Vision Circle

Woodrow Nash

One day when I get rich, I would very much like to own a sculpture of Woodrow Nash. I encountered some of his work several weeks ago and I still find it mind-blowing. His work is the most stunningly beautiful statuary I have ever seen. I'd really love to see it done on a monumental scale.

The Dark Side of Positive Images

J at Silver Rights scribes on a bit about author Thulani Davis who recalls her grandparents and their lives as slaves in Virginia. She finds it curious that blacks and whites have vastly different memories of that peculiar time.

Southern history is still too often viewed through a lens of white privilege. I do not know when Thulani Davis' book will be completed. But, in the interim, I encourage anyone interested in the complex reality of real Southern families to read the articles she is currently publishing based on research into her families -- both black and white.

I immediately thought of talent shows and image awards and 'American Idol' and 'The Apprentice' in this very context. While surely African Americans' great triumph has been to cull beauty and strength from the devastations of oppression, that very beauty and strength can be used to paint a rosy picture which is not wholly true. In reviewing black reticence to 'air dirty laundry', perhaps it should not be so taboo.

Nothing is going to reveal the nature of black culture like a clash between its elements. When jazz purists go after hiphop, when Baptist diss Methodists, when Brooklyn meets Decatur the results are often very illuminating, not only for the parties involved, but neutral observers. Of course this kind of conflict flies in the face of unity and is often suppressed out of fear of 'divide and conquer' strategies of the Man. But reality shows that racism doesn't hurt all blackfolks equally, nor is it our biggest problem.

We're all better off when we openly discuss our triumphs and failures. Each one teach one is not all stories about princesses and castles, but stories about dragons and dungeons as well. Suppressing the foul stories gives license to the rose colored stories. So watch out for that. Your success is going to be used against you.

Blacks, Hiibel & The Terry Stop

It turns out that a 'drunken cowboy' is representing a lot of blackfolks today in the Supreme Court. The Hiibel case as reported by Slate:

Cowboy Dudley Hiibel is challenging a Nevada statute, NRS 171.123 (3), which says the police can require someone detained pursuant to a so-called "Terry stop" to identify themselves. The Terry stop—cooked up in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio—carved out an exception to the old Fourth Amendment requirement that people can't be searched and seized absent "probable cause" to believe they'd committed a crime. If "probable cause" signified the level of police commitment necessary for a meaningful relationship with a criminal defendant, Terry authorized the one-night-stand, giving cops the right to initiate quickie detentions—including a brief, unerotic frisk—of folks who are sort of suspicious but not suspicious enough to justify an arrest. Several concurring opinions in Terry said that cops could ask questions during these brief encounters, but suspects had no obligation to answer. But in several cases over the years, the high court hasn't squarely addressed that the rule. The Nevada law, on the other hand, says the failure to provide your name during these stops is illegal. So, here we are.

What are your rights on the sidewalk? They may be about to change.

As Slate offered some comments from the presentation at the Supreme Court, I tend to prefer Ginsberg's line of inquiry. What are neutral facts about you that could be offered to a police officer which are not incriminating? Is your name such a neutral fact? I'm not convinced that it is. I think that what is or is not neutral is entirely dependent on the subjective state of the officer involved, and because of that I would try to be very specific as to what kind of questions an officer might pose which would legally require responses.

For example, what if my name was Charles Manson and since I was just walking, I didn't have my wallet or ID? Is my name a neutral fact? Will he ask me to prove it? Should I have to?

No Benefit of the Doubt

I used read about the ostracism of black Republicans with a great deal of skepticism. When I would hear them applauded for standing up for Republican values in the face of black opposition, sometimes called racist, I would poo on that. How could anyone dare suggest that being a black Republican in black Democratic territory was as dangerous to blackfolks as being black in white territory? Perish the thought.

That thought doesn't perish. As crusty as I am getting in my age, I'm certainly a whole lot more sensitive to this than I had been in the past, not simply because I myself am Republican but for the sakes of others not quite as hardheaded as I. Today held an object lesson in that.

