Cobb

Now It Can Be Said: Part Two

Belmont Club sez: How much money did Obama raise during his campaign? Did he follow the rules? Who cares! He won!

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president

Maybe the real object of pity here should be the idea of government funded campaigning. After all, McCain is political history and will soon recede into the past. But the idea that bad money could be kept out of elections by government funding has proved, if Obama’s campaign escapes scrutiny while McCain is put under the lens, to have no future. The incentives to follow the McCain funding model, rather than the disable-your-creditcard-checks model, are nil.

Does anyone anywhere expect any media to bite on this issue?

Makeba

The last time I saw Miriam Makeba was in Boston 1992. She had the crowd on its feet at long last. I think she surprised herself. You see Boston which was at the time in my opinion the coldest and whitest city in the world did produce a requisite full house for the South African singer, but nobody in the audience was any good at keeping the beat. Nobody but me, my date and a smattering of other truly hip dudes and dudettes. I think we shall never know how to echo the life of that woman, as I reflect on that year of Jurassic Park and Janet Jackson.

I first came to know Makeba informally as a child. Pops was a huge fan of Hugh Masakela, her husband, but I didn't recognize her voice until I learned to actually dance the Pata Pata at the age of 14 at summer camp. Finally as an adult I purchased Sangoma and marveled at her extraordinary voice. I know that record backwards and forwards and it is in many ways part of the soundtrack of my young adulthood.

As a young Progressive wishing that some form of cultural production would levitate the fortunes and minds of my fellows, I often regarded the talents of my generation with regret. Nobody could sing like Nancy Wilson who might bother to be political. Beauty and politics were regrettably destined, it seemed, to be forever divergent. But South Africans singing of their freedom always seemed to be the exception from Sarafina to Ladysmith Black Mombazo. Yet surely we Americans were cherry picking. Still, Makeba's fruit was the sweetest. She had such a powerful and clarion voice, and of course in Xhosa she seemed to do gymnastics with her mouth that defied physics.

I'm going to be playing Sangoma this week starting tonight and reflect further on the brightness Makeba brought to my life.

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 is an absolutely stunningly beautiful videogame. It's also, sadly, right smack dab in the middle of the uncanny valley. It's too fake to be real and too real to be fake. It has an absence of style that makes it just wrong, wrong, wrong. Worst of all, it made me dizzy and gave me headaches, something I haven't suffered in a videogame since Doom, 1992. Sorry.

I don't think there has been a longer more drawn out intro into a videogame since Frontlines. Or was that Call of Duty 4, World at War? Anyway, it got real tiring real fast. So did the rather random nature of it. I really didn't like the slow pace, and quite frankly the game was too real to be fake.

Far Cry 2 is extraordinarily realistic in that it gives a very authentic feel of a sort of abused nature of operatives in low level conflict. I was very much feeling like somebody abandoned in a hostile environment with nothing more than my wits, a cell phone and an AK47, and a machete for God's sake. I walk around and take over hovels and shoot people who have no idea who I am. They're just in the way of a morally ambiguous mission. Ick. That's not fun, it's not entertaining. Not only FC2 visually deep into the uncanny valley, but morally and in game play as well. It's a disturbing narrative that I simply didn't have the patience to see along despite the fact that I totally buy it.

The Black Block: Tighter or Looser?

I was just reading this from Matt Yglesias:

The issue in play here is to some extent obscured by the general upward trajectory. But overall, Obama improved on John Kerry’s vote share by 4.2 percentage points. His share of the white vote, by contrast, went up by only two percentage points whereas his share of the African-American vote went up seven points and of the Hispanic vote by 14 points. In other words, there was more rather than less divergence in white and non-white voting behavior.

Can this, should this be interpreted as a greater stranglehold on black political attention by the Democrats. Have they effectively put 95% of the black America in their back pocket for good? I mention this appropos some discussion we had about Dyson / Cosby / Juan Williams, specifically Williams:

I'm telling you that blackfolks perception of the GOP is presented to me in such a way that I conclude they believe the national party deals with blacks as a block. And I believe this perception makes them behave in such a way that as a pre-requisite for respect, that the block must be addressed as a national priority. The GOP has to have a 'black statement' in order for blacks to consider their candidates.

In fact the only 'block' that exists is the rubric of 'Civil Rights', and it has become the proxy and the litmus for everything Republicans do. It's the Colored Door of American politics, and if you don't use it you're not considered. That goes both ways. The GOP is expected to address African Americans through the Colored Door and African American voters are expected to view the GOP through the Colored Door.

Whether or not African Americans are wedded in any significant way to Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP, they are wedded to majority minority districts established by the Civil Rights Movement and the legacies of the elected officials who have represented them. Those critters are a pack, and nobody on the national scene can point to any black congressman who sounds even marginally different except for Harold Ford. But by and large there is no change in black politics. I don't see it. Do you?

Clearly Obama represents a threat and a change to black politics as usual and national politics as usual. My interest in political diversity among African Americans may be challenged by Obama's ability to become the third portrait on black livingroom walls next to Jesus and MLK. Is black America a tighter political block now, or does Obama have the opposite effect by breaking the grip of the Civil Rights Establishment?

