Interesting

Colbert King fires a toldjaso at President Obama citing Dana Milbank's column advising Obama to follow the counsel of Rahm Emanuel. Sphere: Related Content

Healthcare Reform: Update

2/26/10 Update: Yesterday President Obama held his Blair House Health Care Summit between top Democratic and Republican congressional leaders in hopes of reaching some bipartisan agreement on healthcare reform. Wapo has a detailed summary of the day. It appears that the summit did little to change congressional leaders' stances on healthcare reform, but it's still too early to be sure. However, there were at least a couple of positive outcomes from the Summit as far as I can tell:

- Seeing congressional leaders sit down with the President to discuss healthcare reform like civilized adults would seem to me to take some of the energy out of the loonier elements of the public who've tried to paint the healthcare reform issue as some kind of  socialist plot.

- The public has been given another opportunity to hear various arguments on healthcare reform with a minimum of blatant fabrications conerning death panels and whatnot.


So, I guess it's on to an up or down vote. Stay Tuned. Sphere: Related Content

Miscellany iii

Miscellany –noun, a miscellaneous collection or group of various or somewhat unrelated items.

Attached below are various items that I found interesting today.

The God Gap

WaPo

American foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and "uncompromising Western secularism" that feeds religious extremism, threatens traditional cultures and fails to encourage religious groups that promote peace and human rights, according to a two-year study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Not Dirty

New Yorker

Russell Jones is a forty-four-year-old art director who lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn. In the early winter of 1996, he and his wife began to receive some unusual phone calls late at night. They would pick up the receiver and a voice would shout “Yo, Dirty!” or just “Dirteee!” and then hang up. Jones was mystified; he thought that maybe his number had been written down in a bathroom stall somewhere. A few weeks later, Jones’s young cousin, who was conversant in hip-hop, stopped by. “You know that rapper Ol’ Dirty Bastard?” “Uh, not really.” “His real name is Russell Jones. That’s why you get those calls.”

Racoons Invade Fort Totten Metro

WaPo

Metro brings together creatures of all kinds. Apparently that now includes raccoons.

During the past few months, several raccoons have made the Fort Totten Station a stop in their travels. Now some riders are saying there are limits to whom -- and what -- they will share their commute with. Several raccoons caused a mini-commotion Monday night after they were spotted scurrying about the station, according to one rider. Passing commuters took photos as the animals ran in circles about 9 p.m. At least one raccoon ran toward the door of the Metro employee kiosk. Metro workers have been feeding the raccoons, officials said. About 6 p.m. Wednesday, Allyson Wilson of Silver Spring said she saw a Metro employee leave the kiosk with what looked like a tray of food. The woman slid the tray through a hole in the wall near the kiosk toward a family of three or four raccoons.

Money Quote: "A man in front of Wilson yelled to the Metro employee that it wasn't right for the animals to be there. He did have a point. Animals are strictly prohibited from Metro trains and stations. But the Metro employee, clad in an orange safety vest, responded, "They have more right to be here than you do!""

Classic. Sphere: Related Content

The Howard

One of the casualties of the late sixties race riots in D.C. was the venerable Howard Theater. The launching pad for Ella Fitzgerald and Billy Eckstein and host to artists like Duke Ellington, Marvin Gaye, Sammy Davis Jr., Red Foxx, and Sarah Vaughn, the Howard in its heyday was "the largest colored theater in the world." Still standing behind the corner of 7th and T streets in Northwest., the Howard has of late been a shell of its past glory. Today however, the theater is poised for a 21st century makeover lead primarily by African American businessmen like local developer Chip Ellis and Alfred C. Liggins III, chief executive officer of Radio One. In 2008, the District reached a deal with Ellis to provide up to $15 million in grants and tax incentives for theater renovation after Liggins agreed to relocate his company from Lanham, MD to the Shaw neighborhood in D.C. that houses the Howard. Despite the economic downturn, Liggins and Ellis who have been friends since high school plan to build condominiums, retail space, and a boutique hotel, in addition to the new Radio One headquaters all within the Howard Theater/Shaw neighborhood.

Opened in 1910, the Howard, like the Apollo Theater in New York and the Pearl in Philadelphia, was one of the most important venues for African American performers and audiences who were marginalized by segregation. When it was built it had a capacity of more than 1,200, with orchestra and balcony seats as well as eight proscenium boxes. The exterior of the Howard combined elements of the Beaux-Arts, Italian Renaissance, and neoclassical styles; and included an over-lifesized statue of Apollo playing his lyre. The theater featured vaudeville, musicals, local variety and church programs.  True to its location in the nation's political capital, in 1919, the theater became a focal point for anti-lynching protests.

The Howard lost its original facade in 1941 when it was redone in the Streamline style. At this time, during World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor would attend balls at the theatre featuring performers like Danny Kaye, Abbott and Costello and Cesar Romero. In the fifties and sixties, the theater turned into a house for rock 'n' roll and r&b featuring artists like Buddy Holly, Dinah Washington, Lena Horne and Lionel Hampton. This golden era of the Howard ended in the wake of the sixties race riots in D.C. In 1970 The Howard was forced to close its doors. Three years later the Howard Theater Foundation was organized to reopen the theater gaining the building a National Register nomination in 1974. The theater remained open during the 70's providing a venue for several go-go bands, including Chuck Brown and the Soul Searchers, but closed it's doors again in 1980. Thanks to the efforts and talents of people like Alfred Liggins and Chip Ellis the Howard will reopen in August 2010 in time (hopefully) for it's 100th birthday. Can't wait.

Check out the Howard Theater Restoration Homepage and support the restoration project here.

