Left Behind: Backdrop to a National Crisis - Hurricane Katrina

by Dr. Peniel E. Joseph, Harvard University and Brandeis University

The tragic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is the most recent expression of the deepening crisis of the American state in the age of globalization. This crisis of the American state is intimately connected to a series of events and political trends in the post-Cold War era. The most notable examples of these recurring circle of crises in recent years were embodied in the 2000 presidential election, the disturbing gap between rich and poor, growing disaffection of the American electorate, and the domination of information and knowledge by the power elite. Until the arrival of Katrina, the most obvious manifestations of these dangers were reflected in the twin crises of the national security state in post-9/11 America, and the American invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation since 2002. Despite its ferocious rage, Katrina is not solely responsible for the untold devastation that was visited on the poor people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region. She is only guilty of exposing the cynicism of an American political system that allows masses of the poor, especially the black poor, to endure lives of quiet desperation amid a land of plenty. As in all monumental events, Katrina has a context. While mindful of the significance of its more recent national and global trends, Katrina has a deeper context in the marginalization of the black poor in the history of American public policy, as well as in the American imagination.

The recent disaster in New Orleans and the larger Gulf Coast region has, in addition to inflicting incalculable horrors on the region in the form of death and misery, opened up the vortex of race, class, and citizenship that provides a backdrop to this unfolding national crisis. Sluggish federal response, a president lacking the political will to convey the breadth of the catastrophe, corporate media reports that characterized the black poor as savages while portraying their white counterparts as struggling innocents, and the Louisiana Governor's hysterical threats to shoot "looters" bring these contradictions into sharp focus. Collectively, the masses of the black poor in New Orleans have waited much longer for government intervention than the agonizing hours and days it took to persuade government officials that the crisis was too overwhelming to ignore. The direct descendants of enslaved Africans, African Americans in New Orleans have lived and died, fought and struggled, and, often waited lifetimes for help that never came.

The death and devastation in New Orleans, a city that is two-thirds black, with a poverty line that hovers above thirty percent (84% of whom are black), represents the contemporary face of racism. Hurricane Katrina's assault on the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the African American community throws into sharp relief recent debates over black poverty, civil rights, and individual responsibility triggered by comedian Bill Cosby's controversial comments that decried the decline of community values, family structure, and individual responsibility among the black poor. In Katrina's immediate aftermath federal officials echoed Cosby's indictment of the black poor. They also openly questioned why those left behind had stayed in their homes in the face of Mayor Nagin's evacuation order. Why didn't they leave sooner? Because they couldn't. In an economic climate where, despite soaring oil prices and middle-class anxiety, Americans consider the ownership of ever expanding homes and gas guzzling SUV's a personal right, it's easy to forget those left behind during these prosperous times. But for all too many African Americans, the denial of adequate public education and professional opportunities to participate in American prosperity has a familiar ring to it. In an era where too many Americans congratulate themselves on the size of the black middle-class, the number of prominent black political figures, and the wealth of black entrepreneurs, the pitiful lives of the black poor goes rarely acknowledged and remains invisible.

African Americans in New Orleans represent the latest generation of blacks to live in shelter unfit for human beings, attend schools that do not educate, and be viewed by black elites and white politicians as undeserving Americans. Over a century ago the great African American intellectual W.E.B. Du Bois, in his pioneering study, The Philadelphia Negro, investigated the miserable living conditions of blacks in Philadelphia and concluded that racist public policy, not racial malingering, conspired to trap blacks in the inner city. Du Bois' intervention went unheeded during much of the first half of twentieth century America as waves of blacks migrated to big cities in the North, Midwest, and West. Confined to racially and economically segregated "ghettos," black urban development during and after the First and Second World Wars, was contoured by public policy (most notably the New Deal) that effectively prevented African Americans from enjoying the massive wealth transfers and subsidies (in housing, the GI Bill, etc.) that facilitated the baby boomers' entrée into America's postwar middle-class. Of course, it wasn't just northern cities (or urban areas for that matter) that were short-changed. Urban rebellions during the 1960s transcended regionalism. Although they are popularly remembered as having taken place in Harlem, Detroit, Newark, and Watts, the rebellions expanded the devastating nexus of race, class, crime, education, and poverty that would grip the 1970s. To add insult to injury, American social scientists largely ignored the long history of racial discrimination and policy exclusion that (along with deindustrialization and globalization) led to urban crises during the 1970s and 1980s and labeled urban America's most desperate residents as the "underclass." These are the African Americans who were left behind to die in New Orleans. In a different era, Black Power activists such as Huey P. Newton described this group as "brothers on the block" while Malcolm X characterized them as "Field Negroes."

Perhaps it is fitting that one of the most eloquent defenses of black people--and by extension, of American democracy and the very meaning of citizenship--has come from rap artist Kanye West, whose improvisational critique during an NBC hurricane telethon ("George Bush does not care about black people.") placed the spotlight on the media's hypocrisy and the White House's blatant callousness. Hip Hop, afterall, was borne out of the crucible of America's urban crisis, producing a generation of black and brown youth who know, against all odds, that their lives are worth living and saving. While Katrina has unleashed a national crisis, it also presents Americans of all colors with a tremendous opportunity. If the nation ever needed to be reminded of what's at stake when we discuss "race relations," this is no longer the case. Chester Himes once said that "A fighter fights, and a writer writes." Now is the time for progressives, radicals, and humanists of all stripes to do both.

Dr. Peniel E. Joseph is a Tenured Associate Professor at Brandeis University. He is also a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University. For more information, please visit penielejoseph.com.

Marc Lamont Hill: A Breakdown of the Stop Snitching Movement

by Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University

Over the past year, the hip-hop community has come under intense scrutiny and criticism for the wildly popular "Stop Snitching" campaign. The movement, which has been accompanied by a flurry of t-shirts, songs, websites, and DVDs, is ideologically grounded in the belief that people should not cooperate with law enforcement authorities under any circumstances. In addition, Lil Kim's 2005 conviction and one year prison sentence for obstruction of justice, Cam'ron's refusal to help police find the person who shot him during an attempted robbery in October 2005, Busta Rhymes' and Tony Yayo's refusal to speak to police about the February 2006 murder of Rhymes' bodyguard Israel Ramirez at a video shoot, and the now infamous "Stop Snitching" DVD featuring NBA star Carmelo Anthony, have all increased the recent amount of public attention paid to the centuries-old politics of snitching. In response to the "Stop Snitching" campaign, community organizations, politicians, and law enforcement agencies have mounted a full-fledged counter-movement, informally titled "Start Snitching", designed to encourage the hip-hop generation to cooperate with authorities when criminal acts are committed.

To be certain, the issue of snitching is neither restricted to nor rooted in hip-hop culture. Within most American communities, reporting other people's bad acts is a practice that is strongly discouraged. Judaic, Islamic, and Christian laws all speak negatively about backbiting and gossip. Mantras like "don't be a tattle tale" and "snitches get stitches" serve as early childhood reminders for many Americans, irrespective of race and class, of the moral and pragmatic consequences that accompany snitching. Prominent white Americans like New York Times writer Judith Miller, who recently came under attack from her neo-conservative comrades for failing to expose Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have paid dearly (multi-million dollar book deals notwithstanding) for their commitments to secrecy. Even the police, who are among the strongest opponents of the "Stop Snitching" movement, have a 'blue code' of silence that protects them from internal snitches. Nevertheless, the hip-hop community has absorbed the brunt of the public attack on snitching, with little effort given to examining the unique significance of snitching within urban communities.

While critics dismiss the "Stop Snitching" campaign as a rejection of civic responsibility that further verifies dominant public beliefs about the moral incompetence of the hip-hop generation, a closer analysis reveals a much more complicated set of issues that have gone unaddressed. In its a priori dismissal of the "Stop Snitching" campaign, the general public has failed to acknowledge the moral complexity and legitimacy of an anti-snitching position. In all fairness, this is partially the fault of the hip-hop industry itself, which has marketed "Stop Snitching" in ways that undermine any claims to moral authority by not placing any conditions or caveats on its pleas for silence. While it is certainly problematic to condemn all acts of communication with authorities, it is equally shortsighted and irresponsible to advocate an absolute pro-snitching position.

