Here is an opportunity to have a little light-hearted fun. I took the time to listen (with all of the strength that I could muster) to Palin's farewell speech. I was hoping to find some indicators of her intentions in the months and years to come. Obviously, she has built up some political capital (I'm still confused as to how this was possible), and a tremendous following (even more confusing!) So, being the naturally suspicious person that I am, I listened to her very carefully.
The bottom line is -- -- I got nothing! I don't know WTF she was talking about. But apparently I missed something, because when I looked at Sean Hannity's show later that night, the pundits were praising her deep insights, conservatism, and leadership qualities. I on the other hand, get more insight from Curious George Rides a Bike (I love the cliffhanger ending!).
Here is Hannity's assessment. He brings in Frank Luntz - a pollster, linguist and frequent show guest. I find it hard to believe that Hannity really believes what he's saying....
This whole schtick reminded me of the In Living Color skits "Men on Films". Their analysis was laughable.
Then I saw the following interpretation, and her speech came into complete focus for me. I'm now on the bandwagon. I think she should go on tour with The Roots. She's got a poetic gift that shouldn't be squandered in politics. I see a career in designer, limited-edition greeting cards in her future.
I'm just being facetious. This woman is clueless. God help us all if she gets elected or appointed to another public office during our lifetime.
I’ve struggled to pick a side in the conflict between Dr. Louis Gates and the Cambridge Police Department. The media has a nasty habit of hyping up controversial situations like this. They spin the dialog, they often ask questions that make people take sides, and they do a great job of making sure the tension perpetuates. I try my best to not use the conveniently anonymous “they” to assign blame – because it’s a weak and empty approach. In this context, “they” is every pundit, anchor, and reporter who blatantly doesn’t care about resolution, but only the sensationalism of the topic. It’s like the rights to a new reality show just landed in their lap, and they are doing everything they can to trademark it!
My tact has been to listen to all angles to gauge how people are posturing and how they have interpreted the events. I also read the actual police report word for word. In the final analysis, it all leads me to see it as more of the same, and ultimately it will probably be another wasted opportunity. The opportunity I mean is that of “unpacking” the baggage of American racial and structural inequality in a way that people can trust. It also means taking advantage of the trustworthiness of spirit and honesty of these baggage handlers – in this case, Gates and Crowley.
To waste this opportunity would squander the valuable human assets involved in this particular case. Dr. Gates’ life’s work, back-story, and reputation could be leveraged to underscore the legitimacy of the claim that racial profiling persists through all strata of American society. He is a trustworthy spokesperson for THIS side of the story.
Sgt. Crowley, from most accounts so far, is a decent man and a conscientious police officer. His credentials as an instructor on Racial Profiling should mean that he has a healthy sensitivity to the issue. He is a trustworthy spokesperson for THIS side of the story.
The President has also provided a substantive catalyst in two ways. His humanness as a Black man in America, and his blunt charge about how the situation was handled by the law enforcement professional demands national attention. His presence also unsettles the natural inclination to simply let this episode dissipate, or charge it off as an "isolated" incident.
Trust. This is what has been the chronic deficiency of the discussions on this topic. If approached correctly, the likely positive outcome of this conversation would be much bigger than the sum of its parts. However, if Rev. Sharpton gets involved at all, or if Rev. Jackson or President Obama say much more about it, the aura of trust will be lost. I can’t think of any other national figure that would be as polarizing as any of these men.
I’ve deliberately not assumed the guilt or innocence of either party here. All of the facts are not in, and the facts that are available may not truly be what they appear to be. But in the end, does any of that really matter? Regardless of whether Dr. Gates sues, or if Sgt. Crowley gets reprimanded, if the conversation isn’t elevated by these brokers of the public trust, nobody will win. But everybody will lose.
This video is, in my opinion, the best summary that I've seen so far regarding how the Housing / Financial Markets disintegrated. So far, I've only been able to find this first chapter, apparently there are additional chapters.
