Smoke and Mirrors: Administration Flails in its Efforts to Justify War…

The Bush Administration’s mouth-pieces were out in force on the Sunday “news” talk shows trying to justify a War that never should have been prosecuted. Condoleezza Rice (who I now find it very hard to trust) said the administration relied on "an enrichment" of 5-year-old intelligence to rationalize its—now much maligned—claims that Iraq had WMD, and was therefore a clear and present danger to the United States.

The house of WMD cards is slowly crumbling, and even the usually muted Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is chiming in, stating that it has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors was of little or no military or intelligence value. How can any intelligent, rational person still cling to the fantasy that the Bush Administration did not lie to the American people in its zeal to invade a sovereign nation?

Poverty Level Rises for 2nd Straight Year in U.S.

Fresh on the heals of Bush’s dismal showing in the latest polls, comes word that the number of Americans living at or under the Poverty Line has risen “markedly” for the second straight year, due to plummeting pay rates, and a dismal job outlook. According to the Census Bureau the country’s median income fell $500 in 2002.

CNN reports:

The Census Bureau Reported that 34.6 million people, or 12.1 percent of the population, were living in poverty, up from 32.9 million people or 11.7 percent in 2001, when the economy went into recession after a decade of growth. The median household income, when adjusted for inflation, fell 1.1 percent to $42,409, according to the bureau, which released two comprehensive annual reports looking at poverty and income in America.

Yes, those tax breaks for the rich are really helping the economy, see how many jobs they are creating: trickle, trickle, trickle…

The American Way...

I have of late been feeling not myself: moody, irritable, conflicted, and torn in too many directions at once by life, family, societal responsibilities, and national inflictions. I find myself fearing for the future of my nation more and more as the days slip by into the past of minute remembrance.

As an American I am proud live in a country where I am free to express the voice of my soul, but at the same time I often feel ashamed of the way mine government is conducting itself in mine and every other Americans name. At the same time I consider myself a citizen of the world, having lived abroad for many years and tasted the distant and satisfying flavor of other cultures and societies. From the tip of Spain to the Black Sea Coast; from the museums of Paris to the pubs of Portsmouth; from the wharfs of Yokahama to the teeming bazaars of Istanbul; from the fjord’s of Oslo bay to the coral reefs of Puerto Rico; from the whit mountains of Italy to the beautiful city of Vienna; from Korea to Denmark, I have cross crossed the globe experiencing life, but never fully grasping the inter-connected nature of our lives.

But always I was conscience of what it was to be an American, and our reputation in foreign lands, and I treated each person I met as an equal, with the respect and dignity that should be afforded all humans no matter their national origins. And in return, I was treated with respect (with very few exceptions) and equal dignity. I made many friends, and through the years we had kept in touch, but alas, the last of them has drifted away leaving my without a picture of the real world beyond my sphere of influence.

I worry now how Americans are thought of around the world. Are we hated, despised, feared, loathed, distained in distant lands? I wish now that I had not allowed those past relationships to drift away with the sands of time, but alas the past is the past, and I must concentrate on new friendships in new places blooming…am I alone in my thoughts and trepidations, in my fears of my countries slide in the eyes of world opinion? Am I wrong to fear for America’s future if those in power are allowed to remain securely fixed to the reins of power?

In Serch of A National Identity

In light of California governor Gray Davis’ ill-informed, vote pandering decision (the GOP is predictably livid) on Sept. 5 to sign into law a bill making it easier for “illegal” immigrants to obtain “legal” drivers licenses, ones, I hasten to add that by virtual of Constitutional proclamation (Article 4, Section 1) would have to recognized in all fifty states, I once again examine the issue of a national ID card:

There can be no denying that since the September 11, 2001 attacks America has changed in ways we never would have imagined on September 10, 2001. Before September 11th, an attack on U.S. soil in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives in 30 minutes of stupefying evil was unthinkable to most Americans; it simply was not on our collective to-do lists. And yet life hasn’t changed in America in some very important and costly respects. We still as society cling to the notion that we can have safety without giving up even a modicum of personal privacy or freedom.

I have read about and listened with consternation to the debates swirling around even the suggestion of a national identification card. For the record I see nothing wrong with a national I.D. card, one which has embossed upon its surface a picture of each citizen and embedded in its plastic sheathing a microchip with your current address, phone number, date of birth, blood type, driver’s license number, SSN, and any police record(s). In other words nothing that is not already a matter of public record! All of this information would be part of a federal database and could be used by law enforcement officials to spot-check the collective identity. The card would be the size of a driver’s license and clearly state that it was a Federal I.D. card. Measures would be taken to ensure that the card could not be counterfeited in much the same was our currency and military ID cards are now protected.

Much of the negative debate surrounding this issued has centered on issues of privacy and the right to be anonymous, to blend into the crowd, to go un-noticed by the various state and federal authorities. But haven’t we as a society already given up much of we seek to protect? Every baby born in the U.S. is now issued a Social Security Number before (s)he leaves the hospital; in order to dive a car you have to have a drivers license, with your picture, current name, address, birth-date, sex, and physical characteristics emblazoned across the front and or back; colleges and universities issue student I.D.’s with the students picture on the front; and many companies require some sort of picture I.D. Credit card companies and other financial institutions routinely collect various types of personal information from us, and insurance companies delve into our personal medical histories with (and without) our consent. And yet we readily accept these intrusions into our lives, why, because it benefits us directly. Since when has public safety not been in our collective interests’?

For the record, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymity, nor is there a stated right to privacy. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments to the federal constitution, does it say that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the citizen to remain anonymous, nor shall Congress institute any law, which encroaches upon the citizen’s right to privacy. In the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court implied the right to privacy citing historical court precedent and the 14th Amendments guarantee to due process under law. However, constitutional scholars still debates the merits of the Courts decision, and point out again that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the citizenry have a right to privacy!

I personally believe that every citizen has a right to privacy within the confines of his or her home, or other private dwelling. That “right” erodes sharply once a citizen enters into the public domain, wherein he/she interacts with other citizens. In this domain, the public domain, the overall safety of society must outweigh—to a very real degree—the right of the citizen to privacy and anonymity. If this means that we have to carry national identification cards in order to differentiate between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, then so be it. Will the card in-and-of itself make the U.S. a safer country? Of course not, but it could be part of a whole range of steps we can take to ensure our national safety. Am I afraid the government will misuse the information gathered? No, not really, not any more than it already does, or has. Do state governments routinely misuse the information it gathers on its citizens as part of the many drivers’ license programs? I have yet to hear, or read about any wide spread abuse. Has the federal government used to evil ends, the vast amounts of personal information it stores in its various databases on every service member and veteran that is servicing or has served in the U.S. Armed Forces? I don’t think so. I have been retired from the Navy since 1995 and a have heard nary a peep from the government; they have not come knocking at my door, nor have they intercepted my mail, or in anyway interfered with my comings and goings from the country.

To me a national identification card is a small price to pay for putting into place another small piece of the home security puzzle. Perhaps instead of fighting the proposal, the civil libertarians could form a partnership with the government and come up with a system that protects the citizenry without compromising those rights we as a nation have come to embrace.

Bush Proposes Limiting Federal 2004 GS Pay Raise to 2 Percent

Our Accidental President, Mr. Bush after pushing through a record tax cut for the rich and building up the largest budget deficit in U.S. history, now has the audacity to transmit to Congress a plan to limit the pay increase payable to civilian federal employees. Mr. Bush proposal would affect General Schedule (GS) and certain other pay systems limiting their January 2004 raises to a total of 2 percent. And of that amount, only one and a half percent would be allocated to an across-the-board increase, and the remaining 0.5 percent to locality pay.

In accordance with Title 5, Part III, Subpart D, Ch. 53, Sub-Chapter III of the U.S. Code, these federal employees would receive a two-part pay increase in January 2004: (1) a 2.7 percent across-the-board increase in scheduled rates of basic pay, and (2) a locality pay increase based on Bureau of Labor Statistics' salary surveys of non-federal employers in each locality pay area; e.g. Chicago, New York, Los Angles, Atlanta, etc.

In Bush’s August 27 letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, he states that he is exercising his statutory authority to limit the January 2004 GS pay increases. The president may implement an alternative pay plan if he believes the full adjustment is inappropriate due to national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare. Bush said a national emergency has existed since Sept. 11, 2001, which now includes Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The letter further states that full statutory civilian pay increases of 13 percent of payroll in 2004 would cost the Treasury about $13 billion in fiscal year 2004 and would build in later years.

