That’s going to be the question people are asking one another years from now about tomorrow’s important election.
Will you say you worked hard? Did all you could? Did nothing?
What “Black Leaders” Said
This morning, Sen. Obama held an African American Leadership Conference Call featuring Donna Brazile, Rev. Joseph Lowery, Oprah, Diddy, and others. What those people had to say was really nothing remarkable. Brazile did give another number to use if you have trouble at the polls: 877-US-4-OBAMA. Use it.
What Senator Obama Said
Senator Obama spent much more time speaking with all of us than I expected him to. During his 5 or 6 minute remarks (I expected maybe 2 minutes), he sounded exceptionally calm, thoughtful, and reflective. Wouldn’t it be great to have leadership like that?
He talked about the importance of the journey that he has traveled with his supporters. He talked about the historical importance of his campaign and potential election for Black adults and children alike. He talked about why the “fierce urgency of now” must energize everyone to work through tomorrow to ensure that people are heard and able to vote. He did not give us a stump speech. He did not repeat his closing arguments. Instead, he gave a personal set of remarks that really gave insight onto who he is as a person. And all of this was after he already found out about the passing of his grandmother. Wow.
What were you doing?
I was working. Phone banking. Canvassing. Door-knocking. Posting updates on Facebook. Posting Bulletins on MySpace. Text Messaging. Blogging.
I’m not saying that to brag. I’m saying that to show that we all have things that we can do. It’s not enough to vote. We deserve the leadership we work for.
Barack Obama understood that and empowered everyday people to do more this season than any campaign ever has. Let’s use this collective power to work for better leadership this Election Day, and every day after.
Brandon and I have been hearing all kinds of weird interesting things that people are doing between now and the close of the polls tomorrow. A couple examples:
“Man, I’m not gonna _________ until _________ gets elected tomorrow.” Fill in the blanks with whatever you want: eat, shower, shave, hoop, whatever. After you finish working your ass off today or tomorrow, take time and do what you have or want to do. This isn’t the time for silly superstitions.
If Obama doesn’t win, I’m going to _________.
Fill in this blank with something riotous, violent, or offensive. While many people may be upset at McCain winning, burning up poor neighborhoods probably isn’t going to accomplish much. Consider doing something more productive.
Let’s work hard. Let’s be smart. Let’s vote. Let’s make sure others vote. But in doing that, let’s still take care of our kids tonight. Let’s still stay clean while we await the next President.
Don’t do anything stupid. Trust me, everything will be alright.
While making calls, I’ve noticed an interesting trend: people ardently refusing to share how they voted in a particular race or on a particular issue.
Do most people feel this way?
I don’t understand the harm in sharing the way that you voted with another person after you’ve already voted. The vote is cast, the deal is done, so why not talk about it?
At first I thought that the people were just annoyed by the phone call, but that wasn’t the case, as most of them were quite talkative. Then I thought, maybe they’re ashamed or embarrassed by their vote, not wanting to tell me because they voted against the cause I was pedaling. Could be. Then I thought, maybe it’s generational, with older voters holding their votes more private & sacred, but this was dispelled when an 18 year-old people told me he wouldn’t share.
I guess I’ll just put this in the “things other people do that I’d never do” pile.
YES! Magazine released today their 12 Ways You Can Safeguard the Vote tool. It contains links to lots of great resources, and tips for what you can do before, on, and after Election Day to make sure that your vote is properly counted.
Check Your Registration. Make sure there are no errors, mistakes, or discrepancies which would prevent you from being able to vote.
Vote Now. Vote early, in person or by mail, if you can in your state. Check if you can using Know How To Vote.
Learn how to vote. Read your voter pamphlet to understand how your paper ballot works, and if voting using an electronic machine, get a clear demonstration first.
Identify State & Local election officials. Get their names and numbers because these are the people to call if there are problems.
Vote as early as possible on Election Day to avoid long lines & hassle.
If you have ID, bring it with you. If you have a cell phone, bring that too.
Avoid straight-party voting. Vote for each race individually, to make sure your votes each count exactly as you want them to.
Observe, Document, Report. If you or anyone else that you see has issues voting, take good notes & inform the authorities using resources such as 866-OUR-VOTE.
They save the most important pieces of advice for last. These are the steps we can take to make all future elections exercises in democracy, not insanity.
Call your candidate. Encourage them to challenge results you don’t trust. Sign up to help.
Call your election officials. Hold them accountable to their responsibility to ensure clean elections
On Monday, I was interviewed as part of a small series on Politics and Technology by Jeffrey Powers of Geekazine. We talked at length about early voting, why it’s such a big issue this election, what are the types of good & bad things that we can do with early voting data, and ways that people can find out early voting information with tools like Know How To Vote.
I’m looking forward to talking with Jeff again about Politics and Technology soon.
Voter Education means making sure people know the rules & laws of voting in their state so that they can exercise their right to vote in the way that is legal and most convenient for them. Brandon’s list of MI Voting Rights is a great education tool, and something similar exists for each state. Election protection is the process of making sure that every vote that is cast is correctly counted. We’ll get to this one shortly…
Vote Early or Absentee if you can
Here’s why you should vote early:
If there are issues or problems with your registration, you can have them addressed long before election day.
Voting earlier means your vote is counted earlier, which means that there’s less of a chance of your vote magically changing on election night.
It just makes your life easier. Take a look at this great blog post on Early Voting at Daily Kos.
KnowHowToVote.us
In the spirit of Voter Education & encouraging voters to vote smart and vote early, I created a site called Know How To Vote (www.knowhowtovote.us). Know How To Vote will tell you how to vote early in your state (if it’s possible), and how to vote absentee in your state. You can find the info in 2 ways:
From your cell phone: Text HOWTOVOTE & your state’s 2-letter abbreviation (e.g. MI for Michigan) to 41411.This will let you know if you can vote early in your state and if voting absentee in your state requires an excuse. It will also give you a website URL that you can go to for more detailed information.
From the web @ www.knowhowtovote.us
Go to the site and type in your state’s 2-letter abbreviation to see detailed early & absentee voting info for any state, including whether you can vote early at all, in person, or by mail, and how to submit your reason/excuse for early/absentee voting according to state law
Find out quickly how to vote early in your state, wherever you are. If you’re talking about voting with your friends at work and on the bus, show them on the spot how to vote early by sending a text message.
In this election season, using technology to help the electoral process is not only easier than ever, it’s more important than ever. Sending text messages is already fun; let’s make it meaningful.
I co-hosted a Debate Party on Friday night that doubled as a Fundraiser for Barack Obama. The party was fun, the food was delicious, and the people I watched the debate with, including the Bus Chick & people from YES! Magazine and Reclaim the Media, couldn’t have been cooler.
What could have been better was my candidate’s performance. Here’s why this debate was a lost opportunity:
Too much agreement
Posturing on Pakistan & Afghanistan
Nuclear Iran only posing a threat to Israel
Iran’s army is a terrorist organization
Venezuela is a rogue nation
(All the references I make here can be seen in the Debate Transcript, courtesy of the New York Times.)
According to Jealous, the NAACP National Office sent 3 of its staff people to do two things:
Ensure fairness in the distribution of aid
Ensure the sins of Katrina are not repeated
They’ve got their work cut out for them, and Jealous actually told us something else disturbing about the lead-up to the storm:
Some poor communities complained to the NAACP that they were not adequately warned of the storm, its seriousness, or the voluntary/mandatory evacuations. This is because the warnings happened almost exclusively on TV, and these people had no TV.
People with questions in the state and out of state can call the NAACP Command Center, which is at their Texas State Conference, at (512) 322-9547.It is a travesty that the NAACP’s Command Center is set up before FEMA’s.
Making sure peoplve vote
While Jealous is working to make sure that folks in the wake of Ike get proper aid and electrical power, he and the NAACP are working hard to make sure that those folks’ electoral power is also fully restored and available. The rights of voters in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina was a major issue, and I actually marched in support of the re-enfranchisement of those voters.
In what Jealous called “a sign of things to come,” he announced Upload 2 Uplift, a website that gives people the ability to do 2 things:
Register themselves to vote online, or print out registration forms that they can mail in
Register their friends and contacts to vote
#2 is very important, and it’s this “social voter registration” capability that really sets this tool apart from other online voter registration tools. Many people know they have friends that are not registered to vote. If you know that person’s email address, you can give them a very simple way to register quickly online. Additionally, the system will send people reminders by email and/or text message to let them know when to vote and where to vote, if they want it too. Pretty cool.
A great start
This was a good meeting for Jealous, and he demonstrated a new way of thinking about the NAACP and about advocacy & civic engagement. By including Black bloggers in his first press conference, Ben Jealous showed that blogging and other forms of new and online media will be an important part of the NAACP’s strategy going forward. By creating its first real online tool, the NAACP shows that technology and the Internet will be important parts of their strategy going forward. I am looking forward to see what they do with this momentum.
7 years ago today the world stood still in the face of tragedy as Americans, Black, white, and everyone else stared in pure horror as we saw real planes crash into real buildings with living, breathing people inside them in real time. Then, few saw it as a teaching moment: a moment that we could learn from. Since then, the majority of us have activated our analytical minds and searched for understanding regarding the events that took place on that day and the series of happenings that led to that disaster.
As we remember that day, those who were injured and killed, those who demonstrated the apex of human bravery, and those who have since perished in events related to 9/11, I ask that we contemplate a basic truth exemplified on that day:
Jesus realized something basic: that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down on one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, “Nicodemus, you must be born again.” In other words, “Your whole structure must be changed.”
In other words, many big, huge, terrible, evil things start off itty bitty lies. Lies that went unchallenged. Fallacies that were presented and accepted. Falsehoods that are seen then ignored.
Enough!
Barack Obama said this plainly during his Acceptance Speech at the DNC in Denver. It bears repeating and applying here when talking about how we need to stop accepting the lies that politicians tell. (…cough…John McCain…cough…Sarah Palin…cough…)
I don’t like being lied to, and frankly, you shouldn’t either. It’s insulting and disrespectful, and it leads to people getting harmed, hurt, and killed.
So in rememberance of 9/11, its victims, and its survivors, let’s reject lying in our homes, lying in our workplaces, and lying in our politics. Who knows how many lives we can save by just doing that.
Republicans don’t like Community Organizers. Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin ridiculed them specifically in their speeches last Wednesday at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. This modern crop of Republicans has demonstrated how much they hate grassroots organizing in many ways with their hatred or unionization, their damnation of dissenters inside and outside of the government, and their willingness to ignore the rights, thoughts, and actions of the people of foreign nations that they decide to invadedestroyoccupy “help”.
While these positions on their own are outrageous and not in line with the ideals of the America that Republicans claim to love so much, it is consistent with another thread of modern-day Republican rhetoric and practice: racism.
For every generation leading up to [and including] the current one, the only foray for Black people to better their lives collectively has been through community organizing. When I say community organizing, I don’t just mean the highly visible ones like Malcolm & Martin, I mean the invisible ones that most of us will never hear or speak of that sacrifice their time, treasure, and talents so that people’s day-to-day lives are better and that their voices are heard. This is the path that nearly all Black politicians have taken to attain the capital needed to even run for office, let alone win. For one to minimize the work of organizers is to minimize the thoughts, actions, and efforts of all minorities and underrepresented groups who wish to uplift themselves individually and as a whole.
I’m finally at a place where I can write a full on post about what I’ve seen thus far at the Convention. It’s been interesting. In order to stay up to the minute on what I’m seeing, follow The SuperSpade on Twitter at http://twitter.com/superspade, where I’ll be sending updates from my phone on various events.
My shuttle ride in from the airport was 2.5 hours long. I shared that shuttle with an Obama volunteer, 2 Hillary Clinton delegates from Virginia, and a woman from Real Democrats in DC. What I found in them all were women that were ostensibly passionate about democratic and the Democratic Party, but who underneath were actually angry and disappointed in their party’s treatment of Hillary Clinton and how the party selects its nominee.
Some of the arguments made sense, but others had a strange hint of ‘my discrimination is better than yours’, even if it wasn’t intentional. For example, the Hillary folks never liked the caucus process, and I never really understood why. Now I do. They felt like caucuses gave some voters the chance to intimidate other voters in certain districts. Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be confused: that is code for Black voters scared away white voters in Black districts. It’s just like calling Barack Obama arrogant: the “pc” way of saying that he is out of place.
They did have a different take on why her time as First Lady should count as experience: the analogy was a family-owned business. In many cases, the husband’s name is on everything (loans, bills, etc.) and the wife may not even be on the official payroll. Nevertheless, she contributes to the business operations (management of paperwork, employees, travel planning, etc.) and also is effectively a consultant on business strategy and decisions (e.g. Should we open another store across town? Should I hire an intern? etc.). This I think has merit, since I KNOW that I consult significant other when making business decisions. The nuance of this though was probably lost in the election mayhem.
Something has to be done to bring these women to the table. When I asked the woman from Real Democrats who she wanted held accountable, her answers were:
The Democratic National Committee for ignoring their complaints on caucus practices
The Obama Campaign for doing that and taking these upset voters for granted
None of these women had plans to vote for John McCain. They said that most of these women in their movement were hardcore Democrats that wouldn’t cross over; they’d rather stay home than do that. The problem is, crossing over and staying home have the same effect. I pushed her on this point and here response was “no stance, no respect.” Truer words were never spoken, even if I don’t like this particular context.
The really scary part: Hillary doesn’t control them
The press and the Obama campaign keeps saying that Hillary Clinton needs to “get her supporters in line.” These women were very clear when they said to me that there was nothing that Hillary Clinton could do or say to change their position. Nothing. What that means is that this thing has legs all its own, and their going to keep kicking and screaming.
Last week I recorded an interview for the Day to Day show on NPR. I was asked a series of questions relating Barack & Michelle Obama’s “terrorist fist bump,” as well as the election as a whole and whether or not there was an understanding of the Black experience in white America.
That interview is set to air on Thursday, 25 June 2008.Check your local listings to find out when it’s on in your area so you can hear it live. For those that can’t here it or those who are in places where there’s no NPR, I’ll put a link on this site as soon as I have one.
I don’t usually write on stuff like this, but I was struck last night and got to thinking about whether talent is enough, or whether the right person always wins. And in the event that the wrong person is winning, is there a way to correct that?
I saw two of the most talented individuals participating in the vanguard of American cultural expression that is American Idol get sent to the elimination round yesterday, with one of them having to be sent home. If that show had an electoral college (the judges?), that probably would not have happened.
It appears that Michigan is prepared to do another Michigan primary set for June 3rd, pending approval by the Michigan State Legislature and the Obama campaign. This is great news for me because I am planning the Michigan Policy Summit on May 10th and if this contest is not settled by then, this Summit could end up playing a critical role in determining the Democratic nominee.