The act of snitching necessarily creates a social and ethical quagmire in which an individual must sacrifice one set of loyalties for another. More specifically, the potential snitch is forced to choose between competing ethical codes and social commitments when making their decision. Often, this process entails deciding between locally defined rules and larger, more official ones. For example, Lil' Kim's refusal to identify her crew members as assailants during a shootout at the Hot 97 radio station was an anti-snitching gesture that privileged her friendship bonds and street ethics over the established laws of the land regarding obstruction of justice. While it is tempting to condemn all such acts on moral or ethical grounds — in this case, arguing that Kim should have protected the interests of the assaulted and not those of the assailants — it is necessary to consider the validity and value of the particular rules and issues at stake on a case-by-case basis. It is also important to understand the various ways that snitching is considered and discussed within the context of hip-hop culture.

Dry Snitching
Dry snitching is one of the most common practices within contemporary hip-hop culture. The term emerged from prison culture to describe an inmate who, in an effort to avoid a confrontation, would talk loudly or otherwise draw attention to himself in order to attract a nearby correctional officer. This is done as a way of "snitching without snitching". Dry snitching also refers to the act of implicating someone else, intentionally or unintentionally, while speaking to an authority figure. Dry snitches are typically considered to be weak, naive, passive aggressive, or self-centered, all of which present ethical and practical dilemmas that must be weighed when discussing the practice of snitching.

For example, before channeling Tupac and becoming America's thug de jour, 50 Cent was a struggling rapper attempting to make a name for himself on the underground scene. In a 2000 song "Ghetto Quran", 50 named and described many of New York's most notorious drug dealers, including Pappy Mason, Rich Porter, Fat Cat, Prince, and Kenneth "Supreme" McGriff. The song earned 50 many enemies in New York's crime underworld, who were angry at the precarious legal position in which they believed 50's public disclosures might have placed them. It was this anger, according to the federal prosecutors involved in Chris and Irv Gotti's recent trial that led to 50's May 2000 shooting. To many observers, 50's sonic, dry snitching revelations undermined the very ghetto authenticity that the song was intended to evince.

Another example of dry snitching occurred in 2003, when Kobe Bryant was arrested on rape charges. While being interrogated, Bryant freely disclosed potentially embarrassing aspects of teammate Shaquille O'Neal's personal life in order to gain favor with Colorado police. According to the Los Angeles Times, Kobe reportedly told the officers that he should have followed Shaq's example and paid the woman not to say anything, adding that Shaq had already spend over one million dollars for those purposes. While some attributed this slip-up to Kobe's inexperience in such situations — one of the reasons that the suburban bred Kobe will never reach the ghetto superstar status of his generational peer, Allen Iverson, despite his extravagantly calculated gestures — others saw it as a passive aggressive act against his not so secret rival.

More recently, Karrine "Superhead" Steffans released her bestselling memoir, Confessions of a Video Vixen (Amistad, 2005) in which she exposes the underside of the hip-hop industry. In offering her self-proclaimed "cautionary tale", Steffans also names numerous celebrities with whom she engaged in sexual encounters. While many people expressed disgust for her exploits — unfortunately, few people expressed similar disgust for the promiscuity of the men with whom she shared the trysts — others were more disturbed at the embarrassment that the book caused in the lives of her former partners, many of whom were married.

The motivations and morality of each of these acts of snitching are debatable. Did Kobe "out" Shaq out of innocent fear, or was it a disturbing display of schadenfreude? Was 50 ratting out the underworld elite, or merely paying homage? Is Steffans confessing her sins, or selling out her former running buddies? If we assume that all three of these people were not attempting to harm anyone else, is it okay for them to report someone else's misdeeds? Even if each of them were to admit that they had the worst intentions at heart, do they have any commitment to the people with whom they shared implicit or explicit compacts? Does this commitment change if they now believe the agreements to be immoral? While these questions are not easily answerable (if at all), they suggest that an anti-snitching position can be a legitimate and sophisticated response to dilemmas such as these.

Perhaps the most dangerous form of snitching that takes place in urban spaces is wet (also known as hard) snitching. Unlike dry snitching, which maintains a degree of indirection and unawareness, wet snitching occurs when an individual acts as a government informant in order to eliminate or reduce his or her own legal liability. Given the nature of most commercial anti-snitching messages — for example, recent t-shirts contain quotes like "I'll Never Tell" and "Niggas Just Lookin' For A Deal" — wet snitching is both the most reviled and relevant form within hip-hop culture.

While informants have always played a critical role in the government's surveillance, infiltration, and destruction of countless progressive social organizations, informants have become increasingly central to the prosecution of ordinary citizens. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, nearly 40 percent of drug trafficking prosecutions that resulted in sentences of 10 years or more (a population in which blacks and Latinos are grossly overrepresented) were directly connected to the contributions of informants. While at first glance this type of data may signal progress in the government's ostensible war against crime, a closer look reveals both moral and practical shortcomings.

Carmelo Anthony, right, appears in a video titled Stop Snitching — photo from Who's a Rat message board

While the practice of snitching has drastically increased the amount of drug arrests and convictions, it has also undermined the overall well being of America's most economically and politically vulnerable communities. According to Loyola professor Alexandra Natapoff, who published a groundbreaking 2004 article, "Snitching: The institutional and Communal Consequences", mandatory (and, I would argue, race targeted) drug sentencing laws, combined with the reduction of judicial flexibility have created tens of thousands of snitches who are mainly operating within poor, crime ridden neighborhoods. While snitching does not only occur within black and Latino communities, such areas are particularly susceptible, since one out of every four black and one out of every eight Latinos between 20 and 29 are under criminal supervision at any time. Given this reality, it is not surprising that, according to Natapoff, one out of every four young blacks are under pressure to snitch at any time. It is also not surprising that one out of 12 black men currently function as snitches within their communities in exchange for reduced criminal liability and continued police "protection".

At a moment when civil liberties are in jeopardy for all Americans due to the Patriot Act and sophisticated forms of domestic spying, the proliferation of snitches creates a new set of problems for ghetto denizens. Increased violence, sustained crime rates, growing distrust of fellow citizens (imagine going to the basketball court, barbershop, or the local bar knowing that one in twelve people in your community — and possibly that guy sitting right next to you — is a government informant), destruction of positive community-police relationships, and the invasion of privacy for law-abiding citizens are all consequences of the ghetto snitch industry. Instead of merely enabling the drug culture's foot soldiers to "flip" on big bosses (the expressed governmental intent of wet snitching), the current system often allows everyone to trade information for leniency, not least because the government is drowning in overstocked dockets and the criminals are masterful manipulators of the truth.

Indeed, in addition to fracturing communities with their deeds, snitches are notoriously unreliable in their testimony. To satisfy the conditions of their agreements, settle personal scores, or support their own criminal activity (which must be sustained in order to continue procuring information for the government — how's that for a catch-22?), snitches often manufacture stories and falsely accuse friends, family, neighbors, and rivals of criminal acts. According to the Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions, nearly half of the nation's wrongful death penalty convictions are due to the information provided by snitches.

It has become increasingly apparent that the practice of snitching is undergirded by tragically flawed public policies that have vicious effects on the stability and integrity of black and Latino communities. Given this reality, it is no wonder that many within the hip-hop community have openly rejected the practice of snitching. Unfortunately, the "no snitching" code, now appropriated as a fashion statement, has often been articulated without critical nuance and has resulted in an extremist position that betrays its own inherent complexity.