I rejoined the fray at the NAPA meeting this morning where James A. Spencer , a businessman from Inglewood and new friend, was the man on the spot. He has just won the primary to represent the Republican challenger for the 25th State Senatorial District, which includes, Inglewood, Palos Verdes, Hawthorne and several other communities. While I had promised to spend a bit more time in the old 'hood through my participation in the National Alliance for Positive Action, I've scaled back on that for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I couldn't miss this opportunity to speak and hear what's spoken about the resurgence of Republicanism in blacks in LA. This is as good a referendum as any. The seat, currently held by Ed Vincent, former multi-term mayor of Inglewood and full-time pol, is now challenged by another black man. Spencer plans to throw the bum out. Of course, he'll have to convince voters and he got his first chance today to answer the perennial question:

How can you be a black Republican?

I think Spencer handled himself well and has begun to bridge the gap between talking strictly in the abstract and dealing with policy and political dollars. His focus is on local politics. Some of the members of the audience wanted him to go to Haiti. Some members of the audience's first words out of their mouths was George Bush. Others wanted to talk about Iraq, Clinton, Trent Lott, The Federalist Papers and just about everything but the 25th State Senatorial District. That figures because most of us wouldn't recognize the shape of it if we saw it on a map.

"This is what you ought to be about." is what I keep hearing. The double standards and prejudices are clear. To be a black republican, or anything not taken for granted as black, there are certain litmus tests presented. It's not catastrophic and nobody is going to lose any sleep over here, but what I saw and what I think it's reasonable to expect from black audiences is no benefit of the doubt. That's not much of a hurdle to overcome, but it certainly is disrespectful.

I look forward to the at large election which will determine the fate of Spencer in his contest against Vincent. The new dynamic is afoot.

Spencer promises to stay in touch with the community. He wants to reduce the time of all legislators spent in Sacramento. Too much time to debate, he thinks. Not enough time spent with the people. His priorities are Economic Development. Every dollar that comes into the community should have 50 cents go to local labor. His second priority is 'mis'Education, and his third is gang intervention.

UPDATE: Arnold is talking about this same part-time legislature idea.

Haiti and Venezuela

When I first heard about Aristide's claims, I was listening to Diane Rehm. She was talking about the coup, and about how the US whisked Aristide away saving his life in the process. Two callers noted that both Tavis Smiley and Democracy Now had noted that Randall Robinson and Maxine Waters spoke with Aristide, who claimed that he'd been kidnapped rather than saved. When Diane asked her panelists to comment, someone noted that it sounded preposterous and that he had no reason to believe that Colin Powell had misspoken.

Something about that was really unsettling for me. Of course Powell's word has been turned to mush as a result of Iraq and WMD, but that wasn't it. I couldn't figure it out until it hit me this week.

Venezuela.

Anyone remember the coup in Venezuela? Condoleezza Rice held a press conference on the coup, noting that they would work with the new regime to ensure that the promise of democracy--which was taken away by Chavez--was restored. One slight problem. Two actually.

Chavez was democratically elected and had a significant degree of support from his citizens.

The coup ended up failing.

Turned out that the coup was directed by a constellation of groups interested in restoring neo-liberal market based policies. Chavez is about as Left as they come. Condoleezza and the administration was left to beat a hasty retreat, explaining why they would let a democratically elected president be taken out.

When I thought about Venezuela it all fit. But a cursory google search turns up few articles in which the link between US behavior in Haiti and Venezuela is made.

Blacks and Political Sophistication

The other day I wondered about whether one of the reasons why Sharpton acted the way he did was because of the unsophisticated nature of black folk. I was actually asking this question somewhat facetiously, because I've long believed that black people are much more sophisticated than other groups in this country. Whereas whites for example have only recently begun to accept AND ACT ON the idea that black elected officials can serve their interests, blacks have always focused more on the quality of the candidate than the race. And the fact that blacks didn't vote for Sharpton in significant numbers, even while acknowledging that he played an important role, further solidifies that fact in my book.