Such cost increases the letter said, would threaten U.S. efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or federal employment to stay within budget. Bush stated that: "[n]either outcome is acceptable. Therefore, I have determined that a total pay increase of 2 percent would be appropriate for GS and certain other employees in January 2004."

The Accidental President lobbied for passage of his FY 2004 Budget and H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act. The president stated that the 2 percent increase should be complemented by 500 million dollars from the proposed Human Capital Performance Fund, which is contained in the Authorization Act.

"Providing higher pay for employees whose exceptional performance is critical to the achievement of the agency mission is preferable to spreading limited dollars across-the-board to all employees regardless of their individual performance or contribution," Bush said.

"I do not believe this decision will materially affect our ability to continue to attract and retain a quality federal workforce," states the Accidental President. "To the contrary, since any pay raise above the 2 percent I have proposed would likely be un-funded, agencies would have to absorb the additional cost and could have to freeze hiring in order to pay the higher rates."

Bush also stated that GS quit rates are at an all-time low of 1.7 percent per year - well below the overall average quit rate in private enterprise. "Should the need arise, the government has many
compensation tools, such as recruitment bonuses, retention allowances, and special salary rates, to maintain the high-quality workforce that serves our nation so very well."

One has to wonder, once again, at the wisdom of the tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. Where is their sacrifice for the good of the nation, nation in the words of the Accidental President, under a state of emergency?

While Bush is asking dedicated federal workers to forgo their statutorily mandated pay raises, those who can well afford to forgo one are dancing in the shadows cast by multi-billion dollar estates so large as to defy the imagination or common sense. Such audacity and arrogance can only be born on the lips of a Republican.

Full text of Bush’s letter can be found here.

War Zone is no Place for Civilian Contrators...

Like an unwelcome house guest, stories of civilian contractors failing in their support of U.S. troops is Iraq and elsewhere, keep flooding the airwaves and newsprint. An Army is totally ineffective without reliable support; troops need to be fed, clothed, housed, entertained, and medicated in the rear. I always thought it was folly to replace military support personnel trained to deal with the rigors, dangers, and horrors of war, with civilian contractors who may or may not show up and do their jobs.

War is not an IPO and the U.S. Armed Forces is not a corporation. Despite Sect. of Defense Donald Rumsfelds’ protestations to the contrary, we need more men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces, period! Civilians, no matter their function, do not belong in a war zone. That is what the country formed a professional military for. Is this further evidence of the shrinking ethical and moral base of our society? Have we (the American society) in an effort to find profit in anything become completely blinded to ethical and moral principles and behaviors? What is going on?

Links to other articles of interest concerning this story:

* U.S. involvement deepens as armed conflict escalates in Colombia
* Thousands of Private Contractors Support U.S. Forces in Persian Gulf
* Corporate Warriors {audio interview with Peter W. Singer, author of Corporate Warriors}.

Martin Plan: A Blueprint for MIddle East Peace

I go on the record as stating that I think the quagmire currently swallowing the Middle East in a cesspool of senseless violence and childish thinking, is fault of both sides. That being said, I believe the Palestinians, led by Yasser Arafat(?) and Mahmoud Abbas—also known as Abu Mazen—shoulder a far greater proportion of the blame than do the Israelis at this point. The Palestinian people had peace in their grasp back in January 2000, but they had a fool representing their cause before the world. He blew it and the violence continues apace.

And now it appears as thought the Roadmap to Peace has veered off the on-ramp to civility after less then a month of peaceful co-existence. That peace was shattered by yet another militant Palestinian lunatic with a bomb who ended twenty Israeli lives and ruined scores, and scores of others. The Israeli’s, in turn, dusted off targeted assassinations, which prompted the militant Islamic factions to call off the ceasefire. And the cycle continues anew.

Quick question(s): where is the general outcry from the world when Israeli women and children are being murdered by high-grade explosives, ball bearings, nails, broken glass, rocks, and shrapnel? Where are the demonstrations in the streets of world cities against the Palestinian thugs who murder the innocent, pushing peace off a cliff into the abyss? Where is the indignation? Where are the UN resolutions denouncing terror and calling on the Palestinian Authority to once and for all rein in its militant arms?

But I digress. I believe in order to advance the cause of peace and stability in the Middle East, a new paradigm needs to be realized (no, I mean a real one this time), one in which the Arab nations and the Palestinian militant groups play a central part in the peace process; the Roadmap to Peace, however well-intended, falls way short of the mark. This new paradigm is one in which Israel is recognized as a viable state; one in which the state of Palestine finally comes into being. Let’s call it the Martin Plan for Middle East Peace.

The Martin Plan would have three over-riding objectives at its core:

1. Recognition of Israel by the Palestinians (to include Islamic fundamentalist groups) and Arab nations as a legitimate state;



2. It would seek to create that which the Palestinians claim they want: a homeland of their own with its capital in East Jerusalem, and;



3. A cessation of the violence by militant Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The main points of the Martin Plan are as follows:

• Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation with internationally recognized borders.


• The Palestinian people have a right to a separate homeland bordering Israel.


• Israel would withdraw all troops from the occupied territories and will cease all work on settlements.


• The Palestinian Authority would renounce violence and terror. And the Authority will further renounce all claims to land in Israel proper, and give up the right of resettlement in said lands.


• All West Bank lands north of the Dead Sea, together with land given over by Jordan adjacent to it, would form a new Palestinian state, with its capital in East Jerusalem.


• All remaining West Bank territory bordering the Dead Sea in the east including the cities of Bethlehem and Hebron would be incorporated into Israel proper.


• Jordan would cede a tract of land (size to be negotiated) east of the West Bank to form a new Palestinian state.


• The Gaza Strip would be incorporated into Israel proper.


• The Sinai Peninsula would be spilt evenly between Israel and Egypt.


• Militant Islamic fundamentalist groups; i.e. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. would recognize Israel’s right to exist and would further cease all hostilities against the Israeli people and state.

Under the Martin Plan, the United States would be called upon to act as mediator in the ongoing dispute between, not only the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the Arab states and Israel as well. Also, the U.S. would be called upon to stay engaged, and exert whatever pressure, and or, influence necessary to bring about as broad a blue print for peace by the end of 2003, and a final settlement by the end of 2004.

Under the Martin Plan, the United Nations would be called upon to become more actively engaged in the Middle-East beyond its current presence in the Sinai. This engagement should take the form of an official UN representative hand picked by the UN Secretary General to act as his surrogate in all matters concerning the UN’s part in the on-going negotiations, and the final agreement. The UN would provide a forum in which the on-going negotiations would take place. Finally, the UN and its member states would be called upon to provide those peacekeeping forces deemed necessary by the negotiating parties, to ensure the tenants of the final agreement are adhered to by all parties.

Under the Martin Plan, Israel would be called upon to immediately cease all military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and cease all work on existing Israeli settlements therein, and halt plans to begin any new settlements. Israel would be required adopt UN Resolutions 1397 and 1402, which recognizes need for a Palestinian state, and call for an immediate ceasefire between the two parties.

Under the Martin Plan, the Palestinian Authority led by Yassar Arafat/Mahmoud Abbas would be called upon to immediately denounce—in Arabic and English—the use of violence and terror as a means of achieving a political settlement to the current crisis. Failure of Arafat/Abbas to definitively denounce violence and terror, would lead to a UN resolution branding him/them an enemy of peace and call for his/their immediate replacement as the head(s) of the Palestinian Authority. Finally, the Palestinian Authority would be required to recognize UN Resolutions 1397 and 1402, which identifies the need for a Palestinian state, and call for an immediate ceasefire between the two parties.

Under the Martin Plan, the Arab Nations of the Middle East region (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq(?), Kuwait, the UAE, and Yemen) would be called upon to immediately recognize Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. Each would be asked to sign a UN security counsel resolution supporting said declaration. In addition, each Arab state would pledge to exchange ambassadors within a month of the resolutions’ adoption and agree to enter into separate negotiations with Israel to secure formal peace treaties. And they (Arab states) would end support for militant Islamic Palestinian extremist groups, whose sole aim is violence and terror, and denounce those Arab states that do not. Lastly, the Arab nations would be called upon to immediately cease state sponsored negative media coverage of Israel in which the destruction of state and the extinction of it people is called for, or endorsed.