Snitching vs. Witnessing
In order to fully understand the legitimacy of the "Stop Snitching" movement within hip-hop, it is important to make a distinction between snitching and witnessing. While witnessing can be rightly considered a necessary civic practice in order to create and sustain safe communities, snitching is itself an act of moral turpitude. While a witness is an asset to truth and justice, the snitch is motivated primarily or entirely by self-interest. While witnesses are committed to upholding social contracts, snitches inevitably undermine them. Given this distinction, it seems that the bulk of the public outcry in favor of snitching is actually a plea for witnesses.

In building their case, anti-snitching pundits often cite instances in which acts of random or unnecessary violence go unpunished due to the public's refusal to act responsibly. A classic example of this "Bad Samaritan" behavior occurred in 1997 when seven-year-old Sherrice Iverson was molested and strangled in a Las Vegas bathroom stall by Jeremy Strohmeyer. Although Strohmeyer eventually confessed to the crime, police were unaided by his friend David Cash, who acknowledged witnessing the event but did not feel compelled to notify authorities.

While the public disgust and rejection of Cash's acts were nearly unanimous, such examples often serve as straw arguments — even the most ardent anti-snitching voices would condemn Cash's decision — that obscure more legitimate and commonplace moral dilemmas. For example, what should Cash have done if he had caught Strohmeyer stealing chips from the casino or smoking marijuana instead of assaulting the young girl? In this instance, the necessity of acting as a witness becomes more debatable. The potential reasons for this shift in sentiment are varied: a lack of deference for the particular laws that protect gambling establishments, a collective distrust of the particular casino or the casino industry, a lack of interest in punishing recreational drug use (they may smoke marijuana, as well), or fear of repercussions from the offender. For these and many other reasons, many people would opt to "mind my own business" under such circumstances. Like the hip-hop community, the larger American public makes decisions about snitching based on their own level of commitment to particular rules, laws, and groups, as well as their consideration of the particular stakes attached to intervening. We all make this decision to some degree or another, many times in our lives.

The Final Verdict
The most prominent critiques of the "Stop Snitching" campaign represent yet another failure of the general public to acknowledge the depth and truth-value of the hip-hop community's social commentary. Upon closer examination, an anti-snitching posture is a response to a set of circumstances, some unique and others universal, that many members of the hip-hop generation face. Clearly, the complexity of these circumstances cannot be adequately addressed through an "either-or" position on snitching. By advocating snitching under all circumstances, we ignore the moral dilemmas that are part and parcel of the practice. Also, we ascribe a level of unearned trust and moral authority to formal institutions, such as the government, despite its consistent indifference to the well being of its most defenseless citizens.

Conversely, by not articulating the particular rules and conditions under which snitching is highly problematic, the hip-hop community creates the conditions for a fundamentalist reading of a "don't talk to cops" social text. Surely this can lead to the type of moral irresponsibility and social decline that snitching advocates believe already exists. The solution, then, rests upon our ability to cease looking for simple answers to complex issues and begin the difficult work of open, engaged, and public dialogue about both snitching and witnessing.

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill is an Assistant Professor of Urban Education at Temple University. He is a columnist for Your Black World and does regular commentary for CNN, FOX, BET and other networks. For more information, please visit www.marclamonthill.com.

Happy Birthday Malcolm

by Dr. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton University

I am part of the generation — the post civil-rights generation, post-black power generation — that turned Malcolm X into a T-shirt and cap. He was our symbol of racial discontent and political angst. Though we did not live through the brutal repression of Jim Crow, we knew for ourselves, in our own way, the effects of racial inequality. We saw the systematic destruction of urban communities, the incarceration of our peers, the violence and drugs that ravaged our neighborhoods. We knew that even the new opportunities and unprecedented accomplishments that previous generations made possible for us were often marked by racial isolation and insults.

We met Malcolm through the prism of popular culture, and we embraced him as a commodity, to signal our own disbelief in the American dream.

On Malcolm X’s birthday, those of us who embraced him as a pop icon need to encounter him again. We need to revisit Malcolm, because he has resisted all of our attempts to craft a single, well-packaged, vision of him. We need to unpack the things about him that remain elusive, difficult, messy and challenging.

We need to pause to think about him, because he left, for us, important social and political lessons.

Though Malcolm’s life was short, it was marked by dramatic change. He was born into poverty, madness and racial violence. His youthful arrogance, crime and indulgence led him to jail. But prison was no end for him; through a religious and political awakening, he found freedom in the context of imprisonment. He became an organization man, an orator, a world citizen and a free thinker with a cosmopolitan vision of the world.

Malcolm displayed the capacity to learn, to grow, to discern and to change direction. It takes courage to admit that society’s approach to old subjects has grown rigid and needs to evolve and change. It is hard for leaders to admit that they have been wrong in the past. His life is a reminder that greatness is not found in arrogant self-righteousness or intellectual hubris, but in the willingness to be open to our own limitations.

Malcolm also reminds us that the movement is more important than the man. He was fiercely loyal to the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, who was the conduit of his political awakening, the author of his adult manhood, the embodiment of his idea of the sacred, and his dear and beloved friend. But when Malcolm came to believe that his mentor was abusing power in a way that threatened to destroy the very principles that he embraced, he made the difficult choice to walk away from the Nation of Islam.

Many in the post-civil rights generation have yearned for their own history-defining, charismatic leader. But Malcolm’s struggle to make his own authentic, political contribution reminds us that ideals are more important than personalities. Progressive political movements that engender lasting change are always bigger than the flawed human beings who lead them. The goal is to invest our energies and efforts in the movement itself rather than in blind loyalty to any single figure. Malcolm reminds us that we must always lead, even as we follow.

There is nothing new under the sun...

Brothers and all,

It appears that our brother Boyce has informed us that O'Reilly is on the war path against us and he is making YBW a major point of attack on his show. His show may attack the point of YBW this evening or it may be over a period of evenings. I cannot say I watch his show, I have seen it on t.v. a few times. I have seen his rants on more than a few occasions toward a variety of people and I always thought of his show, like many of the Fox shows as humanistically pointless, but in the market culture profitable. Why else would it still be on the air? But since Mr. O'Reilly wants to target us, let me move myself into the line of fire.

Mr. O'Reilly needs to know who he may be throwing stones at so let us begin with me. I am Dr. Cyrus Marcellus Ellis a PhD holder in Counselor Education from Mr. Jefferson's University, The University of Virginia. I am an American patriot, serving in the United States Army, United States Army Reserve and the New Jersey National Guard for 20 years of my life as an enlisted man and an Army Officer. I retired from service in 2004. I am drug free and crime free although I have my vices. I spend my days and nights trying to figure out ways to help humankind recover from drugs and alcohol as well as a host of mental health disorders. I earned my right to be tenured and I earned my right to speak to the glory and the sadness of my nation. I earned that right by maintaining the responsibilities of citizenship and through my military service. In other words, I have the right to gripe because of my adherence to the contradictory ecological reality of the U.S. and my capability as a United States soldier. Many people on the "Factor" do not have the ability to state their background in this fashion and the host may be one of them.

Why does Mr. O'Reilly want to target the letters posted here? Is it because he likes to engage in this kind of behavior for ratings, to show he is "tough", because he is bored at this point in time? I don't know. I offer this thought about this show, the time African Americans are spending on it and what is most important.

First, Mr. O'Reilly's show is like many shows on t.v. that I think ought to say goodbye from poisoning the minds of many people with quick sound bytes and skewed views. I dislike the show, The O'Reilly Factor or whatever it is called as much as I dislike the show, The Flava of love. We ought to be equally angry and dismayed that
VH1 would air shows like this showing our men and women as a bunch of loose moralled individuals. This "O'Reilly Show" does not help the struggling masses of our poor white brothers and sisters as well. White brothers and sisters work hard and are struggling and what relief, but does the O'Reilly show do anything about that, not at all. Rather it gives them a false sense of "relief" because they can point to an issue that is tangible while they are continuing to be robbed of their pensions, gas money, and grocery bills by individuals who will shake their hands and promise relief then go behind doors and make deals that undermine hard work and fairness.