But it caused me to wonder whether work had been done on black sophistication as a whole. Doing a search on JSTOR, I found an article by James Glaser. As JSTOR requires either a private subscription or access to a research university server linking either to JSTOR or to the article itself won't really do much. Instead I'll provide the text of the abstract:

Despite a comparative disadvantage vis-a-vis whites in resources like education that often are considered to lead to political sophistication, African Americans show signs of being a rather politically sophisticated group of people. Given that better educated people are much more likely than those with less education to see larger differences between Democrats and Republicans, the propensity for blacks to perceive larger differences between the parties, both in general and on specific issues, is striking. This puzzle is explained by the fact that education has a huge impact on seeing partisan differences for whites, but not for blacks. That this understanding of the structure of American politics has so completely penetrated black public opinion is quite remarkable. Strength of partisanship, and to a lesser degree, racial consciousness, appear to be largely responsible for blacks (particularly less educated blacks) perceiving such stark party differences.

I know Glaser a bit. Particularly for a white political scientist he has a remarkable understanding of black politics. He's also used some innovative techniques to get at white racial attitudes. He does get it wrong in one way. He notes in the text that such a finding is "surprising." For those of us long familiar with the types of political discussions held in barbershops and beauty salons this finding should come at no surprise whatsoever.

Northland

When I was younger and living in the Detroit area, there was a mall on the outskirts of the city (EVERY mall was on the outskirts of the city). Northland. For those of us unable to get to Northland by bus, it represented sort of a young black paradise. Because we'd heard that most of the young girls who hung out there on the weekend were fine. Given that my wife lived around the block from it and hung out there herself, we weren't that far off the mark.

But what we didn't know was that Northland signified a much larger dynamic in the creation, and eventual destruction of the twentieth century city. While folks blame black power and Coleman Young for white flight, places like Northland had a lot to do with it.

Sharpton and Sophistication

So I'm teaching my public opinion class today and the subject is sophistication and ideology. In the public opinion literature, "sophistication" is associated with increased political participation, higher interest, and a host of other things.

It is also associated with basing candidate evaluations on policy, as opposed to personna.

So it is possible the reason that Sharpton doesn't have policy proposals is because he assumed that black people would make their voting decisions based on personna. Whether he "spoke truth to power." Whether he "stood up for black folks." This makes a great deal of sense to me. I still disagree with it. I assume a great degree of sophistication among the black electorate, far more sophistication than that possessed by their white counterparts. I wonder why Sharpton doesn't assume more?

Random Thoughts

Quick hits:

* Barney Frank argues that the ability of the private sphere to create wealth has outstripped its ability to create jobs. What this means, is that we need MORE rather than LESS government in order to both employ people, and help them live up to their capacity. David Broder talks about this idea here. I think Frank's on the money, but while I support Kerry there's no way in hell I see him touching this.

* Prince gets put in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame today. I used to be able to name every Prince album off the top of my head sequentially. I stopped being able to do this after...Diamonds and Pearls I think. But no one has had more of a profound impact on American popular music in the last 25 years. I'm surprised more folks aren't giving him his due.

* I finished The Invisibles over the weekend in two sittings. Trippy. What if the political battles that we wage war over were all illusions? Morrison's got Steve Cokely beat.

* I distilled my various thoughts on Al Sharpton into an Africana.com piece that is appearing today. It's called It's Time for Al to Go. I actually don't believe he should GO. There's definitely a place for him. Seriously. But I think that place is probably television, or film, rather than in politics.

Surveillance in Hip-Hop

Check this out:

March 10, 2004 | MIAMI (AP) -- Police say they are secretly monitoring hip-hop stars P. Diddy, DMX and others in South Florida to protect them, but celebrities and critics see the surveillance as unnecessary and racist.

Officers in Miami and Miami Beach have photographed rappers and their entourages at Miami International Airport and staked out hotels, video shoots and nightclubs while consulting 6-inch-thick dossiers of rappers and associates with arrest records in New York state, The Miami Herald reported.

