This one has been swirling around in my mind for a bit. It's not formulated completely, but I just want to put it out there.
Michael Steele is getting support from the national Republican party because he is a Black Republican. He's getting help from Karl Rove, the president, and national conservative talk shows.
Michael Steele is the man.
Michael Steele is running his U.S. Senate for Maryland race, not as a Republican, but as an individual. His campaign is saying, forget the party labels and look at the man and the issues.
Now, he could be said that he is doing that so that Blacks "forget" he is a Republican and vote for him. But that is not the case.
Indeed, his campaign is looking at the Maryland demographics, 2:1 registered Democrats to Republicans, and see that in a state wide race, there is no other way to run.
His campaign, which has started, has already putting out that he should be considered independent of his party and the president.
Now it appears that Bush is "fighting back" against the people who say the Bush administration lied about the reason the U.S. went to war against Iraq.
President Bush on Friday shot back at critics claiming his administration misconstrued or lied about pre-war intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, saying "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
Frankly, I think it is the Bush administration that is deeply irresponsible.
The Bush administration said the reason for the action against Iraq was because of WMDs. They then said it was because of violations of U.N. sanctions. They then said it was because of Saadam's treatment of Iraq citizens. Then it was said the seed of Democracy in the country would be good for the Middle East.
At one point, the president was saying that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11/2001 attacks, but the vice-president was saying that Iraq was involved.
Did the Bush administration communicate a clear and consistent story for the action against Iraq?
No.
In fact, the most consistent and supportive reasons for action against Iraq came not from the Bush administration, but from commentators and pundits who backed the administration.
Men and women of our country were sent to fight in a foreign country, yet the President of the United States, seemingly, can't give a straight answer on why we are there.
In short, the Bush administration can't communicate worth jack!
So, when the opposition takes advantage of this lack of communication, the supporters of the president say the opposition is working against the interests of the U.S.
I have a question about working against the interests of the U.S.
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition called the sitting president "white trash"?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition said the president was guilty of having fathered the son of a Black prostitute?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition said the president was the cause of low morale in the service?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition pushed story after story of enlisted military people who wanted to leave the service?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition started writing articles of impeachment after the president was re-elected, but before any revelations of sexual misconduct and perjury?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition stated a military action was done to cover up a situation concerning sexual misconduct?
Was it working against the interest of the U.S. when the opposition stated agencies tasked with defending the U.S. are not supported by the administration in power?
In the end, it comes down to partisanship and power. People want their party to be in power so they will have some power to do what they want to do; health and security of the U.S. be damned.
The men and women in the military deserve better. The people of the U.S. deserve better.
I've argued that the battle for the political future of the country won't be waged at the ballot box in 2008--no matter whether we're talking about Clinton vs. Dole 2.0 or Clinton vs. Bush the Younger. It'll be fought at the state level, over electoral rules. Somebody's waking up. If this works, this will go some way to a more competitive electoral system. And the more competitive elections are, the more responsive government should be to our needs.
would love to hear a bit more about the teeth of the coalition between blacks and latinos - 'cause i don't know cali, but i know these coalitions have been fractured in places like new york and chicago (forget about miami)...it will be interesting to see the extent to which something viable can be sustained between these two groups - as it stands the galvanizing of the latino vote under the new mayor may auger better for this party than for a coalition between blacks and latinos -- in fact, it may be that this new mayor is better served by capitalizing on the disaffection with the former mayor in certain quarters, while doling out patronage principally to his latino base...it will be interesting to see how the team is built and the reorganization conducted...
dopamine aside, the competition between culture groups over scarce resources remains fierce, and the uneven preparation of the black community during post-electoral carving sessions is legendary...there is value to the "other side" in divide-and-conquer...that's all it ever is - but the fact remains that black folk have never had a permanent alliance with another ethnic group - and it is hard to distinguish between these other groups based on "degrees of assimilation of white supremacist ideology." it could be argued that the closest we came to a permanent alliance was in Florida/Georgia (Seminole country) in the late 1700's, early 1800's. we are left with reactions to cop firings and fading memories of hook-ups in the 60's...
The voter survey, supervised by Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 3,191 voters as they left precincts across the city. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 2 percentage points overall, and more for smaller voter groups.
Among the survey's more striking findings was its confirmation of Hahn's loss of support among African Americans and Valley voters, the once-sturdy coalition that drove his 2001 triumph over Villaraigosa.
The mayor, whose father, Kenneth, built an African American political base for the family decades ago as a county supervisor, won 80% of the black vote four years ago. But on Tuesday, he captured just 52% of those voters.
