Vision Circle

Mfume Quickie

Mfume has admitted having a relationship with a woman, a subordinate, at the NAACP.

Now, given the situation that happened with Clinton, one would think that he wouldn't get involved like that. There's a difference because Mfume is not married, but she was a subordinate.

That was stupid.

Rep. Cummings has not said that he will run, but he has not said that he will not run. Before this mess, Cummings has fired some verbal shots at Mfume that have hit hard.

The fact that doesn't get noticed by the white media is that Mfume has made enemies in the Baltimore region because a lot of things have happened that many believe Mfume could have had a positive impact on, IF he chose to get involved.

One such issue is lead in the water of public city schools.

The Baltimore school system was sued by the ACLU and a children's advocate group because of high levels of lead found in schools through out the city. The public schools turned off the water fountains and brought in bottled water. This lasted one school year. The next school year, they turned the water back on. Many advocates believed that if Mfume got involved, the situation would not have had to go to the courts AND the issue may have been more properly addressed. (Of course, the parents should bring more heat but that didn't happen).

Mfume didn't get involved because Mayor O'Malley is his friend and O'Malley will help fund Mfume's campaign.

Of course, this gets said in the Black media, but the white media, especially conservative media, still thinks Blacks are all in lock step and don't think for themselves. This includes Black conservatives.

Man Up 101

Can you even imagine a black politician...?

Nah, nevermind.

Not since Malcolm got shot and black testicular fortitude personified as factual, logical and rhetorical integrity took a permanent nosedive....,

Oh, and watch him laying the parliamentary pimphand down. Slapped em like he was they daddy!!!

Thoughts about Undergrad and Black Politics

My life as a scholar emanates from two central experiences. Here I'll focus on one--undergrad life. I may have talked about this before elsewhere, but I thank Cobb for bringing it up in the context of organization and black politics.

For me, I had two homes in undergrad--the Black Student Union, and Omega Psi Phi. The ques were a special case, but looking at black fraternity and sorority life at Michigan what I found was that the fraternities and sororities in general were highly efficient at organizing and mobilizing folk. It was nothing to pull thousands of black students for a set. Nothing to have personal meetings with high ranking university officials. But for the most part they didn't really care much about black people...nor were they intellectually driven in any stretch of the imagination. (Again, the Ques were a special case here.)

The Black Student Union on the other hand was never efficient at organizing and mobilizing large numbers of black people, they loved black people and the life of the mind. Talking about the viability of a black state, the wonder of the philosophy of the Ancients, the 13 thirteens in a dollar bill, the ideology behind George Bush's New World Order (Novus Order Seclorum).

I wouldn't be here without both experiences. But if it is at all possible to compare the experiences of a select subset of young adults to the experiences of people within an entire metropolitan area, we've got some of the same problems. The black people with the most expertise in organizing people and capital are the least interested in black people as a whole. The black people with the most love for black people don't have a clue about organizing capital much less people for anything other than protests.

Educating kids to do both should be a central goal of black educators.

Mind Control

Can someone who believes that "Black leaders" lead Blacks to think a certain way, give me concrete proof that this is the case?

You have to be able to demonstrate that Blacks, as a group, believed one way until a "Black leader" said differently.

Or, you have to be able to demonstrate that Blacks, as a group, had no concrete opinion on something until a "Black leader" "told Blacks how to think".

This has to go beyond ancedotes, please.

Probing the Black Elite's Role for the 21st Century

I myself believe that today’s early 21st century Black elite will fulfill its outreach-to-Black-masses-leadership obligation. Today’s Black elite confronts a situation involving 40% of today’s African-American households that suffer numerous social crises.

As I read the article, common sense begged the question, "how did the black nation get from there to here?" Frankly, I have greater faith in the activated capabilities of a few unbowed, innovative, and autodidactic technocrats and academics - whose acts and whose facts may align to precipitate real interpersonal engagement with the "popular culture". The stench of Cosby's afrostocratic solipsism is still a tad acrid and thick in my nostrils...,

Part one of a three-part series at the Black Commentator - I can't wait to see on what basis Dr. Kilson makes his concluding sanguine prognosis.

Schiavo Politics

For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that the "pro-life side" of the Schiavo mess is a result of "the religous right" being given their due because of their support of the Republican party.

Given that, what does it say about Black politicians who couldn't get Clinton to let the cocaine and crack sentencing disparity to sunset?

What does it say about Black politicians who couldn't get Clinton to pay more attention to the situation in Rwanda?

What does it say about Black politicians who tried, late in Clinton's last term, to address the slavery issue in Sudan and other countries?

What does it say about Black politicians tried but couldn't get Clinton to change the U.S. policy towards Haiti?

What does it say about the CBC?

What does it say about the Democratic party and it's core base?

So, if Republicans are trying to get 20% of the Black vote by going to Black preachers, good for them as long as Blacks get something out of it this time.

Compact Here, Convenant There

Take one, any one:

Convenant with Black America

Mayflower Compact

Or take them both. I don't care.
Maybe something will get done.

Hat tip: Booker Rising

Power Politics

You know what? I like this move by Republicans.

Looking to further expand their party's political advantage, Republican officials will announce today a committee of African American leaders and experts on minority voting to develop a strategy to attract more blacks to the GOP. ...

"This is a very serious priority for this party today," said Kenneth Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

In recent days, Mehlman attended a series of town hall meetings in black communities and appeared on a television show hosted by black commentator Tavis Smiley. ...

President Bush won 11% of the black vote in the 2004 presidential election. ... [H]e got 16% of the black vote in Ohio, which helped secure his victory in that state.

Bush had drawn 9% of the African American vote ... in 2000. ...

The new GOP board includes former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie; Bishop Keith Butler, pastor of the World of Faith International Christian Center in Detroit and a likely U.S. Senate candidate; Alphonso Jackson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development; National Black Chamber of Commerce President Harry Alford; and Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.

You know why I like it? Because of Power Politics.

I keep writing that if the Black Democrats in congress and in the DNC knew anything about using the political power that they have, by sheer numbers, they would be running the Democratic party. Instead, the Democratic party pimp smacks Black politicians and Black voters at every step. At least that's my opinion on the matter.

After J.C. Watts announced he was leaving congress, he and Charlie Rangel appeared on Meet the Press. Rangel said that he wished there were more J.C. Watts' in congress so that he could get more concessions "from my party."

Think about that one.

The man is a ranking Democrat and he has to "get concessions" from the Democrat party?

At this point, some Blacks who are thinking about jumping into the political game as Democrats, should jump in as Republicans and game the system. Some Democrat politicians should be working the Democratic party to get some things to "help fight off the Republicans."

Of course, if the Republicans in congress fight the Dems, the Dems have something to bash Republicans with. If the Republicans help, the Dems can take credit. Republicans won't even try to say they helped out. Look at the poor media job they have done with the support of HBCUs.

This seems like a win-win to me. Those who believe that the Black Dem politicians have the plan, can follow that path. Those who believe that giving money to "conservative" Black churches is the plan, can follow that path.

Win-Win.

But the Black Dem politicians are clueless. They are afraid of facing off the Dem power structure. Or they are just inept in confronting it.

Hat tip: LaShawn
Hat tip: cnulan

Update:

BookerRising chimes in.

Buck and the Preachers....,

Call me an old fool from the old school, but I see nary a trace of Buck or the Preacher in the leadership of Project 21.

Inquiring minds want to know if the Ridenours are riding down a trail that a conservative black partisan would be inclined to take his family and friends?

Race Hustling

[ Edited for some clean up ]

If "Black liberals" can be race hustlers, why can't "Black conservatives"?

[ edited ] Didn't Alan Keyes race hustle when he ran for the senate seat in Illinois? Come on, tell the truth.

From an exchange on Booker Rising:

Massie as race hustler, DS? Which race is he hustling?

LB, I number of times I've pointed out glaring inconsistencies in some of his pieces.

In this one, I point out that he's slamming Blacks for the idea of a Black community. If he believes that Blacks should look at Blacks as a part of America, then he should stop bashing the Black community because it's something that he doesn't believe in.

By bashing the Black community, which he doesn't believe in, he's using race when it's convienient. Thus, to me, he's hustling the race issue.

Next, the idea that most Blacks don't consider ourselves as being part of America fails under the light of inspection.

Start with the fact that Blacks are more likely to live in an integrated neighborhood than whites. Continue with the fact that most Blacks still strive for, and believe in, integration.

Consider the make up of the military, recent recruiting data not withstanding. The percentage of Blacks in the military exceeds the percentage of Blacks in the general population. If Blacks didn't consider ourselves as a part of America, the percentage in the service would be lower than in the general population.

Condi Rice and Colin Powell have called themselves African-American. Now tell me that by them calling themselves African-American, they don't consider themselves to be American. Yet, those who are intellectually lazy or who just want to throw flames, state that by calling themselves African-American, they are belittling themselves as American. Or better stated, they are down playing that they are American.

There is a sticker that says, "American by birth. Texan by the grace of God!". I've seen that sticker a lot. Does it mean that the person is not considering themselves to be American?

Of course not.

Let's look at something here. More and more, employers are complaining about high school graduates, no matter what race, not knowing basic things to make them good ENTRY LEVEL employees. McDonald's uses pictures on their registers for a reason. It's because the employees are less prone to errors if there are pictures on the register instead of ordinary numbers.

"Anti-intellecutalism" exists in America, in general. People don't want to admit it, but the "geek" vs. "cool" thing is an issue of "anti-intellectualism". But, it's a Black issue?

In "The End of Racism", D'Nish D'Souza bashes Blacks for believing in the group. But then he turns around and writes that Blacks should act like Jewish people whose money circulates in the Jewish community a number of times before "leaving" the Jewish community. "Black money" cirulates less than 1 time before it leaves the Black community. He wrote that Blacks should act like some immigrant groups who poll money to fund start up businesses for others within their group.

Am I the only one to see the intellectual flip-flop there? How can you say Blacks should not act as a group and then turn around and say Blacks should act like these groups who act like a group?

I keep writing that Blacks shouldn't allow ourselves to be caught up in the madness and this is just a small example of why I think so.

The Problem with the Black Contract

Ok. So I'm watching the State of the Black Union now. (I wanted to watch something that would get me pissed enough to go off for 30 points in my first Y-league game tonight.) I appreciate what Tavis is trying to do but here's what I see from jump:

1. The power panel? The one with Long, Farrakhan, Fraser and the others? ONLY ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL.

As far as I'm concerned everything falls on its face right there. You can talk about economic development as long as the day is long. But the bottom line is political policy. Whether that policy is one that creates rules favorable to economic development, or a policy that deals with the growth of HIV/AIDS (or both), we need political policy. Furthermore, we need mechanisms of transparency and accountability. How the hell can you even begin to really grapple with these things if out of a 13 person panel only one has a visible viable constituency?

2. There are three issues that I think black people have a shared vested interest in fighting for. The protection of our civil rights. The promotion of policies designed to ensure equality of opportunity and/or results. The promotion of policies designed to deal with HIV/ADS.

Of those three two of them are HEAVILY CLASS BASED. No one is getting turned away from Eastern Iowa University because they are black. And on the other hand very very few students from East Saint Louis High are applying to Harvard or Michigan. Furthermore, working class black folk are much more worried about being brutalized than they are about being profiled.