In what will likely be a watershed moment of this decade, in April 2009 the Supreme Court opined that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 did not have absolute constitutionality. In other words – it’s up for debate.
Here’s the background: Section 5 of the VRA of 1965 mandates that certain states, counties, and municipalities have to get pre-clearance from the federal government before taking specific actions – like re-drawing district lines (called gerrymandering) or making changes to voting regulations. Section 5 was designed to prevent emergence of new laws akin to Jim Crow. The states where Section 5 binds 100% of the counties include AZ, TX, LA, MS, AL, MS, GA, SC, and VA – for obvious reasons. In addition, there are several counties in FL, NC, CA, SD, and NH that must adhere to this rule. Some sections of the VRA were written into law with an expiration date, and have had to be renewed many times since 1965. The last renewal came in 2006 when GW Bush extended the Act for another 25 years.
Recently, a case challenging Section 5 was brought by the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District. They argued that Section 5 was not applicable in their case for several reasons. Among them were “Obama was elected President, so mission accomplished for the VRA” and “the Northwest Austin MUD has never been sued and/or found guilty of voter suppression.”
The outcome was an 8-1 decision by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the lower-court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of Section 5. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a lone dissent, argued that Section 5 is no longer constitutional. In other words, as far as Justice Thomas is concerned, the US doesn’t need Section 5 anymore. So now the precedent is set. Counties can now begin gerrymandering in their districts and adjusting voting regulations without the oversight of the federal government or the checks and balances of Section 5. If challenged, they’ll just sue the government and leverage this precedent to make it happen. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to predict where this goes.
History is a Great Teacher (or, at least it used to be)
Another issue is a recent debate taken up by the Texas Board of Education (in Austin, TX). Each year, the board meets to review curricula and standards for classroom instruction across Texas. This process often includes independent, outside experts hired by the board to make recommendations.
This year, recommendations were made for the history curriculum to re-move or significantly de-emphasize references to many pivotal figures who have represented “liberal” ideas. The two most note-worthy names in question are Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez. The experts argue that “promoting” the works of these advocates of social justice somehow gets in the way of the conservative agenda to promote American exceptionalism. Moreover, they want to promote Christianity as an overall force for righteousness in America’s history. In contrast, the experts suggested more emphasis on Sam Houston – a key figure in Texas history who, by the way, was also a slave-owner and documented opponent of abolitionism. Righteous.
Although teachers ultimately have the last word on what gets included in their day-to-day lesson plans, they are strongly encouraged to stick to the curriculum script. Publishers of textbooks, on the other hand, have even less latitude. The Texas market is very big, and publishers will adopt most editing suggestions from state education boards almost verbatim to ensure their business and reduce the costs of multiple textbook versions.
Can you see what is happening here? Can you see how things are beginning to slowly align? What was once old is new again. A famous quote that comes to mind is, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. “ Another way to say it is “Those allowed to re-write our history are empowered to write our future.”
My simple call to action is this: Stay informed, hold our elected leaders accountable, ask tough questions, take it personal, and get involved.
If you think we've crossed into a post-racial society simply because of the 2008 election, you're sadly mistaken. The same catalyst that has awakened the possibilities in the minds of US minorities has awakened the fears of the entitled and privileged. Just take a look at the following examples.
A new reality has finally been achieved in America. Since the birth of this nation, Black people have been intimately involved in its development. But there was never a seat at the table for Blacks. Sure, slavery was abolished, segregation was made illegal, and Civil Rights laws have been passed, but Blacks have historically been treated like invited guests.
Well, the day has finally come where an African - American is our countenance to the rest of the world. A modest and genteel human being, who embodies American family values, personifies academic excellence, and who carries the pride and perspective of the people of the heartland as well as the emigrant. With this event comes the ascension of a race, a new paradigm, and a broadening of entitlement to the promises of America. A perfect union? Not yet, but certainly better than it was on November 3, 2008.