More here. (Subscription may be required, but it is worth it!)

For their...PROTECTION. Right.

More on The Passion

I talked about The Passion last night with my sister. As soon as I saw the depiction (sidenote...Gibson's Jesus does NOT have blue eyes), I decided not to go.

The truth is the TRUTH. We don't accept anything less than the truth when we talk about fraternal matters. We don't accept anything less than the truth when it comes to our families. We don't accept anything less than the truth when it comes to our children.

Why should you accept anything less than the truth, when it comes to the matter that is most important to you?

Think about it another way.

Gibson originally filmed the entire movie in Aramaic, because English didn't exist at that time period. He was so dedicated to getting the details right, that he had the entire film performed in a language that few people on the face of the planet can still speak. That fewer probably know how to read.

He was so dedicated to getting the details right that the crucifixion scene lasted almost a full HOUR. While some may say that this fixation on violence borders on the pornographic I disagree. The time period of The Passion was an extremely violent time. Furthermore, Gibson wanted to be sure that the viewer understood exactly what Jesus was buying into when he agreed to die. He agreed to die in one of the most painful ways imagineable.

So it isn't like Gibson himself isn't down with the truth as he understood it. He was so down for the truth that he risked the entire movie on it.

BUT....he wasn't so down for the truth that he'd accurately depict the people of the time period.

He wasn't so down for the truth that he'd accurately depict the person he believes is the savior of all of humanity.

....

Now some would argue that race is unimportant. That Jesus didn't have a color.

To a certain extent this argument has merit. "Race" didn't exist 2,000 years ago. People weren't known as "blacks" or "whites" but rather as Ethiopians, or Romans. But during his time on Earth, Jesus HAD A PHYSICAL APPEARANCE. Jesus wasn't colorless. His skin wasn't translucent. His hair wasn't made of fire. If accuracy is your goal and the truth matters at all, I say depict him as he WAS. Furthermore, given the routine discrimination visited upon black, brown, red, and yellow peoples in America, I'd think that an accurate depiction of Jesus may actually get Christians to reconsider their daily practices.

I've already made my decision. I won't give Gibson a cent for his movie. I won't even watch the bootleg copy.

The day I watch The Passion is the day they show the uncut version on Saturday morning television smack dab between The 21st Century Smurfs and the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.

The truth matters. If it matters on your job, if it matters in your home, if it matters in your personal relationship...it should matter when it comes to your God.

The Price of Sharpton's Exit

Here at Vision Circle, we've known for sometime that Sharpton was a hustler, and that his run for the White House was a thinly veiled attempt to become HNIC. What we didn't know, was his price. Jackson got a plane, and egress into the Clinton White House. Years before that, he got Ron Brown into the DNC's head spot.

So what was Sharpton going to get?

Now HE'S said all along that the goal was policy. But WHAT policy? What policies has Sharpton outlined during his run that no other candidate has addressed? Getting MLK Day recognized in the North Carolina town that sponsored one of the debates? Getting Howard Dean some black staffpersons? What?

Thanks to Prometheus I know Sharpton's fee. If Kerry pays off the $600,000 debt that Sharpton has accrued, Sharpton will leave the race.

Norman Kelley's book on HNIC's can't come out quick enough.

The Game is afoot.

Yesterday I did it. I signed the DNC's loyalty pledge saying I'd do everything possible to ensure that John Kerry is elected President. While I supported Nader last time around I don't see the need for it now. Not only do we have a strong candidate, we have a candidate who isn't afraid to brawl. So I plan to do phone bank work, to send money, to help register voters, and maybe to poll watch....kids in tow. If you think the country is worth fighting for, whatever side you are on, you've got to do more than vote. Voting alone won't get it.

...