The promotion of health policies help all black people. Given the way that HIV/AIDS spreads, combined with the fact that black people for the most part kick it and marry other black people, a sound HIV/AIDS policy would undoubtedly help all of us. But even here there are still problems to consider. The type of HIV/AIDS policy that would best fit MY needs, is NOT necessarily the type of policy that would best fit the needs of black sex workers. In as much as we're both black, and we cannot necessarily have a one-size-fits-all policy SOMEBODY'S GOT TO LOSE.

Take another example--education. I'm homeschooling my kids, but if Baltimore asked me to pay more taxes for their public schools I would. How many black homeschoolers feel similar? I don't know. So any "black policy" that deals with education is going to end up either stiffing the private school going folk, the growing homeschooling folk, or the public school folk. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO LOSE. And in both cases those somebodys will both be BLACK and be worthy of being CALLED black.

Sick and Tired of Commemorations

I've got a great deal of appreciation for the work of people like Amzie Moore. Like Fannie Lou Hamer. Like Ella Baker. Like Medgar Evers. Like John Lewis. And yes...like the mainstays.

But I am soooo sick and tired of commemorations. Every time I see or hear about one I'm thinking in my head about two groups of folks--people who continually relive their high school days, and alzheimer victims.

I Am Not Black

I have just determined that I'm not Black.

It is impossible for me to be Black.

I say this because I keep being told that Blacks follow "Black leaders" like Jesse Jackson, Sr, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, etc, but I keep missing out on them telling me what to think or how to think.

Where are the mind meld sessions being held?

I am missing the sessions. So I cannot be Black.

How can most Blacks not support "gay marriage" but the "Black leadership" support "gay marriage"? How else can most Blacks support school vouchers but the "Black leadership" not support school vouchers?

I guess "most Black people" are missing the mind meld sessions. Does that mean "most Black people" are not Black?

Why AIDS matters and Black State of the Unions Don't

Two questions.

What are the top five leading causes of death among African American women aged 25-49?

What are the top five leading causes of death among African American men aged 25-49?

.....

I remember when Chavis took over the NAACP in the early nineties, and was blasted for trying to convene a secret meeting of black nationalists, radicals, and integrationists. Given Chavis' inability to keep his pants up (notice he's no longer down with the Nation either...some say for the same reasons) this was a bad move from the beginning. But I thought there was hope. When he held a number of public summits involving Min. Louis Farrakhan I had even more hope. Wow. Rev. Jackson and Min. Farrakhan AND Kweisi Mfume ALL ON THE SAME STAGE!

We're REALLY cooking now.

I ALMOST caught myself in making the same mistake as civil rights leaders did after Brown v. Board "We predict that segregation in all of its forms will be gone by 1963."

"Man," I thought. "If we get all these people together and on the same accord imagine what we could do?"

Now as I approach middle age? You've got to be kidding me. It's probably better to have them than NOT have them--emphasis on probably. But if I want edutainment I'll revisit The Matrix.

Askin Questions

From the Black Commentator:

Instead, the BET founder, who was an early backer of Social Security privatization and organized fellow wealthy Blacks in support of George Bushs bid to repeal the Estate Tax, crafted an agenda designed to peel African Americans away from the Democratic Party

Every once in awhile BC fires off a good nugget.
This ISN'T one of those times.

So what if Johnson asks these questions? Is BC afraid that more Blacks will see things differently and give more consideration to the Republicans?

I'm not one for saying Blacks should go for Republicans because "it's not good to have all eggs in one basket" but this article makes me look and wonder they are afraid to leave Dems behind.

What good is giving the Dems the votes and having no power associated with the votes?

A Black Republican, Dean, and Michael Steele

Shannon Reeves gives this account in an open letter.

When I travel to speak at Republican conferences and events around the country, wandering through hotels, convention centers and social clubs, as I approach the rooms where I'm scheduled to speak, I am often told by Republicans that I must be in the wrong place. While boarding a shuttle bus to a national convention a few years ago, an attendee who was already on the bus introduced himself to another white guest who was boarding, took one look at me and, in an attempt to be helpful, told me I was on the wrong bus. As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate's badge and RNC lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me to fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage.

Imagine how our Republican women would have felt if they had been mistaken for hotel maids. These people didn't see that I wasn't wearing a uniform; all they saw was a black face and they made an assumption. I am a proud Republican, one who has traveled this great country from Harlem to Honolulu to promote the Republican message. I've campaigned from Inyo to Siskiyou. Wherever I've been asked to go, I've shown up for this party, speaking to literally thousands of groups. And through it all, I've met thousands upon thousands of grassroots volunteers who have welcomed me, given me good advice, prayers, love, and support. They've taught me a lot, and I've always been grateful for their support. No one has treated me better than Thaddeus Taylor, Inyo County's chairman, who opened his home and treated me with such love. This is not another inter-party squabble of moderates versus conservatives, or rural versus urban. These are grassroots Republicans for whom the principles of inclusion and the big tent are an intrinsic part of their very fiber.

Dean was wrong for what he said. The Black Democrats who were at that meeting were stupid to laugh, in my opinion.

Michael Steele needs to back up a bit. I called into a radio show where Steele was the guest of the hour. I raised the comment by Shannon Reeve. He knows Reeve and said he was a good man. Steele did not address the comment by Reeve. He went off on a tangent.

Black Intra-Racial Politics

[ Edited to fix some glaring mistakes ]

In this blog entry that I made, Cobb and P6 launched into an interesting discussion concerning politics and self interest.

It's wrong for me to ever try to be concise in evaluating anything that Cobb writes, but I think this sums up his view of the Republican party: "The Party is what you make of it. ... Republican party doesn't have to change much, it has to go ahead about its ordinary routine, and blacks who get with the party will benefit because their self-interest will coincide with the self-interest of the party"

I think this sums up P6's response to Cobb accurately: "I agree the Republican Party is more pro-business than anti-Black. But they are both. And they are attempting to shape the landscape the landscape such that both agendas are fulfilled.

"Now you're saying accept the anti-Black aspect for the sake of the money?"

When I was living in the Maryland side of the D.C. suburbs, a private organization sent out teams of Black people and white people to apply for an apartment lease. The published results of the test pointed to discrimination by some of the apartment managers.

Around this time, the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives. Newt Gingrich said that the EEOC would face a cut in funding. When this brought a lot of heat, he backed off and said that the EEOC will receive an increase in funding. However, the EEOC would not be allowed to do testing like that done by the private organization. I thought that it was interesting that during this time, the EEOC was receiving more age discrimination complaints than racial discrimination complaints.

Later, when the Republican party gained control of both halves of congress, Sen. Phil Gramm became the head of the banking committee. He made it clear that he wanted to change the rules concerning the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA required banks to service loans in the same area that they have bank branches.

Black activists believed that the CRA helped the underserved minority areas that banks may have had branches. One person I know who worked in a bank in the Chicago area, told me that bank executives didn't want to open branches in Black areas. When they were compelled to do so, they opened a branch in a run down office. Additionally, the branch did not provide the full range of services that other branches provided. That branch turned out to generate much more business than the executives anticipated. They then opened another branch in the area, in an office that was up to the standards of other bank branches.

I go into that to lend some support to the idea that P6 is making, or at least the point that I believe he is making.

The two examples I gave may point to an anti-Black bias. But, I can also point to the support for giving government money to Black religious organizations or the support for small business that may show a support for Black business and the Black community.

Frankly, I think they both make excellent points. From my experiences, I find some of the race related aspects coming from some people within the Republican party to be a bit much. But I find some of the Democratic party positions one that will harm me, and others, in the long run. For example, the willingness to raise taxes is something that I can't support.

However, I address each individual politician on their individual merits. For example, when Robert Ehrlich ran against Kathleen Townsend, I voted for Ehrlich, the Republican, because I knew Townsend would propose raising taxes and the Democratic state house would willingly respond. I also knew that Ehrlich would create a better climate for business in the less than business friendly state of Maryland.

It helped that his running mate was Michael Steele who both said would play a big role in the administration. Michael Steele, amoung other things, is heading reforming the Minority Business Enterprise set aside program. (A post on that is coming later).

Since Ehrlich has gained office, he raised taxes for people who take advantage of individual resources, only he called it usage fees instead of taxes. He has not raised general taxes. He has also increased the amount of funding given to HBCUs in the state of Maryland. He is pushing for reform of sentencing so that drug abusers get treatment instead of jail time.

He's a Republican, but in this individual case, he doesn't appear anti-Black. In fact, I'd say he's not anti-Black and he is pro-business.

I'll contrast that to Ellen Sauerbry. When she ran for governor, she accepted an invitation to speak to a Black group. After her advisor told her that she risks getting her base mad, she decided not to speak to the group. Even though she ran against Paris "Spenddenning" Glendenning, I pulled the lever for Glendenning because she gave me no indication that she would be, at least, race neutral or non-racist.

I look at the individual politician. I try to avoid looking at the party. On the local level, that's very easy. But when it is on the national level, the consideration of party may become an issue if I get the idea that the politician is just going to follow the party line just to get along and get ahead. Then, I consider if that person may have the strength of conviction to vote in my self interests even when it's against the party norms.

So, I see nothing wrong with Cobb's point of view. And I see nothing wrong with P6's dislike of Cobb's view.

When Cobb wrote,

"If you are pro-black in that you look at what the average black person is doing, or the majority of whatever black people are doing and you support and defend that, it is a different animal than saying you are pro-black with a specific agenda that you think blacks ought to pursue. I am of the latter persuasion, and what I think blacks ought to pursue is getting a grip on the higher echelons of this society in terms of the unique opportunities that our social capital could get us",

But being the realist that I am, I look at the average group and I look at what we should be doing, and go from there. In fact, when the "political elites" say "we" should be doing this, supporting this, or thinking like this, and it's something I agree with, I generally respond, "I agree. So, what are you doing to get this to the masses instead of pontificating among the elite?" This, I think, is where the "Black right" camp falls behind the "Black left" camp. The "Black left" camp appears to be speaking TO the Black community, though they treat the Black community as if we are all in despair. The "Black right" appears to be speaking AT the Black community, as though the Black community is lying around doing nothing.

Look, we know that most Blacks have no problem with the idea of starting a business or making money. We know that most Blacks will support the idea of Black churches helping out in the community. We know that most Blacks will support the idea of locking up criminals, as long as the justice system is fair. We know that most Blacks will support the police if they police are not behaving in an antagonistic manner.

That's not Republican. That's not Democratic. A Republican who supports those ideals can get a substantial number of Black votes. But that Republican has to make it clear he's not anti-Black.

Politics is a game of "feel" and Republican politicians don't have a problem getting white voters to "feel" comfortable with them. They do have a problem getting Black voters to "feel" comfortable with them.

J.C. Watts said that the Republican party has a problem with image and getting its ideas across to the Black community. Black Republicans giving the impression that Black voters are stupid for voting Democratic, doesn't help the image. Black Republicans giving the history of Republican support for "civil rights" throughout their history, while ignoring the Southern Strategy or saying that Goldwater's anti-civil rights bill support was principled and not racist, doesn't help the image. The Republicans apparently staunch support for the confederate flag, doesn't help the image.