Among blacks who supported Villaraigosa, nearly two out of five cited the ouster of Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, an African American, as a main reason for their vote. Also, 59% of the blacks who voted for Parks in the first round of mayoral voting in March shifted to Villaraigosa in the runoff. Parks had endorsed and actively campaigned for Villaraigosa.
Yet the survey found sharp distinctions within the black community. Black voters 45 and older — those most apt to fondly remember the legacy of Hahn's father — strongly favored the mayor over Villaraigosa. Younger blacks leaned heavily toward the challenger.
Also, black men favored Villaraigosa, while black women strongly supported Hahn.
Villaraigosa, who won 48% of the black vote, had campaigned aggressively for African American support. A large group of black leaders who backed Hahn in 2001 — among them former basketball star Magic Johnson, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) and various church pastors — abandoned the mayor this year and vouched for Villaraigosa. An ebullient Johnson helped introduce the winning candidate at his victory party.
"The really interesting and intriguing question is what happens to relations between Latinos and blacks now," Sonenshein said. "Because by no means is this the sign of a full-scale coalition. But it is certainly a bridgehead in what could have been a purely competitive relationship."
In the Valley, as among blacks, Hahn suffered a sharp reversal of fortune. In 2001, the Valley favored Hahn over Villaraigosa, 55% to 45%. The election Tuesday flipped that precisely: The Valley opted for Villaraigosa over Hahn by the same 10-point margin.
A key problem for Hahn, the poll confirmed, was his 2002 campaign to kill the proposed secession of the Valley from the rest of Los Angeles. Nearly three in 10 of the Valley voters who supported Villaraigosa cited secession as a main reason for their vote.
Another racist Republican...
At 'Exclusive' Club, Ehrlich Goes Colorblind
Week before last, Ehrlich held a golfing fund-raiser at the Elkridge Club, out there on North Charles Street by the Baltimore city-county line. Pay a thousand bucks, and get to schmooze obsequiously with the governor of Maryland.
But don't expect to hang out with Michael Steele in that same setting, due to the conditions of birth of the lieutenant governor of Maryland. The Elkridge Club is generally referred to as "exclusive." This is intended to indicate the wealth and social connections of its members. But here it means not just blue blood, but a certain color of skin.
As several Elkridge members and former officers confirmed to The Sun last week, there has not been a black person admitted to membership in the club in its entire 127-year history, although the club has been magnanimous enough to let minorities on occasion dine or play golf there.
Uhhh...
Not quite...
1. Democrats have held fund raisers at the very same club.
2. Here are some things that have happened during Ehrlich's term:
During Democratic administrations, the schools, particularly Morgan and Coppin, have had to fight to RETAIN current funding levels.
The story broke on Saturday in The Baltimore Sun. Tuesday morning, Ehrlich called into Black talk station, WOLB, during the Larry Young Morning Show.
Larry Young, a hard core Black liberal ex-state senator refused to discuss the situation until he heard from Ehrlich. After hearing from Ehrlich, LY, himself, stated that he knows of Democrats who have held fund raisers there, starting with Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend.
LY dismissed the report and moved on to other topics.
Maryland Democrats are going to come out smelling like dung if they try to make meat of this one.
Since Black elected officials are for sale, and seldom come with a high price tag, why don't we buy some. I have a few dollars saved up and would like to start the bidding for an electoral bundle that includes three State Senators in states with large agribusiness/farm subsidies, 2 city mayors with populations of less than 1 million in states with defense contractors, and 3 House sub-committee members. How much would that run a fella like me?
I'm thinking that for about $50K, I could probably generate about $500,000 in "legal" benefits. It might be better for the NOI and Russell RUSH to pony up/consolidate green backs in order to buy positions on the backs of the spineless - ala Las Vegas' bitchasspolitico.com.
Over at Running Scared they ask the question What Issues Do We Tackle?, among other questions. I think they are missing one question that's essential--where do we tackle them? Conservatives have made it very difficult to work at the federal level, and most of their gains of the last 20 years have really been at the state and non-metropolitan local level. This is where we have to do the work, and it's another reason why I think that the WalMart decision in Maryland was brilliant.
So says David Lambro:
At a well-attended "town hall" meeting in heavily black Prince George's County, Md., some 250 people turned out to hear Mr. Mehlman in a question-and-answer dialogue. It was a rare event in a party that has all too often ignored the black community. A chief adviser to Mr. Mehlman told me this week he plans to meet with and speak to a broad range of black groups in the coming weeks. A major speech is planned at predominantly black Howard University, and he plans to visit more black neighborhoods. "There will be a lot of community-type events within the African-American community," this adviser told me. Notably, Mr. Mehlman appeared last week on the nationally televised PBS talk show named after and hosted by Tavis Smiley, who sponsored the civil-rights meeting in Atlanta that alarmed Miss Brazile. An independent-minded black leader who wants a broader political dialogue in the black community, Mr. Smiley is being sounded out by the NAACP to become its next president, a sign that the venerable black organization may be ready to soften its often-harsh anti-GOP rhetoric.