Under the Martin Plan, those Arab states surrounding Israel: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, would all be asked to join the negotiating table and prove that they had the best interests of the Palestinian people and the cause of peace at heart. Also, under the plan, the main Palestinian militant groups Hamas (Gaza Strip), Hezbollah (southern Lebanon), Islamic Jihad, and Arafats' own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (West Bank) would be asked to join the peace process, denounce terrorism and declare their support for a viable Jewish state, with recognized boarders. Failure of these groups to join the negotiating table in good faith would exclude them from future consideration; each would be branded an enemy of peace and its members accorded the same status as terrorist.

Under the Martin Plan, Jordan—which has by far the largest Palestinian population of any Arab nation—would be called upon to relinquish some land (size to be determined during negotiations) in the western part of that nation directly north of the Dead Sea. This sacrifice would be necessary to form a new Palestinian state, whose borders would be contiguous with those of the West Bank, and whose territory would be large enough to accommodate Palestinians both in the “occupied territories,” and in Jordan wishing to migrate to the newly form Palestine.

Under the Martin Plan, Syria would relinquish all claims to the Golan Heights and seek instead a lasting peace with Israel. Syria would further withdraw all troops from Lebanon, and cut off all financial and military aid to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Under the Martin Plan, Egypt would relinquish the eastern portion of the Sinai Peninsula to Israel, and reclaim the western portion as its own. Neither country would be allowed militarize the peninsula except for those forces needed to patrol the border in peacetime.

Under the Martin Plan, Lebanon, with the blessing and active participation of Syria, would formally expel any and all Hezbollah forces from the central and southern regions of the country and no longer welcome them with open arms. The border with Israel would become demilitarized except for those forces needed to patrol the border in peacetime.

In closing, I am all too mindful of the ancient and emotional ties of all concerned to this small sliver of the Earth known as the Holy Land. And I am mindful as well of the deep spiritual meaning of the city of Jerusalem to Muslim and Jew alike. However, like a marriage between two souls seeking unity, peace, understanding, and mutual purpose, a compromise has to be struck. Neither side can have all of what they desire, each has to give, in order to get. The Martin Plan I believe is meaningful framework from which to build a lasting peace.

The old model for a lasting peace in the Middle East no longer seems to work; ceasefires fail, the bloodletting continues apace, and peace is pushed further and further from our collective grasps. We need a new mindset, a bold new plan (newsflash: the Roadmap to Peaceisn’t it), and a nation willing to lead the parties to a lasting peace with every tool in its arsenal. The United States is looked to by the rest of the world for leadership, its time Bush started exercising it (is that even possible?) and lead the region to a lasting peace, and I think the Martin Plan can help him realize that peace.

Judge Moore Suspended

This just in: Alabama's (clueless) chief justice was suspended Friday for his refusal to obey a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of his courthouse. I say here, here! It is comforting to know that Judge (and I use the term loosely) Moore is alone in his elementary interpretation and understanding of our federal constitution.

The Roadmap Takes a Very Wrong Turn

Who could have predicted this?

The Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have called off their ceasefire after an Israeli missile strike killed a Hamas leader in Gaza City. This after a Palestine suicide bomber killed scores of Israelis (and others) in Jerusalem on Tuesday.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the attack did not mean the end of the roadmap, but doesn’t it? With neither side willing to truly compromise, the Roadmap to Peace(?) really never had a chance to succeed, and now it is just another in a long line of failed proposals. And the Bush Administration seems ambivalent, at best, to the entire situation, unwilling or unable to make the really hard decisions that would move the process forward and put an end, once and for all, to the bloodshed. Action on the part of the U.S. needs to go beyond mere rhetoric to a solid plan of action that draws the surrounding countries into roadmap.

Syria for instance must be persuaded, or pressured, into ending its support of the militant Islamic factions now at work in The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Lebanon. And Lebanon must be persuaded to finally crack down on Hezbollah and expel them from the country. Peace, I submit, cannot move forward without an end to the bloodshed fostered by militant Islamic groups who claim to have to best interests of the Palestinian people at heart. Failure of leadership from the Bush Administration? I say yes, what say you?

Who is Arianna Huffington

Who is Arianna Huffington, the woman who would be governor of California? Herein lies (almost) all you ever wanted to know about the articulate flip-flopping handsome woman with the Greek accent who lives in an estimated 7 million estate in Brentwood California. Would she make a better governor then the current embattled Gray Davis? I certainly think she would make a better governor then the (overly) popular Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has yet to spell out in any significant way his position on the problems vexing the state.

Huffington sponsored Websites:

* Arianna Online
* Arianna Huffington for Governor of California

LATimes Feature Articles:

* Candidate Profile: Arianna Huffington
* Huffington Manager Also Works as a Lobbyist
* Huffington Can’t Dodge Tax Questions
* Huffington Calls Schwarzenegger GOP Insider
* Huffington Paid Little Income Tax
* Camejo, Huffington Form Unorthodox Alliance

Bush is Looking Through a Glass Darkly...

The Accidental President is looking through a glass darkly if he sincerely believes that Iraq is more secure now than the day the 3rd Infantry Division’s mechanized juggernaut first rolled through the shattered Baghdad streets. Safely ensconced in Crawford TX, with the “good old boys” of his administration, Bush, when asked about American progress toward quelling the violence in Iraq and returning the country to a sense of normalcy offered only this,

"This is our 100th day since the major military operations have ended… [a]nd since then, we've made good progress. Iraq is more secure. The economy of Iraq is beginning to improve.

Really Mr. Accidental President? On the way to work this morning I heard a rather lengthy report on National Public Radio about the continuing problems with the Iraqi electrical grid. Looting and sabotage continue to fester as an issue. And so much copper is being smuggled out of Iraq and onto the world copper market, that it is beginning to effect world copper prices. Is this what Bush means by improvement? How then can the economy of Iraq be improving without a reliable electrical source(s)? And this is only one of the problems vexing American administrators fighting to bring Iraq under control.

Where is the end game; where is the exit strategy; when are the national elections; where is Saddam; when are American troops coming home? None of these questions, nor many others, will be answered by the Crawford tumbleweed trio (Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld), because none of them have the answers. Leadership, I say, at its very best; America’s finest hour!

The Terminator Seeks to Erase Davis

Okay, now that Arnold S. is in, this could very well turn into a popularity contest where the real issues facing the state no longer matter. I have listened to, and read about Ms. Huffington’s views on the issues (local and national) and she makes sense where it counts. Can the same be said about Arnold S.? What are his views?

Arnold said on the Jay Leno show, to air tonight: “[t]he politicians are fiddling, fumbling and failing… [t]he man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis. He is failing them terribly, and this is why he needs to be recalled and this is why I am going to run for governor."

The big question is, however does Arnold S. have a keen enough grasp of the issues, and more importantly California politics to make a real difference, or like Bush—the Accidental President—will he come with strings attached to his extremities?

Huffington in, Springer out, Schwarzenegger: who really cares!

Its official, Arianna Hunffington, the virtual co-host of satirist Bill Maher’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, is running for governor of the embattled state of California. Speaking in Los Angeles this morning, Huffington stated,

I'm not, to say the least, a conventional candidate…[i]f we keep electing the same kind of politicians, we'll never get out of this mess.

Meanwhile, Jerry Springer has decided not to run for Senator from the State of Ohio. Citing concerns about his image stemming from his less then upstanding talk show, Springer stated “I can’t do it at this time.” Pity for those of us who wanted to see American politics sink even lower into the pit of mediocrity!

One more tidbit of note: it is now an open secret that Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to bow out (today as a matter of fact) of the governor’s race in California. Too bad, I was looking forward to hearing what the bodybuilder turned action hero, turned political wannabe had to say about the mess brewing in the nation most populace state.

More on Clarence Thomas...

As the debate rages on in the Senate concerning the fitness of certain neo-conservative Bush nominations to serve on various federal District Courts and or Courts’ of Appeal, one that got by in the eighties, quietly serves. The Washington Post recently ran an involved article on Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, which shed new and disturbing light on the man, who according to some, might well become the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The article only served to solidify my opinion of the man as out of touch with most of Americans in general and Black Americans in particular.

Gov. Davis Endorses Illegal Immigrants Driver’s License Issuance

Does anyone but me think that it is batty and just down right bad public policy (not to mention a violation of U.S. law) to pander to illegal immigrants? Should they for instance be allowed to apply for and carry valid state driver’s licenses? I say no, but the governor of California in an obvious bid to keep his seat, says yes. Should the top law enforcement officer in the state, in effect, sanction lawlessness in search of a vote? The answer to the reasoned man is clear, but it appears as though reason, the rule of law, and common sense have all taken a back seat while democracy in its purest form runs amok to the point of subversion, in the nations most populace state. It’s a great day to be an American!