Video of the project:



Let's get it D.C.

This article is also published at http://ezinearticles.com/?Rebirth-of-the-Howard&id=3855153. Sphere: Related Content

Why Do We Need Health Care Reform?

Prior to Obama and Democrats' efforts to pass healthcare reform, it seemed as if things were going as well as one could expect during a historic economic downturn. But, as health care reform has come closer to reality it seems as if Obama and Democrats have lost momentum and lost the confidence of the American people. Health care reform allows conservatives to wrap all their complaints about spending, deficits, socialism, and broken government into one neat package that not only energizes their base (and their baseness) but has swayed many independents as well. Add to that the liberal base's anger over consessions like abandoning the public option and you've got the recipe for a real isht storm.

Most liberals would argue that this situation came about because of a concerted effort to misinform the public by conservatives and lobbyists. Conservatives would say that's condescending and that the American people understand health care reform and it's consequences well enough to know that they don't want them. I tend to agree with the former hypothesis, but I'm a liberal. In either case, it's probably worth reassessing why we do or don't need healthcare reform now.

What is health care reform?

Health care reform is an effort to change government policies that effect the delivery of health care in the United States.

Why should we reform health care? I have health insurance. Most people I know have health insurance, so what the problem?

There are two main problems with health care in the U.S. as it currently exists: costs and the uninsured.

Health care (visiting the doctor; having medical procedures; insurance; etc.) costs a lot. This should not be surprising to anyone who has ever been seriously ill or cared for someone who is seriosuly ill. In 2008, approximately $2.3 trillion was spent on health care in the United States, or $7,681 per person. The U.S. spends more on health care per person than any other U.N. member nation. Worse, we're quickly reaching a point where without some intervention we won't be able to pay for Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security):

"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion."

Individuals, employers, insurance companies, and the government itself (through Medicaid, Medicare, among other sources) are paying through the nose.

Will health care costs continue to rise or is this just a temporary problem?

Health care costs will probably continue to rise. And when I say "probabaly" I mean, "absolutely" but I'll leave open the possibility because there are some who believe that factors such as technology and better treatment of chronic diseases will bring down the cost of health care without any need for the government to reform the current system. Immediately, it's clear why we're having so much trouble in the health care debate (and climate change and governing in general): there's a philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives that colors their respective views of these types of issues. Conservatives here, as in many other instances, believe that no reform is needed because economic forces or "the market" will correct problems like the cost of health care. So instead of arguing about what we should do about a problem like health care (or climate change or whatever) we have to argue first about whether there is indeed a problem. I've already had to waste an entire paragraph talking about whether we should address what most analysts agree is a significant problem. Let's say this and leave aside the "market" for the moment: The Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicaid and Medicare services projects spending on health care to increase 5.7 percent in 2009 and average a 6.1 percent increase per year over the projection period 2009-2019. So, given some recent examples of the flaws in laissez faire economics we should probably take some action to address the costs to individuals, businesses, and the government.

The Uninsured
The other main problem with health care today is the issue of the uninsured. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2007 15.3% of the population, or 45.7 million people in the U.S. went without health insurance coverage at some time during the year. We can quibble about the numbers (higher or lower), but the issue remains: there are a lot of people in this country without health care insurance. This situation has not improved during our current economic downturn.

There are numerous costs and consequences of carrying so many uninsured individuals including: poorer outcomes for specific disease like cancer and heart disease; increased mortality of the uninsured; and decreased annual earnings by businesses and individuals through lost productivity. There is also for many of us a moral imperative in addressing the uninsured. We do not want to see our friends, neighbors, and countrymen driven to bankruptcy, sickness, and death, because they can't afford health care. I'm not sure why the morality of providing inexpensive health care doesn't seem to sway more people. I suppose it's encapsulated in the question I posed above, "I have health insurance. Most people I know have health insurance, so what the problem?" To which I respond, the data suggest that "the people you know" is not all inclusive: in other words, yeah, you don't know anyone without insurance but that doesn't meant there's not a bunch of 'em out there.

Conservatives have taken issue with the number of uninsured the Census reported, arguing that the 45 million uninsured the Census counted includes people that are briefly uninsured between jobs; illegal immigrants; and people who chose for one reason or another (aside from cost) not to be insured. I would argue in response that if you trimmed the number to 30 million, that's still a lot of uninsured people.

So it appears we have a problem in health care today that requires action. Health care costs everyone too much and doesn't cover enough people. So why isn't health care reform a slam dunk? Well, as I said above, there are some people who don't think this is a problem: the costs of health care reform won't necessarily go up and there aren't as many uninsured people as we might think. There is also the current economic fragility and many people feel that with the auto bailouts, bank bailouts, stimulus package, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that we've over extended. Addressing health care seems like a war of choice as opposed to a war of necessity that should be prosecuted in more stable times. To this I respond that the cost of health care must be addressed immediately because our economic situation is indeed so dire. As the Robert Samuleson quote above makes clear, Medicare and Medicaid are on their way to bankruptcy and at the current projected rate, health care costs will likely do the same to the economy on the whole.

But there's still at least one troubling aspect of the health care reform scenario that bothers me:

Is it really going to address the cost of health care? Is it going to do the things Democrats and Obama say it will, or will adding this reform just add to our health care spending problems?

Samuelson doesn't think so:

"There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called "health-care reform." Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs. As we recover slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending and curb massive future deficits. The administration estimates these at $9 trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.

So what do they do? Just the opposite. Their far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system -- which Congress is halfway toward enacting -- would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both."