This is funny.
Taken from Dr. DeLong:
Can anyone... give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics:It is a policy initiative of the current Bush administration
It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it)
It wasn't in some important way completely f***** up during the execution.
Oh. Now I remember.
Nope. Lost it again.
Almost forty years ago, when it looked like the American Left had taken hold of every institution worth fighting for, a number of conservatives thought seriously about fleeing the country. A small few decided to wait it out, thinking that by adopting the long view, and planning for it...the conservatives could become ascendant.
The current battle on social security reflects almost thirty years of planning. And it also reflects the conservative adoption of leninist principles. Interesting reading. So while we're talking about freedom dreams and black power inc. somebody else has got an entirely different ballgame in mind.
Schwarznegger has been a lot better as governor than I thought he would be. Heads and shoulders above. He's been talking about the necessity of changing how districts are drawn in order to bring democracy back to state legislatures. Here's one way to think about it. Compare re-election rates in the former USSR and in the USA? Do you see any MEASURABLE differences?
He faces an uphill battle. No one wants to have to actually FIGHT for their office. I'm not quite sure what effect if any this would have on black candidates. If Maxine Water had to run on the south side of Inglewood (excuse my west side ignorance), rather than on the north side, it isn't clear to me that the results would be any different.
Thanks to Prometheus 6 for the original story.
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.
I'm on a 3 single spaced pages a day writing kick now. It's a marathon, not a sprint...but I've started running and it feels good. But while trying to recall when folks in Miami rioted in response to police brutality (it was around 83 if I recall but I don't know for sure), I pulled this up. Deals with the "riots" that occurred during the election conflict of 2000.
There is a nice picture of some of the protestors, with identifiers. From the article:
Some of those pictured have gone on to other things, including stints at the White House. For example, Matt Schlapp, No. 6, a former House aide and then a Bush campaign aide, has risen to be White House political director. Garry Malphrus, No. 2 in the photo, a former staff director of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice, is now deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. And Rory Cooper, No. 3, who was at the National Republican Congressional Committee, later worked at the White House Homeland Security Council and was seen last week working for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
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.
This year's new Democratic Party poster-boy has to be Barack Obama. Whereas a lot of people are up in stitches about red-blue state divides--and hell, to an extent I am one of them--Obama is part of a new breed. One that focuses on Purple.
I liked Obama. Thought that one of his strongest characteristics was his ability to draw both rural and urban voters. (Having Keyes as your opponent doesn't hurt though.)
But I was mildly surprised when I found out it was Boxer that stood up for voters in Ohio.
Michael Dorsey offers this tidbit:
Where was the new great black hope? The newest member of the upper echelons of the talented-tenth? That face that is on this week's Newsweek. I heard not a word from his camp. Stone cold silence. Although a good friend of mine who is a cousin of the great Senator from Illinois, did report to me about a swank party the night prior to the crucial vote. But then, perhaps I should give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He wasn't hungover (!); while he will become the "junior" Senator and has to play it cool, and thus could not make any comments on Ohio--maybe (?).But then again Obama's silence is as loud as Kerry's--reportedly "on vacation".
The key here are the folkways.
"The Folkways of the Senate" is one of the most interesting pieces I read about Congress during grad school. (“The Folkways of the Senate” – Donald R. Matthews (From U.S. Senators and Their World, ch. 5, pp. 92-117, University of North Carolina Press, 1960)
Matthews argues that the Senate is basically the most exclusive fraternity on the face of the planet. It runs and operates on a series of very powerful norms. These norms exist outside of the rules and regulations of the institution on the one hand, and the bodies of the given Senators holding down the fort at any one time. In fact, I'd argue that these norms actually regulate behavior more than ANY of the rules regarding filibusters for example.
What Obama is dealing with now are these norms. Norms that require a junior senator to keep his mouth shut rather than speak out. Norms that require a senator to actually get a legislative record before he goes showboating.
Asking "where was Obama" I think is the wrong question. What we should be asking are two other questions instead:
1. What's so special about Barbara Boxer? Why did she step up to the plate when no one else would? Why does she continue to do so?
2. What type of extra-institutional pressures can regular citizens use to give Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Levin, etc. the space they need to do the right thing?