Some ignore the image, some don't. I have no problem with anyone ignoring the image and doing their thing. Just don't insult the Black masses in the process. (Not saying that Cobb does that).

Change the image or at least greatly modify the image and watch what happens. I think Michael Steele understands.

When Is A Government Handout Not a Government Handout?

When it's a government handout for something you believe in.

Conservatives have castigated the Black community for "relying on government handouts." However, those same conservatives, for the most part, support the idea of giving money to Black churches, and churches in general, to fund programs that the church may offer.

Personally, I really don't have a problem with the idea. It should be up to the individual church to decide if they want to deal with the regulations involved with getting money from the government.

But, rhetorically speaking, I find it interesting that NOW it's okay to accept the government handout.

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

A friend of mine sent me this article about Detroit. It's about to disappear soon, so I'll provide a snippet:

In the decade after he finished law school, Dan Varner watched with mounting exasperation as his black, middle-class peers defected from Detroit, beloved city of his birth.

He was the relentless city booster telling college-bound teenagers to come home after graduation, the one urging far-flung friends to move here, the man always talking about rebuilding the city while others abandoned it.

Then, one day, Mr. Varner said he realized "there was really no one to have dinner with." He said he "could count on one hand in the four blocks around me the number of men my age who had families." Enough became enough one spring day when he drove his children home past a band of teenage boys chanting profanity.

"As a dad and a husband, you have an obligation to try to provide the best life possible," said Mr. Varner, 35, who in August moved his family to Ypsilanti Township, 45 minutes away. "That was just something we couldn't find in Detroit."

The Varners are emblematic of the exodus that is plunging Detroit's government and school system into a fiscal nightmare, resulting in not just the slashing of staff and services, but also, for the first time, a fundamental right-sizing for a new, shrunken reality. The 139-square-mile Motor City now has a population of 911,000, less than half its 1950's peak.

[Edited to add--George is brilliant. He gave me a permanent link to replace the temporary one. You might not even need a subscription to check the story out.]

Dan Varner is a friend of mine. We went to Michigan together. Though he spent most of his formative years in Southfield (a suburb outside of Detroit), he returned to Detroit after law school, and started Think Detroit when he found that simply being a lawyer wasn't enough. There are few people our age (we're both going to be 36 this year) putting more work into ANY city, than Dan.

And now he's out. Not out of Think Detroit...I just left a message on his answering machine. But out of the city as a homeowner.

We call this the exit option. See, in any institution that has "inefficiencies" people within them have three options.

They can stick with the institution and keep their mouth shut.

They can exert their voice and try to change the institution from within.

They can jet.

Exit. Voice. Loyalty.

Dan hasn't totally chosen the exit option. He is still the CEO of Think Detroit, and I expect him to remain in that position. But he has the means to exit, and recognizes that his voice simply isn't enough. I think this New York Times piece is a hack job designed to get Kwame Kilpatrick voted out of office. The problems of Kilpatrick are the problems faced by Dennis Archer Sr. before him, and by Coleman Young before him. Someone wants Freeman Hendrix in office and is pulling chits to get him there.

BUT with that said, the article still speaks to a fundamental truth that affects urban areas in general, and black urban areas in particular.

Disability and Survior Benefits

When social security reform is mentioned, I keep asking about survivor benefits and disability benefits.

I love the idea about having money in private accounts. But, that doesn't mean the plans shouldn't be investigated.

From Salon:

To begin with, there is no evidence that blacks, as a group, are cheated by Social Security. Yes, whites do live longer than blacks, which means that the average white woman will collect more benefit checks than the average black man. But, Baker points out, blacks also generally make less money than whites, which means that they get a higher rate of return on their contributions to the system. And because African-Americans suffer higher rates of disability than whites, they draw more from Social Security's disability benefits than whites. Meanwhile, spouses and minor children of African-Americans heavily depend on the system's survivor benefits. When economists have studied all that blacks put into the system compared with all they get out of it, Baker says, blacks, as a group, aren't being treated unfairly -- and they may even be doing better than whites.

I will have to look at the numbers to make a conclusion, although something tells me all of the numbers are cooked.

In a Social Security briefing paper, Shelton declares that "almost 80 percent of African Americans over age 65 depend on Social Security for more than half of their income, and more than half rely on it for 90 percent or more of their income." Basically, she writes, "without the guaranteed Social Security benefits they receive today, the poverty rate among older African Americans would more than double, pushing most African American seniors into squalor and poverty during their most vulnerable years."

OK, the Republicans pulled the race card and now the opposition is pulling out their own race cards.

Being Blamed for Success

Someone please tell me what friggin' sense it makes to be angry at Blacks for voting for Democrats when it was white Republicans who instituted the Southern Strategy?

In other words, why are Blacks castigated for voting against a party that shunned them?

Why is it that when the history of the party is mentioned, it always stops before the Southern Strategy?

From Tony Snow:

After years in the political hinterlands, Republicans finally have discovered they can't win elections without appealing to hearts and they can't woo undecided voters unless they put forward a face that looks like a cola commercial -- filled with men and women, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, you name it.

In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run. Racial separatism may have enjoyed a quiet vogue as recently as the '70s, but no more -- and Powell was on the mark when he warned that Republicans have a long way to go before they assemble a credible and durable Rainbow Coalition of their own.

I asked that of a conservative radio show host. He disconnected me.

An additional quote by Tony Snow:

Consider two recent Republican analogues, Richard Nixon and Pete Wilson. Nixon earned two trips to the Inaugural Ball by adopting a "Southern Strategy" that exploited the enmity between black and white Southerners. He managed to turn the "solid South" from a Democratic into a Republican stronghold, but he also deepened the impression that the GOP was a whites- only party.

As recently as 1952, 40 percent of blacks voted Republican. That number dwindled to 20 percent by Nixon's first election -- and since has fallen nearer to 10 percent. The decline in black support also has weakened the allegiance of white suburbanites, who like to consider themselves enlightened on the matter of racial comity.

Fairmont Redux

A little after Ronald Reagan was elected president a conference was held at the Fairmont Hotel. The purpose of the conference was to annoint a group of black conservative leaders that could counteract the black civil rights establishment, in order to attract blacks to the Republican Party. Clarence Thomas is probably the attendee who got the most bang for his buck.

I read today that the Heritage Foundation is planning a similar event, one that follows an attempt of black ministers to put together a black conservative version of the Contract on with America.

This event should be successful in bumping up black support from around 12% to around 15%. But I don't see much more. Black people have too much sense for that. If Major Owens' fear is actually real, someone should unseat him quick. Because in my eyes this fear is based on a fundamental falsehood--black people are prone to buy anything a jackleg reverend feeds them. Along with drafting legislation designed to pour more money into poor neighborhoods Owens would do well to try to organize black in his district to come up with policy initiatives that speak to their needs.

It's Where You're At

Over at Cobb, I've gotten into a thread about when whitefolks should or should not shutup when it comes to blackfolks politics.

I think one thing that distinguishes black politics from white is that with black politics there is always some extra-governmental organization involved with oversight and brainstorming. Thus the people are generally more concerned with the practical aspects of where the benefits hit the street.

So there's always going to be a demand for your physical presence when it comes to credibility in black politics. It is always assumed that if you are not doing the grass roots thing, showing up in person, then you're not serious about uplift. Just having an opinion, whether it's correct or not, is not sufficient because the assumption is that if the System worked then there would be no need for black politics at all.

'White' people are assumed to be part of the System. They are not on the ground where the [black] people's needs are met. So people who present ideas in the abstract and then defer to systems of oversight which are not physically present in the 'hood, lose all their credibility. Whitefolks and other outsiders default to the powers that be. When dealing with this attitude of black politics, the last thing people want to hear is that there is some bureacracy somewhere whose job it is to take care of the matters up for discussion. Again, the presumption is that blackfolks' political aspirations are not represented in that bureacracy, because if it were the System would work. But the System is, for all intents and purposes, evil and the representation of institutional racism.

I think it's interesting that these assumptions of black politics put blacks who climb the ladder in government in the peculiar position of having two masters. Somehow, they are expected to report their activities back to the Struggle. If they don't, they become agents of the System, never to be trusted.

This is the same issue that Cosby has, which he may or may not have overcome. The test remains the same. Where physically are you, and if the answer is not in the bottom three tiers of my five-way African American demographic (hill, 'burb, 'hood, ghetto, projects), then you don't have credibility in black politics today.

This is not a good thing, but I don't think that it's necessarily bad. Rather, I am trying to see it as a structural distinction in democratic political organization born of the unique circumstances of African Americans.

The DNC Chair

OK, so if I'm reading things correctly, all Black people who were running for the chairmanship of the DNC have pulled out.

That means they couldn't get wide support and I have to ask why.

Ron Brown's daughter wrote that there were racists in the Democratic Party that did not want Brown to win the DNC chair. The foolishness stopped when Bill Bradley called it what it was, racism, and then backed Brown. Meanwhile, Clinton stood on the sidelines and didn't do a thing.

So, are we seeing racism within the Democratic party raise its head again? Or, are we seeing the Clintons demonstrating their strength in the party? Or, are we seeing other elements in the party vying for control?

I think, again, that Black Democratic voters are getting pimp smacked by the Democratic party, but I could be wrong.

You Can't Tell Me Nuthin', Prologue

Many times, the "Black left" presents an image of Black America that is one of poverty and near hopelessness that cannot be overcome unless outside intervention is made.

Many times, the "Black right" presents an image of Black America that is one of poverty, laziness, and mired in self-induced hopelessness. A Black America that is incapable of thinking unless one of the appointed "leaders" tells Black America what to think.

That's what I get from much of the commentary by the elite "Black left" and "Black right" media figures.

"Both sides" are full of it. "Both sides" are negative. Both sides, for the most part, push negativity, in my opinion.

It's my strongly held belief that the "Black left" dwells too much on the plight of Blacks who are not achieving instead of also highlighting those Blacks who are achieving.

It's my strongly held belief that the "Black right" dwells too much on the plight of Blacks who are not achieving, instead of also highlighting those Blacks who are achieving.

The only difference between the two is how they go about their hyper-criticism. And, frankly, it's to the testimate of Black America that Blacks, as a whole, aren't more mind scrambled.

I had the opportunity to be a part of a "Black conservative" email list for a time. There were conflicts among the "Black conservatives" that took me by surprise because at the time because all I read from "Black conservatives" seemed to indicate a "Black conservative unified front."

All "individual thought" but thinking as a unified group. But, that wasn't group think...

But on that email list, I read Black conservatives calling some other Black conservatives "sell out" or "Black CON-servatives".

From that point on, you couldn't tell me nuthin' about the so-called "Black left" vs. "Black right" debate. From that point on, I've been convinced that it's all a bunch of useless nonsense that Blacks shouldn't be taking a part in.

Seeing that debate solidified the idea that I had in my mind at the time: the view of the Black community, be it from the outside or the inside, was too simplistic and all of the noise from the "elite" members kept it that way. And the Black community as a whole should be ashamed because no one is calling "both camps" out on their foolishness.

This is a prologue. I intend to give insight to what I have seen in my now four decades of life. I hope that I'm capable of showing the mixed bag to which life in the Black community is. I'll touch on:

1. The grade school years;
   
2. The college years;
   
3. The "running the street" years; and
   
4. the parent years.
   