Surgeon, professor, and contributor to the New Yorker, Atul Gawande disagrees:

"There are, in human affairs, two kinds of problems: those which are amenable to a technical solution and those which are not. Universal health-care coverage belongs to the first category: you can pick one of several possible solutions, pass a bill, and (allowing for some tinkering around the edges) it will happen. Problems of the second kind, by contrast, are never solved, exactly; they are managed. Reforming the agricultural system so that it serves the country’s needs has been a process, involving millions of farmers pursuing their individual interests. This could not happen by fiat. There was no one-time fix. The same goes for reforming the health-care system so that it serves the country’s needs. No nation has escaped the cost problem: the expenditure curves have outpaced inflation around the world. Nobody has found a master switch that you can flip to make the problem go away. If we want to start solving it, we first need to recognize that there is no technical solution.

Much like farming, medicine involves hundreds of thousands of local entities across the country—hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, home-health agencies, drug and device suppliers. They provide complex services for the thousands of diseases, conditions, and injuries that afflict us. They want to provide good care, but they also measure their success by the amount of revenue they take in, and, as each pursues its individual interests, the net result has been disastrous. Our fee-for-service system, doling out separate payments for everything and everyone involved in a patient’s care, has all the wrong incentives: it rewards doing more over doing right, it increases paperwork and the duplication of efforts, and it discourages clinicians from working together for the best possible results. Knowledge diffuses too slowly. Our information systems are primitive. The malpractice system is wasteful and counterproductive. And the best way to fix all this is—well, plenty of people have plenty of ideas. It’s just that nobody knows for sure."

It's a tough call. For my part I've written the congresspeople in and around D.C. expressing support for health care reform and concern for the cost. I think it's possible that Samuelson is right that the current health care reform proposals do not address the cost of health care to government. But it's also possible that the reforms address the uninsured and some of the deficiencies in health care like insurance companies excluding coverage of individuals with pre-existing conditions while still leaving room for greater responsibility in reigning in costs in the future. As Dr. Gawande suggests, we can tackle the costs of healthcare as we're able in the future. The time that Obama and Congress have devoted to health care reform, to me, demands that we finish this work. Sphere: Related Content

Miscellany ii

Miscellany –noun, a miscellaneous collection or group of various or somewhat unrelated items.

Attached below are various items that I found interesting today. The Frontline video provides an in-depth look at the financial crisis; the woman that warned us that it was imminent; and the financial wizards,still in power, that allowed it to happen.

Frontline: The Warning - How Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin Conspired to Silence Derivatives Whistleblower Brooksley Born



(via The Daily Bail)

Greenspan is like some tragic character realizing only at the end of his career that the entire world view that animated his adult life was wrong.

In the next article, Judge Richard Posner details the result of the financial crisis.

Posner on the Real Danger of Debt

"In 2000, the United States had a balanced federal budget. Today, America has a deficit problem that threatens the country's future. It is compounded by former President George W. Bush's fiscal recklessness, the economic crisis that began with September 2008's financial collapse, President Barack Obama's spending ambitions, and the mysterious ability of the weakened Republican Party to create political deadlock in Congress.

Under Bush, spending was increased, taxes were cut, and the result was huge deficits financed by borrowing. Then came the "Great Recession," as it is being called (I call it a depression because of its probable long-term economic and political consequences). The public debt (the important component of the national debt -- the part that is more than an accounting entity -- that is really owed), which the Bush administration's deficits had caused to double, soared further. It soared because of falling tax revenues, rising unemployment benefits, and rising government expenditures to fight the depression (such as Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan). The public debt reached $7.5 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009 (Sept. 30, 2009) and is expected to increase another $1.6 trillion this fiscal year and another $1.3 trillion next year. That means it may exceed $10 trillion by Sept. 30, 2011. Almost half the debt is owned by foreigners, and the interest payments to them are a drain on American wealth. Interest rates on the debt will rise as the world economy recovers, increasing competition for capital."

And completely non-related, below the fold material which may only be of interest to me: Hip Hop Universal

Olympic snowboarder's 'street' style offends Japanese

Tokyo, Japan (CNN) -- Olympic snowboarder Kazuhiro Kokubo is the talk of Japan. Not for his athletic ability -- but for his appearance.

The 21-year-old member of Japan's national team unwittingly caused outrage from cabinet-level government lawmakers to the patrons at the corner pub when he arrived in Vancouver for the winter games.

Kokubo was wearing the team-issued uniform, which consisted of a suit, shirt and tie. But he wasn't wearing it quite right.

Kokubo's shirt was untucked, his pants hung low below his hips, and his tie was loosened revealing an unbuttoned shirt. Kokubo sported dark glasses indoors and double nose piercings. He also wore his hair down, revealing a mane of dreadlocks.

Sphere: Related Content

Are Liberals Condescending?

Gerard Alexander, assosicate professor of politics at the University of Virginia asked in last Sunday's WaPo why liberals are so condescending. Regardless of your initial reaction to the question, consideration of Alexander's charge is important at this time when Congressional gridlock and partisan squabbling have made it difficult for the U.S. to effectively address our most pressing issues.

Alexander claims that:

"American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration."

I wonder how he counted that up? Did Alexander take a poll to determine that liberals are more condescending?

This liberal condescension, Alexander further claims, has "impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever." He then goes on to explain the historical liberal antecendents to our present condescension as well as four liberal narratives concerning conservatives. Regarding the historical record of liberal condescension, Alexander claims that liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades beginning in the fifties with Lionel Trilling claiming that conservatives do not "express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." The condescension continued through the sixties with Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963) and The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965); dropped off during the seventies during the Carter Administration; and has now, according to Alexander, returned with a vengence.

