A lot of attention has been devoted to this moment of candor that brought Jesse Jackson into the spotlight last week. While it's disappointing to see that even the greatest leaders within our diaspora cannot escape the pathology of our mental and social development in America, I think we do ourselves a disservice to honor it with much discourse.
That's my politically correct "King's English" way of saying Jesse is out of line and insecure. If he's stupid enough to say something that inflammatory around the media, then it's time for him to go sit down somewhere, for real. Nobody can argue his love and dedication to the Black community, nor the gains he's made for us as a people in America. But damn, we sure know how to be own own worst-enemy at the most in-opportune times.
Our older Black leadership has built their relevance fighting against a political and social system that has systemically stymied growth and access to opportunity for Blacks. These systems continue today, but not in the same contexts as before. Our new Black leadership has a different approach that aligns better with the contemporary nuances of a progressive, global, and broader multi-cultural world. The old paradigms don't work as well, and can sometimes be misplaced and counter-productive - a la Rev. Wright.
I think the whole episode tarnished Jesse's image the most - because it revealed the irrational and emotional aspects of what happens when someone who used to be "the man" realizes he's now the "old man." Passing the torch can be graceful or clumsy; it depends on the grip each person has on it.
Furthermore, if Obama was off-message, I might be able to see Jackson's point of view. But BHO was saying what we have always known to be true - take responsibility for yourself and your family. We know the system must become more inclusive and enabling to Black people, but showing initiative by refusing personal complacency will get a more positive reaction from policymakers. Let's use a real-life example:
Questions: How long should a single mom working full-time let her able-bodied boyfriend lay on her coach all-day?; How long should she accept her baby-daddy's refusal to contribute child support to her household?
Answers: Not one more day; Not one more day.
Just One Man's Opinion.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Politics of Audacity
As predicted, this presidential race is making it's way into the realm of vicious character assassination and malicious innuendo. The salvo shot is the audacious image gracing the front cover of a broadly respected and liberal thought-leading publication, "The New Yorker". It has a readership of over 1 million people across the US, their average annual income surpassing $81K. The publication is synonymous with intellectual thought and cultural enlightenment. And what better place to lay the groundwork of a subversive attack against Obama - directed at the core of his constituency. This cover also provides validation of the baseless fears and stereotypical suspicions of the "not so enlightened" among us. Here's why...
Satire is valid only if it re-enforces the truth. Otherwise, it's simply an ad hominem device.
The New Yorker has tried to explain the clever ironic satire of the cover image. But the #1 rule of comedy is - if you have to spend time to explain the joke, it ain't funny. Even more importantly, let's make sure we know what satire truly is. The dictionary defines satire as: 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn; 2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly. In everyday life, we know satire when we see it by the exaggerated characteristics of a person (whether they be physical or philosophical) that are KNOWN TO BE TRUE. When we make fun of these truths, then it's funny. When we try to make fun of un-truths, it's not funny. And when a thought leader makes fun of un-truths, it's interpreted as reliable information to the less enlightened. Which brings me to my next point...
Two wrongs don't make a right (in other words, "a satire of a satire" only serves to re-enforce the stereotype).
The explanation provided is they are trying to dispel myths about the Obamas by exaggerating the imagery of those misconceptions. How are we supposed to interpret this? The cover provides no context - and this so-called "intelligent humor" simply goes over most people's head. The image doesn't doesn't challenge the misconceptions, it only illustrates them. That creates a problem because...
A picture is worth 1000 words.
The cartoonist has combined all of the fears held by an alarming percentage of Americans into one very handy 8 X 11 reference guide. Just look at these latest polls results from Newsweek (July 9-10):
POLL: How many people still think Obama:
Was raised as a Muslim 26%
Attended Islamic School 39%
Is a practicing Muslim 12%
Swore into Senate on Quran 12%
Which brings me to my final point...
Certain people only hear what they want to hear.