Who Are They Kidding!?!?

So now that the Vatican, that bastion of moral, upright, uptight, sexually immature, red robed chumps have decided to launch a war against homosexual marriages. Umm, shouldn’t they be launching a worldwide campaign against child sexual assault and abuse within the church by priests? So let me get this straight, homosexuality is a sin, but sodomizing young boys and raping young girls is okay? Hello!!

New School, New Beginning?

I’ve been accepted to DePaul University’s School of Computer Science, Telecommunications, & Information Systems as a Graduate student pursuing a Masters in Computer Science. I received the acceptance letter in the mail on Saturday. I should be high on the news, but strangely enough I am not. Perhaps it’s because there was no mystery here, I mean since I am a DePaul Alum, I figured I would be accepted. So, now I embark on yet another education adventure and spend more money I will eventually have to pay back, yippee!

Don’t get me wrong, I am somewhat excited about pursuing my Masters, but a very large part of me just want to be done with school; when will it ever be enough? Seems every time you achieve one milestone, they (whomever they is) pushes the bar higher, so that even more skills are needed to land a decent job!

The Shine is Starting to Dull on Ms. Rice' Crown

The Iraqi Intelligence Debacle continues to churn out victims, next up Connie Rice(?) I have never quite trusted Ms. Rice’s, judgment, or analysis because she is an academic with no “real-world" experience to draw upon. Theory alone should never be used to make decision about foreign policy, especially if the person theorizing has never put his/hers theories to the test. And her public statements have always been a little too smug, and “on-point” to merit much regard.

In Search Democratic Party Leadership

I have been stymied by the Democratic Party’s lack of leadership and coherent platform. And as Bush’s “war-chest” grows daily, time marches on, and the Presidential election draws ever closer, there is still no clear democratic front-runner. It would seem I am not alone in my dismay over the Democrat’s disarray. If they do not get it together soon, they will have no one the blame—this time—for their failure to retake the White House, but the Party membership. Indeed the only embarrassment this election cycle is the Party itself.

GOP's Nasty Undemocratic Power Play

A decade after winning back the House of Representatives under the first Clinton Administration by promising brighter tomorrows and a “Contract with America,” the GOP has failed to deliver promised reforms. Is anyone surprised? Now that they are in power in the House, they seemed to have torn up the contract, (I wonder if we the American people, can sue them from breech of same?), and taken on decidedly unsavory tactics in a bid to exclude Democrats from all crucial decisions.

The GOP is fast becoming the party which represents a fringe of the American population, a party where neo-conservatism seems to flourish under the light the new American Imperialism, and where minorities (but only the darker ones), middle-class, and lower class Americans need not apply.

Ambush's on American Forces Continue Apace...

It would seem that the Iraqi resistance didn’t receive the fax, or email from Rumsfeld stating that they were suppose to stop ambushing American soldiers now that Uday and Qusay Hussein have been terminated with extreme prejudice. Three more American soldiers from 101st Airborne Division, died overnight in an attack on their convoy at approximately 2:30am (I thought we owned the night). Hopefully, the next week will see the cessation of attacks upon our soldiers as the fax lines are restored and emails finally get through!

A Modicum of Sanity Returns to the House

Could sanity be returning to the House? Say it isn’t so; the interest of the American people put before those of special interests? The House voted 400 to 21 yesterday to block earlier imposed rules from the FCC that would have allowed the countries largest broadcasting concerns to snap up more television stations, setting up a potential showdown with the White House.

Law School Byebye

Well, I have been thinking about it for most of the summer and today I made up my mind and did it, I quit law school, it was proving to difficult to keep all of the ball rolling in the same direction. It was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made, but I felt I had to for the good of the family.

On an up note I registered for entry into the Masters program at DePauls’ College of Computer Science, Telecommunications, and Information Services. I hope to gain entrance into the Distance Learning Computer Science Program. This will allow me take classes at home and hopefully finish my Masters by the end of 2005(?).

What Form Reparations?

I have given considerable thought to the subject of reparations for slavery and its legacy of late, a lot of thought. I have tried to wrap my mind around that which is fast becoming a flash point of both personal and political debate; not only across the country, but in Hollywood as well. A recent episode of the West Wing (a very fine show) addressed the issue and touched upon some of its complexities. And complexities there are.

But let’s leave that aside for now and address the broader issue; should the nation’s Black American population be given monetary compensation in order to atone for the forced labor of their ancestors? My short answer would have to be no! Now ask the same question another way; should the nation’s Black American population be given monetary compensation in order to atone for the forced labor of their ancestors and the resulting legacy of inequality that prevented many Black Americans from achieving even the basic tenets of the American Dream? My short answer is a hedged no, leaning towards a, “let’s see what we can do” refrain! All of which of course brings us back to the complexities of the situation.

The tide of support for reparations is rising all across the nation as the issue comes once more out of the doldrums of back room chats over poker and angry dinner table discussions, into the mainstream of American politics. Former President Clinton went on record as saying that he is against both an apology for slavery and reparations for slavery (http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/17/clinton.race/). Bush predictably has not mentioned either the apology or reparations issue. Blackvoices.com, a premiere web site dedicated to Black American issues conducted a poll on the issue, in which overwhelming support was given to the idea of reparations. The results of the poll can be viewed here (http://www.blackvoices.com/feature/reparations/main.html). And the old forty acres and mule argument is resurfacing as H.R. 29 introduced by Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, on March 11, 1867, makes its voice heard once again. The complete text of the bill can be read here (http://www.directblackaction.com/rep_bills/hr29_1867.txt).

But what form should reparations take? Except for the Thaddeus Stevens bill, that question has never been intelligently addressed. Should the reparations take the form of cash, real estate, or a college/technical school endowment, or voucher program? And how do we pay for them; through a special tax on just White people? Hardly fair. A one-time tax deduction, or some other tax relief for Black Americans? Again, hardly fair from a number of perspectives. And most importantly, how to craft the reparations so that they will be easy for all American to swallow (no mean feat I assure you!), or at least come to terms with?

And how does the government insure that only those directly descended from slavery receive reparations? Aside from the question addressed in the previous paragraph, this is undeniably the most vexing to answer.

Here are some thoughts. First, what form should reparations take? I think the reparations, if given, should take the form of educational vouchers to the school or technical institute of their choice for those Black Americans seeking a Technical, Vocational, Associates, Bachelor’s, Masters, or PhD degree. This not only helps Black Americans (especially Black American males) lift themselves out of poverty, but also helps the country as a whole. How you might ask? By assuring that a steady stream of highly educated and motivated individuals will join the work force well into this century as America continues to shift its economy away from heavy industry into high tech and the service industry. Any Black American alive when the bill is passed would be eligible and assured at least four years of study at an institution of higher learning, or technical program. And for those who have already completed their degrees, any and all outstanding student loans would be forgiven. The aforementioned would be the sole form(s) of reparations offered: no money, no cars, no land, and no houses.

Eligibility would be determined using census data from the latest census to determine heritage. Those Black Americans, who turned in their census forms and identified themselves, as Black Americans no matter what age, or social status, would be eligible for reparations. Census data currently on hand would be verified by home visits by census officials.

The only question left is funding. I am no economist, or self proclaimed expert on government funding, but I think a .5% to 1% hike in the corporate tax rate, along with a .25% tax on luxury items costing over $300,000 should be enough to fund the program, given the current state of the U.S. economy. In this way corporate America and the richest 1% of Americans give back to the country that gave them so much!

Good idea, or is there room for improvement? Or am I totally out to lunch? I don’t think so! The writing is on the wall; this issue will not go away and will no long stay under the rug where it has been brushed lo these past 135 years. If we are going to do justice to the past by addressing reparations for slavery and its legacy, why not do so with an eye on the future of our nation as a whole? An educated person is one of hope in the future and its promise of a brighter tomorrow. Education is now and will forever be the slayer of ignorance and the harbinger of hope. Let’s not waste yet another opportunity to enrich our nation and secure her future status by yet again turning our collective backs on her Black citizens.

Apology for the Legacy of Slavery

Apology: an expression of regret for an offense or fault.

On May 17th 2000, the mayor of the America’s third largest city, Chicago, made a public apology to the Black Americans in his city for slavery.