Like, Episode III: Revenge of the Liberals?

Anyway. Alexander explains his four liberal narratives showing condescension for conservatives. First, the "vast right-wing conspiracy": the idea that, "conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public." Alexander argues that liberals condescend here by concluding that conservative arguments are invariably false and cynical. He notes that under this condesension, "evidence of the costs of cap-and-trade carbon rationing is waved away as corporate propaganda; arguments against health-care reform are written off as hype orchestrated by insurance companies." Consequently, the first liberal condescension makes conservatives in this vast right wing conspiracy theory either quacks, dupes, or hired guns selling falsehoods.

I can see why Alexander thinks "arguments" like health care reform leading to government sponsored death panels or socialism should be given deeper consideration . . . Perhaps liberals have been to hasty in dismissing those concerns . . . Yeah. . . . Let's leave open for now the possibility that some conservative arguments are indeed false and cynical as is the case with the death panel assertions and socialism assertions.

Second, the "What's the Matter with Kansas" narrative:
According to Alexander, liberals believe that Americans who follow conservatives and their conspiracy have either been manipulated or they are simply stupid. Alexander cites Thomas Frank's argument that, "working-class voters were so distracted by issues such as abortion that they were induced into voting against their own economic interests." Not an unfair criticism.

Third, the Southern Strategy narrative:
Liberals believe that Republicans since Nixon have tapped into white racial and ethnic prejudice using issues such as welfare reform, crime control, and immigration as cover for racial animus. Alexander notes President Carter's recent assertions that opposition to Obama and his policies has been a result of racist attitudes. Again, how exactly are we supposed to behave towards Republicans when they do indeed tap into white racial and ethnic prejudice? Is it condescending to point this out?

Fourth the "emotion and anxiety" narrative:
Liberals believe that conservatives are driven by emotion and anxiety so appealing to them is more difficult than appealing to liberals who are swayed more often by logic and reason. Here, Alexander cites Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason," in which Gore argues that American politics are under seige from religious fanatics and foreign policy extremists using propaganda to maintain public suppport.



Hmm . . .

Alexander notes that not ALL liberals adhere to these narratives nor do ALL liberals condescend. Still, Alexander, argues, these narratives are "mainstream in left-of-center thinking." These condescensions and narratives are primarily the province of liberals according to Alexander and rarely exhibited by conservatives. The danger of liberal condescension, he further argues, is that it, "severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues."

I'm surprised Professor Alexander can fit into his Levis with balls that big.

Condescension is basically the act of patronizing or behaving in a manner that shows you feel superior to another. It implies that you are stooping to a lower level to deal with an inferior. It seems beside the point of policy discussion. What exactly does liberals' behavior in conducting arguments have to do with the validity of the argument itself? Isn't this condescension claim a glorified ad hominem? If we're arguing about whether we need to reform our healthcare policy to cover more people or prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, what the hell does it matter whether I think I'm superior while we're arguing? If you really want to diffuse someone's condescension, how 'bout provin' 'em wrong? Wouldn't that do more to knock someone off her high horse than claiming that she was "actin' pompous" (shout out Vetter).

What do you think? Are liberals condescending? Does it matter? Why? Sphere: Related Content

We Are the World

Lil Wayne auto-tune? Celine Dion breakin' it on down? Miley . . . Cyrus . . .

I'll donate to Haitian relief if I never have to hear this song again. Sphere: Related Content

King Goes Hard at Fenty

Washington Post op-ed columnist, Colbert I. King has a bone to pick with D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and apparently he's not alone. In his latest broad side against Fenty, King notes WaPo polling indicating that Fenty's support in D.C. is collapsing. Most surprising is Fenty's drop off in popularity among African-Americans:

"While Fenty (D) has lost significant support among whites, African Americans have done a complete reversal on the mayor since a Post survey two years ago. Blacks have switched from 68 percent approval after his first year in office to 65 percent disapproval in the poll conducted last week. Overall, 42 percent of residents approve of the job he is doing; 49 percent disapprove. More than four in 10 in the new poll doubt his honesty, empathy and openness."

King's columns provide several reasons for Fenty's loss of support among constituents ranging from substance to style:

On D.C.'s AIDS/HIV rate, King says of Fenty's 2009 State of the District Address:

"The speech did not report on the condition of the nation's capital . . .  The D.C. AIDS crisis is scandalous.  In 1986, the District was one of the first cities in the country to appoint an AIDS director and an office to monitor the epidemic and care for the afflicted, as The Post's Jose Antonio Vargas reported in 2006. But things have gone downhill fast. Between 1998 and 2006, reported Vargas, the city distributed nearly $500 million in federal and local funds to dozens of community groups charged with prevention, housing and health care.

What do we have to show for it? An astonishing 3 percent of residents who are infected with HIV or have full-blown AIDS. Where did the money go? David Catania (I-At Large), chairman of the D.C. Council's Health Committee, said: "Four years ago, this program was a joke, and there is no other way to put it." Yes, there is. How about "criminal" and "a crying shame"? More than $500 million in taxpayer money down the drain, we're left with the highest HIV/AIDS rates -- and not so much as a peep of concern from the city's leader?"

On the exodus of parents and students in the area from D.C. public schools:

"Last week, washingtonpost.com reported that the District's non-charter public schools suffered their steepest annual decline since the city started verifying student enrollment through an outside firm a decade ago. Enrollment last September was 45,190 -- down 8.5 percent from 49,422 the previous year. . . Fenty said: "The District of Columbia Public Schools is [sic] making great progress." That view is lost on the people who matter most -- parents."

