I recently spent two weeks in Haiti working on a film Seven Days in Haiti, which will consists of several vignettes on life in Haiti and a feature/segment on the candidacy of popular Haitian musician Michel Martelly aka Sweet Mickey. Mr. Martelly's campaigned inspired many of the Haitian youth, who threatened violence if they felt their candidate was cheated. My film crew consisted of two brilliant and engaging young men, and we met hundreds of people in a variety walks of life.

Haiti or as the Haitians call their nation Ayaiti has first world people living in a third world enviroment. None the less Haiti may erupt tonight because of the election results which Michel Martelly did not make it to the 2nd round of the elections which will pit Jude Celestin - the hand picked successor to President Preval against former Senator and First Lady Mirlande Manigat.

Comeback Kid 5.0

Why does it seem that the only one in Washington that is smiling is Barack Hussein Obama? Perhaps it has something to do with the theme started unbelievably by Washington Post uber conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who began a recent column with the remarkable prediction that the tax law legislation may have cemented President Obama’s chances at reelection - a reelection bid that to that point was steady dwindling to the degree that there were some commentators and polls that suggested President Barack Obama was headed to the Presidential category of “one and done”. Yet before the political obituaries begin for Mr. Obama, at some point there needs to be a stepping back from politics and the mind numbing left – right tug of war and acknowledge that there have been remarkable achievements under the 44th President. By the time the Presidential primaries begin in 2012, President Obama can cite salvaging of the once moribund automobile industry, a historical health care overhaul legislation, reform of the financial industry, and in the not so lame duck session of Congress, President Obama garnered, a repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, and a monumental tax bill forged from a willingness to compromise and the passage of a nuclear arms START Treaty.

On the left Progressive mouth piece Keith Olberman read President the riot act basically accusing him of betraying his own base at best and at worse being held hostage to his own short term political desires. On the right, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina accused his Senate GOP caucus members of a capitulation of “dramatic proportions. To be fair, if not balanced, the left went to the mat for the President to get health care passed, casting votes that may have cost them their jobs, so the feeling of betrayal coming from members of the House of Representatives has a level of merit and a sense of righteousness. So now only a few weeks after having his party go down in flames in the mid term election, President Obama now begins the final phase of his first term seemingly adrift from his political base, a shift which may mark a beginning of a freewheeling, high risk, high reward set of initiatives all designed to secure a 2nd term. Little wonder there are smiles at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The nature of the beast in the nation’s capital is transactions and deal making, President Obama seems to have placed his political future on this capacity to be a transactional President, party loyalty be damned.

As President Obama acknowledged at the signing of the bill tax bill which included Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell – a first - but not outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, there are parts of the bill that he doesn’t like. And there are also parts of the bill that Republican legislators held their nose while supporting. So what about the fear voiced by Keith Olberman and others that in 2012 when the tax legislation nears expiration the GOP will hold President Obama hostage and make the temporary law permanent. The rationale they say is that if President Obama was willing to anger his base in an off year – lame duck session, political expedience may force him to give in again. While I agree with the theory that the best time to go to the mat over taxes would have been prior to the midterm elections. And for the life of me, I can’t understand why the populous message of “us verses them” never took hold, during the fall campaign, but I disagree with the notion that President Obama has set himself up for a similar hostage taking in 2012.

President Obama and the Democrats have been hammered unfairly by seemingly born again Republican fiscal conservatives for the stimulus package, and the bailouts of the auto industry by staying that the spending was unnecessary, ill managed, and failed provide the needed stimuli. Now the Republicans get their way, essentially for the GOP it is put up or shut up. The underlying economic philosophy of the GOP is basically that tax cuts for the wealthy will have a positive impact on the economy, and this tax bill will put their theory to the test. Amazingly this theory was rejected by the country in writ large in 2008, yet the Republicans successfully repackaged a failed policy, and sold it to fearful Americans – the fact that this tax bill takes a potential 8 billion dollars from the American coffers, potentially lowers our debt rating, and raises the interest on our debt – notwithstanding. And, an economic policy that Mr. Obama often attacked in vociferously in stump speeches. So now by allowing a stay of execution for the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001, President Obama has partnered with the GOP which will either be a master political stroke or as Nobel Prize winning economist and The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggests, a recipe for disaster.

In either case, President Obama has a potential opportunity in 2012 to hold the Republicans on their own “trickle down” petard. Job creation will be the key agenda item going forward, and the White House and the Democrats have to do a better job in crafting the narrative over jobs than they have on other important issues in the past. For example if the unemployment numbers go down, the President will need to be able to point to his policy initiatives as the prime mover, if not, and the Republicans are allowed to say, “see we told you so” and kicking the high end tax cuts to the curb will be extremely hard to do. With a sardonic smile, and the reminder that the “holiday cheer” prevailing over this compromise will not last forever President Obama set up a predicate that will be useful in 2012. With increasing pressure from America’s Global partners to reduce the deficit, President Obama and his born again GOP Partners will have to make some tough choices, its one thing to talk tough on the campaign trail, it’s another thing to govern. And while the left that often longs for the halcyon days of William Jefferson Clinton, and smarting from a mid term political beat down, they have to recognize that no matter what, President Obama has avoided a destructive and debilitating government shutdown that may have resulted from President Obama’s insistence on holding the line on the tax cuts in a manner that would have pleased his base, but in the words of Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, it may have been a Pyrrhic victory especially if it would have been a repeat of the 1995 fiasco – while President Clinton seemed to walk away victorious in the aftermath, this is not 1995, and it was a political risk that President Obama was unwilling to take.

Yet while the White House may breathe a sigh of relief as polls continue to have him beating any potential Republican opponent, potential trouble looms in Afghanistan. The left while angry at President Obama, by and large realizes he is still their best horse for 2012, but if Afghanistan goes bad, and the body count continues to rise, and/or new “Wiki leaks” appear which serve to cast more doubt on the prosecution of the war, or Afghan President Karzai continues his dalliance with Iran and the Taliban, will President Barack Obama face a intra party challenge from the left on the basis of anti war? That is the 64,000 question. History shows that sitting presidents who face stiff challenges for the nomination often become damaged nominees, or in the case of Lyndon Johnson in 1968 are forced to stand down. The likelihood of such a challenge is low, but it is something that the Obama White House would be foolish to ignore. Yet a year ago, President Obama was pulling out all stops to get a Christmas Eve vote on Health Care, a year later, with the tea leaves in his favor, the smile is back at the White House as Christmas has come early. Say hello to the Comeback Kid 5.0.

Seven Days in Haiti

On November 21, I along with a crew of 2 others will be traveling to Haiti for nearly two weeks to cover the Haitian elections and the immediate aftermath. Your donations to this effort will cover the production cost of this project. The Documentary that I will produce titled "Seven Days in Haiti" is about the final week of the historic Haitian elections the first test of democracy in a nation devastated by the January earthquake.

UPDATE 9-27-2010

Can Democracy and poverty coexist?

That is one of the questions that my film crew will be asking Haitian candidates for President. The purpose of this email is to make you aware of my film project Seven Days in Haiti. In November I will be taking a film crew to Haiti to cover the last week of the Haitian elections. My plan is to cover the election through the eyes of two Presidential candidates by following them and their events them for the last week of the elections. We will also interview Haitians from all walks of life, NGOs, Haitian Americans, and other interested parties. The finished product will include

* A full length documentary
* A video journal of the making of the film
* daily blogs while in Haiti
* A Photobook based on photos taken during that week

ONCE COMPLETED THIS FILM AND ITS ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE RAISING MONEY FOR HAITIAN RELIEF EFFORTS

Update
Jean Kim will be joining me as project Cinementographer and Director of Photography

Jean Kim received her MFA in Film Production from the USC School of Cinematic Arts, where she concentrated her studies in cinematography. Prior to film school, Jean attended the University of California, Davis, where she earned a BA in Women and Gender Studies. It was there, as a member of a feminist video production collective, that she developed her interest in filmmaking. She later received the honor of becoming a Film Independent Fellow through their Project:Involve program, receiving mentorship from cinematographer Alexander Gruszynski, ASC.

Jean is experienced in photographing on both film and video, and is capable of producing a variety of styles. Her preferences as a filmmaker go beyond the boundaries of any film genre. The projects she chooses vary in the types of stories told and the directors' visual styles. Ultimately, Jean prefers to shoot projects that have stories she cares about and can invest herself in.
Jean currently resides in Los Angeles California

This Sunday Morning

Dr. King once called Sunday morning the most segregated time in American Christanity..I would now add, perhaps it is the most brainwashed time in African America thus I wrote in my poem This Aint Prophecy

And it’s uncanny
To say the least
But I don’t get it twisted when I see the beast
Because I know its now no longer men in sheets
That are the sole source of our grief
Our city streets
Are terrorized by red and blue beefs
And 100 thousand saints on Sunday
With their bibles, faith and belief
Don’t bring peace
But get fleeced
Because apparently Salvation ain’t cheap
Even liquor stores, pimps and hustlers find it hard to compete
With a misinterpreted scripture
That keeps a nation asleep
We worship the lamb
But bow down like sheep

I wonder if the objective
Of the pastor’s directives
Is to maintain a slumbering collective
You see
Penitentiary minds
Distorts our perspective
And though its been suggested
But not requested
I wonder if
Our own 9/11 would bring us justice?
Or as Richard Pryor once said
just us
But we have 2 much reverence
And show too much deference
To do any thing that would stress em
Test em
But god bless em
We’ll be brothers and sisters in heaven
Rignt?
But it’s the heaven on earth that we ignore

America, Obama, and What truly is at stake in 2010

The day I was born fifty one years ago, America was in a much different place. The last President born in the 19th century Dwight David Eisenhower was in the White House. The Civil Rights movement that would produce iconic names like Martin Luther King, H. Rap Brown, Medgar Evers, and el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz was entering a new and more aggressive phase. Five years earlier the Supreme Court delivered its landmark Brown V Topeka ruling effectively dismantling Jim Crow, although it would take marches, deaths, and near civil war to garner federal enforcement. Four earlier a fourteen year old young man from Chicago was brutally murdered in Money Mississippi purportedly for whistling at a white woman. In 1959 while many well known Hollywood actors, were gay, but none “came out”. In 1959 it would be another three years before a biracial child born of a white woman and a Kenyan man would be born in America’s newest state Hawaii. In 1959 the face of America – or at least the face of those in the ruling class was white. The few black faces of note were entertainers or athletes. Yet in 1959 most of the superstars in the three major American team sports were still white, national powers like Alabama, were still several years from recruiting black students. And most importantly on line P5 of the 1960 census Americans were asked: “Is this person - White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian, Aleut, Eskimo, (etc.)” notable by its absence were people of Hispanic origin.