After tiptoeing around the issue for weeks, Mayor Richard Daley on Wednesday came out squarely in favor of reparations for the descendants of African slaves and asserted it is only right for America to say it is sorry for what it did. "You apologize for a wrong," Daley declared. "Slavery was wrong. ... Slavery has had an enormous effect on generation after generation." The mayor's comments came as the City Council voted overwhelmingly to urge Congress to consider reparations. - Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2000, Chicago Illinois

Chicago is just the latest city in a growing list of cities across the nation that has joined the cry for Congress to address the issue of an apology and reparations (the question of reparations will be addressed next month in another article), for slavery. Most White Americans—and quite a few non-white American’s, chief among them, Native Americans—have opposed the call for an apology, asserting that it was not they who were responsible for slavery. Or they assert their forefathers were immigrants, or migrant workers, or indentured servants, and therefore not responsible for slavery and all of it well documented ills.

Let’s leave aside for a moment those individual arguments and address the larger issue: should the United States Government apology for slavery? I say no, not for slavery alone. It should instead apologize for the legacy that slavery left in its wake; a legacy I hasten to point out that the U.S. government helped endow, and fed through its own well documented institutionalized brand of discrimination, bigotry, and racism. It is the legacy of slavery that has haunted every Black American—man, woman, and child—for the last 135 years, and the haunting continues to this day!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws-14th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America, ratified July 9th 1868.

Citizens yes, equal under the law; in theory yes, but in reality, NO. For some 100 years after the end of slavery, the federal government was a co-equal partner in the systematic denial of Black American’s equal treatment under the law. There has been case after case, after case in which Black Americans were humiliated before the eyes of the world, denied, disrespected, set upon. And they were murdered by gun and rope, raped, blown up, and treated like second class citizens under the watchful eye of all three branches of the federal government. A federal government, which gave its support to this vile treatment by either doing nothing to stop it, or acted in concert with those who would seek to promote and champion racism and discrimination.

This against the backdrop of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, the very words of which speak like no other document, before or since, to the human need to be free of the shackles of oppression, tyranny, and injustice! I have often wondered how forward thinking classically, or liberally educated persons who claim the word of God as their own, can come to terms in their minds, hearts, and souls with the very obvious contradictions and ethical, moral, and spiritual dilemma’s this paradox creates.

If, and I say again, if the federal government had upheld the Constitution and believed in the spirit and the letter of the Declaration of Independence and in so doing vigorously enforced the law from the outset (end of the Civil War), how different today would America be?

Would Jim Crow laws have been enacted and enforced in the south for close to 100 years? Would the KKK have ever become the force for evil, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry it became? Would Black family’s be torn asunder and Black children—especially Black boys—feel hopeless and rudderless, finding no cause in America to call their own? Would the American dream remain but a dream for so many disenfranchised Black Americans? Would the Black Panthers ever have been born? Would the race riots of the sixties have ever flared? Would Martin Luther King Jr. and countless other Blacks and Whites have lost their lives in a struggle to bring equality to a people who should have already been enjoying its fruits? Would the deep biting pain of school desegregation and forced busing have been necessary to enrich young Black minds that heretofore had gone undernourished by the blatant indifference of the many states? Would the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights Act have been necessary? Would affirmative action and the entire ugly debate it invites have been necessary in our nation’s corporations and schools of higher learning? Would we today be talking of reparations and apology’s if the federal government had lived up to it obligation and responsibility’s to uphold the law fairly and equally for all its citizens? And in so doing binding the many States to their collective and individual obligations and responsibility’s to do the same? I think the answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO!

Apologize for slavery in and of itself, NO, because the federal government, indeed the country was not even in existence when slavery was introduced to the thirteen colonies. Apologize for allowing slavery’s legacy, a legacy born of hatred, racism, and intolerance, which it helped, foster, YES! An apology for that and the incalculable pain and emotional scaring it caused is in order and dually demanded! A nation of the people, by the people and for the people, should not tolerate the continued subjugation and unequal treatment of ANY of the people!

In A Quest for National Identity

There can be no denying that since Black Tuesday our country has changed in ways we never would have imagined on September 10, 2001. Before September 11th, an attack on U.S. soil in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives in 30 minutes of stupefying evil was unthinkable to the average and above average American; it simply was not on our radar screens. And yet life hasn’t changed in America in some very important and costly respects. We still as society cling to the notion that we can have safety without giving up even a modicum of personal privacy or freedom.

I have read about and listened with consternation to the debates swirling around even the suggestion of a national identification card. For the record I see nothing wrong with a national I.D. card, one which has embossed upon its surface a picture of each citizen and embedded in its plastic sheathing a microchip with your current address, phone number, date of birth, blood type, drivers license number, SSN, and any police record. In other words nothing that is not already a matter of public record! All of this information would be part of a federal database and could be used by law enforcement officials to spot-check the collective identity. The card would be the size of a drivers license and clearly state that it was a federal I.D. card. Measures would taken to ensure that the card could not be counterfeited in much the same was our currency is now protected.

Much of the negative debate surrounding this issued has centered on issues of privacy and the right to be anonymous, to blend into the crowd, to go un-noticed by the various state and federal authorities. But haven’t we as a society already given up much of we seek to protect? Every baby born in the U.S. is now issued a Social Security Number before (s)he leaves the hospital; in order to dive a car you have to have a drivers license, with your picture, current name, address, birth-date, sex, and physical characteristics emblazoned across the front; colleges and universities issue student I.D.’s with the students picture on the front; and many companies require some sort of picture I.D. Credit card companies and other financial institutions routinely collect various types of personal information from us, and insurance companies delve into our personal medical histories with our consent. And yet we readily accept these intrusions into our lives, why, because it benefits us directly? Since when has public safety not been in our collective interests’?

For the record, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymity, nor is there a stated right to privacy. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments to the federal constitution, does it say that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the citizen to remain anonymous, nor shall Congress institute any law, which encroaches upon the citizen’s right to privacy. In the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court implied the right to privacy citing historical court precedent and the 14th Amendments guarantee to due process under law. However, constitutional scholars still debates the merits of the Courts decision, and point out again that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the citizenry have a right to privacy!

I personally believe that every citizen has a right to privacy within the confines of his or her home, or other private dwelling. That “right” sharply drops off once a citizen enters into the public domain, wherein he/she interacts with other citizens. In this domain the, the public domain, the overall safety of society must outweigh—to a degree—the right of the citizen to privacy. If this means that we have to carry national identification cards in order to differentiate between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, then so be it. Will the card in-and-of itself make the U.S. a safer country? Of course not, but it could be part of a whole range of steps we can take to ensure our national safety. Am I afraid the government will misuse the information gathered? No, not really, not any more than it already does, or has. Do state governments routinely misuse the information it gathers on its citizens as part of the many drivers’ license programs? I have yet to hear, or read about any wide spread abuse. Has the federal government used the vast amounts of personal information it stores about every service member and veteran that is servicing or has served in the U.S. Armed Forces to evil ends? I don’t think so. I have been retired from the Navy since 1995 and a have heard nary a peep from the government; they have not come knocking at my door, nor have they intercepted my mail, or in anyway interfered with my comings and goings from the country.

To me a national identification card is a small price to pay for putting into place another small piece of the home security puzzle. Perhaps instead of fighting the proposal, the civil libertarians could form a partnership with the government and come up with a system that protects the citizenry without compromising those rights we as a nation have come to embrace.

The Long, Slow, Painful Decline…

“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation…” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence 1776.

There was a time in American public discourse when words of eloquence and principle were the norm; when our political and spiritual leaders, intelligent, well-read, and grounded in philosophical astuteness were undeterred in their speech, and with words painted a vision for the nation. They are words from the minds of men (and women) percolating with intellect and wisdom and speak to a mastery of the English language seldom heard, spoken, or written in these modern times. From the quills of these great orators dripped words, phrases, principles, and ideas which launched a nation that would arguably become one of the greatest mankind had ever envisioned. Their words nurtured by lofty ideas with notable philosophical underpinnings, sprang forth with impassioned vigor, giving birth to speeches that moved the human spirit, and captured the imagination. They were (and are) words that inspired, that motivated, that warmed to such a degree, that men and women would die to see their edict carried to fruition.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”…Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863

Fast forward to the here and now and wonder in the age of the sound bite and “Axis of Evil” speeches, where have all our great political leaders gone? Where are the great intellectuals and orators of our age? Our politicians today remind one not of the inspired brilliance and vision that fashioned a nation of principles, and ideas that fueled the imagination of the world, but of insipid, naughty, elementary school children vying for a piece of turf on the playground. Their words do not inspire, they do not motivate, they do not move the soul or swell the heart; they in short leave me wanting and waiting for greatness.