King also takes aim at Fenty's perceived arrogance:

"It's enough to make you start thinking that you're beyond accountability, that you're invulnerable and never wrong. Which, of course, can lead to the kind of decisions that make people fear that the trappings of the job may be causing the mayor to lose his bearings. How else to explain his:

-- Secret, all-expenses-paid trip to Abu Dhabi provided by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

-- Childish ripping-off of the council's baseball tickets, which, by the way, neither the mayor nor the council deserves.

-- Attempts to pack government posts with spectacularly unqualified friends.

-- Refusal to consider the possibility that Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee is not always right.

-- Summary firing of officials.

-- Abandoning the police security detail in order to travel the city at all times of day and night unprotected -- and presumably unobserved.

-- Thumbing his nose at the media in the mistaken belief that a few exclusive tidbits tossed here and there are enough to win them over.

By themselves, those are eyebrow-raisers and no more. Taken as a whole, they form the picture of a mayor riding high."

Washington City Paper has been tracking Fenty's drop in popularity as well. City Paper's Loose Lips column cites reporting on the racial divide in Fenty's popularity (or lack thereof):

"'Fenty has come up short in supplying substantive change in some key areas, especially ones important to the District's African American majority. Blacks fault Fenty for providing little or no progress in handling gentrification, unemployment and AIDS, according to African American politicians, community leaders and average residents whom I interviewed this week....At a time when blacks are nervous about giving up their majority status in the city (54 percent and falling), there's also unhappiness that so few of Fenty's top appointees are African American. Black leaders and residents told me that it's right for the mayor to find the best people available---but that he also needs to show blacks that the city isn't going back to a time when there wasn't opportunity for them at the top....Fenty has failed to reassure residents that he cared as much about low-cost housing as upscale development. He's also criticized for doing too little to protect the interests of the less advantaged while neighborhoods are revitalized.'

QUOTE---From Bill Lightfoot: 'The older generation feels it's losing something....When I talk to younger black professionals, they're not disenchanted with Adrian. They feel they are getting their piece of the pie.' (McCartney notes: 'the Post poll showed no statistically significant difference between the level of disapproval of Fenty among blacks younger than 40 and those 40 and older.')

In an Examiner piece, Jonetta Rose Barras also examines black attitudes toward Fenty. 'The black political brand began changing in the 1990s, when African-Americans started choosing more pragmatic leaders who brought a corporate approach to governing. Williams was the first District mayor of that class; Fenty is the second. They achieved measurable results but forgot that personality and communication can be as important as policy....As the Ward 4 city councilman, Fenty touched and talked. As mayor, he has been called remote and aloof. He has hemorrhaged African-American support since 2008. Nasty fights with the council, highly publicized investigations, employee firings and a recession more pronounced among blacks made matters worse.'"

I was surprised at the lack of support for Fenty particularly as it breaks down along racial lines. As a Black resident of the District, I've been either pleased or ambivalent about Fenty's performance over the last couple years. I've seen increased business activity downtown but there also appears to me, to be a different feeling in D.C. than that which existed during my childhood and adolescence here. Downtown neighborhoods appear to be more diverse now. The District seems safer. Areas that had seen the worst of the sixities riots finally seem to be showing signs of revival.

On the other hand, I don't take advantage of the D.C. government services that would make me feel antipathy towards Fenty. I don't really take the bus. I didn't attend D.C. public schools and I don't have children yet. I have health insurance and if I'm unhappy with my doctor, it's not hard to find another.  I can understand how D.C. residents who rely on schools, transportation, healthcare, and the rest of services Fenty is responsible for, could be disappointed by his progress in those areas.

I wonder if Fenty's popularity problems have any similarity to Obama and Democrats' popularity problems these days? Is all of this just more disappointment in our (relatively) newly elected leaders' inability to turn things around quickly? Sphere: Related Content

Black Anti-Semitism

There's a marked difference between claiming that "there are racist Black people" and claiming that "Black people are racist."

In the first instance, you're making a statement of verifiable fact. There are racist Black people. This fact shouldn't be any more controversial than claiming that there're tall Black people. I mean, it's just a fact of reality that there are people within any group that share traits of humanity like height or racial animus. That statement is a far cry from making a blanket indictment of all Black people by claiming that Black people as a whole are racist. That statement is demonstrably false: not all Black people are racist.  It might seem like quibbling, but the contrast between these two statements illustrates the difference between a racist observation and an observation concerning race.

When I was younger, one thinker, John Henrick Clarke, raised my historical and cultural awareness to another level, but there were troubling aspects to Dr. Clarke's work and philosophy. What I once thought were Dr. Clarke's observations about race, upon deeper review appear to me to be racist observations. Founding chairman of the Department of Black and Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College of CUNY, Dr. Clarke, championed the philosophy of Pan-Africanism, "a sociopolitical world view, philosophy, and movement which seeks to unify native Africans and those of African heritage into a "global African community"" Pan-Africanism and Dr. Clarke's writing on the role of Africans in the development of civilization helped shape my identity broadening my worldview, my view of Africans, and my view of African-Americans.

I wouldn't argue that my experience is universal or that everyone will necessarily respond to information the same way, but to me, Pan-Africanism wasn't just about embracing African culture and history, it also meant excluding and sometimes berating European culture and history. Maybe that's just something we, Black people, go through growing up. Put yourself in the shoes of a Black high school student whose knowledge of African history can be summed up as "Ancient Egypt" and "Transatlantic slave trade". If the gist of what you knew of your own history was that your ancestors were enslaved and your people's history since then has been getting over that event, don't you think you might hold some animosity towards the group/countries/cultures that carried out those acts? This animosity towards Europeans' role in African history was also present in Dr. Clarke's writings.