As I write this blog, interracial, and gay couples interact with a growing sense of confidence, a man of color is the President of the United States, the most dynamic athletes in baseball “America’s pastime” have the names Pujols, and Rodriguez, the NBA is dominated by African Americans. In short America has become a true melting pot with people of all races, and genders representing America in every field imaginable. I am sure that many of those living in 1959 would vision the America of 2010 through an apocalyptic prism. Yet this where we are, and this is who we are. In 2010, part of the narrative of Barack Obama is an acknowledgement, and acceptance of this new America, an America of tolerance, and appreciation of other cultures. In 1959 the mosaic of America was primary a fusion of two old world cultures, the protestants of England that founded this country, and the catholic immigrants, although the presence and genius of the African American community forced America to embrace the genius of Langston Hughes, W.E.B.Dubois, Jackie Robinson, Duke Ellington, and Paul Robeson. Now in 2010 that mosaic has expanded, into a variety of shades, and hues, to the effect that in the former French creole territory that is now the state of Louisiana, there is a Catholic Governor with Hindu roots, and a Vietnamese congressman. This is who we are, and this what we are.

With all due respect to Barack Obama and his campaign for change which I was a part of, President Obama was a reflection of the change underfoot in America, but not its origin. Those winds of change started over a hundred years ago manifested by the Pan African movement, the growth of labor unions, woman’s suffrage movements and other change oriented organizations. Change also came in the form of demographics. That forging of the new American mosaic was sometimes organic, sometimes ugly, sometimes forced. Greed and poverty and hopes for opportunity were the underpinnings of the Hispanic growth. Wars and foreign misadventures led to the migration of Muslims, Bosnians, and Vietnamese. Asians came to America seeking opportunities and to escape poverty and/or oppression at home. Social change was also produced by sheer force of will as marches, assassinations riots, were the building blocks for change for African Americans, as the Civil Rights Movement became the template for other movements like native America, woman’s, and gay rights. Movies like Guess Who’s coming to Dinner forced America to look at an old and incendiary issue like interracial relationships.

In every case the forces of change brought about strong resistance, as fears, ignorance, and group self loathing often gave rise to violent push backs. Thus bullets felled Martin, and Malcolm, but also social “outliers” like Harvey Milk and John Lennon. Interracial couples would wake up to cross burnings. Abortion doctors were often targets, and unfortunate ones like Dr. George Tiller were brutally murdered. In 1998 Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thang illuminated the ethnic tensions that existed in Brooklyn between Koreans, Italians, and African American as a result of that boroughs changing landscape. In New Orleans, Vietnamese immigrants were shunned by whites and blacks, until the horrors of Katrina forced the Vietnamese to stand and be counted. Change is not pretty, but change is enviable. The question has always been how do we as a culture choose to deal with it, in 2010 it appears the battle lines are drawn, but obfuscated by right wing political fear mongering, so what looks like political choices, is in effect a spiritual war between those embrace the America of 2010, and those who seek to return to 1959.

Where does this leave President Barack Obama as he looks toward his second term? Mr. Obama has to understand that while he was swept into office by an emphatic gust of change, many of his initiatives have been met with strong and savage resistance, undermining his narrative, and his prospects for re-election. Mr. Obama must continue to work on a policy level to energize his base, keeping his promise to withdraw from Afghanistan in July of 2011, continue to push for a strong climate bill, action on immigration, work for energy independence, and seek venture capital to fuel a new green economy all which will have a positive effect on the most important domestic issue – jobs.

Yet Mr. Obama must continue a counter narrative which speaks to the higher angels of this country. In 1960 John F. Kennedy challenged America by saying “ask not what my country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” In 2010 President Obama must challenge America and ask “what kind of country are you willing to be” are you willing to go hard to assure that we remain a tolerant, open minded society, capable of embracing those from different cultures, with different orientations, and different perspectives, or will we allow those who seek to preserve the status quo to prevail and hurtle us back to a less kind and gentle nation?

Mr. Obama must provide clarity to America so there is little doubt what is at stake. 1959 was a very good year, a historic year in many respects, but 1959 very well may represent the last year of the old world order, and although in 1959 not many of us knew what change would look like fifty years later, many knew change was afoot. Barack Obama must remind us that the America of 1959 no longer exists, and we must now allow those anti change forces to push us back into a world of darkness, intolerance, fear, and hate.

GOVERNANCE IN A TIME OF FEAR

In the days that followed the Obama election there was much talk of how Barack Obama was studying Abraham Lincoln to the degree that Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals was revised. Yet the president and the times that face President Obama truly reflect both President Lincoln and also President Roosevelt. Both presidents were elected in critical times in this countries history. Yet today, as I assess the current state of the Obama Presidency, there is a growing and disconcerting trend. There remains a deep and profound mistrust, and fear of an Obama presidency, and to be clearer about a black man in the white house. In the latter days of the presidential race, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan often reminded viewers that until the September 17th meltdown, the race was a virtual dead heat. Senator McCain’s “fundamental” remarks and Barack Obama’s calm demeanor allowed many voters to basically “hold their nose” and give Obama then nod, believing that they could trust him to manage the economy. It is clear that many voted with their fingers crossed. Yes President Obama is very popular as a president, but it is clear now that the strategy of the Republican Party is to tap in to the visceral and latent fear that many in Americans have. It is almost as if they played back the Palin rallies of last fall, and made a strategic decision that to fear as an organizing principle is the hand that needs to be played.

This is Barack Obama’s three am moment. How to govern, and introduce change in the face of fear. The Republican Party has been very effective in parlaying fear both real and imagined into policy. Often that policy when the cloak of fear has been removed is exposed for fraudulent, anti democratic, and possibly illegal. The democrats to their discredit have never learned the art of the down and dirty welfare. It was many democrats who a year ago feared that the Obama candidacy would crumble under attack in the manner that the Gore and Kerry efforts did, but Denver in a speech labeled “manly” ironically by Pat Buchanan, Barack Obama assuaged such fears. Barack Obama if given truth serum would acknowledge that he underestimated the voracity of the pent up anger that was glossed over in the after math of his election. He hoped that his audacity for hope would be a precursor for the audacity of change. I believe that Barack Obama saw an America weary of divisiveness and fear and would support his agenda. Perhaps he was wrong. Those who support the status quo have never had such illusions of a kinder gentler America, those who support the status quo, bided their time, licked their wounds and now are revitalized.

The pattern is familiar and scary, and it there is nothing to suggest that it will get any better, at the Palin rallies last fall there were cries of “off with his head”, during the health care debate President Obama is seen has been compared to Adolph Hitler, called a socialist, and now the overseer of a “death panel” that will be the final arbiter of life and death for the elderly. Yet in my opinion this is just a test. If we think the passion is turned up on health care, just wait until 2010 when immigration is on the table. For those who have irrational fears, then “noxious” mix of a black president developing policy for Mexicans may be too much to bear. This it the America of 2010. Changer is coming, and the fear is rising. How President Obama governs in this atmosphere will be very interesting. My thoughts are that competence, and commitment, to change is the only course. With very few exceptions Barack Hussein Obama has been steady at the wheel, understanding the nuances, of governance, pushing the right buttons, and doing what is needed rather than what is popular.

October 2009

Hitting the "Reset" Button the McKee Development Plan

Real Estate Development is a complex animal with many moving and often divergent parts. Despite the inherent complexities, that set each project apart, there are several ingredients that ring true of any development project regardless of their size and scope For example; the developer has to cobble together a financing package that inspires confidence with his bankers. In addition, there is a political dimension that has to be accounted for. As land use, property acquisition, availability of public funds and tax credits all require the support of the political class. In addition to the financial and bureaucratic reality, there has to be community “buy in” which in the best case scenario, starts long before the first loan application is made, or shovel has been planted. And finally as those who envisioned the Ball Park Village to accompany the new Busch Stadium discovered, the state of economy in general and the commercial and retail market in particular always has the potential to wreak havoc with the most grandiose of visions.