I suppose the conventional wisdom is that Obama is poised to snag the nomination but like most things in life; I will believe it when I see it in writing. Having said that, I will be writing about the Michigan Policy Summit much more frequently but the potential of being in a position of nominee-maker is very exciting and daunting.
This confirms my belief that the most potent power in America’s republic is local power. Early on, I flirted with the idea of working for the Obama campaign full time. At the time, I would have had to work in a different state.
According to The Stranger, as well as a caller into the Thom Hartmann radio program (great show), robocalls are going out to some in Washington telling them that the caucus in on Sunday, not Saturday (the actual date).
The calls apparently came from Meyer Associates Teleservices, a St. Cloud, MN-based direct marketing company. This company has done extensive work for the Obama campaign in Illinois, New Hampshire, and other states.
This is sad, and I really, really want this to be untrue, but the evidence is not looking that way at this point. I want honest, ethical politics, not this stuff.
It appears that 94,000 votes that were cast in California by Decline-To-State voters in the Democratic primary are in danger of not being counted: not by any fault of the voters themselves, but due to unnecessarily confusing ballot design.
Why the hell do we make voting so difficult if it's something that we want everyone to do? I don't understand this. In this election season, where Democrats are seeing voters participate in caucuses and primaries in record numbers, I would expect they would want to do everything in ther power to have the newly-energized Democratic electorate not be disenfranchisd. Instead, this ballot, which undoubtedly was approved by somebody, has the strong stench of voter suppression lingering around it.
Do Something! Make sure every vote counts this February, this November, and beyond.
Primaries are about differentiation. Differences in the candidates' records; differences in the candidates' policy positions; differences in the candidates' ideologies. Well, at least they should be. Sadly, the more and more (or less and less) I watch/listen to political dialogue and commentary about these Presidential primaries and this upcoming Presidential election, I'm hearing a vague message of "change" that is doing little to concretely differentiate the candidates or further this country's dilapidated political discourse.
People, if you live in a state that has a caucus or a primary today, please do two things for me:
Research.
Think.
Vote.
Research
Where do candidates stand in the issues? exclude their party, gender, or race from the equation. What issues are important to you? Research the issues themselves, determine your position on those issues, and then examine each candidate’s position. If they align with yours, you are one step closer to voting for them.
Think.
What will the people running for president do to improve your day-to-day life? What are their positions. Again, exclude their party, gender, or race from the equation and focus on your personal needs and issues that you and your family face today.
Vote
Participate by taking step one in the process of civic engagement. Beyond voting, stay involved and educated on issues and policies that effect you. If you’re a teacher, at least learn about education policy. If you’re in manufacturing, at least learn about labor issues. At least one issue applies to everyone.
Please get beyond voting republican because you don’t like gay marraige. Please get beyond voting for Obama because he’s young and Black. Please get beyond voting for Clinton because she’s a woman who happens to be Bills wife. The time for this immature, non-issue, non-policy, non-concrete approach to politics is over, and I would have killed it earlier if I could have. We need to really, really understand who we’re voting for, why we’re voting for them, and what they will do for us. Political discussions must drill down from the level of broad generalities about “change” coming from Republicans and Democrats into the not-so-sexy but oh-so-important details that will alter how you live, where you work, what you eat, and how healthy you will be.
Today is Election Day, not for President, but an election day nonetheless where you will probably be voting for millages, school board, or some other offices you may not think really impacts your life, BUT IT DOES! Moreover, have you ever asked someone else who/what you should vote for? If so, then the person you asked probably has garnered the political trust of those in his/her sphere of influence. And if this power is used wisely, then perhaps we could get some better folks in office.
My friend suggested that we develop a trusted list of local endorsers to help people who, for whatever reason, don’t have the time to research voting records, speeches, campaign donations, etc. Do you think this would be helpful, why or why not?
Don't vote for Clinton because she's a woman or Obama because he's Black; vote because you agree with them. Vote on thingsthatshould matter, not things that shouldn't.
In a widely expected decision, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the voter I.D. law, requiring photo or other proof that voters are who they say they are. Michigan now joins 19 other states in disenfranchising people of color and low-income folks. The ironic conservative argument is that they want to prevent election fraud when they are experts at election fraud. (see Bush’s election in 2000 and 2004)
Regardless, I am happy to know good people that are challenging this ruling on legal grounds. While that is happening however, we must be vigilant in making sure that securing proper identification is an integral part of our voter registration campaigns. I personally am going to work with election reform minded folks here in Michigan and see if we can get the Secretary of State to allow groups that do voter registration work to get the information (photo, address, etc.) so that our people will be allowed to vote without standing in line for hours
One of the greatest lines in hip hop is when Common said, “If I had I.D., I wouldn’t need I.D.” The stakes are high.
A lot of people think that Presidential debates don’t really mean a lot. They see them as a bunch of people making meaningless, empty, rhetorical statements.
I think that is sentiment is true for the most part. I do think that there is a solution: One-on-one debates. The reason is simple. It is much harder to get away with B.S. statements when you are giving them to one person than it is when giving it to a group.
Hope is a very delicate feeling that if damaged, can cause irreparable damage. Bush and the RNC’s strong arm tactics scuttled the hope of many minority voters as tried to vote in hopes of seeing real change. The one thing that people hate more than a bad situation is being denied the choice for something better. That is why we here at The SuperSpade are teaming up with our good friends from Color of Change to oppose the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission. This man helped engineer the “felon” voter purge in Florida that disenfranchised thousands of Black people. The last thing we need are guys like Spakovsky having positions of great influence where he can dash the hopes of more people of color. The dangers of more conservative lunacy is like living in a real-life nightmare.
My colleagues at the Northwest Progressive Institute pointed to a disturbing story about a document put out by the Obama camp. It was basically a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton’s India supporters. I would never have expected this from Obama. Read the rest of this entry »
Many people have never heard of Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic Congressman from Ohio. Kucinich is running for President in 2008, and is considered to be one of the most progressive candidates on the Democratic side. In my view is right on on most of today’s issues: Iraq, the media, health care, and others. I think he did very well in the debate this week. All in all, a guy I’d vote for.
For those that missed it, you can listen the interview here. A big Thank You from The SuperSpade to Ben & Cenk of The Young Turks and and Air America Radio.
I like Al Sharpton, and I agree with him on many issues. While I think that Sharpton is being a bit extreme and is jealous of the attention that Obama is receiving, I do think he has a point. He raises an interesting question with regards to Black people and how we think about politics, especially when Black people are on the ballot with non-Black people:
Why shouldn’t the black community ask questions?
A lot of times when a candidate that is Black is a candidate, I find myself often wanting to give that person the benefit of the doubt on a lot of issues. I don’t think that I’m alone.
I think that it is not only irresponsible for me to vote for the Black candidate solely because they are Black, but I also think that it is disrespectful to the candidate. I see it as basically saying to that person, “I will let you use being Black as an excuse for me to not give your positions any sort of thought.”
Wouldn’t we be mad if someone outright said that? Sadly, if you don’t give thought to all of the reasons you vote for a person, that is exactly what you’re saying. If we don’t respect our people’s positions enough to give thought to them, who will?
THIS BASTARD DID NOT MAKE ONE MENTION OF THE GREATEST DOMESTIC CRISIS TO EVER OCCUR ON AMERICAN SOIL: HURRICANE KATRINA!!!!
I guess Kanye was right. I never liked G. W. Bush, but I for damn sure cannot stand him now. He talked all this noise about helping people, and about helping Iraqis, and about helping Africans. Why no talk about helping “AMERICANS?”
This is disgusting. I dare someone to defend his purposeful exclusion of Hurricane Katrina in a speech on domestic policy.
Any presidential hopeful that does not call out and talk about how terrible this is will not get my vote in 2008. Period.
There are a whole lot of people who have said thatthey are running for President in 2008. While d@mn near all of them would be better than the current occupant of said office, this “choice” leads me to wonder: what would the perfect president/presidential candidate look like? Before I weigh in on a specific candidate, I think that this is an important question to think about, and I would encourage all voters to do the same (we’re all voters, right?). I want to take a look at what makes an ideal candidate to me.
1. A Leader that is a Servant
2. A Thinker and a Doer
3. A person of Integrity
4. A Populist
First, Presidents must be leaders. Sure, that is obvious, if you have a simplistic definition of a leader as “the person ‘in charge.’” To me a leader is really a servant. They serve their constituents, the people that they are “in charge” of, the people who put them in that leadership position. They meet the needs of people and organizations. They solve problems. They put forth a concerted, honest effort to make things better. My ideal candidate would subscribe to the servant definition of leadership. They would not see leadership as a title, but as a responsibility. They would not see leadership as an opportunity to exert power, but as an opportunity to induce positive change. They would not see leadership as work, but as service.
(The question then is, who would this servant be serving? In the context of the President of the United States, this person should be serving the citizens of the US. The modern-day election process has made this…complicated. Elections cost money, and most of the time elected officials end up serving the people that pay them money during their campaigns, and them alone. This problem is only solved by taking the money out of politics and returning elections to the voters, but I digress.)
Secondly, Presidents must be both thinkers and doers. Effective Presidents cannot be one or the other, but must be both. The current holder of the office represents the antithesis of thoughtful action. For example, Herbert Hoover was a thinker and Richard Nixon was a doer. They were both failures as Presidents, Hoover due to his impractical yet unwaivering belief in the Efficiency Movement and its theories, Nixon due to his short-sighted and dishonest decision to do just about anything to stay get re-elected. An example of a thinker and a doer is Franklin Roosevelt, who [was by no means perfect but] rethought this country’s economic landscape and laid the foundation for what we now call the Middle Class. My ideal candidate would create through thoughtful action. They would understand the implications and nuances of any actions that they take, and determine how to deal with them before acting. They would be proactive, not reactive. They would consider and consult with all stakeholders in any action that they take.
(One could argue that this is not much of a test because even Nixon thought about what he was doing before he did it. The truth is, this can only apply to leaders that can be trusted, which is the next part of this ideal leader.)
Third, and most important, Presidents must have integrity. Not only do they need to be trusted by the people of this country, but they need to be trusted by everyone throughout the world. They need to be consistent but not bull-headed. They need to be fair but not weak. They need to be conscientious but not indecisive. The difference between someone who has true integrity and someone who is simply a loyalist is that everyone trusts the person with integrity. Those that agree and those that disagree with a person with integrity both know that they will be told the truth, and they also know that a lesser person would likely not be straight with them if they were not on the same side. Nowhere is this more true than in foreign policy, where American distrust is something that far too many nations have in common across the globe. I go back to consistency as part of the integrity of a leader because people have to be able to trust you to do the right thing no matter the situation’s degree of difficulty. My ideal candidate would be trustworthy in the eyes of all Americans and citizens of the planet.They would see the truth as a non-negotiable necessity and not a sliding scale. They would see full-disclosure and transparency as a tool of a functioning democracy and not an enemy to their plans. They would see honesty, especially when it is uncomfortable, as a sign of strength and not of weakness.
(No caveat to this one, other than the obvious one that says it is difficult to find a politician you can trust.)
These first three traits are indeed pretty broad, and I think pretty easy to agree on.
The fourth and final trait my ideal president[ial candidate] would embody is a belief in populism, which means that they believe that people, not entities, should run this nation. They believe that power and influence should be driven by people and what they want, not money and what it can buy. They listen to everyone and are willing to make decisions that will help those that need it most. They are not afraid to ask themselves or other people to sacrifice to benefit another human being. They are empathetic to people’s needs and able to articulate those needs and ways to address them. My ideal candidate empower people by making their voices matter, for real.
That’s my leader.What embodies your ideal candidate?
Senator Barack Obama announced his intentions to file presidential exploratory committee and said he would talk announce more details on February 10th. This means that for all intents and purposes, the Senator will be running. I am excited about this campaign because if win or lose, we may be able to realize a paradigm shift for thinking about race, class, and opportunity. I hope that the ensuing debates over his running will spark substantive debate over his proposed policies.
And a note to my Black people:
1) Please don’t decide you like or dislike the Senator because of his identity
2) This is a critical time that we really start to collectively stamp out the crab bucket mentality
3) White people liking Senator Obama does not mean that he is a sell out
4) Read his books, study his voting record, go to his website, and be conscious of what sources are informing your opinion of him
5) Senator Obama is not the leader or spokesperson for all Black people and be critical of people that paint him in this light
6) Pray for the Senator and his family
7) Senator Obama will make mistakes. He is human and therefore fallible. Don’t hold him to unrealistic expectations
What’s up fam, I am still smarting from the passage of Proposal 2, a ballot initiative that bans affirmative action programs in Michigan in higher education, public employment, and contracting. However, I am deeply troubled by the eerie silence I noticed from Detroit Mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. As Detroit’s representative, of a populace that is overwhelmingly in support of affirmative action, I expected Kilpatrick to be more integrated in the campaign to keep affirmative action.
Now I am under no illusions that Kilpatrick’s increased visibility would have turned the electoral tides but his silence I think is indicative of a widespread feeling that was whispered throughout the progressive community before the election; “I think Proposal 2 is going to pass so what’s the point of going all out to defeat it?”
In fact, the only commercial I heard featuring Kwame was his speaking in support of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jennifer Granholm. Kilpatrick was not up for reelection and just recently accomplished one of the greatest political comebacks in Detroit political history. So if anyone can help inspire hope in the face of insurmountable odds, Kilpatrick is the man.
Kilpatrick’s lack of leadership pains me because while I don’t have any sources, my hunch is that there was some political blackmail that silenced his efforts to speak out against Proposal 2.
While I was preparing to write this piece, Garlin sent me an article that highlighted Kilpatrick’s stance on affirmative action. The article states that at a Kilpatrick said at a fundraiser, “We will affirm to the world that affirmative action will be here today, it will be here tomorrow, and there will be affirmative action in the state forever.” And as Garlin pointed out to me, this quote was said in the spirit of, “at least I am on record.” Being a proponent of affirmative action is not effective at a fundraiser. It needs to be explained to folks that can’t afford to make political donations.
My discontent stems from the fact that Kilpatrick is an amazing campaigner and I think his presence would have really inspired people to get off the sidelines. I could just imagine the impact of having the TV cameras follow Kilpatrick going door-to-door explaining to Detroit citizens why they should vote no on Proposal 2. Seeing that would be considerably more helpful to our efforts than some watered down statement made at a political fundraiser.
This post comes to you from the friendly skies en route to Baltimore, MD. It is good to be home and I really miss my Superspade family. I want to continue my post election analysis by providing some insights I learned while trying to keep affirmative action policies in the state of Michigan.
Ward Connerly is hopping around from state to state trying to ban affirmative action programs primarily in higher education, public employment and contracting. He did it in Washington via Prop 5, California with Prop 209, and most recently in Michigan with Prop 2.