So Bush has decided to use 9/11 as part of his campaign. While some are focusing on issues of ownership (shouldn't the victims of 9/11 and their families have some say about how this event is used?) I think the argument made by the families (some of the families rather) is too idealistic. A better argument, which is also idealistic, is simple. Bush said he wouldn't do it. He said that he had no plans to use the attacks for political ends. But like I said, that's too idealistic. We should have expected him to use it. We should also expect similar behavior at the GOP Convention in NYC.

How do we respond? A brass knuckled shot to the jaw should do it. You want to open up the can?

* Mr Bush, why didn't your advisors follow the advice of Clinton's team on the power of Al-Queda?

* Mr Bush, why didn't your advisors tell the rescue teams that the wreckage was safe to sift through when they knew it wasn't?

* Mr Bush, after the attacks on Pearl Harbor a committee was established, and made a full report less than a year later. Why hasn't the 9/11 commission been able to report?

* Mr. Bush, why haven't you appeared before the committee?

* Mr. Bush why have you cut the amount of money allotted to firefighters and rescue workers through homeland security?

* Mr Bush using the image of 9/11 you focus on a single flag-covered casket. We've had thousands of casualties and injuries as a result of the War on Terrorism that was carried over into Iraq. How many of those funerals have you attended? Why haven't you allowed their image broadcast on television?

Bush made the decision to wrap himself in a bloodsoaked American flag. It's now the job of the loyal opposition to make sure people know exactly how that blood got there.

Schooling and Black Boys

I don't think I've talked much about my family here. I remember when Cobb killed Boohab, at least partially (as I understand it) to integrate his personal life into his internet oriented political work. I haven't made that leap fully, largely because my own professional persona (which is pretty much distilled here) doesn't require that I do so.

Something happens every now and then in my personal life that gives me pause. Such is the nature of black life.

I have two sons and two daughters. My oldest daughter is nine, my youngest is 1.66. My oldest son is 6, my youngest is 3.90.

My two oldest children attend the same grade school. We supplement their education with our own as much as we can. My teaching mode with my own children is much the same as I employ with my students. I try not to tell them WHAT to think, but rather, try to teach them HOW to think. While the true results won't be known for a while, I think we're doing ok.

So my son tells me last week that he got into a spat with another child. I am significantly underplaying it. The first day I was able I went to the school to talk to the teacher, to see what they intended to do about it. When I talked to the teacher, she then had my son go to the classroom of the other child and point him out.

The little boy was a couple of years older than my son, and dark skinned. As soon as I saw this, I recognized that there was another problem at work. People doing research in this area recognize that the educational gap between black and white kids starts at around 8 or 9 and persists afterward. When I saw the little boy I recognized that we needed to make sure that my son was ok, but also that the little boy wasn't tagged with the label. Because as soon as that happens, it isn't all over NECESSARILY...but it becomes much more difficult for black children to succeed. When i talk to the (white) administrators I specifically tell them that I'm not interested in having the other kid punished, because I'm sensitive to what schools routinely do to black children in general, and to darker skinned black boys and girls in particular. They ensure that this won't happen, that they'll talk to the boy and his parents, and see to it that everything and everyone is made whole.

I get an email from the administrator. The parents want to meet with me and my wife.

They don't think their son was guilty of what my son accused him of.

At this point a number of scenarios are playing themselves out in my head. But I agree to meet. In talking it over with a couple of my colleagues, they think I've made the wrong choice. I can easily imagine going OFF on someone who accused my son or daughter, if they told me they didn't do it. And given the way that institutions often work on black children it isn't hard to imagine the worst case scenario--angry parents trying to protect their child from the system and from someone else's parents.

But we stick by our decision.

We had the meeting yesterday. When I came to the meeting I made sure I came in discrete mode. No "Dr Spence." No suit or tie. As close to hip-hop as I'm going to get as far as gear at 35. I don't want any of my words misunderstood because of class differences.

The meeting goes far better than anyone would've possibly expected, largely because we didn't come in there talking zero tolerance. From jump, we tried to make sure that the parents understood we knew what they were dealing with, that we weren't trying to jack anyone, and that we wanted to make sure that everyone was safe. The administrator and counselor (who were present as facilitators) thanked us all profusely for not taking an adversarial approach and for looking out for everyone concerned.