Nothing illustrates this shortcoming more than the recent one year anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which felled the World Trade Center. The nation’s political leaders so void of intellectual capital and inspired vision, so mired by the quicksand of modern American politics with it’s increasingly shallow center, could not produce one original or memorable speech for the day; NY Governor George Pataki recited the Gettysburg Address, while NJ Governor Jim McGreevey recited from the Declaration of Independence! As for Mr. Bush, well, no memorable words left his sneering lips that day.

We elected a President whose words tumble from a mouth fed by a befuddled brain, which doesn’t reason, a soul which has no vision, and a heart devoid of meaningful passion. We accept, and in some cases, celebrate the limitations of our Accidental President, while the world looks on in wonder at this sad spectacle we have spawned. How could a nation that bequeathed to the world wondrous institutions of higher learning such as DePaul, UIC, Northwestern, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Grambling and MIT, long suffer the unfocused ramblings of a dullard? How could a society which crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, documents hailed around the globe as enlightened, visionary, and worthy of emulation, suffer long the indignity of a body politic whose intellectual discourse is little above adolescent squabbling.

“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”…Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963

It is said that a nation receives the leadership it deserves. Is that true in our case? Have we started the long slow road to intellectual, moral and ideological decline that has marked the passing of so many great human civilizations? Does our current state of public intellectual malaise signal the closing curtain on the grand experiment that is American (flavored) democracy? Will this nation with its government so ineptly led; this nation founded on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, perish from this earth, because the principles that form the foundation of its society, its government, its very way of live, no longer have an inspired voice in its public, private and political discourse? When did idealism and praiseworthy intellect, eloquent prose, and impassioned speech, become character flaws in a nation founded by men who wore all in unapologetically abundance?

American Unilateralist; a Satirical Look

Prolog:

In our hunt for the perfect solution to what ales the world, the United States is slowly morphing into that which we fought so hard over the last fifty years, to slay; namely a unilateralist bully who seeks to dominate the world stage no matter the cost! In this new American awakening, where American policy, American values, and American power rein supreme, our allies have become a thorn the Bush Administration is gainfully trying to pull from its paw; but at what cost to the world at large, at what cost to peace and stability, at what cost to the American people?

My unending frustration over the issue, has given way to sardonic humor, the fruits of which I share below. I have taken passages from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney as written from the Supreme Court’s 1856 landmark case Dred Scott v. John Sanford. I have rewritten the passage to suit modern time in which we find ourselves, below each one of Justice Taney high biased, racially charged rantings. Please read and ingest it in the spirit in which is indented.

Main Body:

…[T]hey were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominate race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority…from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.

The United States its shores pristine; its people affluent; its economy robust and still the largest upon the Earth—despite the recent downturns in trade and industry; its military second to none and able to project our will upon ocean blue, the land it touches, and the air above, sees no need to wash its policies in the tub of world opinion.

…[T]hey had been for more then a century before been regulated as being of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the White race, either social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect… from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.

The rest of the world has no peoples, no laws, no treaties, or other articles of civilized governance the United States of America is bound to respect, or give the slightest consideration to. Indeed, our power, vast and unending, derived in whole from our overwhelming dominance both in the economic and military realms of human existence, guarantees us a higher perch from which to look upon the Earth and her hapless multitudes of people. We need not the burden of cooperation and compromise that flows from the substandard conventions of international treaties governing Civil Rights, Children’s Rights, Global Warming, Nuclear Proliferation, Women’s Rights & Suffrage, Chemical Weapons, Small Arms & Landmine Proliferation, etc., etc., etc. Fortress America will protect us from such petty evils and trivial concerns (except for the occasional airliner bomb) that man can think to devise.

And we need not the woefully inadequate and substandard pleadings of international laws and criminal courts, for the American citizen is a breed apart from the rest, and should be subject only to American laws, and American standards of justice, no matter his wanderings throughout the world, or the seriousness of his crimes against man or nature. Surely the world can see that the American Constitution and therefore by extension, American law and jurisprudence should be supreme in and among the worlds peoples and their varying ineffectual institutions.

And what would become of the American economic miracle if the American corporate Demi-Gods were forced to forgo their never ending quest for profit in the name of human preservation, goodwill, ethics, empathy for all living things, principles and heaven forbid, morals? Surely the world must see that what is good for America is good for the world at large? Has not the world built its standard of living off the very backs of the American worker and consumer? Are not American work ethics and American productivity the envy of the world?

…[T]hat a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as far below then in scale of created beings, that intermarriages between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes were regarded a unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes… from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.

But alas, if the world with its petty concerns, puny economy’s, feeble militaries, and second world (most often third and fourth world), populace cannot see the shinning city upon the mountaintop that is America and give its peoples their due as citizens of the first order, then America will be forced—albeit with profound reluctance and with the heaviest of hearts—to turn its magnificent glowing eyes way from the rest of the world. Alone we shall forge our path of capitalist democracy, a path that will lead to our greatest glory yet. This, while the rest of the world plunges further still into a unity of ethical puritanical thought that ignores the beauty and sublime saneness of the thoughtless pursuit of profit at any cost. And in so doing the world ignores the promise of “Pax America!”

We need the world not, for we are supreme, we are the epitome of self-serving unapologetic arrogance. We rule, we rock, and the rest of the world can in no uncertain terms snuggle close to our collective American bum and grace its grandness, its glory, its undisputed dominance (though China would love to try and unseat us, and Russia longs to be able to muster the intellectual capital to affect another stab a glory), with a multitude of wet kisses!

Historically Black Colleges & Universities: A Legacy on the Ropes

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent narrow decision in the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action decisions, and the question of whether or not there should be minority set-asides at the nation’s publicly funded white majority colleges and universities, broader questions beg to be asked, and answered. Namely should Black Americans continue to push to make inroads into these institutions, or should we as a community strive to make the Historically Black Colleges & University’s (HBCUs) a set of institutions that rival the best education Historically White Colleges & University’s (HWCUs), have to offer? Should the Black community forsake, whenever, and wherever possible, HWCUs in favor of HBCUs in an effort to continue the tradition of these fine institutes of higher learning, and in so doing ensure our future as an educated community of peoples dedicated to improving the American Idea?

Sprinkled predominately throughout the Southern states from Texas to Florida, and up the eastern seaboard from Georgia to Virginia, the 104 HBCUs are widely heralded for the part they played in creating much of the nation's black middle class. According to a February 21st, 2003 article by Ruby Bailey from the Detroit Free Press, some thirty percent of black PhD’s obtained them from black colleges…”as did 35 percent of Black-American lawyers, 50 percent of black engineers and 65 percent of black physicians.”

She went on to state, quoting M. Christopher Brown, a professor and researcher at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University, that “[s]uch schools ‘remain the cultural repository for African-American history…[t]hese are institutions that demonstrated over time the ability to be effective and efficient with limited resources.’”

A Beginning Born Out of Necessity

At the end of Civil War, there were some four million uneducated newly emancipated slaves, who needed to be cared for, or they could be taught how to care for themselves. So through the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, the federal government used confiscated Confederate land and a $400,000 endowment (which lasted just three years) to start schools for the blacks across the south; blacks, who before the Civil War it had been largely illegal to educate.

As the South struggled through the pain of reconstruction, religious missionaries from the victorious Northern states began setting up makeshift schools in church basements and Union camp shacks. The schools likened themselves to colleges and universities, but in reality they were little more than tutoring at the elementary level, and a true college education was more of a distant goal than a reality. And the task was daunting, for most of the college-age ex-slaves could neither read, nor write.

It was a period of enormous uncertainty, but also unanswered prayers for the education of the newly freed black Americans. Grambling State University in Louisiana, perhaps one of the better known HBCUs was started by Black farmers; Fisk University in Nashville was started in wooden shacks on confiscated Confederate land. Again, Ruby Bailey in her February 21st, 2003 Detroit Free Press article, quoting Prof. Reavis Mitchell, chairman of Fisk University 's history department, states, “[e]very time it rained, little buildings got washed out…[i]n the summer, there were the mosquito infestations and the ticks.’” Two slaves started Talladega College in Alabama, and still other HBCUs were funded by well meaning white philanthropists. Spelman College, an all-women's college in Atlanta and perhaps the most well-known HBCU, was started in the basement of Friendship Church with 11 students. The room had dirt floors, and if it rained the floor turned to mud, and if the sun didn’t shine there was not enough light to conduct class.