Now for anyone from Michigan or elsewhere who didn’t lift a finger to help register people to vote or educate people on the effects of banning affirmative action but felt smug enough to say after the election, “I knew Prop 2 was going to fail,” shame on you. I have had it with so-called conscious folks who love to philosophize for hours on end about the plight of Black folks and how we need to raise up but when you ask them to do something that actually requires work, their calendar is suddenly filled to the brim.
Being conscious is a step in the right direction but it is not enough. When I ask you to help do phone banking, I don’t want to hear you talk about the nuances of institutional racism. There is a time and a place for that but right now, all I need is a yes or no. I already agree with you and I am only going to nod my head in agreement. And if you claim to be as conscious as you claim to be, let’s see to it that our actions have the same intensity.
I got a little side-tracked for a minute, but I do not apologize.
Anyways, Ward Connerly is putting ballot initiatives up that attempt to ban affirmative action which means that in order to beat this guy, we have to make sure people vote in favor to support affirmative action. But we forgot about a crucial lesson in Michigan that I hope you don’t make in your state as well. Before you start screaming, “Vote to Support Affirmative Action!” make sure the organizing coalition you are apart of actually implements a comprehensive voter registration drive.
Why do I say that? Well, once you actually do voter registration, you can then call these people and educate them on affirmative action. When this doesn’t happen, your get out the vote efforts are not strategic and all you end up doing is conducting a visibility campaign, which will inevitably result in mobilizing people to vote that are not registered to vote! It sounds so simple I know, but registering people to vote is taken for granted more often than you would care to realize.
Secondly, most research shows that in order to win a campaign to support affirmative action, you have to target white women because they will provide the necessary electoral support to tip the election in your favor. On its face, this thinking is logical and reasonable. However, not ALL of your efforts should be devoted to targeting white women. Why? Because you will more than likely develop a coalition that is largely comprised of men and women of color and then you will try to get this coalition to convince White women to vote to support affirmative action. This strategy is not only embarrassing but it is not sound. Most people tend to trust people that look like them, period. So what ended up happening in Michigan (in my opinion) is that largely people of color targeted white women while neglecting the very communities of color that need to educated on the effects of affirmative action. Now I am not saying that only Blacks can talk to Blacks, but what I am saying is that in terms of strategy, never forget to take care of your base.
In fact, I know a large number of White women that understand and can explain the benefits of affirmative action for all people. For example if you have a strategy to send me (tall Black dude) to do canvassing in a majority-White suburb versus a white girl, who would you send? I am not saying I wouldn’t be effective but let’s think strategically. If white women need to be targeted, then we need to recruit conscious white women that are willing to go out in their communities and tell people about the truth of affirmative action.
As for people of color, don’t assume that all people of color are automatically going to support affirmative action. Many families of color do not have the pleasure to check email, read the news/blogs etc. at work or at home for that matter. Do you even know how fortunate you are to be reading this post right now? Stop taking your access to information for granted and throwing a fit when you talk to a person of color that never heard of affirmative action.
Lastly, don’t wait until the question is on the ballot before you act. If you wait until then, the battle will be immensely difficult moving forward. Proposition 2 should never have even made it on the ballot and you should be making plans now so that it doesn’t make it on your ballot. One thing that liberal minded people haven’t quite mastered is the supreme importance of framing the debate before the debate. The way that Prop 2 was worded was so twisted that many people thought that they were supporting affirmative action when in fact they were voting against it. Here is how it worked in Michigan, voting no meant that you wanted to support affirmative action. And voting yes meant you wanted to ban affirmative action. In other words, no meant yes, and yes meant no. By not addressing this backwards logic will greatly hamper your organizing efforts so get in the game early.
I just realized this post is getting really long so I will just stop for now.
Guess who’s bizack? What’s up fam, my extended absence was due to my job doing political organizing leading up to the election. To Garlin and Steve; thank you for holding it down and continuing to bring the fire. So due to the political nature of my job, it is only fitting that I provide some post election analysis as it pertains to the banning of affirmative action.
Here in Michigan, there was a ballot proposal sponsored by the wrongfully titled Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The ballot proposal asked Michigan voters to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs. The ballot initiative passed by an astounding margin of 56% to 42%.The text of the ballot read as such; (emphasis mine)
A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.
Now if you were oblivious to the long lasting effects of banning affirmative action, I could see how it would be reasonable to think that voting yes for this amendment is in line with your values and beliefs. However, I want to spend a little bit of time on the loaded term, preferential treatment. These two words are powerful because it assumes that we are all equal and therefore, any group getting so called preferential treatment is unfair to the people that don’t get preferential treatment. In fact, affirmative action tries to actually level the playing field. But here is where I think lies the deep philosophical difference between supporters and opponents. Opponents of affirmative action like to believe that the playing field is equal and proponents of affirmative action try to level the playing field. I just find it sad that in 2006, so many people are in refusal of believing that discrimination is not an institutionalized feature of our society.
And as for this colorblind mess, I can’t stand it. Humans are not dogs, we see in color. Many White people will think that their Black counterparts in college got there by affirmative action, due to athletic scholarship, or just otherwise have not earned the right to be where they are. Taking away affirmative action will not heal race relations and will not make racism and discrimination disappear. Let me say that again, taking away affirmative action will not heal race relations and will not make racism and discrimination disappear.
Ward Connerly and his conservative backers will be taking his ban on affirmative action to five different states. Banning affirmative action has a very salient effect into tapping into the anger that is just beneath the surface of many white people. And before I think it crazy that the government should take positive action to make up for discrimination, I like to refer to Dave Chappelle.
This ballot initiative is bad for Michigan and I can only hope that the decision would have been different had people voted using logic instead of emotion. And as my co-worker so eloquently expressed to me, “Not everything should be decided by the people.”
In the next post, we will look at ways to blunt the effects of this decision and what to do if Ward sets up camp in your state.
I really, really don’t like Michael Steele because he and his campaign are straight lying to people. MSNBC just projected him to lose. I hope that they are right.
Voting should be free. All forms of voting should be free. So why aren’t they?
A good friend of mine told me today of his drama in getting his absentee ballot submitted on time. Because he got the ballot late (problem #1), to ensure that the ballot was postmarked by close-of-polls tomorrow he had to pay $14 to express mail it back to his home state.
If you go to vote in person, you do not have to pay any money to vote. However, if you vote by mail (like we do in my county), you have to pay money in the form of postage. Also, if you vote absentee (which is also done by mail generally), you have to pay money in the form of postage.
This equates to a poll tax in my opinion. Why don’t absentee ballots or mail-in ballots give you self-address stamped envelopes to use?
The issue here is not the amount of money, but the principal. If it is said to be the civic duty of a citizen to vote, they should not have to pay to do so.
I do not believe that Black voters should vote for someone just because they are Black. The danger with doing this is that it will [and does] encourage those who do not have any interest in benefiting Black people to use figureheads to bait Black voters into voting against their personal/collective best interests. I do not want to see such a thing happen.
Republicans, over the last 4 years especially, have been courting Black voters, saying, “what have the Democrats really done for you? Don’t you feel like they take our vote(s) for granted?” These are valid questions that must be asked of every individual voter and every ‘block’ of voters (Latino, female, homosexual, single parents, entrepreneurs, etc.). The answers to these questions and other related ones are important points of introspection for individuals and collective bodies. What is interesting here is that is that these questions are posed by Republicans with the implicit assumption that “if you vote Republican, we won’t take you for granted.” I see little evidence to support such a notion.
I think that the debate on who to vote for should be based on an issue-by-issue, candidate-by-candidate, track-record-by-track-record comparison. A person the same race as you, the same gender as you, the same age as you, or the same sexual orientation as you does not mean that the person will best represent you or have your best interest in mind when they represent you as your governmental spokesperson.
Here’s a quote from the end of the article (my emphasis added):
–
“[Prince George's council member David Harrington (D-Cheverly)] Harrington said race is a factor for him. ‘It’s not the factor,’ he said, ‘but it is a factor. There needs to be a diversity of voices in the room.’”
–
I agree that a “diversity of voices” needs to be present in all situations. However, we need to be clear that race is not the only axis that diversity spins on. There are a whole lot of other things that mark diversity:
- Race
- Age
- Gender
- Religion
- Ethnicity
- Country of Origin
- Class
- etc.
When we think of diversity, we need to look beyond physical appearances. We need to be careful about who we trust, and not give people “like us” a free pass. I think Michael Steele is a nice enough guy, but I would not support or vote for him if he was running in my state.
I encourage people to look at candidates as individuals, their track records, and their plans for the future when deciding who to vote for. Take into account more than one issue, be it race, abortion, or what ever, when deciding who should represent you. Don’t vote for someone just because they are Black.
Perhaps a way to judge if someone will represent Black people well could be to get their take on these?
1. Introduce and pass comprehensive Katrina legislation that includes a victim’s compensation fund akin to that awarded the 911 families
2. Introduce and pass legislation to fix and expand the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system
3. Equalize education funding in the states by introducing and passing legislation authorizing a federal education incentive fund that induces states to eradicate unequal school financing schemes
4. Improve the quality and effectiveness of primary and secondary schools by introducing and passing legislation that encourages comprehensive school reform in the states
5. Authorize and appropriate resource support for African Union peacekeeping forces in the Darfur region of Sudan
6. Combat the spread of HIV/AIDS in African American communities by introducing and passing comprehensive HIV/AIDS legislation
7. Spur economic development by passing legislation implementing federally funded business training programs in high schools, community colleges, HBCU’s and other minority-serving education institutions
8. Introduce and pass legislation to guarantee universal access to health insurance
9. Introduce and pass federal legislation standardizing state voting requirements and mandating paper verification voting systems
10. Respect the traditional seniority system in the House of Representatives that would allow ranking African American committee members to ascend to their rightful place as chairs of powerful House committees
The most interesting points on this list in my mind are numbers 3 & 9.
#3 is interesting because if we do real work to equalize funding, then maybe we can actually have a real merit-based process for evaluating school performance instead of the sham that is No Child Left Behind. Having school funding being tied almost solely to property taxes leads to a vicious cycle in the presence of urban sprawl, brain drain, and other migration phenomena. Perhaps we can come up with a better system that works in spite of these sorts of things.
#9 is important because voting is important. Because voting is so important, anything that can be done to protect the system for counting votes is equally as important. If people were completely confident in said system, I wouldn’t have to beg so hard.
The most important part of the article is the following (my emphasis added):
–
Latinos are now the largest minority in America. However, due to historically low registration and voting rates, they are nowhere near as politically powerful as the African American community. Politicians feel free to ignore Latinos and their issues, because they don’t vote.
–
Why is voting important? Because if you do not vote, you are giving politicians explicit permission to ignore you and the things that you care about. Why would you give someone who you might want to pay attention to you a reason not to do so?
To those who feel that even if they do vote that they will be ignored, understand the voting is not an isolated act. [Responsible] people who claim that they don’t vote because it “doesn’t matter” do other things to create change within their communities. What they fail to realize is that responsible people that do vote also do other things to create change within their communities. This is not a one-or-the-other, mutually exclusive choice. If the goal is change, why not try to change things in as many ways as possible?
First and foremost, I want people to vote. I am less concerned about what party or person that they vote than I am with people voting in the first place.
With that said, the L.A. Times says that Black and Latin people are re-evaluating whether or not they should vote Republican. The only reason that this is a story is because a number Black people voted Republican for the first time in 2004. This was because they were sold on a series of lies, including but not limited to these two:
Faith-Based Initiatives would finance programs by Black churches/in Black neighborhoods This recently published book by David Kuo, former special assistant to the G. W. Bush from 2001 to 2003, deputy director of the White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, talks about how much of a joke that office was, and why he resigned from it.
Republicans don’t like same-sex marriage or abortion either
This is a different kind of lie. Republicans may not actually not like same-sex marriage or abortion. The problem here is that they tried to turn Black voters into single-issue voters. What is a single-issue voter? It’s a person who votes based on one thing and one thing alone. The ’single issues’ in 2004 were abortion and same-sex marriage. Why is that problematic? It’s problematic because those seeking power can use whatever your issue is to get you to vote against your own best interests on other issues. This not only happens on issues like abortion, but it is also a problem for people who’s issue is the so-called war on terror.
In voting, and in life, it is important to understand why we do the things we do. In order to do this, we have to step back and look at all of our motivations, decisions, and actions. The last thing I want to see is people doing things because they were deceived into doing them. I feel that this is what happened in 2004, and I don’t want to see that again.
House of Representatives Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. is running for the Senate in TN. He is one of two Black men who are in close contention for Senate Seats in the South, along with Republican Michael Steele.
Unfortunately, race has played a role in both of these elections. Harold Ford’s opponent, Republican Bob Corker, has run a TV ad with racist undertones against interracial dating and a radio ad with “Tom-Tom, jungle” drums playing during descriptions of Ford. Here’s the TV ad:
Steele has also been the subject of racial scrutiny in his election as well by supporters of his opponent.
Why must people resort to racism, racist indifference, or any other kind of evil to win elections? Stuff like this is what turns people off to “politics.” I have read that many think that being upset is a bit of an over-reaction, especially given the subtlety of the ads against Ford. So let me get this straight: it’s cool to send racist messages as long as they are not blatant? I argue that the subliminal approach could be much more sinister and effective than a full-frontal assaulty could be because it can persuade people who may not be aware that they’re being persuaded. The ability to do that is very powerful, and very dangerous. Be aware.
I think that most people that do not vote don’t do so because it is easier to not vote and not care. Caring, and in turn voting, means that you have to think about what’s going on, think about what you like and don’t like about your current situation, think about the future. Really thinking critically about the status quo is something people are often afraid to do because not only is it difficult, but because they are afraid that they may like what they see. People often surprise themselves when they analyze what really makes them do the things they do and not do the things they don’t. It’s often easier for people to live in a state of denial.
My challenge to myself in others is to refuse to live in denial. I do not believe that “ignorance is bliss.” I think that’s a lazy-apathetic-cop-out-a$sed way to exist. That’s not even living. It sounds like the Matrix to me.
We need to re-think our concept of ‘relevance.’ If we applied the same ‘how does this effect my situation?’ test to everything that we said/did, things would be a lot different. The question is, why do people so readily apply this to voting and don’t apply it to watching Desperate Housewives?
During every election cycle, local and national newspapers, news channels, news agencies, local organizations, and national organizations voice their support for a particular candidate. They usually endorse a candidate because they believe that person will best govern their audiences and represent the interests of their group. For example, the Seattle Times recently endorsed Republican Mike McGavick in Washington’s senatorial election, for reasons that they call out in the article.
The only endorsement that matters in an election is your own, and you show that by voting on Election Day, 7 Nov 2006. The Seattle Times endorsing McGavick doesn’t make me like him any better.
Do you care who your newspaper, any part of the media, or any other organization endorses in local or national elections?