There are a lot more layers here than I can adequately convey in this space. But I couldn't help but wonder how the situation would've been different had I been white...or if I didn't teach this stuff for a living. Would I have looked out for Leroy (and his parents) interests as much as I did?

I've come to the general conclusion that one of the reasons for the gap is not simply the material resource gap that exists between blacks and whites, but the psychic resource gap. How much time do I have to spend thinking about these issues compared to my white counterparts? How much time do I have to spend supplementing my children's education? How much time do i have to spend making sure that the black history fact sheet about Maya Angelou is actually ABOUT Maya Angelou rather than Marian Anderson (true story)? How much time do I have to spend going over letters making sure that the adminstrators aren't sorting and surveilling black kids unknowingly? How much time do I have to spend actually thinking about what I have to do to make sure my children and their black friends are powerful in spite of the racialized hurdles they have to face?

Right for the Wrong Reasons

A cat over at Slate has decided to write Al Sharpton's political obituary. He should be right...Sharpton should be toast. But there is this tidbit:

Hank Sheinkopf, one of New York's best-known Democratic political consultants, puts it this way: "The fact that blacks declined to cast a symbolic vote—that's a sign of political growth." Bill Schneider said much the same thing on CNN last night: Black Democrats have joined the mainstream in a variety of ways, and, as a result, they're voting pretty much the same as all other Democrats.

Sheinkopf is right, but if we are to assume that he means that BLACKS have politically grown up, he's all wrong.

We've BEEN grown up. For a LONG time. Check out local voting patterns for Republicans for example, rather than national ones. Blacks will vote for Republicans in significant numbers if it can be shown that they support black interests. Even in the face of dwindling choices, black voters have made due. In this case it's the Democratic Party that has grown up. They've still got some growing to do though.

Wiley on Bonds

If you're about supporting upholding and representing the Old School, then your aspirations are excellence. To the stars through perseverance. Ad astra per aspera. You might not hit it...you might not even get CLOSE. But that's your goal.

And if you're about supporting and upholding the Old School then you recognize that excellence comes in many forms and many exteriors. I remember talking to a young brother about Tiger Woods, and whether he could get into an all-white private golf club NOW.

"Of COURSE he could," was my reply. If those old white men knew anything about the game of golf, if they'd ever spent a few hours on the back nine, there is no way they could deny his greatness. They'd let him in (and then keep US out) with the QUICKNESS.

Ralph Wiley wrote a piece on Barry Bonds today, that should pretty much . The Detroit Tigers have sucked too much these past 17 years for me to be a baseball guy...but I'll be damned if I don't recognize how hard it is to hit 658 home runs over the course of a 20 year career. I might not have game YET, but I recognize it in those that do.

Gays and blacks...

I had the chance to see Ann Coulter yesterday. Among other things she talked about the importance of protecting marriage against sodomites. One of the students asked her if she would be interested in adding a clause in the Constitution stating that gays were only 3/5 of a person. She blew this off, noting that gays weren't hosed like blacks were, and that the two groups of people have very distinct histories. Baldilocks, Jesse Jackson, and others agree with her.

I can understand the general argument. Using the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement to apply to something a lot of conservative African Americans disagree with can piss folks off. But when Coulter talked about how gays weren't hosed by dogs in Birmingham, the only thing I could say (and I couldn't help it) to my students was:

The black gays were.

There are a whole lot of conservative African Americans who agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But there are a whole lot of black African Americans who are in love and unable to marry because of their sexual preference. What about them? If the issue is some form of "cultural ownership" then I'd think that Luther Vandross, Langston Hughes, and others have as much right to claim the movement as conservative baptists.

Deconstructing the HNIC

Norman Kelley better come with the funk. I've been waiting for his book The Head Negro In Charge Syndrome for a while now. Not just to use it for my classes...but to see how much of it he gets right. Because I'm sharpening my pencils as we speak. Kelley's got skills though.