If I do my job well enough, you should be able to see that the "Black left" and the "Black right" media elite are selling a bunch of goods.

P.S.
One last thing, the major driver behind this series is the inability of people to take questioning of ideas (dogma?) without assigning a political label to it.

I challenge global warming support, anti-capitalistism comments, ultra-Black nationalism, the "definition of Blackness", the Black support of Democrats, the Black support of Bill Clinton, etc, and I get called a conservative.

I challenge the dogma that the support of Democrats is not based on Republican action/inaction, the idea of "victimology" in Black America, that Blacks are some how anti-American, that Blacks are sheep of "Black leaders", etc, and I get called a liberal.

Can't a person intellectually embrace both? Seems like many people don't think so.

An Open Letter to Joe Watkins

This letter that appeared on Black Electorate.COM, to me hits it almost squarely on the head.

This is just a SMALL section of the open letter that really resonated with me.

The immediate challenge for the Black conservative is to find a way to make their ideology and partisan relationship serve the Black community at least as much as it serves the White Conservative establishment and the bank account of a relatively small group of opinion leaders who have commercialized their expression of conservative thought in a growing communications niche and business model. The Black conservative, if sincere, in my view, must do so in a way that does not misrepresent the Black community to those outside of it.

The Black conservative opinion leader has to balance the power and influence they have, largely derived from a platform provided them by Whites, with finding a way to engage the Black community in a meaningful dialogue that results in positive change on the ground. Many Black conservatives fall into the trap of painting an unrealistic picture of the community overstating the influence that political liberalism has on Blacks and exaggerating the potential that political conservatism has to "save" the Black community. It appears, too often to me, that Black opinion leaders on the right revel too much in the one-variable approach of explaining to overwhelmingly White audiences what is wrong with the Black community rather than building bridges or expanding their influence within Black America. This does not mean that the truth should not be told. It should. But I think, in a way that establishes it, not just in the minds of White listeners and readers, but within the community around which the discussion revolves - Black America. I have often found it peculiar that many Black conservative writers and talk show hosts seem to believe that they are changing Black America by almost exclusively communicating in media outlets majority controlled and read by White Americans.

And this one...

To me it is simple, a Black conservative should care more passionately about what is going on in the Black community than what is happening at the Heritage Foundation, Republican Party, CATO Institute, or Conservative talk-radio. And they should be mindful that they do not further the Black inferiority-White supremacy complex in how they personally relate to their non-Black peers, when the subject is money and intellectual ideas.

This isn't a 100% agreement on my part, but I get where Cedric Muhammad is coming from.

Big hat tip to Angela Winters.

Request of the NAACP

I sent the following request to the NAACP in July of 2004 via snail mail.

For the record, I've sent them a similar request 2 times in the past. And, I am a life member of the NAACP. I joined my first year in college.

NAACP
4805 Mount Hope Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21215

Such an effort by your organization would go a long way as to aiding Blacks to do something within the community besides criticizing the actions of a few within the community.

Request of Project 21

I sent the following request to Project 21 in July of 2004 via email and snail mail. (The email address bounced). I also sent an email to members of the Conservative Brotherhood containing this request. One member of Project 21 said that he will make sure that it was seen but he offered nothing more. To him, I said thank you. I trust him on his word.

To date, Project 21 has not replied. Make of it what you will. But, for the record, I've made a similar request of Project 21 two previous times.

Project 21
The National Center for Policy Research
777 N. Capitol Street, N.E.
Suite 803
Washington, D.C. 20002-4239

Such an effort by your organization would go a long way as to aiding Blacks to do something within the community besides criticizing the actions of a few within the community.

Golden Chance for NAACP

Golden chance for churches under faith-based initiatives?

Golden moment of punditry for Star Parker?

Or golden chance for NAACP to get RIGHT, and "abandon the destructive politics of hate and guilt and start getting out the truth that life is defined by struggle, and the principles that form the foundation of freedom transcend race. With this message and real work, we can again move our community forward."?

Full monty here;

Negroes vs. Black Conservatives

"In the minds of elite, white, liberal, socialist Democrats, there is an unambiguous dichotomy between Negroes and black conservatives." begins a screed from Mychal Massie here; that quickly degenerates into an embarrassing pantload in which, among other things he extrudes goodies like calling Aaron McGruder a white racist liberal....,

My questions; Is Massie a clumsy and confused shill - facetiously and incompetently confabulating image, logic, and history in the style familiar to many pop-conservative pundits?

or,

Is he sincere?

Is it possible that this man is doing the very best he can with what little he has? Could it be that he simply doesn't instantiate the same internal representations of blackness (not to mention history) that a sane and balanced, self-realized member in good standing of the old school cultural persuasion is wont to do?

Images, Continued

To continue on Cobb's piece.

Cobb writes:

Black Conservatives don't play the 'Positive Black Images Game'.

I disagree with this one.

I can point to the examples of Black conservatives speaking out against the negative imagery of Black life put forth by rappers. If "Black conservatives" don't play the "positive Black images game," then why worry about the negative images put forth by rappers.

Woodson resigned from AEI over Dinesh D'Souza's, End of Racism. In a response to a press release, the president of AEI responded:

Loury and Woodson not only called the book racist but made the charge the headline of their press release (�Black Conservatives Resign From American Enterprise Institute in Response to �Racist� Book by AEI Resident Scholar Dinesh D�Souza�). Mr. Woodson has several times, and with great relish, called Mr. D�Souza �the Mark Fuhrman of public policy.�

It seems the imagery in the book disturbed Woodson.

But that's on the macro level of Blacks as a whole. After re-reading the piece, and re-reading what I wrote, maybe I addressed what was written at too high of a level.

Maybe I need to go lower.

One day I saw Woodson on Tony Brown's Journal. On the show, along with other things, he addressed the view of many Black conservatives by the Black community. If I remember correctly, he said the negative imagery bothered him some. He then went on to attack "Black leaders". But, if I remember correctly, he did say that some of it is self inflicted. If Woodson is comfortable within himself, as Cobb wrote, then why say he was bothered and then why go on the attack against "Black leaders"?

There are many other "Black conservatives" who attack the negative imagery that they are tarred with. So, I can't agree that "Black conservatives" don't play the "Positive Black Images Game". They are trying to improve their image. They are trying to be seen as positives, not negatives. That's playing the "Positive Black Images Game."

But, then if the comment was intended to say that Black conservatives don't feel the need to point out positive Blacks because of "individualism" issues, then, again, I disagree. For example, Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas are regularly written about as being positive models for Blacks to follow.

The battles are fairly shallow and interminable. They go on and on about the same idiot things. It's a trap that liberals never seem to tire of baiting. Black Republicans take a measure of false pride in their embattled status and do a good deal of sniping back.

I agree that the battles are fairly shallow. I really don't like it, though I engage in it. But many comments being made, initially, from "Black conservatives" are simple minded. That's not to say that many comments initiated from "Black liberals" are not simple minded, because they are simple minded.

At this point, I want to say something about what was quoted. Black Republicans take a measure of false pride in their embattled status.

I'm sorry, I don't see why that is not "victimology" as expoused by "Black conservatives".

And there I go, on a tangent about the shallow "victimology" label thrown around.]

It's late, this is getting long. I've re-written it a number of times and still the thoughts flow. Let me finish this edition. These last paragraphs are intended for "Black conservatives" in general and not Cobb in particular.

If "Black conservatives" are about the business that is claimed, then doing the work that needs to be done will change the image. If there is seriousness in the drive to do it, then why not hook up with people who have the benefit of a doubt? Hence, why I bring up Earl Graves, Sr.

Read the man's bio. Then read about The Black Wealth Initiative. Then read a few issues of Black Enterprise.

There is a real need to get more Black businesses going. Would it be hard for "Black conservatives" to coordinate some activities with Earl Graves, Sr. and/or Black Enterprise to get some real work done?

Or is it really about the "Black conservative" image, just not within the Black community?

Images

It's late.
Gotta digest this one by Cobb.

( Baldilocks tracks back to it, so I do the same for her)

I have much to do outside of cyberspace.

Much respect to Cobb. Much respect. I'm not feelin' it though.

You see, "Black conservatives" as well as "white conservatives" say that instead of looking up to Jesse Jackson, et. al., other role models should be followed: Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, etc.

Actually, I'd rather, and do, look up to my mother, my aunts, my cousins, and a few of my friends. I take bits and pieces and build on their strengths. Anyway...

If I'm told to look at American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault as an example, why should I not include Earl Graves, Sr.? Both, to me, are impressive people.

If you take a good look, Graves is in more control of things than is Ken Chenault. Or, at least that's how I look at it. Both control companies, but Graves owns his. Chenault, is "just" the steward. You feel me? It's not a slam, though.

Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

If you point out when people do wrong and then take the time to point out when people do "right" when they agree with you on a certain topic, then be consistent in pointing out when they do right, in general. So, hence my points about Mfume.

And let's be real. What I do, in part, is in no way different from many of the columns that Larry Elder does, when he points out the inconsistancies of "Black leaders" and/or the "left".

I've spent the past 18 years trying to build up the self-image, self-reliance, drive, and confidence of my daughter. I just spent the last 20 minutes trying to pump her up over a rough patch of her first semester in college. It's cool, and rewarding to me, that she's exploring ways to help herself out after getting a little down.

Yeah. We get knocked down. But we g.t.f. up and battle again.

Yeah, let me brag a little more...
She was in the 10th grade, encouraging others in her class to do well. She was in the 11th grade, doing the same, even for the 12th graders. She was in the 12 grade, still encouraging others in her class, and below, to do their best.

EVEN THOSE IN COLLEGE WHO SHE KEPT IN TOUCH.

It's about self image.

And I don't do it out of some liberal self-image blather, I do it because of what I've seen growing up and learning that the people who pumped me up, helped me when people, of all races, tried to knock me down.

<Flashback>

Self image.

I quickly noticed in the 5th and 6th grades, that those who slammed me for trying to do well in school, were those who weren't doing well. They had more issues with themselves than with me. They didn't view themselves as being "good enough."

That's how I looked at it then. I ignored them. In Jr. High, I was put into the "fast track". Everyone in that class tried to do our best. Meanwhile, others in the "regular track" tried to get into our track.

I attended a college prep high school. I was in the "advanced college prep" track, the "A Course". I had friends in the "college prep" track, the "B Course".

The teachers pumped both tracks up.

"Those of you in the A Course will be the leaders of industry, thought, and innovation." Meanwhile the same teachers were telling the B Course, "Look. Most of the A Course are way over their heads. They will get low grades and get into lower level schools. On the other hand, you will get the good grades, get into the top schools, and are still well prepared. You will be the bosses of the A course!"

There was also a vocational-technical track, the "T Course."

I witnessed as teachers said that they just want them to finish high school, with a trade, because that's all they can do. I witnessed as some of them appeared to settle for the lower ring instead of going for the ring hanging off of the stars.

You can't tell me that low expectations had nothing to do with that! And if anyone says I'm biting G. W. Bush, Imma pimp smack you to the womb because "Black leaders" and Blacks of all stripes have been complaining about low expectations for years. Anyway...

Self image.

I tutored in D.C. for a bit. I tutored one on one for kids I knew. It disturbed and continues to disturb me that kids place limitations on themselves because people around them put limitations on them.