That goes for the educated and un-educated within our electorate, as well as the MSM. It doesn't seem to matter how many times BHO sets the record straight with clear and direct language. Obama has written a comprehensive OpEd piece that was published in the NYTimes. He has also laid out a very clear Foreign Policy strategy with 5 distinct goals. It doesn't get any simpler, yet still I bet the conservatives are going to say "He needs to clarify his position." See the OpEd article by clicking here.
Obama's full transcript of his speech laying out his strategy can be found here.
The fact of the matter is every vote carries the same weight (assuming every vote is counted). So, understanding the issues, knowing the facts and the truth, and challenging the rhetoric are the things that qualify a person's vote. It can mean the difference between "voting for" or "voting against". A voter from deep within Appalachia who never got beyond a 3rd grade education and who is deeply prejudiced has the same power in the voting booth as the multi-cultural Yale grad with a Park Ave job, a passport, and a 401K who lives in a gated suburban community. How each understands the real issues will help determine the direction of our country. God help us if more of this audacious bigotry goes un-checked.
Just One Man's Opinion.
Satire is valid only if it re-enforces the truth. Otherwise, it's simply an ad hominem device.
The New Yorker has tried to explain the clever ironic satire of the cover image. But the #1 rule of comedy is - if you have to spend time to explain the joke, it ain't funny. Even more importantly, let's make sure we know what satire truly is. The dictionary defines satire as: 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn; 2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly. In everyday life, we know satire when we see it by the exaggerated characteristics of a person (whether they be physical or philosophical) that are KNOWN TO BE TRUE. When we make fun of these truths, then it's funny. When we try to make fun of un-truths, it's not funny. And when a thought leader makes fun of un-truths, it's interpreted as reliable information to the less enlightened. Which brings me to my next point...
Two wrongs don't make a right (in other words, "a satire of a satire" only serves to re-enforce the stereotype).
The explanation provided is they are trying to dispel myths about the Obamas by exaggerating the imagery of those misconceptions. How are we supposed to interpret this? The cover provides no context - and this so-called "intelligent humor" simply goes over most people's head. The image doesn't doesn't challenge the misconceptions, it only illustrates them. That creates a problem because...
A picture is worth 1000 words.
The cartoonist has combined all of the fears held by an alarming percentage of Americans into one very handy 8 X 11 reference guide. Just look at these latest polls results from Newsweek (July 9-10):
POLL: How many people still think Obama:
Was raised as a Muslim 26%
Attended Islamic School 39%
Is a practicing Muslim 12%
Swore into Senate on Quran 12%
Which brings me to my final point...
Certain people only hear what they want to hear.
That goes for the educated and un-educated within our electorate, as well as the MSM. It doesn't seem to matter how many times BHO sets the record straight with clear and direct language. Obama has written a comprehensive OpEd piece that was published in the NYTimes. He has also laid out a very clear Foreign Policy strategy with 5 distinct goals. It doesn't get any simpler, yet still I bet the conservatives are going to say "He needs to clarify his position." See the OpEd article by clicking here.
Obama's full transcript of his speech laying out his strategy can be found here.
The fact of the matter is every vote carries the same weight (assuming every vote is counted). So, understanding the issues, knowing the facts and the truth, and challenging the rhetoric are the things that qualify a person's vote. It can mean the difference between "voting for" or "voting against". A voter from deep within Appalachia who never got beyond a 3rd grade education and who is deeply prejudiced has the same power in the voting booth as the multi-cultural Yale grad with a Park Ave job, a passport, and a 401K who lives in a gated suburban community. How each understands the real issues will help determine the direction of our country. God help us if more of this audacious bigotry goes un-checked.
Just One Man's Opinion.
Monday, July 7, 2008
McCain's Got Oil on his Hands
McCain is a double-talking swindler. So much for his "straight-talk" express!
More of the Flip-Flop King:
More of the Flip-Flop King:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)