Defacing Detroit

A suburban detroit political office resigned this week after being caught defacing a monument in honor of Joe Louis. The monument, a black fist suspended in the middle of a pyramid, was painted white by the suburbanite and his friend. It was done "in honor" of two white police officers who were slain by a black motorist.

On Haiti

I haven't been able to get my head around the Haiti thing. I respectBaldilocks' opinion though it is seldom the same opinion as mine own. But here a couple of filters get in the way. When Aristide for example talks about "white Americans" arriving (to kidnap or kill him from his viewpoint) I'm not quite sure who he is talking about. From what I understand of racial dynamics in Haiti, the only black Haitians are the extremely dark skinned ones. I'd be white in Haiti, as would Aristide from pictures I've seen.

Then while listening to The Diane Rehm Show this morning, I hear American ambassadors talking about Aristide's voluntary departure, even as callers are explaining how Ron Dellums and Randall Robinson are arguing clearly that Aristide was hijacked. When asked to comment, the ambassadors would only say that the administration's viewpoint sounds more plausible.

Which of course throws me for a loop. Off on the budget by several billion. Off on jobs by a few million. Off on Medicare by tens of billions. Off on Weapons of Mass Destruction by....you get the picture. Either incompetence or lying...either way the administration's words don't carry much with me.

But it's the easy reactionary out to say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Dellums has got my support for a number of reasons, but I KNOW that Aristide wasn't L'Overture. There's some deep history that I'm just not getting from any of the normal sources. I'm betting Aristide was a crook AND that democracy lost in Haiti today because US actions came a day late. I'm not sure how long it'll be before the real story comes out.

The Passion of Christ

A number of interwoven conversations has got me thinking about Christianity. Of course there's the furor over gay marriage. And one of my boys (heavy Christian) planned to do a photoshoot of foster children only to have second thoughts after he realized that one of the kids had been adopted by a gay couple. And then there's the recent hubbub about Gibson's The Passion.

My wife is Christian. Many of my best friends are Christian.

As soon as Gibson picked Jim Caviezel to be Jesus I knew I wouldn't even invest in The Passion on the hollywood stock exchange. Gibson's passion for the truth didn't quite extend that far did it? I wonder who Mad Max would've chosen?

On gay marriage, the solution is a complicated one. I believe that Christianity as a faith is in the process of dying a slow death, because it is a faith. As such, it's almost like those in gay and lesbian communities the country over, want to integrate into a burning house. But on the other hand, in as much as I think Christianity can be resurrected by reason combined with love, I can only imagine a few other groups as able to save Christianity from itself.

For my boy the cameraman there is no debate. And from my standpoint he's right--there IS no debate. Jesus is love. End of Story. I can't imagine a situation in which a loving spirit would want to separate a child from loving, caring, respectful parents. But what do I know? I know the reason Easter changes every year. Which means I know a bit more than most Christians.

A Black Woman's Truth

Lisa Gay Hamilton has much more depth than her brief appearances in The Practice give her credit for. She recently produced a documentary entitled BEAH RICHARDS: A BLACK WOMAN SPEAKS that appeared on HBO on Feb. 25. I caught this interview on HBO.

There is a deep and timeless wisdom encapsulated in many of our older black men and women. "Timeless" is probably the wrong word, largely because the wisdom they accumulated was the product of a very specific time--one of great tyranny and bloodletting. While Richards didn't get the cudos she would've gotten if the world were right, I think Hamilton's work is testimony. Much like Cobb's own words for his grandfather.

An old professor of mine was supposed to be working on a book documenting some of the wisdom of the elders. I'm not talking about some new age Mitch Albomic tome that can speak to all people at all time about pretty much any and everything. I'm talking about a very specific type of wisdom that speaks to the role of truth in a society that is much more concerned with the hollow sheen of gold rings. I don't know if that book will come out, but for now Hamilton's project will do. Thank heavens for a research budget. This one is a keeper.