One of the most damning criticisms of Dr. Clarke came in a 1992 New York Times op-ed by Dr. Henry Louis Gates (most recently in the public's eye for the mildly absurd Beer Summit), entitled, "Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars." Gates, at the outset takes issue with a strain of African-American bigotry towards Jewish people of European descent:

"During the past decade, the historic relationship between African-Americans and Jewish Americans -- a relationship that sponsored so many of the concrete advances of the civil rights era -- showed another and less attractive face.

While anti-Semitism is generally on the wane in this country, it has been on the rise among black Americans. A recent survey finds not only that blacks are twice as likely as whites to hold anti-Semitic views but -- significantly -- that it is among younger and more educated blacks that anti-Semitism is most pronounced.

The trend has been deeply disquieting for many black intellectuals. But it is something most of us, as if by unstated agreement, choose not to talk about. At a time when black America is beleaguered on all sides, there is a strong temptation simply to ignore the phenomenon or treat it as something strictly marginal. And yet to do so would be a serious mistake. As the African-American philosopher Cornel West has insisted, attention to black anti-Semitism is crucial, however discomfiting, in no small part because the moral credibility of our struggle against racism hangs in the balance."

Gates then details specific instances of Black anti-Semitism:

"A book popular with some in the "Afrocentric" movement, "The Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man's Racism, Sexism, and Aggression," by Michael Bradley, argues that white people are so vicious because they, like the rest of mankind, are descended from the brutish Neanderthals. More to the point, it speculates that the Jews may have been the "'purest' and oldest Neanderthal-Caucasoids," the iciest of the ice people; hence (he explains) the singularly odious character of ancient Jewish culture.

Crackpot as it sounds, the book has lately been reissued with endorsements from two members of the Africana Studies Department of the City College of New York, as well as an introduction by Dr. John Henrik Clarke, professor emeritus of Hunter College and the great paterfamilias of the Afrocentric movement.

Dr. Clarke recently attacked multiculturalism as the product of what he called the "Jewish educational mafia." And while Dr. Leonard Jeffries's views on supposed Jewish complicity in the subjection of blacks captured headlines, his intellectual cohorts such as Conrad Muhammad and Khallid Muhammad address community gatherings and college students across the country purveying a similar doctrine. College speakers and publications have played a disturbing role in legitimating the new creed. Last year, U.C.L.A.'s black newspaper, Nommo, defended the importance of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious Czarist canard that portrays a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. (Those who took issue were rebuked with an article headlined: "Anti-Semitic? Ridiculous -- Chill.") Speaking at Harvard University earlier this year, Conrad Muhammad, the New York representative of the Nation of Islam, neatly annexed environmentalism to anti-Semitism when he blamed the Jews for despoiling the environment and destroying the ozone layer."

Dr. Clarke issued a response to Dr. Gates' criticism entitled, "A Dissenting View."  Clarke first notes that many of the Black demogauges and pseudo scholars Gates is attacking have relied on White scholarship to draw their conclusions:

"Most of the old and new Black scholars asking for a total reconsideration of African history, in particular, and world history, in general, are using neglected documents by radical White Scholars who are generally neglected by the White academic community."

I don't think the fact that "Whites said it first" inoculates Dr. Clarke and his colleagues from charges of bigotry. If, for example, a Klu Klux Klan member came to me and argued that his racist rants came originally from some Black person, I would not then think that the racist rants were somehow o.k.

Dr. Clarke then claims that Dr. Gates' criticism is an exaggeration:

"Professor Gates' reference to Black anti-Semitism is an exaggeration. A new Black awareness is causing Blacks, young and old, to question everything that has any influence on their lives. We are realizing that Jewish people have an influence on our lives far out of proportion to their numbers in the population. I totally disagree with Professor Gates that anti-Semitism among Whites is on the wane in the country. Quite the contrary, I think it is increasing in this country and in the world, and Black people are not the cause of it.

What you have in this new charge of anti Semitism against Blacks is the most pathetic of all tragedies, a scapegoat looking for a scapegoat. Because of Black Americans' reading or misreading of the Bible, we have always had a sentimental attachment to Jewish people and, to a large extent, most of us still do. During slavery, we wanted to attach ourselves to a people who had escaped from bondage. So, the Exodus story in the Bible became more real to us than to the Jewish people. Right now, in a large number of Black Baptist churches, you can get a large number of the congregation to shed real tears of sympathy over the three Hebrew boys in the fiery furnace. Of all the organized White hate groups in the United States, I know of no overt attacks by the Jews being made on any of them. Yet, Jewish people have attacked Louis Farrakhan more than they have attacked the leaders of the Aryan Nation or the American Nazi Party. Are the Jews in America looking for an easy victory or the Truth? Black Americans have never been their enemy. And they, the Jews, have never been our friends unless it was to their convenience. Neo-Nazism has fully re-emerged in Germany and in other states in Europe. These are people with a nation structure and armies. Why is it that a group of weak Black Americans are getting more attention from the Jews than these powerful White forces rising against them?

I'm sorry that Professor Cornell West saw fit to make a statement about this false charge of Black anti-Semitism. I could agree with his statement if the statement were true. What Black people are realizing in this country, in the Caribbean Islands and in Africa is that the Jewish people, of European descent, are a part of the world apparatus of European control. And, in the matter of White control over the world, their position is no different than that of other Europeans. I am not saying that the Jews of Europe are more bent on world dominance than other Europeans; I am saying that they are not radically different from other Europeans in this regard. Internal disputes between the Jews and other Europeans is a form of European domestic racism. European racism has spent itself out outside of Europe. During the Nazi regime in Germany, that racism turned inward on itself and created what is referred to as The Holocaust. This was a problem started in Europe by Europeans that should have been resolved in Europe by Europeans.

