective, Nigga, when they drive by. It's because we're guilty.

That's why the job we're seeking, and is qualified to do, is given to somebody white, instead, who is not as qualified as we are. It's because we're guilty.

That's why the customer service to which we're entitled, oftentimes comes up grossly lacking. It's because we're guilty.

If, for years, whites treat a people as though they're guilty for existing, they shouldn't expect a "thank you" for it, black cooperation for it, or an adoption of their white value system, or ideals, for it--just because they, and other blacks, say it's good for them.

Living guilty is hard to live down.

####

If you think that the incidents I cited above happened in yesteryears, you'd be wrong. Most of them happen periodically, several within the last year, and a couple within the last month.

No, I don't live in the Deep South. I live within a liberal stronghold, an area in which you'd think racial enlightenment has come. No, not all my encounters are racist. Many whites with whom I have contact, give respect, and show civility. But there is an element that's still waiting for the memo from the front office.

There is a white supremacist gang in my area that's at war with the police department, and have done damage to police property, setting booby traps to inflict bodily harm, but it has been my good fortune not to meet up personally with the group.

Frankly, I'm mostly inured to these behaviors, and actions. And those whose purpose it is to demoralize me, fail miserably.

I'm long past the times, however, when these racial and racist taunts and behavior can disturb my spirit, other than evoke the deepest of pity, and my concern for the future of our country, and the flagging outlook for humankind.