Second, in my opinion, African Americans ought to spend their time on relieving the oppression in the market place, eroding the barriers to formal and higher education, and spending a great deal of time on getting young folk re-interested in the life of the mind and filling the ranks of all the available spots in education. We ought to spending our time teaching our young men to be fathers and providers and teaching our young ladies increase their ability to recognize that their bodies are not tools of a trade but the vessel that will deliver the human capital of a new generation. We already know that VH1, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS and others do not seek to improve the race. We need to recognize that grass roots activity, especially if coordinated, forces the hand of the idiotic and oppressive conditions of our world to change.

Third, what is most important is that we have a nation of fractured communities. We have lost a lot of how hard working, God fearing, moral, just people (whatever one you are) get together and live in a high degree of harmony. The working poor, the hard hit middle class still carry the burden of taxation that fuels the nation's policy without any relief in sight. How do we spend our time worrying about one man, or a number of mixed up t.v. execs who exploit every cultural thing that exist so that "green" money can be made no matter the color of those who are exploited, ask Miley Cyrus.

All news programs need to move in a direction that asks a nation how is it that the lives of my brethren, U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are paying for two countries with their lives, the American taxpayers are paying for the 95% (+) of the financial bill all the while we are paying the cost at our gas pumps and in our grocery stores. We know Al Qaeda is stronger in Afghanistan, our own intel people say they have the ability to strike us again-if they want to, yet we are five years into a war that was supposed to stop the very thing that has happened, but yet O'Reilly and others want to spend time on YBW. This is why I say there is nothing new under the sun.

I believe Washington, D.C. folk call it "wag the dog". When real issues are in your face, wag the dog, bomb another country, travel to Israel, don't talk to your conservative friends and hold them accountable, attack negroes, women, feminists, gay people because you have the pulpit to do so. Preachers do it, politicians do it, talk show hosts do it, many people do it...nothing new under the sun.

Y'all think about it...

Peace
/////////////////////////////////
Dr. Cyrus Marcellus Ellis is an associate, tenured professor of Counselor Education at Governors State University. Dr. Ellis holds a PhD in Counselor Education from The University of Virginia. He is the author of the new book It's All Gumbo to Me: Examining our world through the metaphor of Gumbo available on Amazon.com or at www.lulu.com/content/1906060.

Marc and Melissa: All Politics Is Local

Call by Dr. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton University

Marc,

After a week of Presidential politics dominated by everything but a meaningful discussion about policy I have decided to broaden the focus of my political energy a bit. Don’t get me wrong; I am still an undeterred, hopeful and ardent Obama supporter. But I am also reminding myself of longtime Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill’s famous admonition that “all politics is local.”
24-hour network news makes us drowsy about local politics. But most of the fundamental policy choices that affect our daily lives are made and implemented by office holders at levels much closer to the ground than the White House.

For Democrats, the long primary season is draining the political giving budget of many contributors. This could have a big effete on candidates at every level from the dogcatcher to the Senate. I hit that little red “Donate Now” button on my Obama campaign emails, but I am worried that as we battle at the top, we lose the resources to win the undercard.

So Marc, I am asking you and our readers to make suggestions about key races across the country where they think we ought to focus. Who are the candidates for the Mayor, Governor, Congress, School Boards and city and county office that you think can make a big difference in our communities? Where else should we write our $5 or $500 donation checks to make sure that the “silly season” in US Presidential politics does not distract us from making change where we can really impact people's lives.

Ok, I’ll start. One top pick for me is Kevin Powell’s challenge to Edolphus Towns in the 10th Congressional District of Brooklyn.

Marc what are your picks?

Melissa


Response by Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University

Melissa,

For me, the most important non-presidential race to watch comes from Ohio’s 10th Congressional District, where incumbent US Representative Dennis Kucinich is facing a serious challenge.


Since taking office in 1998, Kucinich has been one of the most consistent and principled voices in the Congress. From his persistent opposition to the Iraq war to his uniform challenge to free trade, Kucinich has consistently forced his Democratic colleagues to live up to their progressive promise. Although he was shunned by the mainstream media, Kucinich played a significant role in the 2008 Democratic primary, forcing the mainstream (read: corporate) candidates to answer tough questions about critical issues. More than any politician that I've ever encountered, Kucinich is sincere, ethical, committed, and unwavering in his advocacy for Left-wing values.

Unfortunately, while Kucinich was operating on the national scene, local opponents were plotting on his Congressional seat. By the beginning of 2008, four well-funded candidates attempted to unseat Kucinich in Democratic primary by painting him as an absentee congressman. Although Kucinich was able to defeat them through a twelfth hour fund raising effort, the battle is not over. In November, he will be facing former Republican State Representative Jim Trakas in another close contest.

A Kucinich loss will have a devastating impact on the city of Cleveland, the state of Ohio, and the entire nation. If we truly care about the future of a Left-wing movement, we must aid his re-election.

Can I count on your help?

The Rev. Wright is Wrong

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE REV. WRIGHT IS WRONG: IT IS GOD'S WILL THAT WE USE COMMON SENSE Most people who have any interest at all in Sen. Obama's campaign for president are scratching their heads over what could possibly be governing Rev. Wright's decision to go public at this time. When I first learned that the reverend was being interviewed by Bill Moyers, I naturally assumed that he and the Obama campaign had decided upon a strategy of allowing the American people to see who the reverend really is, in order to offset the media portrayal of him. While I could understand the rationale behind such a move, it seemed to me that it was an extremely risky endeavor, and ill advised. Then I learned that not only was Rev. Wright being interviewed by Bill Moyers, but he was also going before the National Press Club, and all on his own accord, without bringing Obama into the loop. It was only then that I realized that we had a loose cannon on our hands, and we were also facing yet another political disaster. I've learned a lot about my people during this campaign, but nothing has come into focus more clearly than the penchant for some of us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Within an hour after Obama first announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination you could hear the crabs stirring restlessly in the barrel. Then the first claw reached out, in the person of a supposedly enlightened Black talk show host–What kind of brother are you if you think announcing your candidacy for presidency is more important than coming on my infomercial? Then the next claw , from a so-called Black intellectual–I just want to know two things- how much do you love your people, and where you getting your money. Then came the Black politicians, pundits, and self-serving businessmen--and from there it became an absolute self-hatefest. Thankfully, due to the thinly veiled dismissive remarks of our "First Black president", the people in the community began to see through the ignorance of our failed leadership, and came to rally around this impressive young brother. But unfortunately, we found that a history of envy, self-service, and egomania is a tenacious foe, and will only die after a slow, lingering, and agonizing struggle. If we'er ever going to correct this situation in the Black community, instead of trying to defend our Black icons who behave inappropriately, we must refer back to the wisdom that we learned in order to survive on the street, and simply call a hat a hat. And in this case, the hat that Rev. Wright is sportin' is one of unabashed self-service. Rev. Wright knows full well that his previous remarks have severely undermined Sen. Obama's pursuit for the Democratic nomination. He also knows that we are now at a crucial point in the nominating process. So why would he--literally, and in God's name--choose this moment to lose his mind? His answer to that question is as lame as they come. He said, "They're talking about my momma", the Black church. His response was reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's lament about her yearning need to save America, and it came off just a phony. The Black church doesn't need Rev. Wright's defense–it was doing just fine under circumstances much more dire than we find ourselves today, and beyond that, it survived for countless generations before there even was a Rev. Wright, so he's gonna have to come up with something better than that. Wright also pointed out that it doesn't matter what anyone says, whether they be pundits, the news media, or politicians, if it is God's will for Barack Obama to become the next president, he will be the next president. I'll come back to the validity of that statement in a moment, but if it is Wright's conviction that God has the ability to protect Obama, even from a mouth like his own, why does he think God needs his help to protect the Black church? While Rev. Wright is clearly a learned man, it is just as clear that he's highly selective in the Biblical passages that he chooses to adhere to. How does his behavior square with the Biblical prescription to treat others as he would like to be treated, for example? If he was in Obama's position–a hare's breath away from becoming President of the United States–I wonder if he would want some loose cannon of a preacher strutting around on stage antagonizing voters to milk his thirty minutes of fame? I don't think he'd like it at all. But the reverend tries to justify his distraction by pointing out that while Obama is a politician, he, Rev. Wright, speaks for God, and as mentioned earlier, indicates that if it's God's will for Obama to be president, nothing can stop it. But he's wrong. All it takes is one silly old self-serving preacher to, indeed, stop him in his tracks, with just one thoughtless turn of a phrase, because God helps those who help themselves–and at this moment in history, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is of absolutely no help whatsoever. I always point out to my religious friends that we can only know God's will by what he has done, and what he has done is made birds to fly, fish to swim, and man to think. Yet, in this current situation, Rev. Wright has conveniently chosen to go spiritual on us in lieu of his common sense–and that's in spite of the fact that next to life itself, common sense is the most precious gift that God has bestowed upon man. If the reverend disputes my contention, I invite him to try jumping of the building he spoke so eloquently in and see if God intervenes. God gave us common sense to handle such matters. The simple fact that God blessed man with a mind, is prima facie evidence that it is his will that we use it. That's what Obama's doing. His candidacy alone is God's answer to the prayers that lingered on the lips of a million slaves. And even as Wright struts across the stage promoting his own image, Obama is hard at work desperately trying to find an answer to the prayers of millions of our contemporaries across this land, and around the world–people who are praying to save their homes, to find a job, to put their kids through school, and others, who simply pray that their children survive a brutal and unjust war. So Rev. Wright, while your delivery is extremely witty, and your words are quite eloquent, I'd appreciate it much more if you'd refrain from preaching us your sermon and start living us one. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com 