Repeatedly I have said that Europeans are geniuses at draining the diseased pus of their political sores on the lands of other people. What is now being called anti Semitism among a newly awakened Black intellectual class is that they are beginning to look at the people referred to as Jews as part of the totality of European world dominance. We are not saying that the European who is a Jew is any more of an imperialist than any other of the Europeans, but that he is basically the same. We are not saying that the role of the Jews in the slave trade was any different then any other Europeans, but that it was basically the same. When they saw the opportunity to make money in the slave trade, they took advantage of this opportunity the same as other Europeans in the same business."

Dr. Clarke is not persuasive. Whether Jewish people have an influence on Black lives disproportionate to their population size does not justify anti-Semitism or the wholesale castigation of any group. African Americans, for example, commit a disproportionate amount of certain crimes, yet I'm sure Dr. Clarke would not suggest that this somehow justifies a blanket view of our group.

Nor does the fact that there are powerful, White, anti-Semitic, hate groups somehow make Black anti-Semitism occuring on a smaller scale acceptable. Dr. Clarke would not excuse the racist actions of a small group of Middle Eastern people, for example, because there are larger groups that share their racist perspectives. The size of a group does not determine the morality of their actions. It is the action itself that is in question.

Finally, Dr. Clarke's notion that the entire group of Jewish people or White people or European people shares responsibility for the actions of a few in the past (or in the present) is the very definition of racism. Dr. Clarke's arguments are stated without regard for individual members of different racial/ethnic/religious groups. "Europeans are geniuses at . . .", "people, of European descent, are a part of the world apparatus of European control." All Europeans? All Jews of European decent? This is an assertion that the inherent racial and ethnic differences between Europeans and Africans have determined a negative cultural achievment or a failure on the part of all Europeans; specifically a moral and ethical failure. This is wrong. There were and are Europeans who mistreated people of other races. There were and are Jews of European decent who mistreated people of other races. But there were and are Africans and African-Americans who have also done the same. Painting the entire group of Jewish people or Europeans or Blacks with this brush is wrong. This type of bigotry is exactly what the civil rights movement was supposed to decry.

I love Dr. Clarke for the philosophical shift he brought to me personally and to academia in general and the feeling of pride he helped instill within Africans and African-Americans, but he was wrong about many things. I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in so far as he is a product of his times. He was born in 1915. His experiences and thinking were clearly of his era. Still, this should not prevent us from having the integrity to acknowledge failings within our own groups and within our own heroes.

Sphere: Related Content

Can We Get a D.C. Anthem Please?

I'm hatin' just a little bit. As a D.C. resident, I freely admit my jealousy of New York's skyscrapers; status as birthplace of hip hop; incredible food (Ali!) and general glamorousness. But D.C. is still our Nation's Capital and as such don't you think we should at least have a decent anthem? The issue of a D.C. anthem has nagged at me for years. With all the culture, art, history, and diversity in D.C. you would think we would've had a decent theme song years ago. The President lives here! Congress. The Supreme Court. It's not like we're talking about some population five hundred ghost town in the middle of flyover country. This is D.C.!

I was content to let the issue simmer in my ongoing mental list of wrongs that must be righted until . . . this:



Oh. No. You. Di'nt!!!

C'mon man. This is not even remotely fair. It's not like New York didn't already have a great anthem:



Now Jay-Z has to come along and kick sand in our collective District faces. I've had it. All these other cities have decent anthems. Cleavland Rocks. Kansas City. San Francisco. Chicago, My kind of town. Chicago has a broadway play for Pete's sake! Gary. . . sigh . . . Indiana . . . has an anthem and D.C. doesn't (have one worth a damn).  Look, D.C. I know we've had our problems. Marion Barry. Crack. Longtime murder capital of the U.S. Hollywood for ugly people. But we've got to be able to do better than this:



Pissed off yet? Yeah, me too. O.k. let's get some professionals on this case. There're plenty of talented Washingtonians that could give us an anthem that, at least, sounds like music from this century. We could start with our own homegrown musical genre, go-go. Chuck Brown, D.C. funk and go-go legend, would certainly give us something better than that thing attached above.



Too esoteric? Too much local flavor? What about a more mainstream hip hop kind of sound? Up and coming hip hop star and DC native, Wale, might be a better choice. His track with the Roots:



Last but not least, I nominate (and shamelessly plug) my local homies Nappy Riddem and Fort Knox Five. They're serious:



C'mon D.C. let's get it.




Sphere: Related Content

This is the 21st Century?

"Ah, how the mood of "Mad Men" shifts so quickly! But can't the same be said for the mood of American life? One minute we're doing the Lucky Lindy, the next minute, we're waiting on bread lines and heating up leftover stone soup. One minute we're thinking our old LaSalle runs great, the next we're waiting on gas lines and hoping that the USSR doesn't blow us to smithereens. One minute we're investigating an all-raw, organic diet and calculating the value of our dot-com stock options in our heads, the next we're scarfing down Big Macs, waiting to default on our interest-only mortgages."

Mad Men, the exceptional AMC series revolving around a Madison Avenue advertising firm in the early sixties, has been on my mind lately. The show captures a culture-wide feeling of confusion and ambiguity that seems, at least to me, to be the result of the transition from the straight-laced era we think of as "the fifties" to the mind-altered, turbulent era we think of as "the sixties." One character employed at the show's ad agency is apparently attracted to men, but given the constraints of the era chooses to live his life as if he were attracted to women. A female character is promoted from secretary to the male-dominated copywriter position where she achieves mixed results in her attempts to be viewed as an equal to her male co-workers.