"You from the hood and gonna stay here in the hood. That's just how it be."

Bull.

</Flashback>

So, here we have "Black conservatives" who are saying they are positive about Blacks. They are saying that all Blacks can achieve if they follow the basic rules and don't let racism get them down. (I've heard that from "Black liberals" too, but never mind that for now).

But yet some of the more damning self-images of Blacks comes from "Black conservatives" themselves!

I've listened to Jesse Lee Peterson's 'net show. I had to stop because it raised my pressure and at the same time, left me wanting to shoot myself just because I'm Black!

I've listened to Ken Hamblin. Lawd... That's a Black man who said it's right for companies to ignore Black media, no matter what the demographics, because Blacks are undesirable clientile. OK, tell that to the cruise line Tom Joyner uses for his cruise. Tell that to the travel agencies and island businesses that made bucoup money off of Sinbad's old school parties. Or tell that to New Orleans who makes money, during the summer(!), off of the Essence Festival!

I mean, for goodness sake! How can Black conservatives, on one hand, point to the growth of the Black middle class, then on the other hand, say that Blacks aren't achieving?

Or that most Blacks are lock step behind "Black leaders" all of the time, yet it's also pointed out that Blacks diverge from "Black leaders" when it comes to vouchers or homosexual marriage?

And somehow what's being said from "the right" is better than those on "the left" giving the image of all Blacks being poor and down?

For the likes of me, I can't see how!

Really.

From Cobb:

But I believe that even when we say what we are all about and try to exemplify, we're never going to win the images battle. Nevertheless, we have the reality of individuality and truth on our side. That's good enough for me.

I'm in this for the image battle. I have a young relative that I have to help look out for. I have kids of friends and godchildren I have to help look out for.

If the image is rotten and coming from "Black liberals" or if the image is rotten and coming from "Black conservative" or if the image is rotten and coming from whites, or if the image is rotten and coming from rappers, ... I'm going to do my best to fight it with facts and positive imagery.

That's behind my "jabs in the ribs" of Cobb and others.

Cobb, in a previous incarnation, you called me a vanguard of Blacks of sorts. Well, I guess it can fit.

Damn.

I gotta go to sleep.

More later.....
I'm not done.
Nope.
Not. One. Bit.

Done with respect.

Being light to ourselves.

Got this column from Prometheus who himself cribbed it from George. This is one of those columns that resonates on a few different levels and should cause a number of political minded black bloggers to give pause.

Scholars like Adolph Reed, Harold Cruse, and Cathy Cohen on the left, and Thomas Sowell on the right have long argued against the brokerage model of black political leadership. Sharpton, Jackson, and even someone like Bond are no more than brokers, cutting deals with "the man" supposedly on our behalf. And while Bond at least has a visible constituency that can vote him up or down, neither Jackson nor Sharpton have anything of the sort.

Where I think they go wrong though is in their focus on post-traumatic stress disorder and slavery. I think this argument is absolute bunk. Physiological changes that are somehow transferable INTER-GENERATIONALLY? You've got to be kidding me. They are (as Prometheus points out) also mistaken in their assumption that this phenomenon is only happening to black constituencies. It isn't.

Now their solution naturally emanates from their assessment of the problem...I'm of a mind to toss this out too. If they believe that black people have a unique problem that emanates from some type of psychological trauma that began during slavery and somehow CONTINUES, then they've got some unlearning to do. If they believe that black people don't already have a history of self-determination that has been in some real ways BEATEN into them, they have some unlearning to do.

BUT.

In order to engage in the type of local organizing that I feel needs to be done, we have to rebuild bonds of trust and communication. And I cannot say at this point that "healing" isn't part of that struggle.

Partisan Garbage

Oliphant has done an editorial cartoon of Condi Rice that is out of bounds. Some on "the right" have been asking why groups like that NAACP have not come out against the cartoon.

Why should they? After all, unfortunately, the NAACP has become a partisan organization. Has the "Black right" defended those on the "Black left" when slurs, slanders, and lies have been directed towards the "Black left"?

Of course not.

[Update at the end of the entry]

When Mfume had a chance of having a national talk show, did the "Black right" defend the man's right to have such a show? No. Instead, "the right" got into gear and shut down the floating idea of Mfume having a national talk show. But, "the right" had a cow when local people in Los Angeles attempted to have Larry Elder taken off of the air.

When Mfume had a local show in Baltimore, the show addressed problems in urban areas, and show cased people and groups that attempted to solve the problems. But did the "Black right" say anything about that?

After Ron Brown was killed in an airplane crash, many on "the right" went after integrity of the man. At one point, they were claiming he had a marijuana habit. Ron Brown's family, in mourning, had to deal with that garbage. In fact, Ron Brown's doctor was given permission by the family to discuss Brown's health. Evidently, he had a lung condition that made it hard for him to be in smoke filled areas in general. If he smoked, anything, he would have probably landed in the hospital. So, where was the "Black right" then?

In fact, Armstrong Williams disliked the man so much that he defended the attacks on Ron Brown.

The "Black right" will talk about Blacks building businesses and how Blacks need to do more. They are right about that. Then, why is it that the "Black right" won't mention the long standing effort done by Black Enterprise? Could it be the fact that Earl Graves, Sr. is a Democrat?

The "Black right" has said nothing about how Cathy Hughes brought one AM station in Washington, D.C., slept in it, backed down drug dealers who suspected her intentions at the radio station, and turned it into a decent radio enterprise. Could it be because she got the foundation of radio stations by taking advantage of race based tax incentives that gave big tax breaks to companies that sold radio stations to minority owners? Has the "Black right" said anything about Radio One teaming with COMCAST to make TV One?

The "Black right" says that Blacks need to take more personal responsibilty. But, why do they overlook Judge Mathis who went from doing petty crime as a teenager to going to college and, in time, becoming a real judge? Could this oversight come from Mathis being a Democrat?

I guess I shouldn't even bring up the fact that when he was a teenager, Mfume, then Drizel Gray, was running the streets and creating children. One day, he claims, he recognized that he was living the wrong kind of life and he then decided to turn his life around.

He started taking care of his kids. He got his education. He won a seat on the Baltimore city council. He then won a seat in the House of Representative. He is now the head of the NAACP. I guess it's foolish of me to even point this out. Of course the "Black right" doesn't want to show how Mfume turned his life around.

I've written, and will continue to write, that Blacks can't afford to get involved in the "left vs. right" garbage. The limited examples I gave are why.

Why is it not hypocrisy when those who have a complaint about the "Black left" not giving the full view of the Black community, also does not give a full view because of partisanship?

In fact, I damn them MORE because they note wrong doing, and then do the same type of wrong doing.

[Update]

Well, it looks like the NAACP and Urban League have weighed in and spoken out against the comments of the radio talk host.

Additionally, molotov has corrected me for trackbacking to the Booker Rising blog but not pointing to the stories. I did it in response to the comment section of some blog entries. It was bad form, as I have been told, so I apologize.

So, some links are in order Condi as Aunt Jemimah

Racist Rice Bashing

But I still think my comments are valid.

Ed-ucating U

This past silly season, as in has been the norm, Blacks have been blasted for giving their votes to Democrats. While I recognize that it is not politically sound to "have all of your eggs in one basket," I refuse to let the criticism go by when it's based on false premises.

In doing so, I'm placed into the "Democrat plantation" camp by people who don't have a clue. So for these people, I present "Ed on Ed". These come from the USENET Google archives.

Ed on registering as an independent in March, 1999:

When I first registered to vote, I put down "non-aligned" because i didn't know enough about either party. When the next national election rolled around, it was Reagan against Mondale. I read in the newspapers that the Black politicans were complaining the Mondale was not going to the Black areas to ask for votes. In an interview he was quoted as saying there was no need to go to Blacks because Blacks had no choice but to vote for him. I refused to re-register as a Democrat because my vote will not be taken for granted.

Ed on Jesse Jackson, Feb. 1999

Jesse Jackson let Clinton punk him. Clinton went in front of a national
audience and berated Jackson over the attendence of Sista Souljah, a
"rapper" who was not widely known. Jesse Jackson did not appreciate it,
and withheld his support of Clinton until the '92 presidential race
heated up. Clinton *PUNKED* Jesse Jackson. Between '92 and '96, there
were newspaper accounts of the discord between the two, including
Jackson saying that Clinton was immoral. Jackson complained about
Clinton ignoring issues of importance to Blacks and he complained about
Clinton signing welfare reform. He publically stated he was thinking
about running against Clinton to highlight the political issues. He
decided not to do it. If those issues were that important, as he claimed
they were, he would have run against Clinton ON PRINCIPLE.

On Bill Clinton, Aug 1996

I understand, but my point is this: Clinton ain't a savior, he's another "cracka in a suit" if/when his political ass is on the line.

On Democrats and Blacks, Apr 1999

Since I first started posting, I've said that Democrats take the Black vote for granted and that Blacks need to get the Democrats attention. If that means voting Republican, so be it. If it means that a Black Democrat leaves the party, becomes a Republican, and then runs against a Democrat candidate, then so be it.

Clinton treated Jesse Jackson like a punk and, later, Jackson comes
back and helps him. That helped Clinton but it hurt Black political
power in the Democratic party.

More Ed on Democrats, April 1998.

Look, Black people need to stop the "Democrats are our friends" garbage, and start looking at what they are doing and what they are not doing.

Then ask the same question I was posting: Where were the Democrats at
during the anti-Prop. 209 campaign?

Finally, what I wrote recently:

So, now what do you have to say?

Can you wrap your mind around the fact that I don't have to be in the Democrat camp to blast Republicans? Can you get your mind around the fact that I don't have to be a Republican to blast Democrats?

So to those who think I'm on somebody's plantation, if I am, it's my own plantation. Take a look at what YOU are defending.

Political Punks, Again

The CBC punked out again.

Instead of challenging Kerry to lay out initiatives that addresses "Black issues," they gave him a pass because they were silly enough to think that to get rid of Bush, they shouldn't push their issues.

Well, Blacks came out, but if polls are correct which is a big question, in key states Bush picked off just enough Black voters.

As a body, the CBC doesn't understand, nor do they use, the power that they have to further a "Black agenda".

And the Black media remained largely silent about the lack of a "Black agenda" from Kerry.

Again, another lack of understanding power in politics.

Enough of the whining and pity party.

I'm still going to sling code. My kid is still going to do her best in college. My wife is still going to keep hunting for a job. I'm still going to continue to provide for the family.

My worry is about court appointments. But I think I understand politics enough to know that when appointments are being made that I don't like, I'm going to complain and lobby my congressional critters. And even if I'm not in his district, Rep. Cummings is going to catch hell from me.

Al Sharpton

Point to consider: look at the comments Sharpton has made during is run for the Dem. presidential nomination.

If you look at the comments, and drop the hate of the man, you will find that he has probably done more to damage Black ties to Democrats than any Black Republican could have done.

Political Punks

Quite a few times I've said that I considered the political Black leadership in congress, The CBC, to be political punks who lack any knowledge of using their power.

The Black Commentator NAILS this one.

Bush and Blacks

Instead of pointing out the news articles, I'm just going to point to the place where I first read it.

Angela Winters

Clarence Thomas and the PR Campaign

Lester did a nice job with this entry on Clarence Thomas.