Juanita Bynum, TD Jakes, Creflo Dollar: Is the Black Church Getting A Little Crazy?

by Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.BoyceWatkins.com

People have asked me what I think about Juanita Bynum and her post, pre and intra-marital drama. In case you haven’t heard, Juanita Bynum is a well-known black evangelist who was allegedly beaten by her husband Bishop Thomas Weeks. The alleged incident took place in an Atlanta Hotel Parking lot, and received a great deal of media attention.

As one would expect from a woman who’s been recently beaten by her husband, Juanita Bynum held a press conference. No trial, no hearings, no indictment, no conviction: just a press conference. Bynum then declared herself to be the new face of domestic violence in America.

That was my introduction to the peculiar world of Juanita Bynum.

I am not sure what world Juanita Bynum lives in, but it can’t be my own. When hearing that she held a press conference after the alleged attack (along with appearances on Divorce Court and Essence Magazine), I immediately wondered if any good could come from this. I was hopeful that the goal was to truly fight domestic violence, thus empowering women around the world from her experience. I also wondered if this was Juanita Bynum’s version of Celebrity Pastors Gone Wild.

It is no secret that Juanita Bynum wants to be the next Oprah. Such lofty ambitions require you to sometimes sell your soul for success: Halle Berry shaves her head and signs a big movie deal. Vivica Fox gives oral sex on camera and then gets a new show. Rappers get shot on purpose. That’s the celebrity fame game, and Juanita appears to be a part of it.

As a specialist in marketplace buying and selling, I quietly wonder if those responsible for saving souls should be so quick to sell their own. At the same time, there are many in the ministry who’ve made money and power their primary objectives, and spend a lot of time praying to the false God of capitalism. Anybody got a Dollar for the collection plate? How about some Taffi? Praise the Lord, amen.

I don’t consider Juanita Bynum to be a bad person. I just hope that she hasn’t allowed blind ambition to turn her into a spiritual Stevie Wonder. Mixing the idea of celebrity with service to God is a slippery slope, and if Jesus were among us in the flesh, I am not sure he would be appearing on Divorce Court. But spiritual leaders are the first to remind us that they can’t quite match up to Jesus. At the same time, one expects a higher standard from Juanita Bynum, TD Jakes and others who expect to preach to us every week.

I am a finance professor and a hardcore capitalist. I fully understand the drug of money. In some ways, I feel like the drug pusher who looks at the church going mother of 3 and says “Ma’am, you don’t want to smoke that crack pipe.” I know that addiction to the drug will cause the mother to abandon her children and destroy everything she holds sacred in order to get another hit. Hearing pastors (i.e. TD Jakes) referring to Jesus as a “product”, or seeing men and women of God speaking on money more than I do is beyond disturbing. It’s just downright crazy.

I don’t consider Juanita Bynum to be the face of domestic violence. Domestic violence has millions of faces of women who never held a press conference. But I certainly hope that she is working to use her newfound fame to support and protect those who are in abusive relationships. But truth be told, I haven’t seen much out of Bynum other than publicity stunts designed to promote the name, fame and wealth of Juanita Bynum.

If the leaders of the flock have been blinded by their own ambition, what does that mean for the sheep? I would hate to imagine that going to church might somehow jeopardize my salvation. Perhaps it implies that we should cut out the middle man and find our own connection to God. What would Jesus do?

Dr. Boyce Watkins is an Assistant Professor of Finance at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” He makes regular appearances in national media, including CNN, BET, ESPN and CBS. For more information, please visit http://www.boycewatkins.com/.

Check Out Your Black World!