I think that these ‘old’ heads are able to stay in office for so long for a couple main reasons: 1. The average age of americans and voters is increasing with the aging of the baby-boomers
I’d be that people feel more comfortable for either a peer on an elder before voting for someone younger than them. 2. It’s hard to beat an incumbent
The article talks about this. It is difficult, but possible, to unseat someone who is already in office.
What’s wrong with this picture? It seems like if the populace is older, then should those that govern them be older as well? Is part of the problem that young people have with politics that it is dominated by older people?
–
“If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,’ you’ll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked,” one of the men says.
“That’s too cold. I don’t snuff my own seed,” the other replies.
“Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican,” the first man says.
–
The ad is sponsored America’s PAC, a group with a history of targeting inflamatory, race-baiting, misleading ads at Black and Hispanic voters.
This is yet another example of why we need to pay close attention to the messages that are sent for us to consume. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, this is just crazy. The level of racist indifference toward the usage of this word towards Black women is reprehensible.
To summarize, they basically break adults into 4 categories, and then talk about each category:
Regular voters – The 35% of adults that ‘always’ vote. Intermittent voters – The 20% of adults who are registered, but vote less regularly than Regular voters. Registered but rare voters – The 23% of adults who rarely vote because most of the time (76%) they don’t think that they know enough about candidates issues to cast a ballot. Unregistered adults – The 22% of the population who can’t/won’t vote because they are not registered or who’s registration has expired/lapsed.
There are a bunch stats, but the most telling to me [according to this research] are:
- Hispanic voters make up 40% of unregistered adults
- 18-29 year olds make up 40% of unregistered adults
- Republicans are more likely to be registered to vote than Democrats
- Non-voters are more like to distrust people in general than voters
What makes a conservative person more likely to participate by voting? I would think that the opposite would be true given that liberals generally support a more active government.
I can understand a non-voting person’s reluctance to trust a politician, but why do are these same people less likely to trust anyone?
The most interesting part of this is that this campaign will not directly tell people to vote Republican. My question is, why is it assumed that when people are scared that they will vote Republican? I know that if/when I’m afraid about something that is happening or has happened, I definitely would not want to support the people who put me in my position of fear in the first place.
Why would you vote for the status quo if they are scaring you on purpose?
Question of the Week: What determines how you vote?
I have been involved with The SuperSpade from its inception. And for all the political issues and topics we discuss, for all the awareness my brother Garlin brings everyday, one thing has eluded me: What is my “voting process?” With the upcoming elections, I believe this is extremely relevant.
I am all for civic duty, but when I turned 18, I noticed that voter education in this country was weak. First, most Americans do not understand the structure and intricacy of our governmental system. Don’t believe me? Ask anyone on the street whether America is a democracy or a republice and explain the difference. This is problematic for obvious reasons. If we do not know how the system works, then we do not know who does what.
Secondly, the media throws around a hodge-podge of issues and scandals, but there is not a scale or any mechanism I am aware of in order to evaluate and make sense of it all. To me, politics is like a high school popularity contest. This results in decisions being made based on sensationalist issues like abortion or gay marriage, in the wrong (i.e. presidential) race.
I find business far more interesting than politics, because I know that is who runs America (if you don’t believe me, look at the laws, but that is another debate). Furthermore, I hate being knowingly lied to, so politics is not high on my list. If we want to improve voter turnout, we should empower people with the tools and the process to make good political decisions. That way, voting does not just feel like an fruitless exercise. In addition, we must teach people how to leverage their votes and make the system work for them. Voting is just the starting point for civil involvement. Although Garlin may be better equipped to discuss this more thoroughly, I will share a few of my thoughts as to making better political decisions.
One Man, One Vote
First, understand the basics of our government: separations of powers, the Constitution, etc. You do not need to be an attorney, just know who does what. For instance, a lot of people voted for Bush because of his faith based movement or his stance on abortion. What he believes is fine and dandy, but those issues are not within his sphere of influence. Take abortion or gay marriage. Those are not issues for the federal government, those are state issues (according to the Supreme Court). Another example is how we blame Bush for the state of the country. While he is responsible for a good portion of the mess we are in, the real fault lies with our lame duck Congress. Bush’s job is to execute the mandates of the Congress. Congress approved and re-approved the Patriot Act. Congress has allowed the country to be sharply split among partisan lines. It is much easier for you personally to hold your state representatives accountable than to hold Bush directly accountable. But because in the aggregate, we do not understand the system, we are taken in by rhetoric.
Second, understand what issues are relevant to the particular office. This will tell you why you should care about a particular political race. In business, people are evaluated only on those things within their immediate sphere of control. It should be the same in politics. That way, I can hold my congressman or state legislator or mayor responsible for the relevant issues, things he can and should control.
Third, look at the candidates and yourself and where you stand on the pertinent issues. This will take a little sleuthing, but I suggest that you look at a wide variety of informational sources before forming an opinion. Because the truth is often in the middle.
According To Me
What you begin to realize is that your vote alone gives you one thing: The right to complain. True power in politics is attained either through people or profit. Either you have access and influence with a large audience or you got Microsoft money. Our Founding Father’s did this by design, as they were extremely afraid of ignorant factions and tyranny by the majority. Thus, only individuals with access to the most resources could attain the heights of political power. So, to overcome this inherent obstacle, we must pool our interests and resources together (read: lobby, organize).
Closing
This is how the game seems to me, right or wrong. But I am sure if you follow these instructions, at least you have a skeleton to make your vote more of a conscious decision. And once consciousness comes, accountability cannot help but follow.
–
“You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”
–
The key thing to understand here is that voter suppression begins long before election day. We need to be on the look out for such tactics before 7 Nov 2006.
Have similar things happened in your areas? What’s the best way to combat this sort of thing?
I have been playing online chess as of late and it started to make me think about chess as a metaphor for life. In chess, the majority of the game can be boiled down to whether or not you respond to or can make credible threats. And while threats are appropriate for discussing chess, I mean threat as the attempt to achieve a goal.
For example, you may make a threat to take out your opponent’s queen but if that will leave your king vulnerable, then that threat is not credible and your opponent will make you pay for it. In the same way, if your opponent makes a credible threat on your king, but you deem it unimportant, this decision will put you at a serious disadvantage.
So with this paradigm, let’s explore how the idea of credible threats plays out in our everyday lives. For those of you who are Christians, you know that at least part of your decision to turn your life over to Christ was your believing in the credible threat that if you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will spend eternity in hell.
In relationships, if your partner makes a credible threat to leave you if you consider doing the thing that he/she dislikes, not taking them up on this threat will leave you out in the cold.
When you were growing up, many of us would try to duck out of our responsibilities until our parents said they would get the belt or take away some of our privileges.
Right now at General Motors, billionaire shareholder Kirk Kerkorian has made a credible threat to make GM seriously consider merging with another automotive manufacturer. “To bolster its defense, GM has retained two heavyweight investment banking firms… to help prepare for a potential Kerkorian-led proxy fight or other hostile action. The first specific actions were taken Oct. 3, when the GM board changed its bylaws to make it tougher for Kerkorian to elect a slate of directors or put strategic issues to a direct vote of GM shareholders.”
Right now, the Bush administration is trying to threaten North Korea to stop testing nuclear weapons. But with our current engagements in the Middle East, this threat is not exactly credible. The same logic holds true for Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.
If you are trying to make a threat to request a loan to start your own business but lack proper preparation and don’t have adequate back-up plans, the bank will not feel compelled to grant you that loan.
When applying to college/grad school, failure to make a credible threat that you are not only prepared but uniquely deserving of admission will make admissions counselors call your bluff.
What I have learned playing chess is that in life, we must always prepare for and respond to credible threats. We also should never make threats that are not credible.
There are so many different angles I could take this but I want to know if you have ever underestimated a credible threat coming your way or failed to make credible threats. What were the consequences?
MoveOn.org is doing a campaign called Call for Change, where people who want to get involved in the political process as volutneers can participate by calling voters in districts across the country to talk to them about voting in general, ballot initiatives, local issues, etc. The idea is that if ‘real people’ to talk to other real people about voting, then they will be more willing to participate on Election Day, 7 Nov 2006.
I am not one for telemarketers, but these people are not trying to sell you something. If you got cold-called by someone from this program, would you talk to them?
We have been talking a lot about voting lately, and we’ll continue to do through Election Day, 7 Nov 2006. In addition to candidates, there are also different ballot initiatives to be voted on, and these vary depending on where you live & vote. An example is Michigan’s Proposal 2, which will ask Michigan voters to decide on wheter Affirmative Action should be banned in some cases.
I think that ballot initiatives are very effective in increasing voter turnout. This is generally the case for 2 reasons:
1. They are usually started/thought of/proposed by individual citizens or groups of citizens
Because these initiative are many times proposed by people who are not politicians (this is not always true), voters have an easier time trusting them and their initiatives by extension. 2. They often deal with specific local issues
The “this doesn’t effect me or my life” myth is further debunked in these cases because they often have to do with right-in-front-of-your-face issues, such as whether to build a new freeway or tunnel in your city.
If you do not feel like voting for a particular individual is not important, are ballot initiatives more important or more motivating?
The Washington Times has a piece today called “Which Way to Win?” It compares two political strategies for winning elections: one used by the Democrats of the early 90s and the other used by the Republicans of the early 2000s.
From the article:
–
“Clinton Politics is the politics of the center. It holds that Americans for the most part, with the exception of irate groups at the edges, are less interested in ideology than in practical solutions to basic problems. People would prefer politics to be polite, civil, and compromise-minded.”
“Bush Politics is the politics of the base,” the authors continue. “A successful leader will stand forthrightly on one side of a grand argument. Then he or she will win that argument by sharpening the differences and rallying his most intense supporters to his side.”
–
If I had to pick a side, I’d say that reasonable people should be able to compromise on just about anything and walk away feeling like they are better off because of the deal made. An approach that is polarizing by design will, in my opinion, lead to an environment where peace (both physical and political) will be an impossibility.
Which of these approaches is more attractive to you? Do either work? Which would be the most effective in getting people that have never voted to vote?
There is another front group that is twisting the words of important historical figures to mislead voters into thinking a certain way. The latest group doing this is Feminists For Life (FFL). Their claim is that Feminist leader Susan B. Anthony and others wer “anti-choice” on the issue of abortion. They do this by taking a series of quotes from Anthony and others out of context to say that they were anti-abortion.
The way to protect yourself against stunts like these and others is to not take statements on the political views of historical figures at face value, especially when the source’s credibility is questionable. In general, we need to stop believing everything that we hear.
Has anyone else encountered misleading campaigns such as these?
As the election approaches, candidates in nearly every race will be having public debates. I think these are great chances to see/hear where candidates stand on different issues. They are better than commercials because they are live and less scripted (though generally not unscripted). Here in Washington, there is a Senatorial Debate tonight between incumbent Democrat Maria Cantwell and challenging Republican Mike McGavick.
I’m going to watch this debate tonight. Do you generally watch these kinds of debates? Are they interesting or important to you?
Women’s Voices, Women Vote is a movement whose mission is to mobilize the over 20 million single women that did not vote in 2004 to vote on this coming Election Day, 7 Nov 2006.
I think campaigns like this are great. They are doing Public Service Announcements on TV featuring some actresses from some of today’s most popular shows.
Every person who is eligible should have the desire and the ability to vote next month.
Please be aware that during this election season, there will be many, many, many parties out there who will be using all sorts of deceptive practices to get you to vote against your own best interest this coming Election Day, 7 Nov 2006.
This, however, is just plain evil. Folks in MD may have heard about the Black Republican Freedom Fund, the Political action fund arm of the National Black Republicans Association. Well, apparently these bastards are really a race-baiting front group ‘indirectly’ funded by Republican supporters of Michael Steele, a Black Senatorial candidate in Maryland. My feelings on Black Republicanism aside, it is downright lying to refer to today’s Republicans as “the party of Martin Luther King” the way these lying excuses for people do.
MSNBC reports that voter excitement is relatively high this election season. I think this is a great thing because there is plenty to be pissed off about to the point where you want to see a change in this country’s direction.
I am kind of worried though that this excitement is among people who were going to vote in the first place, and not among people who don’t vote regularly or at all.
Are you more excited than other election years (e.g. 2000, 2002, 2004)? Why or why not? If this is going to be your first time voting, why is this an important year to do it?
We will be beating the hell out of this one until Election Day, which is in 29 days, on 7 Nov 2006 this year.
People, please make sure that you not only register to vote, but that every aspect of your registration is decent & in order, and that you have all materials you need in hand before election day. These includes:
1. 2 forms of ID
This is not a governmental requirement, but be on the safe side and bring these anyway. These includes a Driver’s Licence, State ID, Passport, Student ID, utility bill, etc.
2. Voter Registration Card
Most states issue these cards, which confirm who you are as well as the state, county, and city in which you are registered.
You can go to many sites such as this one to begin the voter registration process if you have not done so already. If your state is like the one I currently live in, Washington, it may be too late to register by mail. In that case, you may have to register in person.
That’s what I have to do, since they “can’t seem to find” my voter registration application. I noticed this because I registered on 16 Sep 2006, yet I have received no voter registration card (#2 above). I live in what can be considered a progressive state, but there are problems even here.
The moral of the story here is that we need to be diligent and thorough, making sure that everything is in order and that we have done all that we need to do to vote. The next issue is combatting vote suppression, voter intimidation, and election-stealing, but we can’t complain about these if we are not even registered.
What’s the difference (if any) between being “a radical thinker/actor” and being “a revolutionary thinker/actor”?
This question, among others, was poised to me in an email by a sister/colleague of mine from my days at the University of Michigan. The fact that this question was sent over email is further evidence of why spaces like the Superspade are so vital, so we have active and lively discussions pertaining to Black Thought. Primarily because for those of us who were active in college but are now spread across the country, it is difficult to have conversations like this. Thank you Tiffany,
I remember having a conversation with my nephew where he used some slang term I can’t remember right now, but I asked him what the word meant. He tried to define it as best he could but to no avail. The lesson learned was that we should all be careful to use words that we know what they mean. This same principle applies to the question posed from the outset.
What’s the difference (if any) between being “a radical thinker/actor” and being “a revolutionary thinker/actor”?
The operative words here are obviously radical and revolutionary. A dictionary search of these terms I think provides a good foundation for our discussion.
For our purposes the best definition we have for radical is favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms.
As for revolutionary, two definitions actually suit our purposes;
1. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.
2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.
With these definitions in tow, I think it is safe to say that a radical is someone who believes things should be profoundly different while a revolutionary is someone who takes action to realize the manifestation of radically held beliefs.
Are these terms commonly used interchangeably — if so what are the implications in doing so? Do we use the terms “revolution” and “radical” in superficial manners?