And if the economic hurdles weren’t high enough, there are also social and cultural considerations that cannot be ignored. Especially in St Louis where racial polarization and distrust seem to be engrained in our civic DNA, therefore any developer with plans for North St. Louis, but fails to include this communities’ social profile in his planning, is subject to a rude awakening. What that means is that accounting for a long standing feeling that North St Louis has consistently gotten the short end of the stick is for a developer, “job one”. Secondly a developer that does his homework would be aware that many in the African American community hold a general distrust toward “outsiders” who they believe come to their community with a singular drive for profit with little regard for the needs of the community. Because many of these “outliers” gained entrance into the community by first establishing their bonafides with African American leaders, this distrust may also extend those same leaders who paved their way. In either case those concerns will continue to be a factor in how receptive the African American community is toward any major development plan. North city feels it has been burned too often by failed development plans and therefore their desire to impose their will on the development project of West County developer Paul McKee is rooted a history of failed promises. And because Mr. McKee’s failed to gain community support on the front end, his development vision has become the cause célèbre for community activists and residents.

As this billion dollar battle over the future of five hundred acres of prime city real estate grinds forward, there was little doubt that one of the battlegrounds would be the courts. As such, the North side development plan ended up in the court room of circuit judge Robert Dierker. Judge Dierker’s recent ruling which essentially served as a judicial “thumbs down” for the development project has put a huge dent in McKee’s plan. Struck down by judicial gavel was the controversial tax incremental financing or TIF part of the plan that was approved by the Board of Alderman in October. Judge Dierker’s decision was based on his opinion that the statutes that govern TIF applications should not have been applied to the Northside Development Plan. While not as complex as those exotic Wall Street financial instruments like derivatives, and default swaps, TIFs were started in California in the fifties to creatively attract financing to a development. Since the seventies TIFs have increased in usage to compensate for the reduction in federal development funds. The premise of a TIF is the tax revenue of undeveloped parcels will increase once those parcels have been fully developed, and the a portion of those increases can then be used to pay for public improvements that the municipality may see as desirable, but without the TIF would not have the money to pay for without increasing taxes. In making his ruling, Judge McKee smacked down the Board of Alderman for overreach, and therefore sent Paul McKee scurrying back to the drawing board. Whether Mr. McKee can truly deliver on hi vision without the TIFs remain to be seen.

Meanwhile opponents of the development project cheer the ruling but they have also cited the potential for massive housing disruption via eminent domain as a reason to oppose the bill, McKee’s promises of equitable treatment notwithstanding. Others, who opposed the plan, have raised the specter of gentrification, which has been a long standing code word that has provoked fear in depressed communities. Yet as these battle lines were drawn, blurred, and redrawn, the fact remains the status quo i.e. an underdeveloped community with boarded up buildings and vacant lots is not a tenable solution. Which means a “win win” solution will require both sides to revisit their lines in the sand and find some meeting of the minds that will allow something positive to happen.

As I have watched this issue unfold I am reminded of the health care battle that took place last summer. President Obama saw the insurance industry and their supporters as proponents of the status quo, as his health care plan would impact industry profit margins. As a result, opponents of health care adopted a strategy of fear using terms like socialism, and “death panels” to arouse unenlightened passions. President Obama often conceded there were some troublesome aspects of the legislation and often encouraged legitimate debate – on the merits. What President Obama got in return was an almost intractable status quo intent on effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water. Over the past eighteen months, I have seen some interesting parallels in the health care debate and the McKee Development plan. In both cases, those in opposition talked on how they wanted change, and were only opposed to it on merits, yet in both cases they used fear, and scare tactics to rouse support. In both cases the opposition often was framed around the word no, with very little offered as a viable alternative. And ultimately, just as it was in health care, what is needed is for the emotional volume to be turned down, so that real proactive, and solution based discussions can take place.

Is Paul McKee the perfect developer? He would probably be the first to tell you no, and acknowledge that he has made mistakes in the roll out of the plan which have served to undermined his efforts. But then again, recent history of development in North St Louis will reveal a long line of dubious development deals that lacked the type of communal “due diligence” that is taking place now. Which begs the question why some who in the past were avid supporters of development projects that had even more red flags then this one, now are strident in their opposition of this plan? That said, Judge Dierker's decision ultimately provides an opportunity for both sides to hit the proverbial “reset” button. The glare of the spotlight on the plan has revealed some flaws in the project that need to be attended to, yet for those to oppose the plan and refuse to work with Mr. McKee, exposes them in the minds of some as obstructionist with their own axes to grind. In addition to hitting the “reset” button, Judge Dierker’s ruling provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to sit back down at the table and grind out their differences.

As with all multi million dollar ventures, this one has attracted both those who should be at the table as well as those who shouldn’t be there. Unfortunately for the process, what this project has not attracted is an honest broker, one with no “skin in the game” who can galvanize community support, while making sure the communities’ concerns are assuaged. That middle man should have enough gravitas with both sides to remind them that this development project needs to happen. For a city with a damaged psyche, we should be striving to lug a cumbersome, but needed project over the finish line. We need trusted leaders to provide context and perspective and remind this community on where we have been, and were we are going as a community, and how great communities find a way to get hard things done.

Over one hundred years ago, St. Louis hosted both a World’s Fair and the 1904 Olympic Games. One hundred years ago, the “Gateway to the West”, was one of the crown jewel cities of an emerging nation. The twenty century however has not been kind to St Louis as witnessed by the decades of decline which included significant population loss, the exodus of major corporate headquarters, and an overall diminishing of civic pride. Yet, despite all those “negatives” there appears to be a new pulse of revival as evidenced by a more livelier downtown nightlife, emerging neighborhoods like South Grand, the expansion of the Loop, the hosting of the NCAA Men’s Final Four in 2004, and the Baseball All Star Game in 2009. The fact that St. Louis is a major contender for the 2012 Democratic National Convention speaks volumes to the hard work done by many to reverse the trends. This revival would not be possible without a combination of vision, cooperation, and a willingness to work through tough issues.

Yet North St. Louis stands out as a source of derision, and division, due in large measure to a history with dysfunction, poor planning, and a poor political leadership. In addition, this project exacerbates what seems to be an irreconcilable chasm between many in North St. Louis and current Mayor Francis Slay. Mr. McKee’s development project is not a panacea for all that ills this community, and while massive in scope, it does not include other depressed areas like the Ville, Greater Ville or Walnut Park. Ultimately one would hope that Mr. McKee’s project can serve as a template for impactful development and unleash a critical mass of revival that could spread further North to other afflicted areas. Time always is of the essence, although Mr. McKee says Judge Dierker’s ruling notwithstanding, he plans to forge ahead. Hopefully he stays true to his word, as in the Obama Health care plan, we should be mindful that if we miss this opportunity, the legacy may be another generation of neglect in North St. Louis as the rest of the city moves on.

Who cries for Latonya Perkins?

From 2000

Who cries for Latonya Perkins?

For the last month so-called “leaders” of the black community have gotten major headlines wringing their hands over the President election, the State Senate replacement for Lacy Clay, or internal workings of the local NAACP. In the past under this same black leadership there have been other headline grabbing protests, internal bickering between newspaper publishers, but strangely there is silence in the recent shooting of Latonya Perkins who was found shot to death December 3rd in North St. Louis.

Ms Perkins was the wife of Harold Richardson who is being held in custody for the shooting this past summer of police officer Robert Stanze in August. Many people in North St. Louis felt that there was more to that shooting that meets the eye.

First Mr. Richardson was stopped in connection with the shooting of a Berkley policeman. Although the officers involved in his August 8th arrest were veteran cops, the manner in which the arrest was handled was curious; especially in light of the crime they suspected him of committed.

Secondly even as Mr. Richardson was being arrested for officer Stanze’s shooting, the police continued looking for someone even though they never acknowledged there was another person at the scene. Now his wife gets gunned down barely a block away in what is called an execution style murder that the police say is ‘not related’. Yet the chronology of events leads many to doubt the official story. While the St. Louis police department may not have the negative reputation as say the Las Angeles Police, recent St. Louis Police history is replete with many questionable shootings and incidents. There has been a lot of talk and a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there is usually fire. Yet there appears to be a conspiracy of silence by the media, the political leadership, and those who fashion themselves as black leaders.

So, who cries, who marches for Latonya Perkins? Was she just as the police and the media suggest, another black homicide victim? Or was it more? Her husband has alleged through his mother that he has been beaten in jail. Who marches for him? What are we missing here? What is being covered up? Perhaps if the black leaders rolled put as much energy in this incident as they do grabbing headlines about elections that in essence had already been decided, the internal bunglings of the NAACP, and the fumbling of the State Senate seat, maybe the real truth can be uncovered. Until then, all we have is more of what the late poet Tupac Shakur, called “Teardrops and closed caskets.”

The Fading Spirit of 1776

In the spring of 1954 Texas Instrument Chief Gordon Teal unveiled the transistors at an industry convention. Yet what happened that spring day would have an impact that would not be understood for another forty years as the introduction of the transistor launched computers into the modern age. Looking back and considering the implications of this new technology, that fact that it was scorned and scoffed at now seems short sighted and silly. But when Texas Instrument introduced the world to the transistor, it completed a journey started by Alexander Graham Bell, which would ultimately lead to the domination of three screens. In 2008, media giants Verizon and AT&T launched their ‘three screen’ strategy designed to lure consumers to their brand by offering a one stop shop for all of your information needs via telephone, television and internet. At the same time another national phenomena was taking place.

The newspaper industry now understood what its industry brethren in the railroads felt over a century before with the advent of air travel. Newspaper readership is down losing a battle with more advanced news information platforms. As a result in the same manner pharmaceutical companies compete for the cure for cancer, or AIDS, communication companies compete for the newer and faster ways to disseminate information. Information is often what separates winners and losers. Before armies go to war they utilize their intelligence resources to gauge enemy strengths and weaknesses. Hence both the capacity to gather and disseminate information is critical - businesses use it so they can effectively market their product, for politicians information gathering helps them to plan their political campaign in the same way that military strategists prepare to prosecute a war.