It reminded me of the mini-riot I started when I mentioned the public relations campaign happening on behalf of Clarence Thomas. One of the things I stated is if you are against Clarence Thomas, it's not enough to blast Thomas personally, you have to address the legal issues involved with his rulings and the logical arguments against his rulings. This also includes going against his non-legal political beliefs.

I did a Google on the Usenet archives and found some things.

Wanna see it?

Well here it is...

From: DarkStar
Subject: Clarence Thomas, Again
Date: 1999/03/15

So, last time I stated there was a P.R. campaign that is ongoing to
change Thomas' image. I even said I thought that he was winning this
P.R. campaign. I still believe it. If you saw Sunday's "Lead Story" on B.E.T., maybe you caught a glimpse of what I was saying when I said there is a P.R. campaign in progress.

If you remember, I said that Armstrong Williams was a part of this
campaign. He is an occasional panelist on "Lead Story" and he was there on this weekend's show. The topic of minority representation in the Supreme Court's clerks position came up and Williams was ready.

Williams stated that Thomas as agreed with the position of the NAACP
that "non-traditional sources" for finding clerks has to be looked at
and developed. Williams also stated that Thomas has been doing just
that, and in the next session, Thomas will have a minority clerk from a "non-traditional source."

Some months ago, I had stated that part of the flare-up involving Thomas being allowed to speak at certain places was having the effect of making the press sympathetic to the belief that Thomas is not being allowed to speak because he is not thinking "as Blacks should think" and that the only reason their is Black opposition to Thomas is his stance on affirmative action. I stated that if the demonstrations against Thomas continues, there is a chance that Black organizations who are opposed to Thomas will start to loose credibility and be further marginalized in the minds of "majority America" and some Blacks.

The last time this issue was raised, one of the comments I made was that if Thomas is giving speeches, and one of the things he mentions in his speeches are his memories of growing up in segregated America, the opposition saying that Thomas has "forgotten where he came from" starts to loose some credibility. I said this because, logically, if he remembers segregated America, and he can relate to how it has formed the opinions that he holds today, saying that Thomas has "forgotten where he came from," seems not to make any sense. Again, it seems to actually marginalize the opposition of Thomas and, maybe, lend credibility to the argument that opposition to Thomas is based on affirmative action.

So now let me bring it home.

If Thomas is shown as recruting Blacks at "non-traditional sources" for clerk positions, it gives him credibility on the position of "outreach, not quotas." It also gives him credibility in that he "agrees" with the NAACP position of there not being enough minority representation in the clerk positions, and that he is actually "doing something about it."

Again, to me, this helps to marginalize his opposition.

Now, if anyone else remembers, I mentioned that there is a effort
underway to recast the legacy of Thurgood Marshall. I had stated that
people are already misrepresenting the comments of Marshall during the Brown v Board of Education trial. Well, guess what? Here is what is coming from the Thomas P.R. camp:

"Marshall had only one Black law clerk during his tenure. Thomas has had one Black law clerk. And, he is about to get another. Thomas is already doing more than Marshall did."

You may not like my assessment. You may disagree with what I wrote, but that won't change what is happening.

I notice in the Google Usenet archives that Lester and I have an exchange on the matter.

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=jssjmtoahf6tbn8puf1n1sr05i7gkbppks%404ax.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dclarence%2Bthomas%2Bimage%2Bgroup:soc.culture.african.american.moderated%2Bauthor:darkstar%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3Djssjmtoahf6tbn8puf1n1sr05i7gkbppks%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D3

Finally, here's more of something I wrote in another Usenet thread:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl282665161d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=pnbujtcqg917kb8er84i64fg92pe5ccaag%404ax.com&rnum=1

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 15:43:31 CST
From: DarkStar
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american.moderated
Subject: I Told You So! Clarence Thomas
Organization: Internet Junkies Anonymous

...

Well, that's enough. But I need to say this:

I said Thomas was winning, and I still believe he is.

Look at the provided quotes.

When he talks to kids who tour the Supreme Court, those kids are going to tell their parents what happened. Even if you are against his idealogy, how can you tell your kid he's totally wrong when he's
encouraging kids to do well and school because that is the key to the
future? For white kids, when they tell their parents, it will be
another nail to say, "Those bad Blacks don't like success..." blah
blah blah, yada yada yada.

When he takes time to talk to Black kids/teens who have drug problems, those who make it through will *ALWAYS* remember his encouraging words.

He talks to Black *COLLEGE STUDENTS* and encourages them to succeed.

Does anyone honestly believe that these efforts, which are heartfelt,
won't start to bear fruit in about 5-10 years?

If you read the article, you read how closely he guards his privacy.
You also read that he "punishes" friends and family for talking to the media. So, when I first mentioned the public relations campaign, think about this: Do you believe a THREE part series, with quotes taken from friends and family, could happen without him giving the "OK"?

The Secret Life of Clarence Thomas

Every now and again someone writes a story about the hidden life of Clarence Thomas. I remember having a talk with one of my boys who happens to be a federal prosecutor. "We've got to bring Thomas in," he said, referring to a speech Thomas had given to the National Bar Association. "We can't just isolate him."

Because online subscription is required, here's a snippet:

This is the Clarence Thomas rarely seen -- the maneuvering mentor and political adviser, a justice who's far more engaged in official Washington than he lets on. From his oak-paneled suite on the court's first floor, Thomas keeps tabs on the capital's gossip, dispenses advice to his understudies, chats up commentators -- he goes to Baltimore Orioles games with George Will -- and even phones senators to lobby for Democratic judicial nominees. Few ever know. According to several black judges interviewed by The Washington Post, Thomas has intervened or offered help on behalf of several stalled African American judicial nominees.

The last time we heard this narrative, it was about Thomas coming to speak to grade school kids.

I'm glad that Thomas is engaged in the lives of people he cares about. He may have inhuman policy preferences, but he is still human. But this is just part and parcel of a long line of stories designed to remake Thomas' image. And I don't buy it. I don't give a rat's ass who Thomas "mentored in private." I don't care what happened "behind closed doors."

Why?

Because as a social scientist I can't measure it. I can't see it happening (or not happening), and I can't use it to even theorize about possible effects because there are none.

And as someone who loves black people, I don't see much change in the rate of brutality incidents in jail as a result of Thomas' actions. I don't see much of a positive change in Affirmative Action policies as a result of Thomas' actions.

A few people getting gigs doesn't change his rulings, and the logic behind his rulings. He can be as compassionate as the day is long. If the symbolic politics kick doesn't (and shouldn't) work for Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, why should it work for him?

So what.

"Group Think", Part II

Let me say from the start, I don't agree with saying someone who is Black, isn't "really Black" for some silly reason or another. That really makes no sense to me. But it also is asinine to say Blacks are prone to "group think." The fact is, if you take any amount of time to provide some thought to the idea, you realize "group think" is the standard of every society that is not in anarchy.

Think about the phrase "community standards". The people within the community, in some way, work to maintain the standard. When people step outside of those standards, the community works in some way to bring them back in, denounce them, or shun them. That's what the "not Black" charge is about.

When people use "group think" and apply it towards the Black community ( is it ever not applied to the Black community? ), it is always given a negative context. Then any "debate" from that point on is defending against "the negative" which is always harder.

Let's flip things just a little bit.

When J.C. Watts refused to back the anti-affirmative action package being developed in The House of Representatives, Wes Pruden, an editor at The Washington Times, wrote a column which stated, literally, that J.C. Watts knows why the Republicans need him to head the effort. Thus, he should get in line. When Watts refused to "get in line," Ken Hamblin used a segment of his radio talk show to denounce J.C. Watts.

As a side note: Did anyone else notice that for a short time, there were references to J.C. Watts being a pastor?

Then there is the saga concerning friends Shelby Steele and Glenn Loury. Those two, along with others, formed the now defunct Center for New Black Leadership. But guess what happened when there was a disagreement over Prop. 209:

http://phuakl.tripod.com/eTHOUGHT/Loury.html

A few days later, Steele phoned him. ''Where do you stand on race?'' Loury says Steele asked him. ''It's as if you're a racial loyalist here. I thought we all agreed.''

''No, Shelby and I didn't agree,'' Loury says now. ''I was always aware that, whatever I thought about race, I'm still black. Shelby's position. . . . '' Loury starts to laugh. ''I was about to say, Shelby's position was that we had to completely transcend race, though I can imagine saying those words, too. But my heart wasn't in them, whereas he really meant it. How could it have been otherwise? His mother was a white woman. His wife is a white woman. When he looked at his own children's racial identity and wondered about an oppressive world that would say to those children, 'Choose sides' -- a dilemma I'd never faced -- Shelby's angle of vision was really quite different from my own. So in all honesty, it was I who betrayed him, not he who betrayed me.'' The two men have not spoken since that conversation.

What about the recent events of the current political season? Alan Keyes has mentioned his support for reparations for Blacks. After that, there was a mini-firestorm of opposition to Keyes for supporting such an idea.

"How dare he support reparations! He's gone off of the deep end!"

And then there is Clarence Thomas, who is known to surround himself with people who are similar in views to his.

Does it matter that the examples I used all involved Black people? Does it matter that the examples I used all involved "conservative Black" people?

I say it doesn't.

Let's be real!

The whining about "group think" isn't that people are thinking similarly, it's really about people thinking AGAINST what you are thinking and you don't like it.

The "group think" charge nothing more than a means of harassing people into thinking along your line of thinking, or at least not vocalizing opposition to your line of thinking.

And isn't that the complaint about "group think"?

I'll post more about this in a broader context. For now, I have real life concerns to take care of.

The Burden of Acting White

OK, so now this article has set off a round of posts by people. I'll say it's about damn time.

I've been arguing for some time now, that based on some readings I've made, the "acting white" charge may be over blown. Note, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. And, to be sure, one charge is one charge too much. But from my experience, when it happened to me, it came from someone who was not performing well. I saw it as an obvious case of envy. That's a lot different from it being a "Black culture thang."

LaShawn, Booker Rising, LKSpence, and Ambra make comments on this report about "Acting White". Not that anyone cares, but I've been talking about this for a bit. I've done it on email lists and on USENET.

Here's a sample of my USENET efforts. I'm quoting a study:

Usenet post #1

Most important, the study found that black students who belonged in academic honor societies were more likely than other black students to perceive themselves as "popular." At predominantly black schools, students in honor societies were more popular than students who had not been so honored. Cook and Ludwig conclude that the evidence "is not compelling" that nationwide black students who aspire to educational pursuits are ridiculed by their peers.

Usenet post #2

If there are stronger antiacademic norms among black adults, black parents would be expected to have reduced involvement with their children's schools relative to white parents. Our analysis of the NELS data finds that, on average, African American parents are at least as involved in their children's educations as white parents of similar means.

The NELS 10th graders reported the frequency of different interactions
between their parents and school. As seen in Table 5, African American
parents are more likely to telephone their child's teacher, a
difference that increases once family socioeconomic status is
controlled. A greater propensity for African American parents to
contact school staff by telephone would, of course, be of limited
vallue if phone calls were a substitute for, rather than a complements
to, other forms of involvement in their child's schooling. But
analysis of the NELS datasuggests that African American parents are at
least as involved as white parents in other ways, as well. The results
shown in Talbe 5 indicated that almost 65 percent of African American
parents were reported by their children as having attended at least
one schoo meeting in the 1990 fall semester, vs about 56 percent for
white parents. Once family SES is controlled, this difference
increases to almost 14 percentage-point advantage in favor of African
American parents. Similar results are found in Table 5 for aprental
attendance at school events.

Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying that before people jump on the bash Black culture band wagon, get an idea of what you're speaking about. Is it "culture" or one on one envy?

And why doesn't the "sterotype threat" idea get more examination? After all, people swooned when George W. Bush used "bigotry of low expectations" and it's the same thing under a different name.

More Black "Us" vs. "Them" Silliness

I wasn't going to go here.
Really.

But comments to blog entries by
dcthornton and Black Republicans don�t really want to go down this path.

Black GOP�ers claim that Blacks are emotionally tied to the Democrat party.

That�s a fair comment.

Black GOP�ers say that Blacks need to examine politics in a non-emotional way.

That�s a fair comment even if idealistic. The reality is politics is emotional.

Now they start with the plantation stuff?

Ya�ll don�t want to go down that path. Especially when there are Black GOP�ers whose words can come back to haunt them.

Think I�m kidding? Do this search in Google. Use the quotes. It�s one search.

�shannon reeves� �window dressing�

When you get the results, use the cached copy to get to the Contra Costa Times article.

Here�s a quote:

�Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise,� party Secretary Shannon Reeves wrote in an e-mail to party board members.

This is a URL I have, but I don't know how long it's valid.

Skip Gates On Blacks and the GOP

In a NY Times opinion piece, Skip Gates gives his opinion on Blacks and the GOP. (Registration required)

The moment when the Republican Party lost black America can be given a date: Oct. 26, 1960. Martin Luther King Jr., arrested in Georgia during a sit-in, had been transferred to a maximum-security prison and sentenced to four months on the chain gang, without bail. As The Times reported, John F. Kennedy called Coretta King, expressing his concern. Richard Nixon didn't.

"It took courage to call my daughter-in-law at a time like this," King's father said about Kennedy at a church rally. "I've got all my votes and I've got a suitcase, and I'm going to take them up there and dump them in his lap." In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower had received nearly 40 percent of the black vote. (I myself sported an "I Like Ike" button in first grade.) In 1960, Nixon received 32 percent. A few years later, as the civil-rights era heated up and the G.O.P. pursued its "Southern strategy," blacks effectively became a one-party constituency.

Another quote I found interesting.

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, says the Republicans' low levels of black support are unhealthy for the party - once the party of Lincoln, after all - and for the African-American community. Part of what's gone wrong, he told me, is that Republicans don't advertise in black media markets. "If the conversation in the community is predominantly Democrat, and we don't make the argument on urban radio and we don't pay attention to the African-American newspapers, and if we don't campaign in the community, then why are we surprised when people don't hear our arguments and don't vote for our candidates?"

I keep asking that same question. I'm going to have to rub that quote in the face of a talk show host in my area.

Tavis Smiley and the GOP Convention

Tavis Smiley did a great job covering the GOP convention.

He gave the Black Republicans an honest chance to have them present their views. He probably did more for Black Republicans than Black Republicans have done for themselves.

Now, how many Black Republicans have given Tavis his props?

Contradiction

Some in the GOP are saying that the number of Blacks owning homes is at a new high, so credit should be given to Bush because of some of his housing initiatives.

Blacks are starting businesses and getting more SBA loans so some in the GOP are saying that the credit should be given to Bush.

The Black unemployment rate is falling so some in the GOP say that the credit should go to Bush.

Meanwhile, the GOP is saying that they foster things so that people don't depend on government, and that Blacks really need these things because Blacks are too dependent on government.

So, isn't there a contradiction somewhere? If you give Bush credit, you have to say that Bush is fostering government dependence. But that's not what the GOP is about, right?

:-)

I look forward to the end of the silly season.

The Voters Have Spoken

Marion Barry won the D.C. primary Ward 8 seat. Since there's no Republican, he wins.

Shakin' my balding naps

Black Right vs. Black Left

This "Black right" vs. "Black left" thing has me burning.

"Blacks on the left" look at the progress of Blacks as a whole, but still seem to define the state of Blacks as those who are not doing well. (So do "Blacks on the right" but this ain't about them).

Let's start here and engage in class politics.

About 63% of Blacks are middle class. About another 17% are not poor but not middle class. That's 80% of Blacks.

So, if 80% of Blacks aren't poor, why do the "Black left" define Blacks as being poor?

But let's use the "Black left" line of reasoning.

I am a poor Black person living in a depressed area. The "Black left" knows that the police don't service my area very well. So why would the "Black left" want to deny me the capability to defend my family?

If someone comes into my home, uninvited, and without a key, they intend to do me and mine harm. As the head of the household, I want to have the ability to pop a cap in someone's behind if I want to do so. In other words, leave me with the ability to own a gun.

The "Black left" knows that for most murders that happen, the people involved know each other. The "Black left" also knows that most of the murders are related to other criminal activities. The "Black left" also knows that the guns used are most likely obtained illegally. For my family's sake, let me have the option to bust a cap!

And if I don't bust a cap in the person breaking in, once they are caught, forget about the "root causes" of why the person did it, lock them up. They chose to go down that path. You were taught that there are consequences, positive and negative, for your actions. So, let them FULLY deal with the consequences of their actions.

And enough of the garbage about the "prison industrial complex"! We could put them out of business in about 10 - 15 years if our young people stopped doing the crimes and if those in jail, when they got out, stopped doing the things that got them locked up in the first place!

Yes, I know some of them have mental problems, but that still doesn't mean that they have to live a criminal life.

And speaking of mental problems, why the need to name call some of the people on the "Black right"?

If some on the "Black right" are fools, just let them continue to prove themselves to be fools. Consider Jesse Lee Peterson. There are such OBVIOUS illogic in many of the things that he says, all you have to do it let him dig his own grave.

And what good does it do calling Thomas Sowell names? He presents information in a logical manner. Sometimes it's highly misleading, but still in a logical manner. All you have to do is refute it.

Or, does the "Black left" think so little of Blacks, in general, that the "Black left" assumes Blacks can't handle the intellectual debate?

Finally, enough of the discrimination arguments by using proportional statistics. You know it's a weak argument.

When I graduated from college, I was the only Black person do graduate with a B.S. in Computer Science that year. Since I've been working in the field, for the most part, I am one of less than a handful of Blacks on the projects I've worked. The proportional representation argument doesn't hold true because, if my graduating class is typical, less than 12% of Blacks have a computer science degree.

If the "Black left" think they are correct, then argue on the merits, not garbage and name calling. Unless, of course, the "Black left" thinks that Blacks are too stupid to handle intellectual battles.

Black Left vs. Black Right

This "Black left" vs "Black right" thing has me burning.

So, "Blacks on the right" say to Blacks that the Democrats preach "victimology" and that Blacks have fallen under the spell of "victimology."

That's a bunch of bunk.

Let's start here where I engage in class politics.

90% of Blacks vote Democrat. About 63% of Blacks are middle class. About another 17% are not poor but not middle class. That's 80% of Blacks.

So, if 80% of Blacks aren't poor, how can most of them self-identify as victims?

What it comes down to is do Blacks still see racism. Not, whether they see racism as a problem, but do they still see racism.

If you say you still see it, the "Black right" seems to say you are practicing victimology.

After BET went public, Bob Johnson felt that the BET stock was under valued. At the time, I owned some stock in BET and I also believed it was under valued, given the backing of the company by cable powerhouse John Malone.

Johnson took BET private and paid out an amount what some people thought was unfair. When he sold BET to VIACOM, the world was shown that Johnson was right about BET being undervalued while it was a public stock.

So by saying that his stock was under valued at the time, and saying it was under valued because of racial reasons, the "Black right" would say that he was practicing victimology.

Wait! Some of the "Black right" would say that victimology only occurs when you let it stop you.

OK.

But given the percentages I used before, then how can it be said, with intellectual honesty, that Blacks are letting racism stop them?

You can't have the "Black right" crowing about the growth of the Black middle class and how the Black middle class is at an all time high, and maintain that the majority of Blacks are letting racism get in their way.

Alphonso Jackson was booed when addressing the National Baptist Convention. In writing about it in the USA Today., Jackson states:

Bush received only 9% of the black vote in 2000, but his policies have done more for the black community than those of any other modern-era president.

To me, that's just pablum.

Before Bush, it was said that Clinton did more than any other modern-era president. The unemployment rate for Blacks fell. The median income for Blacks rose. The home ownership rate of Blacks rose. So, will Jackson give Clinton any credit?

My income doubled during Clinton's terms? Should I give him the credit?

I purchased as new home. Who gets the credit? Clinton? During his term my income doubled, remember? Or me, for saving money and keeping my credit rating decent?

Let's do another quote from Alphonso Jackson.

America's �black political leaders� have built their careers on an ideology of black victimization. They tout the belief that if blacks want to succeed in this country, there is only one path: reliance on the government.

OK.

I didn't get this book, but I heard it being discussed:

Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Jr. wrote a book about building wealth. Is that about government dependence?

Periodically, Ellijah Cummings has an employment fair in P. G. County where he is able to get businesses in the area, with job openings, to come in and interview people on the spot.

Is promoting something that may help people get a job fostering government dependence?

Well, since I mentioned Jesse Jackson, let me state this: It's damned insulting to have politicians come into Black churches during the election season. Especially when you can't get in contact with them during the time when they aren't campaigning for another term. Just because you are in the church, it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for you.

But it's also damned insulting for the "Black right" to act as if politicians showing up in selected churches equates to politicans showing up in Black churches all over the country.

Come on! People should know that the politicians go to one church in the area, get the camaras to show up, and then move on.

Booker Rising get's 2 hat tips.

Blacks Can't Get A Break

The "Black left" seem to think of Blacks in dire straits, that we all are poor, unable to process any complexities.

The "Black right" seem to think of Blacks as sheep, stupid, and lazy.

Is it no wonder that the "Sterotype Threat" rings so true?

I'm going to get into this pretty soon. The silly season seems to be bringing this out in full force, and I'm friggin' sick and tired of the Black self-hatred -- YEAH I WROTE IT -- from both sides.

Blacks Can't Get A Break

The "Black left" seem to think of Blacks in dire straits, that we all are poor, unable to process any complexities.

The "Black right" seem to think of Blacks as sheep, stupid, and lazy.

Is it no wonder that the "Sterotype Threat" rings so true?

I'm going to get into this pretty soon. The silly season seems to be bringing this out in full force, and I'm friggin' sick and tired of the Black self-hatred -- YEAH I WROTE IT -- from both sides.

Black Republicans

OK, now this makes sense to me.

New Jack GOP

Previous generations of black Republicans, says Williams, "may have been too quick to attack the old civil-rights establishment. There was no need to be disrespectful." Scrupulously avoiding names, he says that "there was a pressure to disregard one's blackness." Black conservatives would say they were "American first and a black man second."

Williams' rejoinder: "God made me black first and an American second. I'm not going to second-guess God."

Once black Republicans are indeed perceived as 'black,' "The community will respect us," he concludes.

Williams doesn't pretend blacks will start giving Republicans 50 percent of their vote, but he does believe the new black Republicans may be able to start changing the party's image.