And of course the schools were threatened by angry white men. Many were in the heart of the newly formed Ku Klux Klan, and had watch towers manned by students at night. But through it all HBCUs prospered and educated millions of Black Americans.
But that legacy is threatened.

Fighting To Stay Alive; a History of Under-funding

The 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessey vs. Ferguson condoning segregation, and institutionalizing “the separate but equal” doctrine, prompted states to finance public black colleges in an effort to keep young Black American students out of HWCUs. But the states only allocated enough funds so that they were seen as doing something, and the funding levels never reached that of HWCUs, and it shows in the paltry endowments all of the HBCUs have to operate from.

A recent Thurgood Marshall Fund (a scholarship program to help black students attend one of the 45 member HBCUs) study shows that of the 37 public HBCUs, that responded to its inquiries, 26 have endowments of $1 million to $6 million—much less than many comparable institutions. Consider the endowments of top fifty HWCUs in Year 2001 dollars: Harvard University ranks number one with some $17.5-billion; Yale University is in second with $10.4 billion, Mayo Foundation ranks 25 with some $1.5-billion, and Penn. State University ranks 50 with some $942 million in its endowment fund.

Contrast that with Howard University in Washington D.C. which ranks number one among HBCUs with an endowment of just $305 million, Spelman College with an endowment of $220-million, and Harris-Stowe State College in St. Louis has the smallest endowment fund of just $796,000, and three other HBCUs with endowments of less than $1million. The total endowment figure for all 104 historically black schools, public and private, will total some $1.6 billion for 2003 according to United Negro College Fund figures.

While the desegregation of the mid 20th century opened the doors for young black American students to attend HWCUs, the shift siphoned off some of the best and brightest black American students and professors from HBCUs. This led to declining enrollments. Forcing some of the financially weaker school to lower tuition only served to worsen an already dire situation.
Though the Bush administration recently proposed a 5-percent funding increase for HBCUs—to $224 million—in the 2004 federal budget, that is just a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what these schools really need to survive and thrive financially.

Morris Brown College in Atlanta, GA is struggling and may not survive. The college is $23 million in debt, and is fighting off lawsuits from unpaid vendors while the institution battles to pay daily operating expenses. The college lost its accreditation from the Southern Association of College and Schools in December 2002, citing among other things the Morris Brown’s record of bad bookkeeping and lack of faculty members with advanced degrees, as the reason for the Association’s decision. The school is appealing, and graduated its seniors early in March to ensure their diplomas would be accepted.

We have in our HBCUs a rich tradition of learning and service to our community. But because of a litany of problems, not the least of which is chronic under-funding (for all) and mismanagement (in some cases), that tradition for some HBCUs might well be coming to an end. What are the answers? Here is one. The push for reparation for the scourge of slavery is in full swing. But there is a wide disparity of opinion as to what form the reparations, if paid by the federal government, should take. In my previous article entitled “What Form Reparations?” I advanced the idea that reparations should be paid in the form of education vouchers given to black Americans to attend a college or university.

Now I would like to propose something even more far-reaching; a proposal that would help not only the black community, but enrich the lives of all Americans; from the reparations endow all of the HBCUs to the sum of $1 billion each. This would bring them up to the level of some the best HWCUs in the country, allow these schools to modernize and expand, and attract nationally recognized black professors, and other faculty. In addition, this money would greatly expand the scholarship offering from these schools and help attract the best and brightest black students.

Good idea? Drop me an email and let me know what you think.

Sources:

Bailey, Ruby L. Proud Past, Uncertain Future: Some Historically Black College are Fighting for
Their Lives. Detroit Free Press. February 21, 2003.

< http://www.freep.com/news/blackhistory2003/hbcu21_20030221.htm>.

Infoplease.com. 2002. College and University Endowments, 2002. 29 June 2003
< http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html>.

Jayson Blair’s use of Race Card is Disingenuous

I interrupt my usually politically motivated muses to voice my outrage at the liar Jayson Blair. You know the man who duped the New York Times, and fabricated and/or plagiarized not one, not two, not three, not ten, or even 20, but an embarrassing 36 stories for the fabled newspaper. It’s not enough that the man has besmirched the venerable and highly respected name and reputation of the Times, and in so doing cast a pall over the entire face of print journalism, but now he has the audacity, and the gall to try and play the race card in order to cover up his lack of character!

Words alone cannot describe how disgusted and utterly disappointed I am in this man. As a Black male, this is indeed a sad day for me, and my honest hardworking fellows who must win our respect one deed at a time. Why oh why, must the race card be played every time an issue of character rears it ugly head, and those questioned are black? In a ground breaking and eye opening interview with the New York Observer, published on May 21, 2003, Blair lashed out at the Times, stating, “[a]nyone who tells you that my race didn’t play a role in my career at the New York Times is lying to you. Both racial preferences and racism played a role. And I would argue that they didn't balance each other out."

As any Black male will tell you, being one of us in America is not a walk in the park by any means, but the behavior portrayed by Blair has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a serious flaw in his individual character, far removed from race. His imperfections are all too human, and all too typical of this generation of young professionals; or should I say professional wannabes. Why work when I can take the easy way out. And why accept the blame for my own shortcomings; surely someone, or something else must be the blame!

Blair went on to say, "I was under a lot of pressure. I was black at the New York Times, which is something that hurts you as much as it helps you. I certainly have health problems which probably led to me having to kill Jayson Blair, the journalist. . . . So Jayson Blair the human being could live, Jayson Blair the journalist had to die." So what. I am black working for a major Technology out-sourcing company based in Texas. I have felt the bite of racism from colleagues and managers alike, but I do not respond by becoming less of a person than I was meant to be; I do not blame the entire corporation for the actions of a few and attempt to assassinate the whole. And it is rumored that Blair’s “health problems” were self-induced (alcohol and cocaine), yet another character flaw in a long, long list of many.

Blair blames everyone but himself for his shameful run at the Times, and indeed celebrates the fact the he was able to dupe the Times for so long, saying, “I fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism...[t]hey're all so smart, but I was sitting right under their nose fooling them. If they're all so brilliant and I'm such an affirmative action hire, how come they didn't catch me?" Was this a game to him? It seems it was, and what is even more amazing is that he has no regrets. He has yet to earnestly apologize to the Times, or even more importantly, to the readers of the Times who depend on the newspaper for accurate, professionally written, unblemished news. To be sure, the Times editors should have kept a tighter rein on the young liar, but in the end the blame rests squarely on Blair’s slight shoulders.

And his claims that the editors at the Times are racist stand hollow in the face of his own deplorable behaviors. Indeed, by Blair’s own admission while interning at The Boston Globe in 1999, Blair was guilty of the same behaviors, faking an interview with D.C. mayor Anthony Williams. Blair has described his former Globe colleagues as "a bunch of thin-skinned, sheltered, cocooned babies." Were the Boston Globe editors guilty of racism as well?

Now there is talk of a book! And to add insult to grievous injury, Blair says he laughed at the Times’ recently published 7000 word Mea Culpa in which the newspaper detailed Blair’s trail of deceit.

I do not buy Blair’s assertion of racism; I reject it, as I reject him. In the end his downfall was not brought about by the color of his skin, but by the content (or lack thereof) of his shallow, reprehensible character.

Bush Tax Cuts a Fool’s Errand

Is it me, or does anyone else find this constant push for a tax cut a bit wearying, not to mention overwhelmingly foolish? Don’t we have a war to pay for? Aren’t the vast majority of states running in the red? Aren’t there millions of Americans without basic healthcare, and still more unemployed? Is this really the best time to cut the government’s revenue stream?

Looking at my latest pay stub, I would be the first one to stand up and proclaim that I need tax relief, but then sobering reality would slap me in the face like the recent westerly winds hammered my newly built gazebo this past weekend. I, like the rest of my fellow sober, rational thinking, forward-looking, multi-dimensional Americans, must look at the larger picture. And that picture is fuzzy, its colors are starting to run, and fade. But it nonetheless illustrates an undeniable truth: we cannot afford tax relief, not now, nor anywhere in the distant future.