Dr. Boyce Watkins



Black Money



Black Celebrity Gossip




Hip Hop




Your Black Scholar



Black Television





Black Lawyers



Black History








Money
and Love














Black Politics



Black Global News



Dr. Boyce Watkins Blog



Black Love



Black Women



Black Power



Black Life



Black Writers



Black College



Hip Hop vs. America



Black Men



Black Gospel



Black Advice



Black Beauty



Black Education



Black News



Black Sports



Black Celebs



Black Health



Black Reviews


Black Fashion




Black Hair









African American Speakers

Black Media

Black in America

Black Men in America

Black Women

African American News

CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARE BEGINNING TO JUMP SHIP

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARE BEGINNING TO JUMP SHIP– AS A SIMPLE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE Hillary Clinton has done a lot of talk about the value of experience, and her selfless dedication to America during these primaries. But it's just that--talk, and many of her supporters are beginning to see it. She's trying to be all things to all people. In order to prove her executive experience, she all but claims to have been co-president with her husband. Then to prove that she's tough enough to handle the job, she claimed she had to corkscrew into a war zone while dodging sniper fire, because it was too dangerous to send Bill. And earlier on, when she began to fear that Obama might just win the nomination, and critics said she was too hardcore, she went before a gathering of women in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, valiantly fighting back tears, and with a softly cracking voice, she said the following: "It's not easy . . . it's not easy. I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. This is very personal for me. I have so many ideas for this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards. It's about our country, it's about our kids. We do it--each one of us--because we care about our country. But some of us are right, and some of us are wrong; some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we'll do on day one, and some of us don't." It was a stellar, and now familiar performance (she's used the same wistful persona on several occasions since, but without the tears), and it went a long way towards helping her to win New Hampshire, and rightly so--that kind of talent shouldn't go unrewarded. In spite of the fact that she was ostensively choked with "emotion", her talking point was right on que ("Some of us know what we'll do on day one, and some of us don't"). Thus, one would think that someone as passionate about America as Hillary would fully understand and appreciated the integrity of a man like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Instead of simply taking the easy way out and caving in to cronyism, the governor, one of the most experienced politicians in America today, looked back over his vast experience and came to the conclusion that he had to support Senator Barack Obama over the wife of his long-time friend and former boss. But instead of having the class to say I'm sorry I didn't earn your support, and I understand how you must have agonized over your decision, Clinton surrogate, James Carville, labeled Gov. Richardson "Judas." Now I ask you–is this world-class, presidential politics, or kids throwing sand in a nursery school? That incident alone shows why America should take Hillary's contention that she's running to protect our children, and in the best interest of the country with a box of salt. First, the statement is both highly presumptuous and condescending–what makes her think that she's the only one who can save America? And secondly, it's a lie–that's right, yet, another one. Hillary is running for one reason, and one reason only-- to quench her own unquenchable thirst for power. It was Gov. Richardson who acted in the best interest of our kids and country, and not because of who he chose to support, but because of the way he made his decision–like a statesman, as opposed to the petty, red-faced, and power-hungry politicians who are jumping up and down about it. They claim that Richardson's not a team player, but the fact is, he's the ultimate team player, they're just on the wrong team. The Clintons' angry response to Richardson's simple act of integrity says it all–they're committed to business as usual. Sure, they want change, but only a change in power--from Republican hands, to theirs. Richardson, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he heard the American people loud and clear, then acted on it in spite of what must have been tremendous personal stress. And according to an article, by Mark Leibovich in the New York Times, Clintons Sort Friends: Past and Present, Gov. Richardson isn't the only one who's beginning to see the light. Nancy Larson, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota, indicated that after Chelsea Clinton learned that she was switching her allegiance from Hillary to Obama, Chelsea pressed her to know why. "She was really pushing me. She kept asking me why I was doing this. She just kept asking, 'Why? Why?' " The article goes on to point out that "Mrs. Clinton has been losing potential endorsers and superdelegate backing from grass-roots activists like Mrs. Larson as well as elected officials, party luminaries and former Clinton White House aides (the most recent being former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who endorsed Mr. Obama on Friday)." And that "there is no shortage of powerful Democrats who are quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street, with little regard for the sacrifices they have made for a couple whose own political needs seem to their critics always to come first." And therein lies the problem–if the Clinton campaign hasn't shown anything else, it has clearly demonstrated that Hillary's needs, wants, and desires come first--before friends, before party, before country--and that's an exceedingly ugly trait, even to us little people. Previously, Clinton supporters viewed Hillary's single-mindedness as a sign of focus and determination, but the mean-spirited scratching, clawing, and lying that she's done during these primaries have betrayed a serious flaw in her character–a desperate, even, pathological need for power, and at any cost. So, yes, Clinton supporters are beginning to jump ship in unprecedented numbers. Many remember the early years, so they're leaving with deep regret. But Hillary's extreme behavior has awakened their sense of responsibility, so they must leave, as a simple matter of conscience. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPERDELEGATES

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPERDELEGATES I realize that many of you feel that you owe the Clintons your loyalty, and others are waiting to ensure that you act in the Democratic Party's best interest, but when is enough enough? Even the most rabid Clinton supporters have to recognize by now that Hillary can't possibly secure the Democratic nomination without literally tearing the Democratic Party apart–and Hillary knows that better than anyone. So it must be clear to everyone by now that Hillary is no longer in this race to win. Hillary's sole purpose at this point is to stay in the race as long as she can, and sling enough mud on Barack Obama to prevent him from winning in November. Then, since at McCain's age he's not expected to remain in office but one term, Hillary will still be young enough to run in 2012. I've mentioned Hillary's strategy before, but it bears repeating, since it stands as a monument to mean-spirited selfishness. But that shouldn't surprise us, because Hillary's entire life has been centered around self-service, and what's now beginning to look like a sociopathic fixation her own ambition. Every since she entered the White House as First Lady, everything Hillary's done has been in the service of her ambition to become President of the United States. Her failed attempt to provide universal healthcare and her run for the senate was all designed to buildup her resume for the job. That explains why she's so hostile towards Barack Obama. Throughout Bush's second term Hillary has been acting, and treated, like the president-in-waiting. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she's already decided what color she intends to change the drapes in the Oval Office. Then here comes Barack Obama, this young upstart who has the audacity to seek her office. Initially she simply tolerated him. Then as he became more popular, she became dismissive, but once it became clear that he might actually win, she panicked–first she tried to play on our emotions with tears, then she tried becoming gracious and sincere, and finally, when that didn't work, she morphed into who she really is, angry and mean-sprited (Who does he think he is–does he really think he can become president based on a speech? ). So make no mistake about it, this has become intensely personal to Hillary. At his point, she could care less about her supporters, the Democratic Party, or the American people–all she cares about is taking back what she has convinced herself that she's personally entitled to. But seeing Hillary in this mode has turned out to be a fortunate opportunity for both the super-delegates, and the American people as a whole, because it has allowed us to see the chinks in her armor while she's under pressure. It has also given us the opportunity to see the flaws in her character, and how she's viewed through the eyes of her opponents. In that regard, I never thought I'd live to see so many Republicans supporting a Clinton with such enthusiasm. Rush Limbaugh has been threatened with indictment for encouraging his conservative listeners to crossover and vote for Hillary during the Ohio primaries. That one act alone goes farther towards repudiating Hillary's repeated claims that Obama is inexperience and can't win than anything that anyone can possibly say. Obama's so-called "inexperience" notwithstanding, the Republicans are essentially saying, "Please send us Hillary." The reason for that is simple. The Republicans see a deeply flawed candidate, and they realize that Hillary's nomination represents the Republican Party's only chance of returning from the dead. They know that the conservatives' hatred of the Clintons is so pervasive that it represents their one and only chance of re-energizing their base. They also know that if Hillary does manage to get the nomination, it can only happen at the expense of an irreparable rift in the Democratic Party–a rift that may very well completely destroy the party as we know it. On the other hand, Obama is a Republican nightmare--he's captured the imagination of many young Republicans who were too young to remember the feeling of optimism during the Kennedy era, yet, are attracted to the excitement surrounding Obama. The excitement of their young, Democratic peers is new to them, and they like it. At the same time, Obama has also reconnected many older Republicans with their youth–a time when they were young, full of enthusiasm, and fully supported the optimism that engulfed the nation under John Kennedy. These older Republicans remember Camelot, and the opportunity to revisit the optimism of their youth excites their soul. Thus, the Republican leadership realizes that if Obama becomes the nominee, they don't have a chance. They know that they'll not only lose the November election, but it will usher in a new era in the body politic that will render the Republican Party dead in the water for years, and maybe even decades to come. Republican success is based on anger and dissent, and as is clearly apparent even within the Democratic Party, Hillary's very nature would feed that beast in spades. But Obama's strong suit is consensus, and bringing the country together, so the Republican Party would have to re-assess their entire approach to the political process. So it seems that the future of this nation has been dropped right in the lap of the superdelegates, but your decision should be relatively easy. If you indulge the self-serving whims of Hillary Clinton, you're surely going to destroy the Democratic Party, since the only way that you can give her the nomination is to ignore the wishes of the majority of the Democratic and Independent voters across this land–including the many young Democrats who have gotten involved in the political process for the first time in response to Senator Obama. If you do that, Democrats and many Independents will stay away from the polls in droves, resulting in Democratic officeholders all over this country being turned out of office–including many of you. So in this case, justice, common sense, and your own self-interest has converged to suggest the right thing to do-- simply declare for Obama and tell Hillary to get a grip on reality–and the sooner you do it, the better off the nation will be. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net.

Black Familes, Child Support and Bill Cosby: Black Scholars Debate the Issue

by Jimi Izrael

Singer Sean Levert, serving a 22-month term for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support, is dead after being found unresponsive in his jail cell. The family is asking the FBI to investigate, but Levert should have never been in jail in the first place—men shouldn't be put in jail for non-payment of support.

For those unfamiliar with the law, men who are $2500.00 or more in arrears in their child support payments (based on approximately 15% of the man's gross income) can have their driver's license revoked, their property sold at auction or in some cases, be put in jail. Sure—there are a lot of irresponsible fathers out there who don't want to be responsible for their children. More often than not, fathers become unemployed. And if you happen to get a job making less money, child support agencies are not inclined to lower your obligation. Some men pay what they can, but if you are obligated to pay $490 a month in support, and can only pay $200, the $290 gets tacked on. So the following month, you owe $780 smackers, but can still only pay $200.