One of the biggest city mayoral races will pit Detroit's Kwame Kilpatrick (the "hip-hop mayor" and the inspiration for Chris Rock's movie) against a host of candidates. One of the biggest front-runners is Freman Hendrix. Hendrix had a press conference today in which he listed his goals.
There are some class-oriented distinctions between the two candidates. Kilpatrick is young, dark-skinned, and the son of former black nationalist organizers (his mother is Rep. Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, and his father is a former County official). Hendrix by contrast is older, light-skinned, and part of Detroit's upper-class black professional set--if for no other reason than his affiliation with the past mayor Dennis Archer Sr.
Take a gander at black political campaigns in a nutshell. I like Kilpatrick. My father helped him out with his campaign and grew up with his parents. When I was at the inaugural three years ago and saw him up at the African American History Museum with Biz Markie singing The Vapors, I thought "this was MY mayor."
But now?
I expect this race to pivot around a set of cultural markers. It wouldn't be hard for the debate to turn substantive, but I don't expect it. Techmobiles.
Yay.
I've been thinking about the powers and limits of democracy and what kind of cultural soup the crackers of democratic processes need to float in.
What I've said about China is that it needs to decentralize its power and allow for local, but not regional elections. In that way it can decouple itself from totalitarianism and give the people election circuses if not bread.
I am coming to see 'democracy' as something secondary to liberty, and that liberty (freedom under the law) is something a bit more precious. While we may not be delivering 'democracy' to Iraq, we are certainly laying the groundwork for relative liberty.
So let us discuss what it is that the average Joe America is actually involved in when we speak of democracy. Where is the recourse? How responsive is the ship of state? What would we settle for if we couldn't vote? How fungible is the voting class and the class of people that get voted into office? What is the state of the defense of liberty in the law and systems of justice which exist independent of a voting public and/or parliament? How important is a free press, and what influence does the general public have on its inquiries?
Also what are the prospects for growing a democracy, and how dependent on individualism is liberty itself? How thick is ethnicity and what is the modernist aspect of secularism that takes people away from it? Does secularism facilitate liberty/democracy?
Catching my drift?
Know how I know? We've already got stories about white candidates visiting black churches and not having rhythm. (Subscription probably required.)
Check this quote out if you don't feel like going through the subscription thing.
Nowhere is Mr. Bloomberg's awkward connection to nonwhite voters more evident than on his visits to the city's black churches, where he almost always sits placidly, hands folded on his lap, as everyone around him leaps and sways to gospel music.Yesterday, sitting in the front pew at Allen, Mr. Bloomberg, once again, was the last one on his feet clapping to the beat. But politically, at least, he seemed to find his rhythm with Mr. Flake's endorsement."
Yep. What a way to start the new year.
The most important Presidential election in our lifetime. And the person we fought against won. Legitimately.
What the hell do we do now?
Ive been spending the bulk of my organizing time (what little time I have) with members of the League of Pissed Off Voters. I was talking with one of the Leaguers after wed spent time at the polls and he said to me that he was scared that if Bush won legitimately his people wouldnt get out to vote again. Theyd think their vote didnt count, and give politics up for good. An email from a Floridian political scientist echoed his sentiments. What are black people going to do now? We came out in large numbers, voted against Bush in large numbers and he still won? How are we going to get out? A colleague from Saint Louis noted that he didnt believe in Kerry in the first place and that he doesnt want to have anything to do with the Democratic Party anymore. And of course centrist Democrats are pointing their fingers (wrongly) at the liberal-leftists within the party, and the liberal-leftist Democrats are pointing their fingers at the centrist Democrats.
Im not immune to these sentiments myself. And if I hadnt put myself on a media fast (no televised news whatsoever, and no internet news other than Yahoo! Blurbs) I probably would be at the same place. Furthermore, the weather sucks right about now, gray, dark, and wetlike a scene out of Blade Runner.
But I remain hopeful. Optimistic even.
Because weve got a tremendous opportunity. More people participatedon the right and wrong sidesin this election than any other election in the modern era. People waited for hours in the dark, sometimes in the cold rain, just to cast a vote. And leading up to the vote, people spent long hours going door-to-door, participating in phone banks, donating money, calling friends, calling ex-friends, and telling them to vote. People who had never ever ever participated in politics not only voted they actually worked to make a difference.
Of course this begs the question, For What?!? We lost!
To those sincerely asking this question a couple of responses are in order.