Lost in this barrage of new technology, and multi platform media outlets, is a dramatic shift of power is underway. A shift so dramatic that in my view it undermines the intent of the original intent of our founding fathers which was to have a government of the people and for the people. What makes this shift dangerous is that most Americans and unaware of the lurking dangers. Therefore for many of us, the power of Washington, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, is intact and the handiwork of James Madison lives on. Yeah right. Only a well conceived story of fiction would lead one to believe that the President of The United States really runs this country. We all remember the glorious campaign of 2008, the choked up Keith Olberman announcing that Barack Obama would be the 44th President of the United States, and the great speech in Grant Park. Yet, how does the saying go, that was then, and this is now. In the final analysis, Barack Obama’s hold to power is only as strong as the media’s desire to keep him there. But as long as Americans focus on the distilled power conferred by the Constitution to our government leaders and ignore the real power of the media to wage a mind control program that would make Joseph Goebbels blush, our blindness will continue to “energize’ the new world order.


All that to say what? The Obama Administration is a well conceived trick on the American public. Not trickery because of ill intent by President Obama, but the Obama election obscures the the reality of a democracy in decline, and a growing inability of Washington to produce real change. I am not sure if Barack Obama is a dude that understands that at the end of the day, the best he can do is to deliver “change lite’ and hope that what he does sets in motion a critical mass that can open the floodgates for future progressive Presidents.Change agendas that sound so compelling on the campaign trail reach Washington and enter a twilight zone, where the media decides for its non critical thinking viewers and listeners whether this change is socialistic, un-American, good, bad, ugly or indecent. President Obama must feel like a worn out puppet as he continually recalibrate due to the musings of the media. When he first ran for President he was not black enough, then as time moved forward he was too black, and too radical, he was praised by the media for been cool, and nuanced, now blasted for not being angry enough. And before the public can get their arms around which President Obama they should like, they media changes again.

This game is worth billions of dollars to the major networks, their outlets, talking heads, and bloggers. Whether it comes from the right via FOX or from the left via MSNBC, they both need hyperactivity, vitriol, and insecurities to keep fear moving at warp speed. Politicians have always pandered to the media, but now the pandering is so pervasive, that voters can’t keep up with the number of faces a politician may put on from day to day. Furthermore, voter’s perceptions are now crafted not by common sense, or the reality on the ground, but by the pontifications of their favorite talking head. Look no further than the influence of the media on the issue of government spending. During the Bush years, when the Bush Administration fleeced the government coffers blind, with tax cuts to the rich, and wars of choice, the right wing media was silent on the issue of federal debt and therefore the American public many steeped in personal debt, saw our fiscal imbalance as a non story. Now the conservative news media label Barack Obama as a freewheeling spender whose expansive stimulus package was borderline socialism, and therefore now the American public finds our debt as disconcerting and want to rein in spending. President Obama ought to ask them where do they want the ax to fall.

Networks understand their power in crafting perceptions.  I recall in the days leading up to President Obama’s Afghanistan review decision, NBC News sent Brian Williams to Kabul ostensibly to garner American sympathy for the plight of the Afghanistan people, and to give the upcoming military buildup decision a soft landing. In addition in the aftermath of the Gulf Crisis, President Obama eschews his “cool hand Luke Persona” to tell The Today Show's Matt Lauer that somebody needs to kick BP’s ass. President Obama went hard only after the media hounded him for not being angry.

On the eve of America’s 234th  birthday, the levers of power have shifted far beyond the wildest imaginings of the founding fathers. Now to be sure, the men who met in Philadelphia in 1776 understood in their own time and in their own way the importance of messaging, and image. As evidenced by no other than John Hancock whose imprimatur, was large enough to be viewed across the Atlantic by the British King. Yet the vast influence in today’s media, is unprecedented and in my mind dangerous. Multi platform, media corporations are now under the banner of General Electric – NBC, Viacom – CBS and Disney owns ABC and ESPN. And let’s not forget that Fox News owned by the world’s second largest media conglomerate News Ltd is not American owned. In a world where we zig zag from work to home, to school, to soccer practice, rehab centers, and back again, our dependency on the media has become an unseemly American addiction. News shows like the Today Show have now morphed into a hybrid of a news/gossip show, while other outlets like Fox and MSNBC have become media darlings of the conservative and progressives respectively. But just because Keith Olberman says something, in direct contrast to Glen Beck does that make it so? How much of what is said and done in Washington can truly be trusted or credited as original thought? How much is done merely for “effect”, how much is done for spin?


Over two hundred years ago they wrote, “When in the course of human events it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them”. This is now an unrecognizable America, seemingly incapable of big things, where reality is suspended in favor of noise. The bands that now connect us come in the form of a “3G” network where bandwidth is king. Urban rumors, mindless chatter, gossip, fears, hatred, is now dispensed faster than you can say 1776. At a time of two wars, economic instability, a gathering ecological storm, our political leaders prefer grandstanding than grand vision. When a politician speaks, now the first question that is asked is “what audience” is he or she speaking to, lending a certain amount of two facedness by our leaders.

As Rome burned, Nero fiddled, as America continues to crumble under her own overextended weight, our leaders “mean mug” for the camera. In 1960 John F. Kennedy faced Richard Nixon in the first televised debate, according to historian the late Teddy White, those who saw the debate which pitted the younger and charismatic Kennedy against and older Richard Nixon sporting a five a clock shadow, many who saw the debate on television said Kennedy got the better of it. Those who listened to it on the radio gave the nod to Richard Nixon. All which gave birth to political style over political substance.

Our current leadership now comes with talking points, which often become the sanitized version of what is said in the media, or they make a 180 degree reversal after reading the media driven tea leaves. What we need, and what the spirit of 1776 was based on was leaders having original thought, having a vision, and doing the big things need to run a country. Today those leaders have more strings than Pinocchio, as what they say, do, or produce is done at the behest of their media masters. Today the spirit of 1776 has been replaced by a dark, foreboding media mega power whose power to control minds, takes us closer to Nazi Germany than Philadelphia and the spirit of 1776.

THE ORIGINS OF A REVOLUTIONARY MIND

FIRST - My parents – Young Gifted and Black both revolutionaries, one drawn to the light, the other to the dark, but their essence was to make a change. I am reminded of the great quote by Tupac, “I may not change the world, but I will spark the mind of the one that does.” Through their energy the mind of a revolutionary was born.

My evolution was marked and sparked by events that would span a lifetime.

1959
In June of 1959 my mother felt the need to engage a game of badminton in the backyard of her parent’s home. At that time, I decided – a month early I decided to descend into human form. I was born to two brilliant people, my mother who graduated 2nd in her class from high school, and graduated from high school at age 15, and a father who was equally brilliant, but donned a revolutionary fervor. My father’s gift for writing, and chess was well documented, however he turned to crime – urban/family legend has it that he did so in support of either the Panthers the NOI or both. As a result of his crimes, my mother left him, and I had to develop my revolutionary spirit through the prism of my mother’s inherent conservatism, and belief in the American dream of me being a high flying corporate.

1968
Within a stunning, and devastating 60 days - two of the last giants of the 20th century Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were silenced. That summer was the most eventful and personally emotional year of my life. One of the things I remember was that I didn’t cry when Dr. King or Bobby was killed, but I cried that fall when the St. Louis Cardinals blew a 3-1 lead and lost the World Series to the Detroit Tigers. But more than the tears - it was the experiences.

The night King was killed, the television show The Flying Nun interrupted by the first news bulletin, the angry voices outside – almost immediately. The calm march in St. Louis after Dr. King’s assassination which was in a stark contrast to other “chocolate” cities was my first clue that the African American community in my city was quite “different”.

Two months later my mother gets her own “3 am call” the one to announce that Senator Robert Kennedy was shot. Given the importance of those two men in my psyche, it is no secret that a film on Dr. King forty years after his death (with one on RFK to follow) became one of my first films. The summer of 1968 I visited Arlington cemetery clearly over the wishes of my mother to “bless the Kennedy Brothers” my mother’s response was “who does he think he is – the Pope?” later that summer as a nine year I co-wrote my first political poem

“Humphrey Humphrey he’s our man, Nixon belongs in the trash can”.

Perhaps if America had listened to nine year olds, we would have avoided the scandal of Watergate. What was the impact of 1968? A long period of woulda, coulda, shoulda. What would happen in particular if Bobby had lived and continued the Quixotic Kennedy narrative? Did the government really kill great men – and why – for who? I didn’t realize as a nine year old that was my natural path to evolution was to ask the tough questions, say the tough things, and ultimately define myself on my terms – not by societies. But life got in the way, and my journey to evolution took many twists and turns, so that by the time I had reached 30 on June 20th, 1989 – I was oblivious to what direction I should take my life.

1973
On June 25, 1973 my eight grade teacher Elmeda Harris wrote in my class autograph book,

“Since you love history so much, go out and make it”

That summer I lost a battle of wills with my mother who first angered me by cancelling my 8th grade graduation party because I didn’t score in the first tier of the IBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skill). But more importantly, she defied my wished to matriculate to high school at Charles Sumner High School – the oldest African American high school west of the Mississippi river. Sumner High was the school of my family as well as tennis notables that included Comedian Richard “Dick” Gregory, and Tina Turner, and where Arthur Ashe honed his tennis game under the tutelage of Richard Hudlin. Instead I was shipped off to Thomas Jefferson College Prep School one of the most exclusive private boarding schools in the country, where I was introduced to Jackson Browne, Loggins and Messina, Paul McCartney, as well as Homer’s Iliad which I had to translate from Homeric Greek to English.

μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus

The net result of my mother’s Pyrrhic victory was a widening of my social horizons, as well as the foundations of a thirty year struggle to define myself on my terms, not hers.


1992
I recall sitting with my grandmother as LA burned during the riots, amazed and yet – removed from “those people”. At the moment of this writing, I am not sure of the origin for my subconscious animus with so much that defined black culture, but I do understand that what I looked outward and saw elements of blackness that I viewed as a reflection of assimilation, and slave mentality, I looked at it with a sense of disdain. In addition, I viewed black displays of emotion mentally “mouthing enough already” unaware of my own slave mentality that created a natural disdain on anything that I viewed as over the top and loud. As a result for a black man to have claimed to have “been there” at the beginning of rap with the release of Rappers Delight in 1979, but by 1989 rap had become too loud too ghetto and I tuned out in favor of The Who, Jackson Browne and the Eagles. By 1980 a person emotionally bonded with the Kennedys cast their first presidential vote for a republican Ronald Wilson Reagan. By 1980 a person who prided himself on his ability to write only wrote resumes. All that changed in the early 90’s.

In 1991 my plan to climb up the banking ladder was obliterated when I was mysteriously fired from then Mercantile Bank. (of course I never mentioned that in job interviews) soon after I worked at call center and was introduced to a new world of young people in their 20’s with a POV world far different from mine. They smoked bud, listened to rap, probably never voted, some were straight “slanging and bangin.”At the same time, Spike Lee’s movie Malcolm X sparked as revived interest in the slain leader, and my reading of his autobiography was a game changer. In 1993 Dr. Dre’s The Cronic as well as the plant that the name comes from, reintroduced me to a sub culture that I had ignored and often dismissed. If that was not enough I was introduced to the music of a twenty three year old prodigy by the name of Tupac Amaru Skakur. He had me at Cradle to the Grave.

2001
By 2001 I had transformed, my nutrition had changed, I was hitting free weights, and writing poetry and I begun to see the world through my own prism. It was during that period that I begin to find my voice as a writer, it was the most prolific writing period of my life, I wrote political commentaries, poems, and screenplays. Then on September 11, 2001 the world changed.

2008
YES WE CAN! Smarting from a failed marriage, unemployed, and sinking fast I ran into a buzz saw called the campaign for change. I always rolled my eyes when many black folks doubted that they would see a black man in the white house because I believed firmly that we have been pacified to the extent that a black person could be trusted by America’s hidden king makers to steer the good ship America. I also felt it would be the “rank and file” average white American that would have issues with a black man. Not an early convert to the Obama mission, I even told my wife at the time, not to worry about putting an Obama sign in the front yard, because he would be history by Super Tuesday. I was wrong. By the summer of 2008, I was knocking on doors, making phone calls, and even ended up on Canadian television late in the campaign. The historic election of Barack Obama reconnected me back to politics, even though I remained at the core an independent political agnostic.


The writings in this book are a reflection a flawed soul on a path to personal evolution, and Liberation. The essays, commentary, and poetry, represent a mere down payment on my spiritual debt that I owe to honor my gifts, my guardian spirits, my ancestors, and the Creator.

PRESIDENT OBAMA – HEADED FOR “ONE AND DONE?

The last time a news show begun by giving a countdown of the number of days in a particular crisis was in 1979 when what we know now as Nightline first named America Held Hostage, was spawned by the taking of American Hostages in Iran. Not many in my generation will ever forget the raw images of American impotency as Ted Koppel provided nightly commentary on an event that many viewed as something that could never happen to a country as strong as powerful as ours. I think of that crisis and its coverage, and I am reminded of the current crisis in the gulf. Today, many observers especially those whose historical or political POV is either too stunted or too slanted to have perspective, rushed in to call the crisis in the gulf - President Obama’s Katrina. In either case whether shunted or slanted, the Katrina analogy is erroneous and for Obama supporters a dangerous miss-reading of history. It was the 22nd amendment, not Hurricane Katrina that ended the reign of George Bush. Now to be sure, President Bush was unpopular in 2008, as the Obama election was ultimately a referendum of the Bush government and the images of Katrina became an unseemly albatross around John McCain’s neck. Yet the expectations for George Bush were never high as he was viewed by many as an incompetent puppet.
Conversely, Barack Obama’s campaign spoke of a man of intelligence, cool under fire, brimming with confidence, and the capacity to deliver change – the Obama Administration would represent a sea change from Bush Administration on many levels, most importantly in the area of management, governance and competence. Hence, on the eve of the 2008 election General Colin Powell endorsed Candidate Obama on Meet the Press stating that Barack Obama possessed the “intellectual vigor” to lead the nation. I agreed with Colin Powell’s assessment, yet I also understood that then Senator Joe Biden was right, the next President would be tested, thus in my piece Why Obama I wrote:

“No American President will be able to inoculate themselves from the unknown and unforeseen threats whether they are foreign, domestic, or natural.”

Only time will tell if the best work of the Obama Administration will be able to inoculate him from the wrath of America which now obsesses over the gulf spill in the gulf. The vitriol stemming from this event leaves little doubt in my mind that as this crisis grows it could ultimately undermine the Obama Presidency. Already the Obama narrative of competence is threatened. The fortunes of American Presidents in times of crisis are often dependant on how America reacts in those moments. Two useful barometers to gauge the tenor and tone of our respond are our national psyche and the political climate as each crisis unfolds. For example, William Jefferson Clinton’s narrow escape from being convicted – let’s we forget he was impeached - lay in the fact Bill Clinton’s administration made us feel good as a country, the dot.com boom was in full swing, Wall Street was reaching dizzying new heights, and “Bubba” was charming, engaging - and human. Therefore we were willing to view his impeachment trial as a political witch hunt and not a “cancer” on the Presidency. Our obsession over the Lewinsky scandal was due more to our natural voyeuristic impulses than anything else.

Other Presidents have not been so fortunate. In March of 1968 after being humiliated in the New Hampshire Primary by an anti war candidate from his own party, Eugene McCarthy, and the ever present threat of a Robert Kennedy candidacy, President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek his party’s nomination. The role of the media was critical in framing the debate. By the late sixties, the national media was no longer a benign political partner of the status quo, as whether by design or by accident, they became an instrument of peace. Americans were bombarded nightly as evening news continued to show images of American soldiers coming home in caskets. For young men and women to die in a far away country, in an undeclared war was too much for a proud nation to bear. And when the unimpeachable voice of them most “trusted” man in America Walter Conkrite turned on the Johnson Administration, it became clear that President Johnson’s prosecution of the Vietnam War challenged his capacity to lead so much so, that not even the domestic success of the Great Society could not save him.
While Afghanistan always has the potential to be President Obama’s Vietnam, yet, when I think of this current crisis facing the Obama Administration I am reminded not of Katrina or Vietnam but of the Iranian crisis that brought down the Carter Administration. American in 1979 was still wounded by Vietnam and Watergate. That pervasive sense of doom and gloom, coupled with yet another blow to our national ego, and our inability to resolve the issue confirmed for many that the well intended, and highly intelligent President Jimmy Carter was simply in over his head. As such three days after the Iranian Hostage crisis began Jimmy Carter, like the embattled Lyndon Johnson in 1968 faced an insurgent threat within his own party by the name of Teddy Kennedy. Jimmy Carter ultimately garnered his party’s nomination, but the damage was done, as in November of 1980, America turned to Ronald Reagan in hopes of restoring national pride.

At the beginning of the Obama Presidency there were comparisons to Lincoln, Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. In making those comparisons, I wonder if we overlooked a more natural comparison to another outsider – James Earl Carter. Like Barack Obama, the country inherited by Jimmy Carter was still reeling from the malfeasance of prior administrations, a Middle East tinderbox and growing dependence on foreign oil. Like President Obama, Jimmy Carter brought to Washington a combination of insiders – holdovers from prior Democratic administrations, as well as many of his cronies from Georgia. Like Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter’s centrist approach angered liberals hankering for a reversal of Republican policies. Like Barack Obama, President Carter, was viewed as an intelligent, thoughtful alternative to his bumbling predecessor.

Yet what should set off alarm bells within the Obama White House, is that President Carter was undone by events outside of his control, and a perception that the office was too big for him. In the summer of 1979 President Carter gave a televised speech given from the Oval Office, a national address now maligned as the “Malaise” speech. Rather than inspiring confidence, President Carter’s words exacerbated the country’s declining self confidence. If that was not bad enough, on November 4th, 1979 the events that ultimately brought down the Carter Presidency took place far away in Tehran Iran. Inspired by the Iranian Holy man Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian students stormed the American embassy, holding several Americans hostage for 444 days. Those hostages were not released until Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn in January 20, 1981. The fact that the current oil spill crises draws parallels to a crisis which captivated a nation, became an incendiary national obsession, and created the impression of an impotent commander and chief should give President Barack Obama more than pause.

Like the daily images of the blindfolded hostages, that seared in the American psyche, the images of oil spewing from the gulf, and oil slicked wildlife, are creating a huge problem for Barack Obama. As in the times of President Carter, America is suffering through a major crisis of confidence. Beset by high unemployment, a shrinking middle class, the specter of the 21st century being dominated by Asia, massive debt and with a deteriorating ecosystem, fear abounds. In addition to natural fears that stem from an uncertain future, the combination of a toxic political system and unrelenting 24 hour media cycle makes it almost impossible for the Obama administration to stay ahead of the news curve and abate the negativity. Part of the tough sledding that team Obama faces is the reality that being President is worlds apart from running for it. They are learning what every President has to learn - the cheers of the campaign trail quickly give way to the tough world of real time governance. As such, the pace of governing is like the pace of campaigning on steroids. Never more so than in this new media world order, where news is dispensed at a rapid fire pace, and where rationality often gives way to paranoia. To be sure this barrage of criticism toward President Obama is in some ways unfair. Barack Obama inherited an oil regulatory system from a pro oil administration, as a result oil companies like BP were given free rein to do business with little threat of any serious government oversight. In addition, President Obama took office with a cornucopia of issues that included two wars, an economic meltdown, an automobile industry on life support, and a bevy of campaign promises to keep.