Unfortunately these terms are thrown around like dirty socks. People should understand that real revolutionaries died and risked the safety of their families just so we could go to college, vote, use public accommodations, and give us the peace of mind to be anything we wanted to be. We are the living dreams of those who sacrificed and imagined what a better America would look like.
I think it is safe to say that the term radical is not widely used as revolutionary. Having said that, the term revolutionary has become so superficial that people think they are a revolutionary if and when they put their fist in the air. If we took time to appreciate the sacrifices of those who actually started to raise their fists, I don’t think many people would feel worthy to do so.
What does this mean for the black community? (i.e. does it change how you think about our history? how would collective definitions of “revolution” and “radical” impact our future?)
What all this means for the Black Community is that we need to have real discussions about first what radical means. For example, is it too radical to think that the federal government should apologize for slavery? Moreover, is it radical to think that we should completely change the way we fund K-12 public education that leaves inner-city schools with the least resources and the most problems? Is it radical to think that mentorship in the Black community should be a way of life and not something you do to spruce up your resume’? I could go on and on but I think on a fundamental level, we have convinced ourselves that all of the big battles have already been fought and won.
What’s more, what we think of as radical seems to be constantly minimized. Just about every time I was at a town hall meeting for the Black community, someone would always say that in order to build our community, we should make a point to speak to every Black person we see on campus. For some people this was a radical idea believe it or not. So what would help our efforts is to really dig when people claim to have radical ideas and use our rich history to test how radical this idea really is. Because I am sorry, but speaking to each other is not radical, that is required. But we do disservice to those who came before us when we either start with a defeatist attitude or we let our fear diminish the size and scope of our dreams.
How do these definitions apply to you and your profession and/or your contributions to the black community and society as a whole?
I’ll start with what I do. I work as the Michigan Field Organizer for the United States Student Association, the nation’s oldest and largest student association where our motto is, “Education is a right, not a privilege”. Right now I am doing voter registration/get out the vote work across various campuses and after the election I will be coordinating campaigns focused on increasing access to higher education. So for me, the work I do is directly tied to radical ideals and I have the opportunity to work on two issues where revolutionary action is needed; political and educational access.
However, the fatal flaw far too many of us make the assumption that our revolutionary work (if we do work at all) is confined to our college days and once we graduate, we put those things behind us. Working a corporate job does not give you a community service pass, nor does working a community service job give you the moral high ground. A word on folks holding down the corporate job; stop saying you are too busy. In college you held down two jobs, 16 credits, and managed to hold down 4 organizations. So just know that you make time for what is important. And if it is the case you literally have no time for anything other than your job, I would ask you two things. 1) Are you being efficient with your time? And 2) are you leading a life of significance or success?
Lastly, I would ask everyone to really ask themselves what it is they want to do that is revolutionary on a small scale and a large scale and draw up a backwards plan and see these goals through fruition. And the beautiful part is that you will need allies to help your goals. That is the true beauty of my people. For if anyone has ever been to a rally with a sizable amount of Black people intent on accomplishing one goal, you know exactly what I’m talking about. That is truly revolutionary.
Since I’m now pretty much settled into my new place, I finalized establishing myself as a resident of the State of Washington yesterday. What does that mean? I did three things:
1. Got a new Driver’s License
2. Switched my tags over for my car 3. Registered to vote
#3 is what I’m stressing here. We’ve talked about ensuring that you are registered early before, and I want to re-iterate that point again today. As the 7 Nov 2006 election draws near, please make sure that you are registered properly. You can do so by going to sites like this to get the ball rolling.
With all of the talk of past election/voter fraud & intimidation that has happened in past elections, we have a choice between two reactions:
1. Behave as if pre-emptively defeated, and not vote This is the whole “They’re gonna cheat anyway, so I might as well not bother.” This is dangerous because it says that fear of election stealing in this case will lead to the paralysis of staying home on election day. I know in my heart that we face challenges everyday, including election day. Yet many most of us are able to work through these challenges and do what we need to do for ourselves and our families. I submit to you that it is imperative to the well-being of you and your loved ones to vote your conscious and hold to account those who have misled you in the past. I do not subscribe to the notion that those who have the opportunity and ability to voice their support of dissent of anything and chose not to are credible as critics.
2. Vote, believing that when we act collectively we are unable to be defeated
Here’s a secret: it’s a whole hell of a lot harder to steal a landslide than it is to steal a close election. Why don’t we make these bastards take the election by having record turnout? At the end of the day, I want to feel like I tried, like I said my piece, like I gave it a shot. I don’t feel that there is anything wrong with that. I am confident that if our people commit to voting, commit to becoming active participants in causes that affect them, commit to holding accountable those who have misled, mistreated, or misguided them, then we will be well on our way to understanding why voting matters.
I’m going with option 2 above. If you disagree, tell me why.
Here at The SuperSpade, we seek to provide tools for effective action. These tools include, data, information, knowledge, wisdom, opinions, connections, and perspectives. All of these things and more are part of what drives us to do anything. What is it that keeps us from doing something when we have everything we need to have and know everything we need to know? This has definitely happened to me more times than I’d like to admit. I’d be surprised if no one else has experienced this.
I argue that three major things stop us:
1. We can’t make a difference
A lack of confidence in ourselves or our cause often stifles our response to anything. For example, people may not have donations of food/water/clothes/money to Gulf Coast Hurricane survivors because you wondered, “what is my small contribution really gonna do?” Another example is people not voting because to them, their one vote will not make a difference. The problem with this thinking is that it makes the often improper assumption that you exist in a bubble, that you are the only person that does or thinks anything, that you are the single force for change in the situation. In short, it’s a selfish perspective.
It is true that lots of things, lots of movements, are dreamed up by a single person. Or are they? Looking a bit more critically, that is actually untrue pretty much all the time. Let’s look at some examples:
- Was Steve Biko the only person that felt strongly about Black consciousness? NO.
- Was the young Coleman Young the only person that felt that racial discrimination in the UAW as wrong? NO.
- Were you the only person that thought the disastrous response to the Gulf Coast Hurricanes was appalling, nearing criminal negligence? No.
In all of these cases, I’ve called out individual people that had their own personal opinion(s). What these people realized, and what we all must realize, is that yes, an individual acting as an individual will in many cases have only limited effect. But when individuals come together they can effect significant changes. How do they come together? By acknowledging that there are other people in this world, and opening themselves to the possibility that others can help them achieve their goals. To extend an idea [my new favorite movie] V for Vendetta, with enough people behind a symbol or an idea, that idea can transform into powerful action(s). Coming back home, it takes a certain level of humility and unselfishness to understand that we need to use each other as resources to achieve our common objectives. The way that our common objectives become collective objectives is through open communication. We need think critically for ourselves and to pay attention to one another.
2. If we fail then it’s all over
We tend to place more finality in perceived failure than we do in perceived success. Why is that? I don’t know, but I do know the following:
- Both, in reality, are building blocks for the future.
- Both, in reality, require critical re-evaluation of what was done/not done.
- Both, in reality, are equally important to success in the future.
Even though I know the above, I still struggle with them. How can I/you get past these struggles? By interacting with one another and supporting and encouraging each other when we feel discouraged.
The truth is we need to reform our default pessimistic attitude that says that a) we’re going to fail inevitably, and b) when we fail then we must cease. Even if a) is true, b) never, ever is. You can always change. You can always adapt. You can always succeed. [This sounds like a Weekly Dream, but] The only reason we ultimately fail at these sorts of actions is because we make a decision to. Instead, let’s reform our attitude to say that if we experience a setback, we instead use it as an opportunity to put together our collective hearts and minds to achieve success, however we define it.
3. We’re scared
I know I’ve been beating the hell out of this lately, but that is because I feel so strongly about it. I’ll be brief here and simply stay that if we work with each other to increase our personal and collective confidence in ourselves, the collective, and the things we are committed to, we can overcome this crippling fear.
Please add to this list. Let us know what has kept you from doing things, and how you overcome these obstacles. In the near future, I’ll write on the different types of actions, but I first wanted to deal with what’s blocking us from moving forward.
Thank you for reading and supporting this series. I pray that this series does justice to the tragedies by allowing us to think about the hurricanes, think about ourselves, and think about our future.
The way I see it, the main reason that people don’t act on things is because they are not paying attention to them. Think about it: the reason I don’t volunteer to mentor young people is because I ignore the need; the reason my woman is frustrated with me is because I am ignoring or not paying attention to her; the reason I don’t vote is because “I don’t pay attention to politics.”
The common thread here is ignorance. People hear or read the word ignorance and react to it like it’s a dirty word or an insult. What it is is a state of mind that presents an opportunity to share and to learn. The issue is not ignorance in and of itself, it is the apathy that is often coupled with it: not wanting or caring to know. It follows then that if we don’t want or care to know, we won’t pay attention.
We should seek to defeat apathy & ignorance at all costs, wherever we see it manifest itself. How can we do this? How can we become more collectively aware? It starts for most people as a reactionary choice, a reaction to something that someone said or did/did not do. In the cases of Katrina and Rita, the [lack of a] response to people’s needs from the government could inspire some to start caring, to start paying attention, to want to take such matters (e.g. responding to a disaster) into their own hands.
There is nothing wrong with this, it’s actually a good thing. However, this cannot be the only way we can be driven to pay attention. To paraphrase an earlier SuperSpade piece, “Successful collective action is not created from hatred, anger, or being “fed up,” or reacting, It is created out of love for and knowledge of self…” What that means is we need to pay attention before something goes down in order for our attitudes and actions to be sustainable. To use closer-to-home example, many of us (myself included) have a pretty reactionary approach to our own health: we don’t watch our diet until we get sick or gain weight, we don’t stretch before exercising until we pull a muscle, etc. In the same way that this has dangerous consequences in our personal health, the reaction-only approach to collective action also has dangerous consequences, the worst being the fact that we can forget what we were reacting to in the first place. Continuing with my analogy, most dieters end up gaining back the weight they [temporarily] lost because after they hit their ‘goal,’ they stop dieting or eating healthily. After a year, many people have literally forgotten about the travesty that ensued following the Gulf Coast hurricanes. The ignorance and apathy that we thought had been eliminated was simply on vacation.
Going forward, how do we avoid this from happening with regard to the hurricanes, or anything else? We can start be doing some homework. Instead of simply looking at what happened, look at how and why what happened happened. This will be effective on two levels. For those who insist in only acting in reaction to something, the more you investigate, the more likely you are to find things that lead you to want to act. On a second, more substantive level, the level of ignorance is lessened to the point of non-existence in the presence of exposure and knowledge. We can start by asking each other questions. You’d be surprised how much you can learn about a situation or a person by asking, “What do you think about X?” If you notice someone is passionate about something, ask them why they care so much. Even the lazy and apathetic talk. We can use this talk for educational purposes instead of using it kill brain cells. Let’s talk about what’s going on in our lives and in this world. Ask people what they are doing, what they are reading (The SuperSpade I hope!), what they are involved in. You may be surprised. Seeing and talking with other people caring about things that you care about is a great way to help you get over the hump and get involved (for my friends that “don’t pay attention to politics” from above, understand that politics is simply action-based conversation, and who hates that?). It can help you identify things that you are passionate about if you are unsure or unclear. Let’s talk with one another. Let’s listen to one another. Let’s share with one another. Let’s educate one another. Let’s uplift one another. Let’s pay attention to one another. That’s how it starts.
Awareness is critical to action. To be active, we must be aware. To be aware, care about our collective experience. To care, we must pay attention.
Many political observers have commented that the most controversial case rendered by the Supreme Court involved the illegality of Bush’s holding “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay. However the more significant case to me was the case involving Tom Delay and the Supreme Court giving credence to changing election district lines more than once every ten years as outlined in the constitution.
For many years, state legislatures would get together after every census was taken to battle it out over how election districts should be redrawn. But in Texas, Tom Delay engineered an election coup by leading a successful campaign to get the Texas state legislature to re-draw the election district lines for Congress so as to give Republicans a decided and permanent advantage over Democrats in representing the Texas Congressional delegation. The Supreme Court upheld this redistricting scheme with the exception of one district that they said should be re-drawn to correct the disadvantage incurred by a largely Hispanic district.
Something is seriously wrong with the system and principle of voting in this system. To be sure, the redistricting plan upheld by the Supreme Court means that if there is a state legislature controlled by one party, then that legislature can redraw the lines for their advantage at will. Waiting every ten years to re-draw the map seems reasonable and dare I say constitutional. But now, there will be no rhyme or reason to re-drawing districts so if you thought we had a winner-take-all system before this decision was announced, you haven’t seen anything yet. The larger issue here is that when you leave politicians to redraw the election district lines at will, you create a system where by politicians choose their voters and voters don’t choose their politicians. Think about that.
And lest we forget, there will be states this year that will be voting with electronic voting machines that have no paper trail. I am sure this is the direction we will be heading. Mexico provides an excellent example of what happens when you have electronic voting machines. When the Pri (the dominant party for years in Mexico until the election of Vicente Fox) held elections while they were in power and the tallies seemed to go for their opponents, they would announce that the computers crashed and before you know it, the Pri remained in power.
Also, the Voting Rights Act is being held up in Congress over some stupid technicalities like having bilingual ballots. While that is a legitimate issue, didn’t everyone think that the Voting Rights Act should have been renewed without any fuss?
Between the Supreme Court decision agreeing to election redistricting at will, electronic voting machines with no paper trail, and the hampering of the Voting Rights Act, it seems like Diddy’s catch phrase “Vote or Die,” is not an adequate dichotomy because voting ensures fairness, honesty, and equality; traits that are seriously being undermined by the system and principles of voting in this country.
Unfortunately, this tactic has worked in the past. G. W. Bush got about 9% of the Black vote in 2004, and this was thanks to the not-so-small roll that the gay marriage “issue” played in the hearts and minds of some Black voters. This was an appeal to voter’s whose “Christian” values would not allow them to support a candidate who did not have a problem with gay people getting married and enjoying the benefits thereof. This is sinister because it could (and in my opinion did) lead to people voting against their own best interests because they wanted a candidate that stood on the “right” side (pun intended) of the gay marriage debate.
The bigger question is, why does this work? What makes two people getting married, regardless of their sex, so important to me or you? In my view, it has worked because people have been successfully fooled into letting other people set their priorities. Who are these chosen priority setters? Maybe it’s your president. Maybe it’s your pastor. Either way, if it’s not you, then three is a problem. The bottom line is that we should do what we can to not let our agency be taken from us. We deal a lot with all of the reason why it’s asinine to let G. W. Bush & company to set our priorities. In a later post, I will deal with the danger in letting your pastor do it for you.