The President claims that the tax relief package—which seeks to significantly cut the dividend tax—will create new jobs, especially new small business jobs. Please, there are not enough small business jobs in America to employee the millions of people who have lost their jobs, let alone replace the income that has left the economy. When held up to the mirror of reality, the Presidents tax cuts are nothing more then a gift to the richest 1 percent of Americans; a thank you card from the President at our (the rest of the 99 percent of Americans) expense.

Consider the numbers: according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, under the President’s original tax relief plan, households with $40,000 to $50,000 in net (taxable) income would receive an average tax cut of $482 and an increase of 1.2 percent to their total after-tax income. For households earning more than $1 million, the average tax cut would be more than $89,500, with an increase in their after-tax income of 4.2 percent.

The $550 billion version of the President’s plan that passed the House of Representatives last week is even more generous to the rich. Those same middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $452 and an income boost of 1.1 percent, while the nation’s upper crust (those making over 1 million dollars) would receive a tax-cut of $93,537, enough to enlarge their after-tax income by 4.4 percent. The more unpretentious $350 billion tax cut that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week would trim the average millionaire's tax cut a smidgen, to $64,431. But it would also trim the middle class tax-cut to $415.

The 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that passed in 2001, and gave us all $600 to spend, also gave the uber-rich a windfall, but it left the relative income tax burden of each income group largely untouched. That is because most of the cuts targeted income, and taxpayers at every income level received virtually the same percentage reduction. In contrast, the centerpiece of the Republican White House and Republican House tax plans—sharp cuts in taxes paid on dividends and capital gains—are aimed at investors, who tend to be very wealthy.

I, like most Americans, do not have large sums of money tied up in individual stocks. If we invest in the Market, our money is more than likely in mutual funds, 401(k)’s, CD’s and IRA’s. Therefore the benefit of the current round of tax-cuts for the vast majority of Americans would be negligible, unless of course you count the job creation angle. Just how does a cut in the dividend tax rate morph into a new job with health care benefits anyway?

This is not leadership; this is cronyism at its unabashed, unadorned, repugnant worst. And it only reinforces my belief that taken as a whole, the Republican Party has no political or social philosophy in which I feel comfortable supporting. The Bush tax cut proposal is a fool’s errand trumpeted by a Party that cares only for the rich conservative few that keep its coffers full, and its agenda at the center of American life, whether we like it or not. The tax-cut proposal is bad for America. At a time when we need bold leadership to see the country through the worst economic and fiscal malady since the end of WWII, we have Bush. Is it just me, or is anyone else looking for a safe place to hide for the next six years?

Source: Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Online. Bush Blunts 'Fairness Question' on Taxes
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47167-2003May12.html>

Did anyone else see the season ending shocker on The West Wing last night? Even I, an amateur Constitutional scholar, didn’t see that one coming. Last night’s episode is why The West Wing continues to be the best 45 minutes of drama on television, cable or otherwise! Of course the Law & Order series comes in a close second, but the ensemble (writers, directors, and actors) of The West Wing keep me clued to the screen from the opening dramatic theme song (it moves me every time) to the close of the show.

Now the question on everyone mind will be how easy will it be for Bartlett to regain the Oval Office next season. On its face, the wording of the 25th Amendment would seem to suggest that it would be and easy enough task to accomplish, to wit, section 3 & 4 of the Amendment state:

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. U.S. CONSTITUTION, amend 25, Sections 3 & 4.

All Bartlett need do is sign a piece of paper declaring himself fit for office once again, and the deed is done. But something tells me, that the Republican Speaker of The House, portrayed to perfection by John Goodman will not give up the trapping of the Oval Office that easily. Not to mention that in real life such a scenario has never played itself out; no President has ever faced the choices Bartlett had to face last night.

After the show the spouse and I lamented which past President would have had the character or devotion to duty, honor, and country to do what Bartlett did? I said Kennedy and Carter, and perhaps Ford would; she agreed on Carter. And would Bush faced with a similar situation today have the forethought, courage, and wisdom to invoke the 25th? Neither of us thought Bush capable of such a selfless act; sadly he lacks the character, intelligence, and wisdom.

Next season should be very interesting indeed. And I start Constitutional Process next year in Law School…very interesting indeed.

Hi All, sorry I have been away; there was a death in the family. My father passed on Easter Sunday, and I had to fly back east to attend the funeral, and deal with other family issues. As a result my mind hasn't been in the game--so-to-speak--for the last few weeks, but I am recovering. Please enjoy the following editorial I wrote for an upcoming issue of my school newspaper:

Powell v. Rumsfeld

These are troubled times. More troubling one could say than the heyday of the cold war era. At least then, there were sharply defined lines; we knew who the enemy was, and the world’s nations fell on one side of the iron curtain or the other. Life was simple.

Times have changed. The cold war has thawed and the United States stands alone in the superpower arena. We as a nation have no equal in terms of military and economic power. Democracy has proven itself the more resilient form of human governance and capitalism dearer to the human soul then any other economic model. The world is in flux as nations once dominated by the old dynamics of east-west conflict flex their political muscles, and radical Islam gives rise to a different flavor of threat.

At a time in world history when the United States could and should lead the world to a brighter future anchored in democratic principles and built on a foundation of liberty and equality for all, we are failing. We are faltering. The light is dimming and a darker tomorrow is dawning as the Bush administration conducts foreign policy with a school yard bully mentality.

In a skirmish that rivals the fabled War that just was, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are engaged in a war of words and petty back room maneuvers. The stakes: who will be the voice of American foreign policy; the traditionally dovish Department of State, or the overly conservative and hawkish Department of Defense?

On one side there is Rumsfeld and his people: VP Cheney, Deputy Sect. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, columnist William Safire, Fox News, the American Enterprise Institute, and the ultra-conservative members of the Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, and Ken Adelman.

On the other side there is Powell and his people: Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Deputy Sect. of State Richard Armitage, Richard Haass, the State Department and the Foreign Service, Senator Joe Biden, and well, the world.

The clash between Powell and Rumsfeld is so noteworthy because it goes beyond mere ego. It is central to whether the U.S. will lead by fear, intimidation, aggression, and force of arms, or by principles, diplomacy, moderation and example.

Conspicuous in his absence and leadership, has been the President. By not reining Rumsfeld in, Bush lends authority to his words and deed, and by not supporting Powell’s positions, he is in effect undermining Powell and the State Department’s credibility before the body politic of the world. At times it appears as though U.S. foreign policy is being conducted from the Department of Defense or worse yet, from the desk of the National Security Advisor.

The discredited former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, fired the latest salvo (most say with Rumsfeld’s blessing), when he personally attacked Powell in a recent speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute calling the State Department “ineffective and incoherent” for “six months of diplomatic failure” and its “propensity for appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes.” Dissimilarly, he noted that the Defense Department “delivered diplomatically and then the military delivered militarily.” Gingrich went on to rebuke State diplomats for undue deference to the U.N. and for tolerating terrorism in Syrian-occupied Lebanon.

Response from the Powell camp can only be characterized as ad hominem attacking Gingrich personally and not his message. Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said of Newt: “[w]hat he said is garbage…he is an idiot and you can publish that.” Armitage responded by stating that Newt was "off his meds and out of therapy"; Mr. Baker called Mr. Gingrich "someone with no foreign policy or national security experience…who was in effect forced to resign" as House speaker; a Powell aide said it was "inconceivable that Newt could have made this extraordinary attack on his own without running it past Rumsfeld.”

While it is possible that Rumsfeld may merely be the front man for Vice President Cheney, who sparred with Powell for being too cautious in the first Persian Gulf war, and ridiculed Mr. Powell's strategy of going to the U.N. before the second, the outcome is the same; the U.S. Ship of State is adrift between two competing ideological camps. And while the world holds its collective breath wondering where the next MOAB might slide to earth, Bush’s failure to lead his administration past this impasse leaves nine billion people jittery and unsettled.

On a barely positive note, Powell has won support from the President in his ongoing negotiations with Syria of its support of terrorist, North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, and the newly emerging Palestinian leadership. Absent is the President’s support for any of Powell’s initiatives in Iraq, which by and large has been left in Pentagon hands.

We are at a crossroads in human history, and I for one am tired of WAR. The world needs peace, but I fear the course Rumsfeld and company have set for the United States will only lead to more WAR and continued distrust of U.S. motives. Hatred for America is on the rise, and the fear of a once principled nation is so pungent you can smell it on the air. Come next election we have a choice to make: empire building and the constant strife it entails, or a peaceful coexistence rooted in mutual respect and humility.