The intellectual activist response:
This election was not about Kerry per se, or even about getting rid of Bush per se. It was about beginning the process of retaking our country. About creating a vibrant new vision of government that looks at them as the solution rather than the cause of our problems. That looks at taxes as a way to provide services to citizens that build their capacity to fulfill themselves, and the world around them. That looks at people with compassion, love, and trust. The vote you cast on Tuesday was a very minor part of that process in the long run. Win or lose, once you make that first phone call or participate in that first door-to-door operation, you cannot go back to the days of just voting. And we dont want you to.
The hardhead Gen X response:
Listen. Ive had my ass kicked in more ways than one since I was about 5 years old. Every time I got waxed, I got the hell up, and went back to work. What? Your guy doesnt get in and the world ends? Last I heard the sun still plans on rising tomorrow and setting sometime in the evening. Last I heard the NBA season started on time with no problems. Last I heard school was still in session. Last I heard papers were still due in college classes. Last I heard massive folks still dont have health insurance. Last I heard massive people are unemployed. Last I heard people were still trying hard to make ends meet. Last I heard people were still taking kids out of public school to homeschool them. Last I heard police officers in some places were still kicking the shit out of black and brown kids. Last I heard older brothers and sisters are still collecting Social Security.
Now this last thing probably will change, but I know that youre feeling me. We lost. So what? Time to get back up and do it over again. If success is truly defined as getting knocked down seven times and getting up eight, Ill be damned if Im going to stay down after that seventh knock down. My parents didnt raise me this way. Inkster and Detroit didnt raise me this way. My fraternity didnt make me this way. UCAR didnt raise me this way. BAM III didnt raise me this way. The Black Student Union didnt raise me this way. You take a loss? Get back in the damn game. They dont call it struggle for nothing.
Now what to do?
Short term? I suggest a media blackout. What the stories will do, what the images of red states covering the country like a blood soaked blanket, is demobilize you. They will depress you. (At least this is the effect these images are having on me.)
We know Bush won. We know that the DNC is going to fight about the future of the party. We know that Bush is going to ram his agenda through without following democratic processes. We will not be hearing any new information.
So ignore it. Instead, put your feelings down on paper. Take pictures. Share time with loved ones. Talk to your family members who actually cast votes for Bush. Most importantly, talk with people you organized with.
And begin to plan.
Keep the phone trees you created. If youve been exchanging email with like-minded souls, dont let those email lists go fallow.
And for the sakes of the ancestors, dont think about who is going to run in four years. I wouldnt even suggest thinking about whether the Democratic Party or some other political party is the way out.
Think three words. Policies. Institutions. Critiques.
What type of progressive policies would make your city a better place to live? Would make citizens think again about sending their children to public school? Would make citizens think of the value of public service? Would make citizens think again about the benefits of government service? Weve got several blue states to use as blueprints. Who said that states rights was an inherently regressive ideology? Jesus was compassionate and a comforter. Who said that Jesus couldnt be used to support truly compassionate policies designed to aid and comfort the poor?
Furthermore, what types of institutions are needed to articulate these policies in ways that resonate with the hearts and minds of citizens? What types of institutions are needed to develop the political and social capital of our youth? What types of institutions are needed to correct the propaganda that now floods our airwaves, our radiowaves, our lan lines? If Too Short can go gold selling tapes out of the back of his car, Ill be damned if we cant create cell based think-tanks designed to inform, influence, and mobilize.
Finally, what types of hard critiques can we lay upon the administration? What alliances can we make to pry open private meetings? What types of sanctions can we exert upon Republican political officials, weak kneed Democrats, and media reporters to make sure they speak truth to power, and hold the line? The media shouldnt be able to report a single false utterance of the President without a cacophony of citizens shouting LIAR!
Policies. Institutions. Critiques. In quickly mobilized, cell-based organizations. Doesnt matter how old or how young you are. Doesnt matter how many you can find to ride with you.
Will we win two years from now come the mid-term elections? Will we win four years from now when Bushs term is up?
Rather than answer these questions, Ill respond with a poem.
Out of the Night that covers me
Black as a pit from pole to pole
I thank whatever Gods may be
For my Unconquerable Soul
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud
Under the bludgeoning of Chance
My head is bloodied but Unbowed
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me, unafraid
It Matters not how straight the gate
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul
(Invictus by Ernest Henley)
I am a professor. I am a husband. I am a teacher. But probably the most important identity I hold at this moment, is that of a father.
We must remain unconquerable, resolute, confident, and strident. In the face of terror we must remain courageous, and committed. And in the fell clutch of dire circumstance, we must remain Unbowed. Because as far as Im concerned, Im fighting for Imani, Kamari, Niara, Kiserian. Im fighting for Tandie. Im fighting for Kyle, for Sydney, for Jason.
And I am fighting to win.