Back to the specific issue of this post, this is an issue of control. Some people want the government to control any and every aspect of life. What is ironic here is that conservatives are pushing this notion upon people’s personal lives when it is conservatives who believe in “smaller” government. This current crop certainly believes in small government when it comes to its workings with major corporations. Think about this: the constitution, with all of its flaws, was a document [in theory] written to grant rights. This proposed amendment would have been the first change to the document (had it been accepted) that would have specifically and explicitly excluded a group of people from something (before you jump on me the 3/5 provision does not do this). They want to exclude people from getting married in the legal sense of the word. However, does not having the legal means to do something mean that it won’t happen? Does it make relationships between individuals of the same sex any less meaningful? NO.
For these reasons, and others, this is a non-issue. There are other things that I’d rather see our citizenry and our government spend their resources addressing. Out site is subtitled “Black Thought at the HIGHEST Level” because we want everyone to elevate their thinking beyond the petty tactics and strategies of those who wish to harm us through tricking us into acting in ways harmful to ourselves. We can achieve this through talking about the issues amongst ourselves so that we have a concrete understanding of what’s really going on so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves.
One issue that has notoriously been underreported is the Senate debate over repeal of the estate tax. While many of us don’t expect to inherit anything in terms of economic wealth, this bill will have a major impact on our lives. Here’s why.
Before the Bush 2001 tax-cuts, the tax rates on estates ranged from 37% on the low end and 55% on the high end. However, the 2001 tax-cut has two components that essentially cancel the estate tax. For starters, before 2001, estate taxes would not be assessed unless a person’s estate exceeded $1 million dollars. The tax-cut however, does not require estate taxes to be filed unless the estate exceeds the amounts as shown below,
2005: First $1,500,000 in assets
2006-2008: First $2,000,000 in assets
2009: First $3,500,000 in assets
Beyond that, the tax-cuts also decrease the tax rates over time by the following rates,
So you should see that not only more assets are exempt from taxation, but the few who do actually pay this tax are paying less of it. And in 2010, the estate taxes falls to 0% but there is a sunset provision that resets the estate tax provisions to pre-2001 levels. This is why Bush and his Republican colleagues in the Senate are currently trying to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. It’s funny how this estate tax debate has been clouded by the gay marriage amendment and the death of Zarqawi.
“The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this would reduce revenues by $290 billion through 2015, including $72 billion in 2015 alone. But this estimate essentially captures only the cost of four additional years of estate tax repeal; the revenues losses associated with 10 more years of repeal — for the period 2012 through 2021 — are much higher, about $745 billion. And when the associated $225 billion in higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1 trillion.”
I suspect that many of the people who read this blog are under 35, but I could be wrong. In any event, if we were to fast forward nine years, many of you will be married, raising children, and probably taking care of your parents. Now let’s assume that the first figure of tax revenues being reduced by $290 billion through 2015 is true. The current national debt is upwards of $8.2 trillion dollars. It is so bad that Congress had to write legislation to raise the federal debt limit to $9 trillion dollars so we can keep living above our means. Now it’s hard for me to imagine that amount of money so percentages sometimes work better. “From 1975 to 2005, debt, as a percentage of GDP was once at 34.7%, now exceeds 60%.”
This is astonishing because foreign countries, China in particular, are financing our national debt, thereby furthering the allusion that everything is ok. And if you thought the price of gas was high, just wait until foreign countries decide to take on less of our debt.
This says nothing of the amount we are paying for our activities in Iraq. Last I checked the war has cost us $320 billion dollars and the Senate is about to authorize more funding. But whatever happened to the pre-war claims that Iraq’s oil revenues would finance most of the war? Jim Hoagland of the Washington points out,
“Iraq’s oil production limps along below prewar levels. Sabotage and neglect hamper production. Corruption that is aided and abetted by neighboring Arab countries drains revenue. Forced to import $6 billion worth of refined petroleum products this year for the domestic market, the Baghdad government will spend the same amount to sustain its security forces in 2006, according to U.S. estimates.”
Speaking of war, I doubt if neo-conservatives know how to fight the war on terrorism with anything but military force so I doubt it Iraq is the last front. (read more money)
And then, there is the issue of healthcare. Once the baby boomers start to get older, they are going to put a huge financial strain on our healthcare system. This in turn will cause politicians to devote even more resources to healthcare so they can satisfy this demographic. What’s worse is that we can’t adequately handle the load we have now, so when a significant portion of the population needs access to healthcare and prescription drugs, it will be tantamount to an entire city, flushing their toilets at the same time. We have to plan ahead and the repealing or shrinking the estate tax will not help the situation.
Lastly, there is the environment because unfortunately, the earth is not getting any cooler and as a result, we will likely see more storms similar to or stronger than Hurricane Katrina. This no doubt will put further strains on the national budget.
So what I am I saying?
Between the national debt, the war on terror, healthcare, and stronger storms due to global warming, repealing the estate tax is one of the dumbest things Congress could be doing right now. Moreover, Republicans are generally regarded as more frugal than Democrats but this Congress takes the cake, the chicken, and the kool-aid! And whenever Bush is pressed on the budget, he excuses everything on the war on terror. So why does he push his annual tax cuts and why is he aiming to kill the estate tax? If the war on terror is such a burden, then why does the government need less money? Especially when we know that when the government has less revenues, education budgets get tighter, and there is an overall decrease of government investment in services and infrastructure. When Bush started the war on terror, he knew good and well that it would be finished during his Presidency. And like the war on terror, future administrations will have to deal with this tax cut until eventually, American’s will be forced to pay the bill. And when that time comes, there will be calls to sacrifice (in the form of higher taxes) to help keep the American Dream alive. I believe this will happen in our lifetime so do know that the decisions of today will affect you tomorrow.
But even after all of that, I still support the estate tax because there is already an industry of tax lawyers and accountants that do nothing but find ways for the rich to pay fewer taxes. Moreover, only less than 2% of the population pays this tax. My take is that if you are in the top 2% wealth bracket, you can sacrifice a little bit. Of course, I can’t tell people what to do with their money but passing on a huge inheritance to children is foolhardy because generally, the money will make these kids spoiled and less inclined to work. I think Warren Buffet said it best;
“Warren Buffet didn’t disinherit his children because he disapproved of their career choices or their character…His desire was to “force them to carve out their own place in the world.” He was determined to leave them “enough money so they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”
So stay informed and be aware of how repealing the estate tax will affect you and your future,
Brandon started a great discussion on what Black thought is recently. It is a conversation worth having for a number of reasons, not limited to questions of self-identification (e.g. am I/am I not Black?), whether everyone’s input is welcome in every conversation (e.g. Black people speaking on issues that are not “Black-specific”), etc. What this really is, in my opinion, is a question of definition: how do we define Black? How do we define Thought?
In the spirit of searching for definition, I would like to address another word/concept that individuals have raised with me: politics. Many people consider themselves “political,” while others shun that label. My question is, what do you mean when you say/use the term “politics?”Why is it that many are quick to say that they “hate politics?” Is this that they truly hate the notion, that they hate their interpretation, that they hate how it is practiced, or maybe something else?
Politics is defined in many ways. When many people think of politics, they think of government. Indeed, a definition of politics is a “set of policies relating to governmental and legal matters.” However, I suggest taking a more broad view of the concept of politics. A more flexible, descriptive definition of politics would be “the practice of responding to conflict with dialogue.” Adopting this definition frees us up to interpret life as much more political than we could before. We all experience perpetual conflict, whether minor or major. Therefore, when there is a disagreement that is addressed and resolved through words, a political action is taking place. In my view, the only difference between politics and conversation is that the goal of politics should always be observable change and/or action as a result of the dialogue. Conversation, in general, may or may not have this aim. Government is one way that can be conducted. However, we are presented with political situations all the time, every day.
With this approach, “hating politics” is effectively saying “I hate having conversations that end in changes to a situation.” When phrased in this manner, most would probably not hate politics.
A problem is that many political systems, which I’ll refer to more specifically as governmental entities, are laced with corrupt individuals. The US government’s current leadership have many examples of this. In fact, in this country, I don’t think the problem was that we had a poorly designed system, but rather that the system was designed to purposely exclude certain groups of people from many rights (e.g. the right to vote) explicitly given to white, property-owning, men. The individuals were corrupt not because they were ignorant, but because they were selfish and prejudice. If they were ignorant or stupid, then the system would not have worked so well. Instead, they were smart enough to create something that still hurts the same sets of people they seeked to disenfranchise in the first place (women, Black people, Native Americans, poor people, etc.) Since this is true, we need to differentiate between not liking “politics” and not liking corrupt politicians. Again, if we consider politics to be conversations that lead to action & change, then a corrupt politician is nothing more than a person that is motivated to speak lies during conversation. When faced with a liar, we generally will move our conversation to someone that will not lie to us. We do not reject the notion of action-oriented conversing, and I am suggesting that we similarly not flatly reject the notion of politics.
Why pose this question? Why do I not want people to “hate” politics? Well, for one, I am one of the strange one that actually enjoys the study of politics as practiced by governments and as practiced by individuals. More importantly, I want everyone, especially Black people, to not tune out any possible method of changing situations for the better. Perhaps if the connotation of politics was not one of lying rich people planning ways to increase their wealth and oppress the “have-nots,” then politics would not be something to be hated. Very few people hate conversation, especially not conversation focused on changing the status quo for the better. To me, that is what it means to be political.
In the spirit of politics as action-focused conversation, The SuperSpade is a political entity. It is about understanding issues and current events in context, while at the same time understanding how these things impact us all and how we are all connected. It is about talking about things that need to be changed. It is about talking about how we can take action change situations ourselves, through things like mentoring and voting and organizing. I encourage everyone to continue to dialogue and to grow action from these conversations.
This is an election year, a mid-term election year. This means that in November, people across the country will be voting not only in local elections, but also in gubernatorial and congressional races as well. There are some things we can do now to ensure that we as a people do not have avoidable drama at the poles on 7 November 2006.
The first thing we need to do is confirm that those of us that are old enough to vote are registered to do so. A good place to start is by visiting publius.org. Enter your name here, and if notating comes up, then you can click here to locate your local clerk, who you need to contact in order to register to vote.
Why are we talking about registering to vote? We’re talking about this because we need to get back to the basics and ensure that our fundamentals are solid. In my opinion, voting is one of the most important civic actions we can do. I tend to think that people agree with me that it’s important, since those in power work very hard to strip the right to vote away from people every day and night.
Here’s a secret: it is easier to take something away from an ignorant person than it is to take that same thing away from one who is informed/armed/prepared. Applying this concept to voting, it is much more difficult to take voting rights away from a person who never voted, stopped voting, or doesn’t value voting than it is to strip that right from one who understands its significance. We’ve talked about why voting matters before, and this point cannot be repeated enough.
This is important because it makes plain the fact there is power in collective action. One person doing one thing alone may or may not result in wide-reaching change. However, many people acting together with united purpose and determination have a better chance of effecting changes that impact society as a whole. We talked about working together just recently, and we can’t stress enough how important that is. One person may feel that their vote “doesn’t matter,” and therefore not vote. That, in isolation, will not cause the death of humanity. However, if that attitude were to catch on more broadly, which it has in large part, then you get people who are left with a government that they did not vote for and by definition does not represent them. Most people do not want that outcome, but instead of addressing the apathy at its source, we only react to it after the problem is obvious. If we concentrate on the basics, on helping people understand why they should care, maybe we wouldn’t have a representative democracy that did not represent so many people.
For those of you who vote, can you tell us why?
For those of you who do not vote, can you tell us why not?
As I said earlier, I want to talk here about some of the personal accounts that people gave me during Saturday’s action.
First off, I was a bit surprised by how much people were willing to share with me. I think it was relatively clear that I was not from New Orleans, Louisiana, or the South. However, if it wasn’t everybody knew the moment I started talking. I was also taller than everybody (but that’s not too strange). I guess I kind of stick out. Nevertheless, people were very open and candid about their experiences with this stranger from Detroit by way of Seattle.
When I first got to the site of the rally, which was across the street from the Convention Center, I saw a family of 5 (mom, dad, 1 girl, 2 boys, all under 10) walking from the back of the lot. They were coming from a section that had charter buses, and so I asked them where they were from. The mother said that took a bus in from Houston, them and about 200 of their closest friends. As we walked up to the site of the rally, The little girl (6) told me that their hotel room in Houston was not as big as their apartment in New Orleans. The father agreed, and then we talked about how they got to Houston. He told me that they lived in the 7th ward. They didn’t leave the city because they did not have enough space in their car to fit all of the kids and his mother, who he refused to leave without. So the family went to his mother’s house to wait out the storm. She only lived a couple of blocks away, so they all walked over there. The rain and winds hit, they all survived, but he said that the flood waters were to high to leave. So they basically were trapped on the second floor of the house. He said he took his gun, a 12-gage, for what he called “just in case” security. He never fired any shots, but he did use the butt of the gun to break thru a second floor window, thru which he cried for help and attracted the attention of a Coast Guard helicopter. The copter came down and got all 6 of them out of the house safely. From there, they were taken eventually to Baton Rouge, where they were bussed to Houston. They have been in a hotel room there since September 10. They had the infamous FEMA Debit Card. The mother told me she was appalled at the ways in which the monies were being spent by people. She said that they stories about using the debit cards to so things like buy pornography were true. She said “I guess people do crazy things when they are helpless and hopeless.”
I only had brief conversations with people during the speeches, but I did have an extensive one with a woman who was selling books at the rally. She was selling socialist publications such as The Militant, and lots of books & writings on socialist theory by Malcolm X and Che Guevara among others. This woman, who was white, was from Gretna, LA, the city whose police force blocked people from crossing the bridge that we marched on later that day. Her home there had substantial damage she said: most of her windows were broken despite her storm shutters, a little more than half of her roof was blown off, a large tree in her front yard snapped and broke, falling about 2 feet in front of her front door. No one was hurt, but she did say her close friend who lived in the city was unaccounted for. I asked why she was there at the Rally/March, and her reason was that she saw the government’s response to Katrina as evidence of the need for a U.S. socialist movement. She admitted that it would likely never happen, and that if she had the money, she’d move away from the country. Interestingly enough, she told me that she did not feel this way until after the storm. She said that she disagreed that the biggest problem people had in the storm was that they were Black. To here, the biggest problem was “being broke.”
I spent most of the March itself conversing with a man who told me that he had 6 houses (I think he said he had one in the 9th ward), all of which were damaged by the storm. They were in various places in the city. He told me also that he worked at a ship yard that was washed out also. His point was that he lost a lot. He said he was never down though. His quote: “I got all of it legally. It was all insured. I got it before, I can get it again.” This was a sentiment of a lot of folks that participated in this action. They figured that if the got stuff legitimately, they could get it back legitimately. He told me that he had rebuilt 4 of his houses already, one he is living in, and the other three have tenants in them. He said that he had been active in the community for a long time, and that he could not miss this Rally & March. He was a union organizer at his job, so he told me that he has seen white folks try to stifle poor people coming together for a long time. Him and I spent the rest of the time talking about his son, who was 23 like me, and 55 credits from graduating college.