With all that realistically the best that President Obama could hope for was that his Energy and Interior Cabinets secretaries ran their shop efficiently, cleaned house from the largess of the prior administration, and by doing so – protect their principal. Now it is tragically clear the pace of change within those areas was not quick enough, and the scope of change not wide enough to prevent the BP disaster. In hindsight even a complete overhaul may not have stopped the oil spill from happening, unfortunately for President Obama the wisdom of hindsight usually comes too late to salvage damaged Presidencies.

Ironically in today’s inflamed current political climate, the country that rejected the cowboy tendencies of George Bush and John McCain seem to long for those days of shoot first and ask questions later. President Obama’s approach to many seemed tepid, and ineffective. His approach to have the “smartest guys” in the room to resolve the issue has gone over with the same impact of BP’s “top kill” strategy. The only concession that President Obama’s critics offer they don’t expect him to personally “go down there” and plug the leak. Beyond that back handed concession, the criticisms are wide and varied. First there are those who say his Administration acted to slowly, or that they trusted BP too much, or how the Obama Administration has consistently ignored assistance that was offered, or rejected advice from local gulf leaders, and finally President Obama was not mad enough. In short President Obama is failing to exercise leadership. Conversely when President Obama has acted, he was criticized for “shaking down” the oil companies, or that he is doing more harm than good with his moratorium on new deep water drilling, and when he gave his first Oval Office speech, and he was lambasted for lacking specificity. All complaints, deservedly or not, right or wrong, rational or irrational this underscores the danger that his administration faces.

President Obama has walked a political tightrope since his election in, as his centrist approach angered many on the left from the beginning – and from the right, and he has faced nothing short of obstructionism. As President Obama pushed forward with his agenda items often his change message failed to compete with the scare tactics from the right, and as the tea party movement grew, many independents begin to have second thoughts about their 2008 support for President Obama. Now comes the gulf oil crisis. In 1979 Jimmy Carter spoke to a nation looking for a confidence boost, they came away feeling more diminished, and eighteen months later he was “one and done”.

During the 2008 campaign Barack Obama worked extremely hard to combat the perception that he was unfit, too inexperienced, and too cerebral to be an effective leader. They were effective in turning that "weakness" on its head. By contrasting the "cool hand Luke persona of Barack Obama to the petulant impatient John McCain; the Obama campaign got a lot of currency on the issue of temperament. In the financial meltdown crisis that came in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse in what Colin Powell called the “final exam” candidate Obama’s nuanced approach was contrasted to what seemed to be “erratic” behavior by Senator John McCain. Now what worked in 2008, seems to be losing its appeal as the oil continues to gush. Barack Hussein Obama entered the Presidency with the winds of change at his sails, now he faces a crisis of confidence in his leadership, with unemployment numbers most certainly to be troublesome in 2012, unless Barack Obama generates a change in America’s perception of him, like James Earl Carter in 1980, Barack Hussein Obama may be headed for a “one and done” Presidency.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NEXT SPEECH

In 2008 with questions surrounding the Obama candidacy regarding the touchy issue of race, then candidate Barack Obama stirred a nation, with a defining speech in Philadelphia that for all practical purposes defused race as a potential wedge issue. The speech spoke to several audiences, but most importantly it energized his base and put to rest any thoughts that Mr. Obama would not be able to address a controversy head on. Fast forward to 2010, as President Obama’s first term has been marked with a series of crisis large and small, along with an emerging extremist “neo-neo” con movement whose vitriol is aimed at incumbent politicians, but also what they feel is a government that has grown too large. This anger predominantly from white Americans many who ironically are suffering due in large measure from the policies of the Bush Administration that many of them supported for eight years. This anger seemed to reach a boiling point late in 2008 during the closing days of the presidential campaign as Republican presidential nominee John McCain was forced to confront many angry supporters and remind them that Barack Obama a patriot and not a terrorist. Both the Republican Party, and those appalled by the prospect of a black man sitting in the oval office seemed to be chastened by President Obama’s historic election. Many commentators noted the scope of the election, which included the coalescing of coalition I labeled “Browner, Younger and Smarter”, and opined the Republican party was in the worse shape since the post Watergate days in the mid seventies.

Facing grim prospects, an aging and narrowing base, and three events would alter Republican strategy and breathe new life into the Grand Old Party. First the Obama Administration made the political risky decision to infuse billions of tax payer dollars to resuscitate the automobile industry with unprecedented tax dollars. Secondly, the Obama administration also made good on its campaign promise to provide relief via tax cuts and through the Economic Recovery Act of 2010, initiated several measures to provide relief via tax cuts, and stimulus payments aimed at assisting several states on the verge of bankruptcy. Third, in March of 2009 President Obama made good on another campaign promise as he embarked on the arduous journey to reform health care. During the summer of 2009 latent anger from the 2008 Presidential campaign found new life and a new targets, bailouts, and health care - as the opponents of health care both inside the Republican Party and within the insurance industry were more successful than the Obama Administration and the Democrats were in crafting the debate. As a result what evolved for the GOP and their right wing alter ego – The Tea Party was a strategy designed to break President Obama with their eyes on first 2010, but ultimately 2012. The foundation of that strategy was distrust for Washington, and the excessive size of government.
The irony of their position is it ignored the fact that much of the spending done by President Obama was needed to reverse the malfeasance of the prior administration - for example – they seem to ignore the dismantling of the Clinton surplus by the Bush Administration, and “born again” fiscal Conservatives in the Republican party seemed to forget their support for the Bush tax cuts and the Prescription Drug Bill that added to the debt, as well as the Bush Administration’s deception that led us into a costly war in Iraq. In addition they seem to be ignoring that much of the government’s loans have been repaid – with interest. Yet those on the right, selective amnesia notwithstanding have been successful in framing this debate which has had a deleterious effect on policy making in Washington. And as the mid-term elections got closer, the chasm between political parties have been exacerbated, fueled by the emerging Tea Party, and many moderate politicians from both parties, have been caught in the crossfire.

As this anti Washington narrative gains traction it could well pose a serious threat to the Obama re-election hopes. Assuming President Obama is able to secure his base, the key to an Obama re- election will be independent voters, who now, according to many polls have retreated toward the Republican Party. While many of those independent voters are dissatisfied to some degree with the Obama administration is not clear that a great majority of them have warmed to the Tea Party and/or those in the media on the extreme right who support them. If Barack Obama wants to win a second term, it will be those independent voters that he will need to woo. Wooing them will include changing the trajectory of the debate. Therefore, President Obama needs to have an open and frank discussion with the American public on his views with respect to the role of government in an increasingly complex world while at the same time out lining a clear vision on reducing the deficit.

But in this age where the ones who shout the loudest, gets America’s ear, Mr. Obama needs to go beyond defining the role of government; he needs to expose those in the shadows who are financially backing this anti government fervor. Since Barack Obama was sworn in he has inherited and/or been handed several major domestic crises. Yet if one traces the roots of these crises from the Wall Street meltdown, to the massive oil spill in the gulf – the common thread was lack of regulations which set in motion a series of events that have had negative implications for this country. Those who support the anti government agenda have long been in bed with major corporate interests, so it stands to reason they have a vested interest in confusing the debate. Those supporting corporate interests realize one of the implications of a smaller government is less regulations. And while President Obama probably won’t mention it publically, the fact that many news reports link the wealthy Koch Family, owners of Koch industries and long time supporter of right wing causes as major investors in the tea party should give more than pause. These allegations are not just the whisperings of left leaning bloggers, in August of 2009, The Washington Post reported those presumably “ad hoc” protests over health care were funded by big business supported coalition whose interests included thwarting health care, and banking reform. To say these many angry tea partiers are mere pawns in a chess game beyond their depth would be a colossus understatement.

The danger that the Obama Presidency faces is that for most of us perception is reality, and to allow a narrative that his Administration is fiscally irresponsible to go unchecked, may render Barack Obama a one term President. Therefore now more than ever President Obama needs to speak to the public and redirect this debate, in a manner that will serve him and his party well politically, but also serve to prepare America for a serious debate on what most certainly will be the most fundamental challenge of his next administration, and for administrations to follow. In addition, Mr. Obama needs to lay out the real hard data, for example according to the Congressional Budget Office, two thirds of the spending in the 2010 budget have the fingerprints of the Bush administration, meaning programs started by President Bush or started by President Bush and continued by President Obama, leaving only one third of the spending solely on the plate of President Obama. Yet more importantly, the pie chart of “mandatory spending” according to the Office of Management and Budget reveals most of the mandatory spending comes from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest piece of discretionary spending is on defense Mr. Obama should challenge those opposing big government by asking them is that where do they want the budget ax to start falling. In addition, in the aftermath of the Arizona immigration law many in that same anti government crowd want to blame the federal government for not developing a comprehensive immigration plan, so do they think the oversight of a complex bureaucracy tasked to do several things including managing the laws which will govern twelve million people can be done on the cheap?
The next few years will be decisive the role of government will be debated on several fronts, and the future of the next generation will be decided by the actions taken today. President Obama must lead that debate, and elevate the narrative to the plane of common sense, vision, and with clarity. To be clear, many on the far right are too far gone to embrace the truth about their cause, but for those Democrats running in the fall, President Obama’s words could become usable campaign talking points, and for those teetering independent voters, a dose of reason in a debate gone wild may be a deal maker or deal breaker for President Obama in 2012.

ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY INC – WALKING THE WALK

Over thirty years ago, I joined the fraternity of Alpha Phi Alpha, Inc. Their motto “First of All, Servants of All, We shall Transcend All” spoke to not merely being the first black fraternity, but of their lofty ideas and vision for brotherhood. They touted iconoclastic members including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Senator Edward Brooke, and Ambassador Andrew Young, all who were on the forefront of the civil rights movement. They engaged in the community with programs like “A Voteless People is a Hopeless People”, and they have changed the trajectory of the lives of thousands of young men in the process. Yet despite their great history, the decision to pull their 2010 National Convention from Arizona, in the aftermath of that state’s recent legislation that effectively legalizes racial profiling may have been Alpha Phi Alpha’s greatest moment. The decision by the Board of Directors of Alpha Phi Alpha sent two strong messages. First, the fraternity was willing to not just talk the talk, but to walk the walk. The decision to change sites was not just a moral choice and political choice, but it was a choice fraught with economic consequences, as reportedly it may have cost them $300,000 in cancelled contracts, possible litigation, and creating a logistical challenge for many of their members. Yet the leadership of Alpha Phi Alpha did not blink, as they took a moral stand that would make its seven founding “Jewels” proud.

Yet what was more important was the second message, a message that I hope the African American community pays close attention to. This message was the rejection of fear, and the rejection of the self loathing that many in the African American community seemed to have with respect to its Latino brethren. A few weeks ago on the social network Facebook; I posted a note that reminded people who constantly complain about the lack of African Americans in baseball, they often do so, while ignoring the fact that the color line broken by Jackie Robinson was not exclusive to African Americans. And instead of bemoaning the fact there are less number of blacks in baseball, (many young African American athletes to be fair, are choosing the instant gratification that comes from football and basketball, at the expense of baseball a sport with a slower climb to fame and fortune). As such, we should celebrate the greatness of the Albert Pujols, Juan Marichal, and Roberto Clemente not minimize them because they are not black. This unfortunate point of view by many blacks toward Latin ballplayers was illuminated recently when Los Angeles Angels outfielder Tori Hunter dismissively labeled Latino baseball players as “imposters”.
But this “Latino thing” we seem to have goes far beyond public discourse. Often during the last few years, I would hear in private conversations, among African Americans, disdain, anger, and jealously toward foreigners, who come into “our neighborhoods” and start business, take jobs, and of late their vitriol is aimed at Latinos. I would listen and be amazed that so called educated black folks, were threatened by individuals, many who barely spoke English, often not afforded the protection of citizenship, and by and large could only compete for the most marginal of jobs. My amazement was deepened by the fact that if I closed my eyes, what I was hearing was not much different from those on the far right fringes whose inherent insecurity, fear and hatred creates enemies - more imagined than real.
This decision by Alpha Phi Alpha now places the nation’s oldest African American fraternity clearly on the side of those who are enlightened, who rather than fear immigration, place a higher value of the rights of all man. In 1946 Alpha Man Sydney P. Brown wrote the immortal poem House of Alpha - the poem begun with the words:

“Goodwill is the monarch of this house, men
Unacquainted, enter, shake hands, exchange
Greetings and depart friends. Cordiality exists
among all who abide within. I am the eminent
Expression of friendship. Character and
Temperament change under my dominant power.
Lives once touched by me become tuned and are
thereafter amiable, kindly, and fraternal.”

This week’s decision by Alpha Phi Alpha to eschew the convention in Arizona represents a transcendent perspective that is needed as this debate moves forward. Immigration is a complex issue that has as its roots, racism, greed, fear, and opportunity. The resolution of this issue can only come when the debate is elevated, from fear, hatred, and self loathing. The choice of men of Alpha Phi Alpha and its inherent messages represents a gauntlet dropped by far thinking black men who continue to be the “light of the world" its founders in 1906 intended it to be. Men of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. - be very proud of your fraternity.

Who Who Owns You Senator Graham?

I have always admired Senator Lindsey Graham, I saw him with the late Tim Russert on Meet the Press. I think it was 2005 or 06 and I said the same thing I said about a seemingly conservative Arkansas Governor on the News Hour in 1990 this was a thoughtful guy, and I could support him for President if it came to that. In the years since, I have observed Senator Graham being both the same considerate and nuanced politician I saw on Meet the Press, while at the same time an extremely, if not over the top partisan. As I watched Senator Graham support a John McCain who ran away from the Maverick brand that I first saw in Senator Graham, I said both of these guys have been “turned”. I recall the Obama ad that they ran against John McCain which had him drifting sometimes to the left, then back to the right. That was true of both Senator McCain and Senator Graham. That left - right two step is not unusual in national politics as President Obama finds him self often caught in the left – right cross fire. But, when I read that Senator Graham is now shifting gears on the Climate Change legislation, it caught my attention – on several levels - because of the rationale – and the timing.

Senator Graham has been a fierce negotiator in crafting both the immigration and climate bills. Now, for him to assert that the un- proposed immigration bill would leave him blindsided or the GOP without anyone at the table is simply not true. His assertion creates the illusion and more fodder for tea partiers that an immigration bill is impending is a lie and he knows it because an issue as complex as immigration is one that will take almost as much time as Health Care, and any preliminary discussions do not equate to final legislation. In addition Senator Graham knows that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a fight for his political life in Nevada is in no hurry to start what will be an incendiary debate which will impact his state with a high Latino population. There is no real desire for a fight on immigration, despite the attention and angst stemming from the new bill in Arizona. All that conspires to make Senator Graham’s actions suspicious.

What I have never suspected is the impact of money and influence in politics or the extent they will go to achieve their goals. The economic dynamics of any issue, usually lends to strange bedfellows, alliances that are often ad hoc, and are more likely to shift, than last past the next voting cycle. Those dynamics that drove climate change had to have gotten to Senator Graham who had been working diligently behind the scenes to craft an alliance with Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connection. All three senators brought to the table by a combination of self serving interest and a desire for change (although my cynical side says it was the former rather than the latter that carried the most influence.) Now out of nowhere, Senator Graham says the immigration debate still light years in Congressional lives, and away from a rudimentary framework, causes Senator Graham to “walk”. Who benefits from this about face? Special interest no doubt. With the entire sausage making done quietly and privately, where the White House was prepared to give major concessions to GOP patrons, the lobbyist on both sides stood to lose out. Lobbyist make money from conflict, when both sides agree the bottom line for K Street gets smaller. This bill for all practical purposes was low hanging fruit, for President Obama, with the Democrats getting what they wanted on Cap and Trade and the oil lobby friends got what they wanted, and let’s we forget President Obama’s huge gift on off shore drilling.

The lobbyist saw this bill moving too soon, too fast and with it hampering their ability to tap into the partisan golden goose that gave so much during health care. So humm, curiously - and oh by way only a few days removed from being called a homosexual, Senator Graham changes tunes – Questions that are begged, but few will have answers. Now I have no personal issues with one’s sexual orientation, but the fact is, homosexuality is often not survivable, Barney Frank, notwithstanding. And Congressman Frank is a northern Democrat, liberal, and for many he fits the archetype, Senator Lindsey Graham has no such cover. All which begs the question Senator Graham who owns you? And when there is smoke – where there is fire? At the end of the day, ugliness as a weapon of the status quo, may trump good public policy.

The Warning

In light of this unthinkable tragedy
Choose your words very carefully
More Escalation will regrettably cause more to die needlessly,
Endlessly, from sea to shining see
Remember
How things come in threes
Once again I urge you Black man to pay attention please
For in our blackness we hold the key
But, often in our blindness we fail to see
That it is my country tis of thee that’s the true and living enemy
So forgive me
But my memory reminds me

That it is my ancestors that hung in trees and, and its my motherland now dying out, infested with man made disease, death from a single sneeze
And for 500 years a great nation of blackness was made to grieve
Like Spike said, Wake up and see what’s up their sleeve
And then say America fuck you!
See your lies we no longer believe, you were warned but didn’t heed
So now 3000 souls became
One with the breeze

I don’t know about you but for me

This is one more astrological reminder
That America’s best days are behind her
And it wont be gentler nor kinder
We are in a different age
The Piscean energy of surrender is over and we’ve turned the page,
Feel the shock waves
Welcome to the Aquarian Age,
Now face the reality that the world is no longer your stage
America prepare yourself, those that you have stepped on are now armed and ready to engage, broken free from their cage
America are you really ready for a thousand days of rage?

you’ve raised the bar,
Now hear the screams of a million black scars
black blood feathers and tar
now feel the bite of the dogs of war,
my question to you,
how does it feel to bow down to the crescent and the star

And with Gemini rising in the east
America, this two faced pathological beast is at the very least
Been known to feast
Ritualistically at the alter of blood
After all it was the sins of their fathers that brought on the last flood,
But, this time rain came in the form of three jet planes
Yet throughout the pain
Like ancient pharaoh you remain
The same,
Arrogant, with no shame, passing the blame, manipulating events in hopes of financial gain,
Or is it ignorance and vain that an illegitimate government continues to send out spin-doctors and news anchors, hoping to regain a fallen nation’s fleeting fame,
Like it or not, you will heal as
the karmic winds of the universal will
Force you to bend, and force you to kneel
A harsh reminder of how it feels
I hope we didn’t run back too fast to the football and baseball fields
See
9-1-1 was not the whole due bill
Surely you are not foolish enough to think its over
Have you forgotten all that you’ve killed,
with great precision and skill you took out great minds like Malcolm and Martin
hoping that their message would be suddenly stilled
What about those young soldiers dismembered on Southeast Asian hill,
And don’t look now but our schools have become killing fields
Still
Your pockets continue to get filled, president elected by virtue of back room deals
This is on your watch, oh now it seems so surreal
But see you for you it was never real, you had eyes on 2004 a 2nd term you planned 2 steal,
now on the heals of this new information, I ask who benefits in a sudden rise in global inflation?