See how easy it is to get behind?

Child support agencies enforce a woman's right to money but not a man's right to see his kids. Women are not obligated to allow the father to see his children, and are rewarded with public assistance for having as many babies as possible, to the extent that it's become a hustle of sorts and a strain on resources.

When Sean and I talked for an article I wrote, he very pointedly didn't mention his children on the record. Off the record, we talked and laughed about our respective baby-mama drama. I went to school with Sean, and I'm going to miss his big, Levert laugh and sad to see him go under such undignified circumstances. He should not have been in jail.

I'm not saying that men don't need be held accountable, but the child support solution has to be fair to all parties involved.

Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?


Response to Jimi Izrael from Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University

Melissa,On Friday, I read an interesting and provocative blog post by our Root colleague Jimi Izrael. In his post, Izrael argues that the current child support laws are disproportionately stacked against the interests of men. I agree with Izrael that we need to reform current child support laws. In the current moment, as William Julius Wilson notes, child support laws serve as a “labor tax” that dissuade Black men from working traditional jobs. This is particularly true for previously incarcerated men, whose wages can be garnished up to 66 percent in order to repay outstanding support.

Unfortunately, the popular notion of the “deadbeat dad”, like the welfare queen of the 1980s, obscures the more fundamental problem: structural barriers to gainful employment. For this reason, we need to develop more realistic and humane approaches to child support for economically disadvantaged people.On the other hand, I disagree with Izrael’s argument that men should never be placed in jail for not paying support. Take, for example, Sean Levert, who died tragically while serving a 22-month prison sentence for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support. While Izrael says that he shouldn’t have been in jail in the first place, I can’t imagine any alternative for someone who so wantonly ignores his responsibility.

Perhaps I’m biased because I pay child support every month while many of the brothers I know go to extravagant lengths to avoid taking care of their kids. Are some of these men experiencing financial trouble? No doubt. This is why I support government subsidies and debt forgiveness for people who truly need it. But many of the men I know, even those who earn solid middle class wages, are simply unwilling to make basic sacrifices in order to ensure that their child has food, clothing, and shelter. Would they let their children live on the streets? Probably not. But anything short of that means that it’s the mother’s responsibility. What do you think Melissa?

Is Jimi Izrael right that the law is too tough? Am I having a Bill Cosby moment over here in the way I’m critiquing men? Also, Jimi Izrael concludes by asking “Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?” How would you answer that question?


Response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton University

Marc,I am having a little trouble responding to your call because fire is shooting out of my fingers and smoke out of my ears after reading Jimi’s blog.

I am not even a little bit objective and detached on this issue. I am a divorced mother and my solidly middle class, ex-husband has consistently paid half of his court ordered support for years. I don’t want to lock him up, but I wouldn’t mind kicking him in the leg with my best stilettos.

From where I stand irresponsibility is not the only possible explanation for single parenting. I did everything “right.” I dated my ex-husband for five years, finished my degree, got married, bought a house and then got pregnant and had my daughter. Still, I find myself living as a single parent. Life is complicated, none of us is fully autonomous and even good choices can lead to tough circumstances.

The law is not about punishing a parent for irresponsibility. The law is meant to protect the best interests of children. I am firmly convinced that in the vast majority of circumstances children’s best interests are served by ensuring that the non-custodial parent provides substantial financial support.

Paying this support will require discomfort and sacrifice. I assure you that being the custodial parent requires discomfort and sacrifice of all kinds.

I am no Bill Cosby and I don’t think we can behave our way to racial equality. On the other hand I know that the reason black folks in America have anything at all is because our mothers, fathers, aunties, grandpas and nanas did their very best even within the tremendously difficult circumstances they encountered. For our children we must do the same thing.

I believe that the interests of children are best served by establishing loving bonds with both parents. Assuming there is no abuse, our kids do best when they are allowed to love both parents unconditionally, no matter the failures and weaknesses of those parents. These bonds are nurtured through time, visits, phone calls, letters and even emails. It is the absent parent’s responsibility to initiate these encounters. It is the custodial parent’s responsibility to facilitate them.

We also foster these bonds by controlling the selfish impulse to speak negatively about the other parent. My mouth sometimes bleeds from biting my tongue in my daughter’s presence, but I believe that loving her dad and feeling loved by him are critically important to her sense of self.

That said, I think the courts are a terrible place for conducting the work of parenting. Jimi is absolutely wrong that courts are universally biased against fathers. The stories are too long, ugly and painful to tell, but I have seen the courts allow angry, vengeful parents to use children as tools of harassment rather than as subjects of loving concern. Fathers do this as much as mothers.

Courts care little for the complicated, personal, nuanced circumstances of our lives. Hear this: paying your support makes a hell of al lot more sense that paying a lawyer to get you out of paying your support. The support goes to enrich the life of your child, the court fees just make the lawyers rich.

Many matters of government policy affect the quality of lives for our children. Most of our kids are relegated to shockingly unequal public schools. Many must live in unsafe neighborhoods marked by crime, environmental hazards and daily reminders of hopelessness. Even our privileged kids are constantly navigating landmines of racial difference and anxiety that tears at the fabric of their self-esteem. As parents, let’s stop trying to punish each other and get focused on sacrificing for our kids so that we buffer them from these assaults.