I met a woman at the end of the bridge who was there with her two daughters. She said her husband was killed in the storm, dying from dehydration at the Superdome.. The two girls, 4 and 7, she feared would have faint memories of their dad, especially the 4 year old. She talked about how she thought it was criminal to tell people to go there to die. I asked her if she had been able to leave the city before the storm. Her response was “How? I don’t have a car, I’ve never left the city. So, no.” She faulted the mayor for not knowing what to do and where to send people. This march and the right to vote in satellite polling places was important to her because she wanted as many people as possible to vote against Ray Nagin. She was worried about the amount of school her daughters missed, but she said that they were straight now. They eventually got bussed to Mississippi where they are living now. They rode a charter bus back for this Rally/March.
The last account I’ll share is that of a young man (19) who was there with the New Orleans NAACP. He was a freshman at Xavier. He was not from New Orleans and decided not to leave during the storm. His quote: “I couldn’t go home and watch people die on TV. I felt like I was needed here.” He told me how his dorm got flooded out, and how he and some people on his a hallway jumped from their 2nd-story windows down and waded thru waters to the Superdome. There, they volunteered their services as security people. He said “People do stupid things when they are scared. I just wanted to make sure those stupid things didn’t involve hurting other people.” He also said that while there was violence in the Superdome, he thinks that, in hindsight, the news account blew it way out of proportion. Most of the fights were over people trying to take more than a ration of water, as an example. He also made a run to a Cingular store that he said “wasn’t too far” to call his family in North Carolina to tell them that he was still alive every other day. He is not in school now. Instead, he lives with a member of the NAACP and has been working at the airport and volunteering his time helping people find housing and work.
There were others, these four are just a piece. I may be able to post more accounts later on. This was inspirational to me, and it is important to me to hear our people’s experience first hand. People of African descent have always treasured oral histories. It was powerful to hear, and it is important for me to transcribe much of this so that it can survive well into the future and inspire others to act.
I watched the Million Man March on television in October of 1995. I attended the Millions More Movement in October of 2005. I have helped organize similar actions both in Detroit and in Seattle. I have attended numerous meetings and gatherings to plan other mobilizations. I say all of this to say that this was the most inspirational action I have ever personally witnessed and/or participated in. It wasn’t because of the great speakers; there were many. It wasn’t because of the great food; there was plenty. It was because of the people I met and interacted with, the sharing or their Katrina experiences with me, and their pride and resilliance and focus on improving the current situation and building a better future.
First let me describe the event and what happened. The rally began at about 8 AM. I did not know what time it began, and was quite dismayed to wake up a 9 and turn on CNN only to hear them saying “…Bill Cosby is just finishing up here in New Orleans…” Oh well. I got there at about 945. The speakers at the rally included Rev. Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Cosby, Michael Eric Dyson (I arrived just before his address), Marc Morial, [current] Mayor Ray Nagin, and Bruce Gordon, among others. The rally before the march was MC’d by Judge Greg Mathis, and it was concluded by a suprisingly decent performance by John Legend.
We then aligned ourselves to march across the Mississippi River Bridge to Gretna, LA. Why? Because it was on this bridge that hundreds of Hurricane survivors were met with police resistance in the days immediately following Katrina as they tried to cross searching for higher and safer ground. The goal was to have the thousands that gathered today to march across this bridge, symbolically saying “You stopped us then, yet we survived. You cannot stop us now.” Stop us from what? is the next logical question. The answer is voting, or more precisely, having a fair election. New Orleans is scheduled to hold a mayoral election on April 22, 2006. Many oppose this, arguing that due to wide dispersal, those in New Orleans now do not accurately reflect New Orlean’s true residents (Translation: since so many Black folks have been displaced, the fear is that there will be a mayor elected who will not listen to or care about the interests of New Orleans’ Black residents). “Stopping us” above refers to disenfranchising voters. Signs were held by marchers that read “Iraq has fairer elections.” This pointing out the fact that during Iraq’s elections last year, Iraqi citizens were able to vote from satellite locations in the United States. The activists want the election to be postponed so that satellite locations can be set up in places where evacuees now reside. The U.S. Department of Justice has OK’d the election to move forward with its April 22 date in spite of these requests. A goal of the march was to symbolize the residents’ opposition to this.
After we marched the approx. 2.5 miles from the Convention Center across the bridge to Oakbrook Mall, we reassembled and heard remarks from the organizers and local leaders. Here they (William Jefferson, Diana Bajoie, and other members of the Louisiana Legislativ Black Caucuss) summarized the next steps that they are taking legislatively and told people specific things that they could do to help. The largest step they would take would be issuance of a demand for Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco to exercise her executive authority and issue an executive order that would authorize satellite polling locations and postpone the election until they are set up. The idea is that if the federal government won’t stop it, maybe the state government will. As for what the people can do, we were advised to contact our representatives and urge them to lean on Blanco to issue the order, while in the meantime informing those we know who left New Orleans of how to register for and receive an absentee ballot. Those who wanted to be were then transported back across the bridge to the Convention Center. It all was done around 4 PM.
What is described in and of itself is the makings of an effective substantive and symbolic action. What is happening here is the re-emergence of the poll taxes of the Jim Crow South of the 20th century. Telling people that they have to (well had to, considering that the deadline for registration was March 22 (click here and go to the middle of the page)) come to New Orleans to register to vote (if they are not registered or 1st time voters) and then return to vote on April 22 is a sinister way of saying, “You can vote if an only if you can afford 2 trips. If not, oh well, sucks to be you.”
Since this is turning out to be much longer than anticipated (some people said my stuff is too long!!!), I will put my chronicles of different conversations I had in a separate post. Pictures from the rally are forthcoming, along with hopefully some scanned versions of some of the handouts I received.
As we approach the third anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush gave a speech yesterday trying to drum up support for the war in Iraq. But if you missed it, don’t worry because we here at Superspade have you covered and will help you understand what Bush said and what he didn’t.
Now before Bush reached the meat of the speech by stating, “Next week will mark the three-year anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” September 11th was mentioned three times. This ladies and gentlemen is known as framing because even back in 2003, Bush told a reporter that “we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.” But Bush knows that were it not for 9/11, he would not have had the almost unquestioned authority to invade Iraq. Therefore, he constantly evokes 9/11 to confuse the public for the real reasons we invaded that country.
But re-read that quote carefully because Bush outlines when victory will be achieved but he fails to let the public know what victory is. This is very troubling because all Bush has to do is change up how and/or when victory is achieved without ever having to be held accountable. In other words, if this idea of when extends beyond Bush’s current term, then he doesn’t have to worry about cleaning up the inevitable mess we created in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush’s three when ideas are all vague and can easily be re-worded but the first point troubles me the most. Bush said, “Victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy.” One of the most troublesome myths I see developing is the idea that once you have democracy, everything else more or less will fall into place. And as we can currently see in Iraq, the Iraqi people seem to vote every four months but the Iraqi government is so inept and corrupt that they are quite adept at messing up things on their own. Therefore, democracy does not equal stable and effective governing just because people vote. But it is easier for Bush to talk about Iraqi democracy instead of the Iraqi government, and for good reason.
But here was the real clincher, once you delete the obligatory greetings and acknowledgements, Bush spent an astonishing 24% of his speech detailing how dangerous Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are to Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians. Now I don’t doubt that IEDs are a major problem in Iraq but its how Bush ended this section that disturbed me the most. He said,
I highlighted “some” because I want you to be aware of how the speech writers wrote “some” into the background. There is no data provided that would help the public understand if “some” is miniscule or catastrophic. And the first sentence says that some of the IEDs include components that came from Iran. I insist on being a stickler for words because components could mean anything from paint to the actual gun powder. But most people who heard that sentence probably understood it to mean that Iran is supplying terrorists with IED components. Now I am not saying Iran is certain of doing this or not, but I am sick and tired of the Administration acting like what they say is as good as gold without providing evidence. Do you remember the yellow cake from Niger?
And in the second sentence, Bush cites the National Director of Intelligence Congressional testimony that Tehran has been helping the Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build IEDs. Can someone help me understand what capabilities Iran is guilty of? Now I know that there are some honest employees that work in the intelligence community but some political appointees distorted the truth to fit their goals. And when you consider how much information comes from torturing suspects, how much can you trust the testimony of Negroponte?
If some IEDs and components were clearly produced in Iran, can I see a receipt, UPC Code, or something that will let me know that when Bush says clearly, he can be trusted?
But here is the bigger picture going on, just pay attention to Bush’s logic;
1) IEDs are the most dangerous and effective tool terrorists use against Coalition troops.
2) Iran has contributed some IEDs and components of IEDs to some Iraqi terrorists
3) Iran supports terrorism and is seeking a nuclear weapons program
4) Therefore, “America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”
This is twisted logic but understand how Bush is making the connections between Iraq and Iran. Do you remember we were in Afghanistan and we invaded Iraq? I remember thinking to myself, “These boys are slick.” Now the same types of innuendos are being used to build the case against Iran. But the common thread here is no supporting evidence. And if you think that it is impossible for Bush to rally a war in Iran, you are sadly mistaken.
We may have been silent because we are all clamoring over the Covenant with Black America that was announced at the State of the Black Union hosted by Tavis Smiley. And I love Tavis Smiley and whenever I turn on the Tom Joyner show, I look forward to hearing his commentary. And when Tavis finishes, Tom Joyner informs us that Tavis’ commentary was sponsored by Wal-Mart. Now if the allegations against Wal-Mart are true that they drive out local businesses, are hostile to their employees in terms of not providing adequate living wages or healthcare, then what does that imply about the potency of Tavis Smiley’s commentaries, given the fact they focus on Black empowerment? And does this say anything about the Covenant with Black America?
And As I stated in the introduction, Andrew Young is spearheading a pro-Wal-Mart group that is at odds with two union-backed groups. I readily admit that sometimes unions can cause more harm than good but that is beside the point for now. The article pointed out that “Young, himself a former union organizer, said he decided to get involved because he believed much of the criticism levied at Wal-Mart by unions was one-sided and wrong.” In Young’s own words he said “The union position is talking about the redistribution of wealth, but they’re not talking about generating new wealth. Wal-Mart is generating new wealth when it comes in.”
For the purposes of this post, I am less concerned with the logic of Andrew Young’s defense of Wal-Mart, but what are the implications of Young being a “public face for the group, giving interviews and publishing opinion articles defending the company.” Now don’t get me wrong, Andrew Young is a bad boy. He is an ordained minister, former US congressman, ambassador to the UN, former mayor of Atlanta, and even helped draft the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1970. And his work as a Civil Rights Activist is fierce. Young was a confidant of Dr. Martin Luther King, and was with him the day he was assassinated. In 1964, Young was named executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. And I could go on and on, but where are we as a people when a civil rights leader with that much clout puts his reputation on the line for Wal-Mart? Is this just a case where businesses need civil rights protection too, or is it a case of selling the richness of our legacy to the highest bidder?
And what do you think Young’s activities will have on Black people’s perception of Wal-Mart? Because not only are Old School Civil Rights leaders (Young) sticking up for Wal-Mart, but New School Civil Rights leaders (Smiley) are as well.
The New York Times Psychology section is arguably its most interesting section. They had a great story today about an experiment that measured the mentality of extremely partisan people. I always thought that people who did things based solely on political party alliances were less than intelligent, but now I have some data to back me up.
From the article:
–
Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.
–
This, in and of itself, is neither a big deal nor surprising. Whenever we hear or read something we enjoy/agree with, we experience pleasure. Whenever we interact with the opposite, we are unhappy about it. This is all well and good, but these thoughtless reactions have potentially catastrophic implications when in the heads of the violent or the influential. It is important that we elect to public office individuals that will think before they act. It bothers me when I see votes in Congress that fall strictly on party lines (the most recent example being the Senate Judiciary Committee’s recommendation in favor of Samuel Alito. A more infamous example of voting without thinking was the vote to pass the USA Patriot Act in 2001. The problem with this thinking (or lack thereof) is clear: acting blindly will never lead to positive outcomes. We need to have representatives in government that are willing to think critically about all of the issues in front of them, if for no other reason than the fact that they represent the hearts and minds of thousands of thinking people who make up their constituencies. It is our responsibility as voters and civic participants to eliminate such individuals from our government. To find who would be eliminated based on this idea, start by going to Project Vote Smart to review the voting records of the politicians that represent you.
If I was going to vote for someone who would only vote the way that party leaders (or any special interest for that matter) dictate, then there would be no use for representative democracy at all. All decision making in this situation would map to the opinions those who spoke for whatever special interest was hot at the time. That is brain dead. Then again, so is a partisan voter. Don’t be that person.
Indivisible is defined as “not separable” or “not multiple of number” (from Encarta). These two complimentary, seemingly simple definitions actually make the concept of “indivisible freedom” somewhat complex. They say that all freedom is equal and that freedom has not concept of granularity. This can true when talking about a group of people in which different people are not equally free. By the indivisible definition, no one in that group is free. But what if they are all free, with free having a different interpretation to different individuals?
Some think of freedom as a multi-faceted or multi-tiered principle: we have many “small” freedoms that add up to make us “free,” in general. A simple example says, “since I can freely choose what I say, where I go, and what I do, then I am a free person.” That is, these decisions are unrestricted. So in a sense, this person in the example has a level of freedom. However, let’s say this person is unable to vote (the are an ex-felon). They have all of the above freedoms, but they do not have the freedom to choose their government. What we’ve just illustrated is “divisible” freedom: being free on one level or in certain respects, while not being free in others. Since this is the case, it is not possible to say conclusively that this person is “free.”
This now brings into the debate the following question: what is an acceptable level of freedom? What is the tipping point at which I transition from not free to free, from not having freedom to having freedom. This, like all other philosophical or political questions, does not grant us the luxury of a definitive answer. In the case described earlier, I would argue that this individual is not free because they are prevented from participating in a fundamental activity that helps to define the society that they live in. Maybe in a place where voting was not an option (e.g. a monarchy), then maybe my opinion would be different.
I disagree with the notion of the existence of “indivisible” freedom in today’s practical world. The article says “freedom exists in a world of trade-offs,” and that is a statement I agree with. Now, the context of that article is the illegal domestic spying courtesy of G.W. Bush, which of course I disagree with given my belief in the link between freedom and privacy, which I will discuss on a later post.
My idea of freedom is one with 2 pieces: individual and communal. I believe that the freedom of an individual should be virtually uninhibited, so long as acting within that freedom does not endanger or harm other individuals. No institution should infringe upon this. This covers my views on the right to choose, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to smoke weed, whatever. Now, with respect to communal freedom, this is something that should be regulated by the masses, or some representative subset of the masses. It would be these people that would basically determine how groups treat groups. Groups can be defined as states, corporations, countries, etc. They would have little say with regards to individual, one-on-one interaction.