While these scenarios of sexuality and civil rights still perplex us today, the show conveys the sensation of dealing with situations "before" and being at the cusp of dealing with those situations "after." The characters seem to be so tantalizingly close to a time when their issues would be viewed with greater understanding by our culture as a whole. There is an urge when watching a young woman on the show receive a swat on the behind from a male co-worker, to yell, "Just hang on for a few more years! Nobody in the office will think that swat is o.k. in just a few years! You're so close!" Of course, it's not that simple. Sexual harrassment still happens. But do we view it the same way we did in the fifties? Would we view the swat in 1956 the same way we'd view it in 1966? Did we view the world on September 10th, 2001 the same way we viewed the world on September 12th?

It is this feeling of confusion and ambiguity at play today. This is supposed to be the 21st century, with flying cars and jet packs, and HAL. But, clearly we're not yet flying to work or taking commericial space trips to Mars. I strongly suspect the anger and feeling of disappointment so prevalent today is a by-product of an entire culture "before" on the cusp of  "after." There are certainly flashes of the future all around us. A Black president. People walking down the street apparently talking to the themselves, but actually talking to others on blue tooth technology. The internet. A space station. GPS. Computer generated block buster movies. Ipad, Ipod, Iphone, Ithis, Ithat. But, all those modern wonders are cast against a backdrop of double digit unemployment, race baiting, don't ask don't tell, and so-called religious leaders blaming natural disasters on God's wrath. It all seems so wrong. Like we've collectively failed to meet the promise of the future.

I suppose, though, that the beauty of being stuck on the "before" side of "before and after", is that "after" is indeed so tantalizingly close. We're close (in the most relativisitc sense of the word possible) to solving greenhouse gas climate change. We're close to a pluralistic United States. We're close to drastically reducing world hunger. Just hang on!

Published in EzineArticles dot com. Sphere: Related Content

Miscellany

Couldn't really think of one topic for today so here're some articles I found interesting:

Why Are You So Terribly Disappointing? (shout out to TPFrey for the heads up)

"What happened to my bonus? What happened to my job? What happened to my country? Why can't it all go the way it's supposed to go? You mean having a kid won't solve my marriage problems? Why don't these drugs make me feel better? Where's that goddamn waiter with my salad? Have you seen the stupid weather today? Is this really all there is?


These are, from what I can glean, the most important questions of the day, of the month, of modern life itself. Hell, what with the economy and job situation, the housing market and the overall feel and texture of the nation right now, it's no wonder Americans are, by and large, a goddamn miserable bunch. We don't like anything right now. No politician, no decision, no situation, no inhale, no exhale. We are sick to death of all of it, including ourselves. "

A Nation of Racist Dwarves

"I have recently donned the bifocals provided by B.R. Myers in his electrifying new book The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters, and I understand now that I got the picture either upside down or inside out. The whole idea of communism is dead in North Korea, and its most recent "Constitution," "ratified" last April, has dropped all mention of the word. The analogies to Confucianism are glib, and such parallels with it as can be drawn are intended by the regime only for the consumption of outsiders. Myers makes a persuasive case that we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia."

The Blackest White Folks We Know

Race relations have gotten a little crazy lately. An all-white basketball league? Seriously? Then there’s Rod Blagojevich, declaring that he’s “blacker than Obama.” The Root takes a look at those who claim "blackness" and those that we think make the cut -- whether they like it or not. Sphere: Related Content

The Will of the People

"The dominant liberal lobe favors Adams's dictum that politicians should not be "palsied by the will of our constituents." It exhorts Democrats to smack Americans with what is good for them -- health-care reform, carbon rationing, etc. -- even if the dimwits do not desire it. " George F. Will

Should legislators adhere to the will of the people or should they adhere to the best interests of the people? This has been a popular question lately as public opinion favoring health care reform crumbles.  Arguing that legislators must adhere to the will of the people seems reasonable on it's face. As Will's quote and op-ed show, ignoring the will of the people seems paternalistic. But, if legislators are driven by the will of the people, what happens when the will of the people is morally reprehensible or detrimental to the best interests of the people?



This seems misguided to me if for no other reason than it has little foundation in law or history.

U.S. Congressmen take an oath of office that broadly outlines their duties:

"At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

This oath makes no mention of serving the will of the people. In fact, it simply requires legislators to uphold the United States Constitution.

The Constitution itself, makes no mention of a duty to serve the will of the people. Neither the Preamble, or Article I - which lays out the powers of Congress, the following Articles II through VII, or the Amendments, mention legislators' duty to serve the will of the people.

Some have argued that the Federalist Papers, specifically, James Madison's Federalist #10, advocate a "representative democracy" of elected officials representing the will of the people. This argument fails at the outset, however, because we do not follow the law of the Federalist Papers in this country; we (ostensibly) follow the Constitution. More important though, is the fact that Federalist #10 doesn't necessarily advocate following the will of the people as explicitly as some believe. In fact, Madison, in Federalist #10, argues for the need to neuter majority and minority factions:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

(hmmm   . . . sounds familiar)

"AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it.

The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected.

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other.

These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations."

Madison goes on to argue that a republic is superior to democracy in controling factions that might damage the United States:

"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.

Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.

Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security.

Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage."

Legislators should not be compelled to adhere to the wishes of consituents. Legislators should do what is in the best interests of the people and this country. Is that undemocratic? Yes. Paternalistic? Maybe. Necessary? Clearly. Sphere: Related Content