Finally
Mr. President
Before your next proclamation
More lies to a sick and dying nation
As your administration
Seeks to rebuild your reputation
I urge you to
Reopen the book of revelation
And witness the devastation
This time factor in that karmic equation,
If not, expect total desolation, worldwide conflagration, white flags will be raising,
A lot of us will be chillin and blazin, and when it’s all said and done,
it will be Allah you’ll be praising.

President Obama and the "Black Agenda"

The recent radio “spat” between Al Sharpton and Tavis Smiley was entertaining, and most assuredly fodder for many in the African American community who are addicted to black talk radio, yet what the African American community needs is a reality check – we have enough “entertainers”. At the center of their on the air “cat fight” was whether or not President Barack Obama should include on his already large plate a “black agenda”. I recall during the 2008 Presidential campaign then Senator Obama was challenged in Florida by a young black man to take a more proactive and assertive pro stand on issues facing the black community. Candidate Obama addressed the “heckler” by reminding him that first as a community organizer, and throughout his career, he has been an advocate for change. At the time, I wrote that an Obama administration would be challenged on several levels, that his plate would include the management of two wars, a health care agenda, a restoration of America’s image, and unsustainable national debts. Moreover, I wrote that having a black agenda would be politically divisive, and would turn off many supporters, as well as become an issue that the GOP and conservatives would use to create a wedge within the Obama coalition. I believed that then, I believe that now. Yet a discussion of a black agenda championed by the first black president is troubling for reasons far beyond the political dimension. It is troubling because when two African American individuals with the capacity to influence, debate what truly should be a non issue, it serves to distract the black attention from the type of soul searching needed for our community to evolve.

For a generation, the African American community has successfully integrated themselves into the American mainstream to such a degree that for millions of African Americans, our problems are no longer “black” problems. The near economic meltdown that occurred in the fall of 2008 was ostensibly one of credit. As a nation of consumers whose consumption was built on the back of credit, a calculation was made by the federal government that massive infusion of federal money was needed to keep the flow of credit flowing, needless to say, millions of blacks were beneficiaries of that decision. Furthermore, when the Obama Administration passed the massive stimulus bill within days of his swearing in, millions of Americans including a large percentage of African Americans were impacted by the largess of the Obama Administration via new tax credits, withholding reductions, mortgage modifications and the like. Therefore to assert a need for a presidential agenda that includes black America ignores that reality that many African Americans have become so immersed into the economic fabric of this culture that an American agenda equates to a black agenda. Which by the way, isn’t that what we wanted?
Secondly, this discussion ignores the political reality that President Obama operates in, and it ignores the policy changes that have taken place within the Obama administration that impact the African American community. And I have to give Reverend Sharpton kudos for pointing this out the former. Reverend Sharpton aptly noted that President Barack Obama is probably walking the thinnest of tightropes of any modern resident. With the emergence of the 24 hour news cycle, and the vitriol of conservative commentators, the Obama administration has to be both vigilant and focused so they don’t create fodder for the right that will ultimately serve as a distraction. With nod in the direction of that reality I criticized this summer President Obama for injecting himself in the Louis Gates controversy when his health care agenda was lying in the balance.

On January 20th 2009 Barack Obama took the oath of office to be the President of all Americans, not just black Americans. So let’s be clear Barack Obama ran to the White House, but as his stirring speech in Philadelphia proved, not away from his blackness. Yet, as the 2008 campaign proved, voters were extremely skeptical about a black man running for President, and many were susceptible to wild eyed conspiracy theories that suggested that Mr. Obama was a radical. Indeed many in the so called “Tea Party” are graduates of those anti Obama rallies. Governance in this volatile vortex where truth and lies are often blurred images of each other means staying the course and avoiding the traps of needless distraction. Those traps expend valuable Presidential time in defending what ought not to be defended rather than pushing major initiatives. The issues facing this country are simply too big and demand too much time to be wasted on constant counter punching.

That said, the Obama Administration has had the wherewithal to forge ahead on many core policy agenda items, namely health care. Therefore, for the millions of blacks to fail to see how health care reform does not benefit the African American community is pure folly. To assert that the Obama administration is ignoring the African American community means one is choosing to ignore the myriad of actions taken by the Justice department in housing, civil rights, hate crimes and the rest. It means that reforms in the banking and credit card industry will impact only non blacks. With millions of blacks suffering from obesity, surely African Americans can find solace that Michelle Obama has taken up this cause. Can’t an intelligent people read between the lines or in our lust for attention, we must demand that Barack Obama wave some mythical “I love black people” flag to assuage our fears and/or doubts?

Or is it more? Perhaps in order to run away from our own accountability, we put the beast of burden on President Obama while allowing the malfeasance and incompetence of other leaders to go unnoticed. On September 27th 1994 Conservative Republicans stood on the steps of the United States Congress and signed their Contract for America. It was their blueprint for change, which included several legislative proposals, albeit highly Conservative, but their agenda was to bring several of their core ideas to the floor of the House for a vote. While many never were made into law, their efforts led by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, helped revive the Republican Party in the 1994 off year elections. I have often thought about that event and those efforts when I think of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). A recent New York Times article “outed” the CBC for their cozy relationships with corporate America, and how they have become through their foundation, one of the biggest fund raisers in Washington, yet the “Times” reported that much of their donations never filter down to the program level where it can make a difference.
A perusal of the CBC website listed 42 “bills to watch” in 2009. Included in those “ones to watch” were bills on predatory lending, the Community Reinvestment Act, and Affordable Housing. Despite their import to the black community, according to government watchdog website govtrack.us.com, all three bills lay dormant and far removed from Presidential signature. As recently as December, members of the Congressional Black Caucus chastised the Obama administration for failing to direct more Presidential attention to the Black Community. With alarming alacrity they made headlines by threatening to hold up some key administration initiatives, as an expression of their concern. One would think that while they are holding President Obama’s feet to the fire, they would be mindful of unfinished business on their end of Pennsylvania Avenue. All which begs the question, where is the Congressional Black Caucus in this discussion of a “Black Agenda”?

Finally, this discussion of a need for a black agenda is most disturbing when considering that the subtext of this debate is that in order for the black community to thrive, we need an agenda with the imprimatur of the President of the United States. This debate ignores that Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X or Martin Luther King did not wait for a black agenda. It ignores the million of blacks everyday who stared down long odds, institutional impediments, racism, and simply choose to achieve. The mentality of black America must evolve where there is an audacity of hope, rather than a spirit of victimization. Believing that you can achieve, political climate notwithstanding is a huge step in that direction. Yes, affirmative action programs and other civil rights programs leveled the playing field for millions of Black Americans and should continue. Yes government should always provide a safety net for those, whose circumstances place them at the very bottom of the food chain, and yes government should provide consumer protections, and yes government should be a fierce advocate for basic human rights. I believe that on all counts the Obama administration should be given high marks. Is the Obama administration above reproach? Not by a long shot, but when the discussion centers on a President Obama Black agenda, it ignores the most fundamental and inconvenient truth – it is totally unnecessary as it already exists among millions of black Americans every day.

A Black Agenda in 2010 is simple - it’s called, get up and do something, get up and be somebody, get up and make something of your life. A black agenda is a human agenda. It’s the same agenda that has propelled many Americans of all color, gender, and backgrounds to rise to the level of greatness. That agenda calls for one to believe in yourself, embrace your genius and your divinity and let the chips fall where they may. For black America to have a discussion on the need for a black agenda is a sad, reflection on a community that has lost touch with its capacity for greatness. For the black community to suggest that in 2010, save for those who truly need assistance, that we are incapable of standing on our own two feet with out President Barack Obama standing in the Oval Office waving his black red, and green flag for all to see, means we as a community are in deep trouble. If this debate is a true reflection of the hearts and minds of black America it means that the spiritual deficit of black America in 2010 is far more pervasive than the massive federal one.

In my 2008 article when I defended candidate Obama against the charges against the heckler in Florida, I noted the billions of dollars from corporations and foundations that are available to community groups, organizations and non profits. I also mentioned that those resources are only available to those who take the time to wade through the paperwork, identify a component board of directors and apply for a 501c3. When searching for this nebulous black agenda, we do so often at the expense of the opportunities that are currently available to those who seek to be change agents for their community and are emboldened by their own sense of empowerment. A few years ago I complemented Tavis Smiley for his website Covenant With Black America, which had links to several organizations that were taking proactive approaches to issues confronting the underserved. Now it appears that Mr. Smiley needs to be reminded of the inherent power suggested in his own website.

Where is the black agenda our two media rivals ask? It is right here in front of us, it is building on the legacy of greatness, not begging for presidential attention. With a nearly two generations of blackness who have benefited from the sacrifices of thousands of blacks and whites for two influential members of our community to be bogged down in a discussion that entertains, but fails to enlighten, that narrows the focus, rather than broaden it, that suggests black impotency rather than black empowerment is a shame, and a disgrace – at a time when our community needs leadership, and vision we have egos and tomfoolery.