The fault of the American system is that the entities of our representative democratic republic are far from representative. They are not representative both on the surface, race, gender, but also ideologically as well. So how do we make the system work? As with most of life’s choices, there are two choices: change the existing system or eliminate it to make room for a new one. These ideas, like freedom, are divisible and are not mutally exclusive. We can alter portions of the government (e.g. the impeachment process) while eliminating others (e.g. the death penalty) simultaneously.
Where ultra-bleeding-heart liberals fall short in their definition of freedom is they neglect the reality that freedom has different definitions to different people. The easiest experiment you can perform to illustrate this notion is to ask a Black person what freedom is, and then ask a white person. You will get two different answers. Therefore, freedom, being a subjective concept, is inherently divisible. Where we must reach common ground is on what is the ideal, optimal level of freedom and equality that we can all enjoy and sustaing peacefully? If that existed, maybe that would be indivisible freedom.
If you are alive and own a television that has a channel other than BET, you may be aware of the ongoing Senate confirmation hearing of Samuel Alito, who has been nominated by your (not my) president, G.W. Bush to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. This, like ALL other matters of government, has direct implication on my life and yours. In case you may not believe me, let’s discuss why.
Being a Supreme Court is a great job for one main reason: it’s a job that you can’t lose! Once you get it, you’re basically stuck with it until you retire or die. Besides being a parent, I can’t think of another job with that level of security. I say all this to say that the nature of a person placed in such a position is very important. The question is, what is the nature of Judge Alito? I’m sure he’s a nice guy, a pleasure to be around or to have lunch with. What is more important is where he stands on certain judicial issues. I has been beaten to death that he would be sympathetic to a overpowering executive (read: king), and that abortion rights are nonexistent in his opinion.
I am more interested in Alito’s stance on issues of discrimination. I am not confident, given his judicial history, that Judge Alito will view the rights of all citizens equally in the same manner that Justice O’Connor did on many occasions (e.g. The University of Michigan Affirmative Action case). Justice O’Connor was important because her “swing” vote often came down on the side of civil liberties and civil rights. Judge Alito, with his decisions like the one in Williams v. Price. The Congressional Black Caucus, while I don’t agree with the financial practices of their foundation, is right on this one, as noted here.
I have been watching these hearings very closely. You can see them live on C-Span.org. Pay close attention to where Democratic AND Republican Senators stand on this nomination. Pay close attention to whether ANY of the Senators even mention Alito’s past decisions that have had racial implications. If they neglect to address these issues of Alito’s judicial philosophy, are they just as bad as he?
Democracy Now! has a story today, interviewing Harold Wilson, a former death row inmate that was exonerated after 17 years due to DNA evidence. I made my stance on capital punishment pretty clear here, but this story is actually a lot deeper han the death penalty.
The most interesting part of his story, in my opinion, is the way in which he was released. He said he was released with:
“…the clothes on his back, 65 cents, and a token.” Translation: he was released with nothing,REPEAT, NOTHING!!!!!WHAT?!?!?! Why do we do innocent people this way after they have been wronged by the state? Why do we do guilty people this way after they have ‘paid their debt to society?’
This is yet another problem with the prison system in this country. For those of us familiar with the Prison-Industrial Complex, the fact that people want to do everything in their power to get as many people imprisoned as possible. What I don’t understand is why perpetuators of the complex don’t buy into re-entry programs. That actually could be a nice revenue growth opportunity for them, but I digress.
Since they don’t pay attention to prisoners (innocent or otherwise), we should. If the purpose of prison is punitive, then it would only be fair/just to restore a person after their punishment period has passed. Why is it that the system is so petty that it seeks to disenfranchise individuals beyond incarceration? By the system, I mean society in general and the government.
Society
I believe that there are certain aspects in your life that are your business. I also believe that there are certain aspects of your life in which society should be available to help you, should you so choose. In the cases of individuals exiting the criminal justice system, I feel that society has a responsibility to these people to ease their transition back into the mainstream. This means having things set up for people who just got out of jail that serve as legitimate alternatives to attitudes, lifestyles, and situations that could have contributed to their incarceration. Programs like this exist currently (an example being Detroit’s Partners For Succes Program), but they are under most peoples radar and criminally underfunded. Prison re-entry is an unfortunate reality for many Black men in this country, and instead of burying our heads in the sand and casting away these brothers [the way that others do], Black people should support these people. Help them find affordable housing. Help them with resumes. Help them find work. Help them by providing healthy friendships. All of us know individuals that are currently or at one time have been jailed. We can and must serve these people. Now, I’m not saying higher a bank robber at your brokerage firm. I am saying befriend a bank robber and communicate to that person that there are different choices available to them.
Government
Why do convicts have to jump through hoops to vote, and in some cases are no longer able to vote after their sentences are up? Why won’t companies hire ex-cons? Why are people who have been jailed not provided with concrete systems of re-enstatement? The answers to all of these questions lie in the fundamental flaw of American criminal justice. Our system is not rehabilitative, and it never has been. Don’t believe it when anyone says that. If it was, maybe Stanley Williams would be alive. Once you understand this, it starts to make sense why people are not treated equally after they have been in prison. Further, if one is already at a societal disadvantage (read: Black), and then has jail time in their past on top of that, then they are usually treated with even more contempt.
Because of this, it is up to us as a people to unite behind ALL of our people. As a responsible community member, we need to pay attention to unique needs of all indviduals within that community. I don’t consider brothers and sisters who have server prison time as community exiles. As a result, I serve them as I serve anyone else.
We don’t need a program to get the ball rolling. Start small. Fellowship with one person you know who is in jail or has been. Learn about their life and their experiences pre, during, and post prison. Building these relationship will create the foundation upon which solutions to re-entry hardhips for individuals everywhere.
The House has approved extensions to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is not one of those pieces of legislation that is just there to make Congress look like they are “earning” their pay. It is actually the most sinister act of the Bush administration. I said it. To me, this is worse than the Iraq war, worse than G.W.’s vacations, worse than his Social Security plan, worse than his “war-time” tax cuts, worse than it all.
This is arguably the largest infringement on civil liberties since the Jim Crow laws of the late 1800s. My feelings for this are too many to enumerate here, but they can be summed up quite simply and concisely.
If a piece of legislation is positive and has merit, why would we set a sunset to provisions of that legislation? This works for both sides of the argument. If the Voting Rights Act of 1965* was legitimate and indicative of how the people and the government truly felt, why did it have an expiration date? Laws are not perishable goods – well, good ones should not be. The only reason you enact something temporarily is because you do not totally agree with or like it and are pandering to some other party, or that you know it is wrong. The Voting Rights Act is in the “pandering” bucket. The Patriot Act is in the “wrong” bucket.
* Please note that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does have certain important provisions that will need to be extended/made permanent over the next few years. However, contrary to popular opinion, even in the relatively unlikely event that those specific provisions are not extended, people will not lose their right to vote as a result. I hate when people don’t do their homework. SuperSpades cannot be ignorant.
The Detroit News ran this story today entitled “Unlikely voters pick Kilpatrick,” which described the Mayor’s effectiveness in mobilizing “uncommon” voters. To be clear, an “uncommon” voter is defined here as one how has never or has rarely voted in the past (excluding 1st time voters).
The story drives home an important point for all those who are interested in the electoral process: inspiring action will lead to victory, whereas inspiring apathy leads to defeat. An example used in the story is a middle-aged, unemployed, “uncommon” voter. This man should have been chomping at the bit to vote for the challenger, but instead he cast his ballot in favor of the incumbent. Why? I say it’s because he was inspired enough to say that I want to give this guy another chance, and not willing to take his chances on not voting (remaining “uncommon”) and letting other citizens decide who his Mayor would be.
All candidates care about mobilizing their “base,” their core of supporters who back them no matter what. Truly effective campaigning, however, is about reaching far beyond that to form relationships with what this article terms “unlikely voters.” It’s easy to get people excited about something or someone they are already excited about. The challenged is inciting that same passion in the otherwise uninterested.
As I’ve stated in this blog before, I support the Mayor in his second term. I applaud the efforts by his team to mobilize Detroiters to vote. I see the recount as an activity that will solidify the already certified victory. I am encouraged through conversations with the Mayor that he will not be on our list next year to be the incumbent people vote against.
This post and the Third Parties and Independents WatchBlog got me thinking critically about voting. True, it doesn’t take much to get me thinking about politics, but this is kind of interesting.
Every election, there is at least one candidate running as the ‘reform’ candidate. This is the individual who wishes to be the antithesis to of the status quo. Most of the time these attempts are one part admirable, one part arguable. When choosing between X number of people, none of whom you trust, does it matter which one poisons your kool-aid?
Now, I may have (partially) disproved the point of this point just now. Let’s call that intellectual responsibility and due diligence. But I think it is an interesting concept worth debating. What if everybody that was so pissed off about everything that happens everywhere staged civic revolution? Sounds like something the ‘activists’ may want to consider. It could be attractive and effective since it is not partisan at all. It is a vote for an update.
How you choose which non-incumbent to vote for would be up to you. The only commitment would be to vote against the incumbent. Everybody could win, in theory, because any way you slice it, “a change gon’ come.” (Thank you Sam Cook)
Not sayin’ I’m all in for this strategy, but I think it may be worth discussing. I think I know of a group at Michigan that could determine if the idea has legitimacy or not. Big ups HEADS.
Props to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for presenting a resolution on getting a timetable to get the troops out of Iraq. Unfortunately, the Republicans changed the spirit of the resolution to say that we should pull out the troop immediately. Of course, this was not Murtha’s intention and it was not passed. But as a decorated Veteran and noted hawkish Democrat, Murtha’s comments has caused an uproar in the political climate concerning this invasion (war is really a misnomer).
But here’s the catch. On Meet the Press, he went on to say that he made a mistake for voting for the war. Even John Edwards penned an article claiming that he regrets his vote to authorize war. But on Meet the Press, I was ashamed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who distanced themselves from Murtha’s comments. This week, TIME and the mainstream establishment will make sure to paint Murtha as a flip-flopper (Murtha voted for the war) and at the same time, make the push that we should stay in Iraq. But in all honesty, what good will come from our staying in Iraq? Especially when the political will is rapidly declining and almost three years into this war, the public still questions if and how the President misled the country into this war. That is insane people! As Murtha put it, our presence in Iraq is only going to make the situation worse. Bush often says, “as Iraqi stand up we will stand down.” But as nice as this sounds, the future of Iraq and many American lives are in the hands of Iraqis. So if our success is based on what the Iraqis do or don’t do, how can we say whether we are successful or not? This war is out of our hands, literally and figuratively.
In a figurative sense, Bush is going to have to go to Iraq and drive around in an unarmored Humvee with guns blazing just to show that he believes we should stay in Iraq. But seriously, with the 2006 elections fast approaching, we have reached a breaking point in this war. When politicians are able and willing to say “I was wrong,” that is especially poignant. And it is only a matter of time before other Democrats and some Republicans start saying the same thing. And when they do, the Congress will wrest control of this war from this President and find a way out of Iraq so they can keep their seat. Shout out to John Murtha!
The Washington Post ran a story Sunday about the changing DoJ Civil Rights Division. In summary, the article is informing us that over the last year, the Civil Rights Division has been losing veteran lawyers and handling less “Civil Rights” cases. That means that instead of working on Equal Opportunity Employment breeches, they have been spending time on immigration matters. Now, I’m not against immigration, but I do believe that if the division is spending 40% less of its time handling the types of cases it was created to be involved in, then there are some serious issues present.
Nevertheless, this has been the case over the past 5 years. Since I believe wholeheartedly in coincidences, I’m going to refer to it as a coincidence that the change in focus of the division as well as its personnel bleeding have nothing to do with the current administrations attitudes towards Civil Rights. Right. The two are unrelated.
Let’s pretend, however unjustifiably, for a few seconds that it is not a coincidence. Then, maybe, I would not be suprised to see that the Civil Rights Division would need to shift focus away from issues such as intimidation of minority voters and disenfranchisement of low-income Americans. Had the Civil Rights Division served its historical purpose, there may have been real investigation at the federal level into the attrocity that became Election Day 2000. I wonder how this administration feels about Sen. Obama’s new voter intimidation legislation? We can’t possibly waste precious resources in the Civil Rights Division prosecuting individuals based on that; there are too many immigrants to harass.
I digress. Instead, lets go down a more pratical road. The SuperSpade is about practicality. How does this information point to personal action(s) that can be taken? This, to me, adds to the infinite list of reasons why voting is important. Brothers and Sisters, all of us who have had illegitimate run-ins with law enforcement, or know someone who has, feels as though their Civil Rights have been violated. Students wanting to attend non-HBCUs that were refused admissions due to factors outside of their control feel as though their Civil Rights have been violated. Individuals who never recieved call-backs, job interviews, or job offers due to the nature, spelling, or pronunciation of their names feel as though their Civil Rights have been violated. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Civil Rights Division on 9 December 1957. This office was established to address issues discussed earlier in this paragraph. Granted, as times change, the definitions of Civil Rights expand, but I am not a fan of the core focus being forgotten. We need our people to be proactive and work towards electing to our representative democratic government individuals that represent our views. Anyone who has encountered the above and didn’t like it has concrete evidence as to why they need real representation.
The age old problem, however, is the “my candidate lost, so what’s the point now” phenomena. Let me offer a suggestion through a simple analogy. Anyone who cooks (especially as badly as I do) knows that it’s hit-or-miss. When what I attempt to prepare does not come out as intended, I am presented with two options: throw it away, or work with it. Lets examine both options:
1. Throw it away
I can discard my food and therefore invalidate the time it took to prepare it, the resources it took to gather the ingredients, etc. This does, however, afford me the opportunity to start over again from scratch. However, I will again need to set aside the needed time and ingredients to prepare the meal a second time; a situation that may or may not be possible now. Not to mention, this effectively makes the meal twice as expensive.
2. Work with it
It doesn’t taste good. Why not? Is it bland? Add some salt. Is it cold? Put it in the microwave. If you were not able to get what you wanted on the front end, you can work with it on the back end until you have something edible.
The same logic applies to voting, or any other form of positive action. If your candidate loses, you have the same options: you can throw your hands up in the air and give up. This way, you’ll end up pissed off because you got racially profiled, again, and have no real legal representation, agian. Or you can work on improving your current situation despite them, while at the same time building up a stronger opponent to the now incumbent to challenge them in the future (which could turn out to be you). Black folks are better than any people on the planet at being triumphant in the face 0f adversity. Why give up because the person you voted for lost. We have more heart than that.
About The SuperSpade
The SuperSpade: Black Thought at the Highest Level, is a forum that presents critical, intellectual perspectives on the current issues, seeking to elevate the level of Black political thought. The goal of this space is to provide actionable commentary on social, political, and personal issues affecting the daily ... Continue reading »
.