AFRICANTUS AMERICANA: THE NEW NEANDERTHAL

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. AFRICANTUS AMERICANA: THE NEW NEANDERTHAL I was in Los Angeles on the corner of Vernon and Central the other day, just after school let out. If it hadn't been for the fact that I grew up in that area and recognized my surroundings, I would have thought I was in Mexico. What use to be an almost exclusively Black community was now filled with happy, playful--and mannerly--Latino children coming home from school. As I looked around, I saw thriving Latino businesses being patronized by poor, but thriving Latino patrons. I was intrigued, so I decided to take a detour through the neighborhood. Now, I don't know whether the area is primarily Mexican-American, or filled with illegal immigrants, but what was clear was that the area was changing. There was a new vitality there. I saw fathers and teenage boys in the yards, both at home and enjoying the love of family rather than hanging out in the street. I saw a neighborhood free of young men glaring at me, or waving me over as I drove by. The neighborhood was no longer threatening. It was a neighborhood that now said family, instead of gangster. It was a neighborhood that was clearly trying to make a comeback. It felt good to see my old stomping grounds rejuvenating itself, but I also felt a twinge of both guilt and envy. I felt guilt because my own teenage antics contributed greatly to dragging this very neighborhood down to its previous state, and envy that what comes so easily to most cultures, seems to be so elusive to my own. I also felt more than a tinge of fear, because to anyone who's familiar with Charles Darwin's theory on natural selection, it is clear that the Black man is swirling around the event horizon of a massive black hole. If we don't do something to get our young people's attention real soon, at best, the Black man is going to become irrelevant, or at worst, the new Neanderthal. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, which at this point is considered more fact than theory to most scientists, nature is in a constant process of selecting which groups or species will survive to perpetuate itself, and which will die out. The concept is called natural selection, or popularly known as the survival of the fittest. In order to insure that only the best, most adaptive, and strongest life forms populate the Earth, nature eliminates the weak to insure they won't procreate and contaminate the Earth with their weak offspring. The process of elimination starts even before an individual is born. Every individual starts out with as many as 40 million potential brothers and sisters, all scurrying towards their mother's egg. But most die off before they reach the mother's egg. Therefore, just the fact that you were born means that you're not just one in a million—you're one in 40 million. You were the strongest and most viable of over 40 million others. Nature takes the survival of the fittest very seriously. Anyone who has ever watched a dog or a cat give birth to their young have probably seen first hand how brutally serious nature can be in this regard. If you haven't, just ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a puppy born with a birth defect. If you have, it's very rare, because if an animal is born defective in any way, the mother will kill it on the spot—and in many cases eat it. Nature doesn't provide animals with a welfare office, so they know by instinct that they, and their young, must to be able to hold their own weight in this world, or die. But a life form doesn't have to have a physical defect for nature to weed it out. Nature will also weed out things that are maladaptive or have an inability to adapt to its environment—like us, for example. God made birds to fly, fish to swim, and man to think. If a bird refuses to fly, it cannot survive. If a fish refuses to swim, it will not survive. The very same rule applies to man. If a man refuses to think, he will not survive--and that has become a serious problem in the Black community. Many of our young Black men simply refuse to think. It's as though we're on a mission to ensure our own extinction. While the men of other cultures seem to have no problem in stepping up to the plate to solidify the family unit and ensure their children get a running start in life, we're abandoning our children, and referring to the very womb of our culture as "bitches and whoes"; and if we're not killing other Black men over drugs, we're killing ourselves with drugs. And even when we aren't killing ourselves, we're making dumb decisions that's causing us to have to spend years at a time locked up in jail like animals. Many of us have embraced a philosophy of manhood that enforces a moral obligation to be stupid. It's like, you're not a true Black man unless you take a pledge to remain ignorant. This is a sad state of affairs, because nature is already hard at work weeding the Black man out, and we're giving her all the help that she needs. Every time one gang member or drug dealer kills another, that's nature at work upgrading the gene pool. Every time someone dies of an overdose, nature's right there--"well, I don't have to worry about him fathering anymore weak minded people." And when you go to jail, that also takes your seed out of circulation. But the biggest impact is right around the corner. Look around you, Black man. While you're acting a fool nature is also selecting traits in Black women that's allowing them to do without you. Notice that while you're out there sagging and getting dumber and dumber, Black women are becoming better educated, and getting good jobs. That's right, brother—nature is rendering you irrelevant. You are no longer a suitable mate, so nature is preparing the Black female to do without you—and it's happening right before your eyes. So if you're a young brother, you can just standby. That pretty young lady of yours may think your droopy pants are cool now, but as she becomes better educated and gets that good job that you're too maladjusted to be considered for, she's going to begin to see you for what you really are, a looser—and a broke one at that. She's going to realize you're not a suitable mate. She's going to recognize that saggin' (spell it backwards) doesn't make you a man, in fact, it makes you an embarrassment in the world she wants to move into—and it's not because she's getting uppity, it's because it's true. She wants to live, and she wants her offspring to live, and you're a dying breed. As a direct result, their very survival is going to require Black women to go outside of the Black race for suitable mates. That's right–that beautiful young sister that you love so much is going to have to go out and find her a real man, one who's capable of survival in the real world. Then once that starts to happen, what was once a proud Black race is going to become less and less Black with every generation that passes, until the Black man, as we know him, will only exist as pictures on the wall of natural history museums–a relic of the past. I can hear the anthropologists discussing us now—in the past tense, of course. They'll probably give us a scientific name like "Africantus Americana Fool". They'll be in the museum looking up at some brother that they found dead in the snow, and then had stuffed. One will say, "You know, it's really amazing when you think about it. They had the intellectual potential to thrive, but they just didn't have any common sense. The major downfall of 'Homeboy' (a nickname they assigned to our species) was that he lacked a sense of community, and had less than rudimentary coping skills. But there's one thing you've got to give him--he was the coolest thing on the planet, while he was around. He didn't have much common sense, but the brother could sho'nuff sag." But the one upshot is, we'll finally get the attention that we so passionately crave--on the History Channel. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net.

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF CLINTON

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF CLINTON Hillary Clinton's ravenous ambition and sense of entitlement has clearly blinded her to reality. If she wasn't so blinded by the arrogance of believing that America owes her the presidency, she'd realize that her antics in this election is not only undermining any chance she has of becoming president, but it's also wreaking havoc on the Clinton legacy. The one thing the Clintons had going for them was America's belief that, with all their flaws, they were primarily motivated by what was in America's best interest. But that's no longer the case. Now we see the Clintons for what they are–a couple who's willing to lie, cheat and steal to promote their own greed and self-interest. That, in turn, has caused many Americans to take a second look at both, their character, and Bill's presidency through the lens of this new information, and a large number of them don't like what they see. Now, many Americans are beginning to ask themselves questions, like how can we trust Hillary to answer that call at 3 a.m. When she seems to be totally oblivious to facts that are staring her in the face–especially when those facts don't conform to what she wants to see? For example, doesn't she realize that by continuously slinging mud at Obama instead of addressing the issues that it's making her look desperate and less than concerned about the fate of the Democratic Party? And what about her judgment? What could she have possibly been thinking when she repeatedly endorsed the Republican nominee over Obama? Then there was the Bosnian matter. Didn't she realize before she told that blatant lie about the Bosnian trip that there were news cameras there to document that she was lying? And if that wasn't stupid enough, she then went on The Tonight Show and tried to joke about it, as though lying to the American people was all in fun. Now, as a direct result of that lie, a Pew research survey indicates that 29% of Democrats asked describes Hillary as phony. In addition, she's also placed herself in a position where every syllable she utters, and every scrap of paper she releases is going to be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb--and that doesn't bode well, considering her dubious past. As a matter of fact, it seems that the process has already begun. Dan Calabrese reveals in his column that former general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Zeifman, indicated that he fired the 27 year old Hillary Rodham from the House Judiciary Committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation due to her lying and unethical conduct. Zeifman said that during the Watergate investigation Hillary lied in a legal brief, them removed evidence from public access that would document her conduct. In addition, Christopher Hitchens wrote in an article for Slate Magazine that Hillary's lie about flying into Bosnia under sniper fire was just the tip of the iceberg in the Bosnian story. Hitchens points out that while Hillary arrived in Tuzla in 1996, the real story began four years earlier in 1992 when Bill Clinton promised to take action to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia. Hitchens points to Sally Bedell Smith's book, For Love of Politics, where she indicates the following: "Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a 'perception of drift.' The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have 'deep misgivings' and viewed the situation as 'a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform.' The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the 'ethnic cleansing' by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people." Revelations such as the one above, along with the truth about NAFTA, and the Clinton antics during this campaign is rapidly changing America's view of the Clintons-- including Bill's legacy as president. Regardless to what one's position is on the matter of universal healthcare, allowing the death of 250,000 people is much too high a price to pay to promote any legislation–and especially when that legislation ultimately went down to defeat. But at this point, one must wonder about Hillary's commitment to universal healthcare in the first place. Now that we've seen the several faces of Hillary, along with the Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics, one is tempted to wonder if Hillary was really as committed to universal healthcare as she claimed, or was she simply building a resume for this future run for the presidency. Her commitment seems especially suspect now, since it has recently been revealed that she failed to pay the healthcare premiums for her own campaign staff. According to Politico.com , Hillary has failed to pay $292,000 in healthcare premiums for her own staff. And what makes this episode even more ironic is the fact that Hillary's failure to pay those premiums reinforces a point that Obama has repeatedly made during the campaign. Hillary claimed that Obama's plan was flawed because it didn't cover all of the people. In response, Obama said that his plan covered anyone who wanted to be insured, but he didn't make it mandatory that every adult be insured because under Hillary's plan if a person couldn't afford to pay the premium they'd be fined for missing the payment, which would create an additional financial burden on many people. Now maybe Hillary will understand Obama's point. If Hillary's campaign staff had been insured under her plan, in addition to having to pay the $292,000 in back premiums, she'd also be facing a fine. It's sad to watch the Clintons go down in flames. I would have been quite comfortable with having Bill step into history as one of our great presidents, and to see Hillary live out an illustrious political career, whatever that entailed. But in the end, it's beginning to look like it is the intent of destiny to set the record straight. What we now know about the Clinton's ugly greed for power has brought additional scrutiny into their lives, and at this point, it looks like it's going to be their undoing. While it's painful knowing that I was wrong about them, I'd much rather to be informed than to be right. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net. Eric