Ehrlich Can Kiss My... IV

Subtitle: Checkin' a Fool IV...

Ehrlich stated that Blacks expecting Blacks to vote a certain way is racist.

Let's look at Ehrlich's and Steele's support for Maryland's MBE program. They revamped the program to get more participation of minority business in Maryland government contracts. Before they were in office, minority businesses received 1 or 2% of Maryland government contracts. They have set a goal of 20%, and the numbers of Blacks getting Maryland government contracts has already risen.

Wait....

MBE stands for Minority Business Enterprise.

Oh....

Wait...

A GOAL of 20%?

Don't your GOP peers call that quotas? Don't your GOP peers say that by supporting "quotas," you are "telling Blacks that they are not capable of meeting normal standards"?

Wait.... Don't your GOP peers call that RACIST?!?!?!?!?!?

You've been checked fool!!!!!!
WHAT!!!!!!

P. S. I voted for Ehrlich.

Ehrlich Can Kiss My... III

Subtitle: Checkin' a Fool III...

Ehrlich stated that Blacks expecting Blacks to vote a certain way is racist.

Welll.......

Isn't the GOP expecting Blacks to vote a certain way, also racist?

Isn't the GOP refusing to go after the Black vote, then racist?

If you say it's because the payback is so small, what about the fact that Jewish voters vote for Democrats 80-85%?

Booker Rising has another way to look at it. I think they are wrong, but here it is.

Guilty White Liberal

Why is the use of "guilty white liberal" not the same as the use of "Uncle Tom"?

Al Sharpton and Rap

Recently, I was involved in a mini-discussion with some members of The Conservative Brotherhood concerning "Black leaders" and what they have said vs. what the mainstream media reports they have said.

One of the things I mentioned was, despite the claims, Al Sharpton and some other "Black leaders" had spoken out against the filth in rap.

To that end, I quote Something by Al Sharpton as it appeared in Davey D's website.

With all the stuff going on in this world, all they're worried about is being able to call a woman out of her name?! That's their cause? First of all, it's wrong. But second, it is insulting. These rappers and "hip-hop impresarios" weren't worried about unemployment or the financial conditions of those who support their records and made them stars. They weren't worried about the education system that keeps too many of their fans and families in poverty. They weren't worried about voting rights. They didn't have any conferences on any of that. There wasn't one seminar entitled "Economic Empowerment" or "Jobs for the 21st Century."

No, they want the right to call somebody a ho or a bitch - somebody who brought them into this world. As far as I'm concerned, they are low-down devious things who aren't worth the millions of dollars young people spend t o make them stars.

Tavis Smiley

I like Tavis Smiley's NPR show. He generally has guests to represent "both sides" of the issue.

On The Tom Joyner Morning Show, he's more himself, which means he's more of a Democrat supporter. As such, he seems to give them a pass. Although sometimes he will make comments that lets the audience know he's not happy.

When Clinton was in office, Tavis was very easy on the administration. When Gore ran for the election, he was harder on Gore. This was especially the case when Gore's "short list" didn't include any Blacks.

His commentary on the matter was biting. During the same race, he did a commentary piece that caused the CBC and the DNC to fear that the Black vote may stay home. At the end of the election cycle, he said that he thought it was time that Blacks access their support of Democrats. But nothing really came out of that commentary.

A few weeks ago, Tavis commented on Blacks supporting Democrats but getting nothing in return. He made it a 2 part commentary. And the end of the first part, I thought he would announce that Blacks should sit this election out, or that Blacks should register as independents or as Republicans, en masse. But it didn't go that way. Instead he said that Blacks should register and vote in this election.

After he came back from vacation, he "came up with an idea" to canvas "Blacks" to see what was of high interest to Blacks. He decided to do this so that a "contract with Black America" could be developed. His aim is to get any politico who wants the Black vote to sign this contract. If they don't sign it, they shouldn't get the support of Blacks.

Fundamentally, I like the idea of not giving your vote to politicians who don't support you or stand for what you believe. So in one respect this is a good thing. But suppose a Democrat signs and a Republican signs. Then what?

And suppose the contract contains things that Republicans say they are against, so the Republican politican doesn't sign it and the Democrat does signs it. But then once in office, nothing happens?

Then what?

Suppose vouchers are one of the things that the contract says politicians should support? Do you think a Democrat will support it?

The ideas of what should be in the contract will come from people who email Tavis and those who take the time to join in on a webchat.

The Black America Web website has details.

Since this is the internet, suppose the email and webchat gets "hi-jacked" by Republicans?

It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. I dont' think much will come out of it.

Policial Advertising

Let me compare President Bush to Maryland Gov. Ehrlich if I may.

Bush increased funding to HBCUs. Ehrlich increased funding to MD HBCUs.
Bush did little or no advertising of this fact. Ehrlich made it known. In a Democrat leaning state, the message got out.

Ehrlich, with the aid of Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, revamped the Minority Business Enterprise program in Maryland. Evidently, Bush has increased SBA support of Black business. Ehrlich got the message out.

Who is to blame here?

Black and Dems, II

[ On edit ] Adding link to Avery's blog entry that caused my note.

I understand why Blacks support Democrats.

Democrats took Goldwater's anti-Civil Rights Act stance and played a good game of politics with it. Let's be real here. Even if Goldwater's stance was one concerning federal government over reaching its bounds, what did that nuanced stance mean to my elders? A Democrat president signed the Civil Rights Act while making public statements against the segregationist Dixiecrats.

Now, people imply, or flat out say, that Blacks are stupid for supporting Democrats when you consider the Democrat history.

I'm a registered independent, so what do I know? So I'll point you to Jack Kemp and I ask that you Google "Jack Kemp" to see what he has written about Blacks and the GOP.

Black voters are faced with "the devil I know vs. the devil I don't know" situation.

But, I ask, why should Blacks vote for Republicans when Republicans refuse to go to Blacks and ask for their vote?

Black GOP'ers

White Republicans messed up with the Black vote.

If I remember correctly, Nixon received 20% of the Black vote. But then he implemented the Southern Strategy.

So, why is it left to Black Republicans to make inroads into the Black community?

Why should Black Republicans clean up the mess of white Republicans?

I just don't understand it.

Jewish voters vote 80-85% for Democrats but the Republicans still go after the Jewish vote.

But similar percentages and white Republicans say the Black community is a lost vote.

And now the Black Republicans have to clean up their mess.

I don't get it.

Michael Steele

He's the Lt. Gov. of Maryland.

He's a Republican.

He's also Black.

He lead the effort to revamp the Minority Business Enterprise effort in Maryland. They expect Black business to go from getting 1-3% of Maryland state contracts, to about 15-20%. (That's from memory so it may be wrong).

He's a long time Republican.

After Ellen Sauerbry lost her second run for Maryland gov., she was offered the spot to head the Maryland GOP. She refused and suggested Steele get the spot. She did so because she got hammered by Black voters.

When he was the GOP chair, he went on WOLB, a Black talk radio station in Baltimore, and had a weekly show where he represented Republican interests. He caught some heat, but he also earned respect. He also didn't try to say that the GOP didn't have problem.

When Robert Ehrlich (R) made a run for gov., his first choice was a female Democrat but she refused. He then tapped Steele. Before he accepted, he made it clear to Erhlich that they had to go for the Black vote. Previously, Ehrlich said that he would not concede the Black vote, so they agreed in that area.

Ehrlich won. Now Bush has tapped him to head the Black Republican for Bush effort. Now he's going to give a keynote address at the GOP convention.

And he's going to appear at the Hip Hop Forum.

I like Steele.

But it still stinks that Black Republicans are left to clean up the mess left by white Republicans.

The NAACP

The NAACP is not getting the younger Blacks to join their organization. That's the reason why they chose Ben Chavis to head their organization. He was said to have the ability to cross the generational divide. He couldn't do it, plus he drove the NAACP further into the red.

Skip to today and the NAACP still has the same problem. This, along with some of their own actions, is causing the NAACP membership to fall.

So I still wonder why "Black conservatives" feel the need to target the organization as the enemy. Let the "natural order of events" do them in.

Or is it something else that is feared?

Stats, II

OK, let's do another one:

There are more Blacks in jail than college

Let's look at a 10 year span to see if the quote is really meaningful.

Lets say 10 people are in jail for that time.

For the start of the 10 year span, 4 people are in college. Let's assume they graduate in 4 years. After the 4 years, another 4 people enter college. They graduate in 4 years. At the 8 year point, 8 people have graduated. The next year another 4 enter college.

During that 10 years, 10 people have been in prison, 8 have graduated college, with another 4 on track to graduate. That amounts to 12 people.

That's a simple scenario. But, hopefully, it points out the problem with that comparison. A comparison first started by liberals, now taken up by conservatives.

Both Sides Do It

"Black conservatives" say they are shunned and called names from other Blacks.

Let's address the latter, first. Rush Limbaugh frequently states that conservatives, in general, are blasted and called names. His term is racistbigotedsexisthomophobes. So why do "Black conservatives" and white conservatives point out the "special case" of Black conservatives being called names?

I've been in a circle of "Black conservatives" and have been called names for disagreeing with them. All the while, I was respectful. By the end, however, most of them started giving me respect because, I think, I was able to present my thoughts in a logical manner.

Now, let's address the former.

To do that, I like to use This example of Glenn Loury's treatment from the LEFT and the RIGHT.

Some choice bits:

He befriended William Bennett and William Kristol, his colleague at the Kennedy School. He sat at President Reagan's table at a White House dinner, and he socialized with Clarence Thomas. (Although the two no longer speak, Loury still keeps a picture in his office of himself with Thomas.)

In 1995, he founded the Center for New Black Leadership with a group of conservative black intellectuals that included his friend Shelby Steele, the essayist.

He was horrified by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's 1994 book, ''The Bell Curve,'' a social Darwinist tract arguing that black poverty was rooted in inferior intelligence. He was even more appalled by ''The End of Racism,'' the lurid assault on ''black failure'' written by Dinesh D'Souza when he was a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Not only did his conservative friends not share his rage; they were taken aback by it and tried, he says, to muzzle him. Commentary, which had welcomed Loury's writing in the past, refused to publish his critique of ''The Bell Curve.'' And though The Weekly Standard ran Loury's caustic review of D'Souza's book, it also published a lengthy response from the author. In 1995, Loury resigned from the American Enterprise Institute over its support of D'Souza.

Finally, this point:

A few days later, Steele phoned him. ''Where do you stand on race?'' Loury says Steele asked him. ''It's as if you're a racial loyalist here. I thought we all agreed.''

''No, Shelby and I didn't agree,'' Loury says now. ''I was always aware that, whatever I thought about race, I'm still black. Shelby's position. . . . '' Loury starts to laugh. ''I was about to say, Shelby's position was that we had to completely transcend race, though I can imagine saying those words, too. But my heart wasn't in them, whereas he really meant it. How could it have been otherwise? His mother was a white woman. His wife is a white woman. When he looked at his own children's racial identity and wondered about an oppressive world that would say to those children, 'Choose sides' -- a dilemma I'd never faced -- Shelby's angle of vision was really quite different from my own. So in all honesty, it was I who betrayed him, not he who betrayed me.'' The two men have not spoken since that conversation.

Is that enough to show that "both sides" do it?