A New Dynamic at Cobb

I just wanted to take a moment to recognize the new dynamic that's going on here at Cobb. We have several new folks who are taking the comments into blazingly spirited territory. Overall I think it's a good thing. I'm not going to rule over this with much of an iron hand right now because I think it's going to take some time to find equilibrium. As people become accustomed to the different styles of writing and opinions of the new players things well settle out.

I recognize most of the folks from Booker Rising and I sincerely hope that you all will take advantage of the sort of environment I'm trying to maintain, which is one of collegiality and even though Nulan sucked his teeth about it which provoked in me quite a hot rage - a community of honest inquiry. I like it when people speak from personal experience. I like it when people use references. I like it when people try to find the causes of conflict and misunderstanding and leave it at that. I am not opposed to name calling, and when I get fed up then I will tend to do it along these lines (as vanderluen exemplified a few days ago - 'jane you ignorant slut'). A one liner will suffice. Find a neutral corner and leave the thread alone. There will always be another topic to discuss. When you're at your wits end and want to tell somebody to fuck off, feel free, but let that be your last word on the subject. You can only do that once - otherwise try to explain exactly why you think your opponent is smoking crack, you may convince him to put it down.

Also the pure political propaganda, and publication of events should go over to the Conservative Brotherhood website. Here I prefer, as I said, for people to figure out why the other guy thinks so strangely, as well as your take on current events etc as I bring them up.

I also take many suggestions on the backchannel. You can always tell me what you think via email if you don't want to say it out loud. I always read it and it always weighs on my mind. But I only act on these things forthrightly about 15% of the time. That's because I do get 200 emails a day. Speaking of which, I am going to talk about Kwanzaa again this year - don't despair.

That is all. Have at it. Thank you and welcome.

Truth Telling in the Obama Era

I've been watching and listening and there is something that is becoming true and it is the truth about black Americans. It is a sort of truth that is coming from multiple directions, but it is not converging around one concept of set of facts. It's just noticeably more honest and forthright than we have seen.

This morning, a quote over at Booker Rising said something about the Obama family that was said about the Cosby Show over two decades ago:

I am loving the positive imagery and symbolism of this new President and First Lady. It is going to do wonders for 'black love' in America, and I dare say for an entire generation of young people who will grow up watching this young first couple balance marriage and family with grace....What I think will be most important is that young black men will see a powerful black man who is deeply involved with his children, and who openly adores and admires his wife. His beautiful, strong, intelligent black woman. I'd better go before I start crying again (been doing a lot of that lately). Let me be the first to say that I am so hopeful for the black community, and for a reshaping of our values and behavior. Maybe we will have a return to old-fashioned courting, letter writing, respect, admiration, and enduring friendship between men and women. God knows we need this so desperately in the black family right now.

In one way, this is an insult to black people, as if Obama were so rare and unique that he is almost unrecognizable and therefore a bracing reminder of what we're supposed to be. The soft bigotry of low expectations is embedded in every Obama Hallmark moment. In another way, I am reminded that such moments are easy to find. If somebody followed me and my family around every waking moment, or the families of any of my close black friends, they would see the very same thing - provided they edited the set down to the good bits.

Jimi Izrael is saying similar things with characteristic humor and edge. He notes some behaviors that are on the outs if we are to keep up with the Obamas. His is a top twenty list. I particularly like these few:

17.   Hip to be square-being uninformed and uneducated won’t be so cool anymore.
18.   College= No longer an option-Any black dude not talking about going to college will become an instant pariah. GED=Status Ain’t ‘Hood.
19.   Death of the Angry Black Man-Obama’s a cool customer, and he changes the perspective about the black man’s palate of emotions . Finally, people will allow black men a larger degree of feelings than ‘angry’ and ‘not-so angry.’

But we know all this. All of this sort of talk is not an epiphany so much as it is a breath of fresh transparency. An axiom of Cobb is that black culture is transparent. The black internal cultural wars will continue and for now it is clear that the upscale contingent has the upper hand - as it should be. Afronerd must be happy. I'm happy in the way I thought I would be before Obama turned out to me more against my political philosophy than I expected, precisely for this black cultural benefit. Here's what's going on.

What is striking about this era is that having everybody talking about a black man and a black family all of the time (that demonstrably 52% of Americans trust to lead the nation - assuredly positive) is like having the big buck come out of the woods. All of the timid does and baby deers follow, slowly but surely. And like a circle of confessors in therapy start to really show themselves once they are convinced that the leader is not going to take advantage, the truth slowly starts to emerge. Not something startling but the amount is greater and the details are more vivid. This is what's happening in America with regard to the truths about black culture and our changing attitudes towards it. Obama is the catalyst. So far, so good.

I like the confidence with which people are boldly speaking their minds about black culture and I will do what I can to promote such verbal conflict at Cobb. What I believe we will find is primarily that the Old School values embedded in the example of the Obama family will validate what black conservatives have been saying all along - furthermore that the enacted policies of the Obama adminstration, if it proves to be as moderate as it sometimes claims, will be used by wags like me to further a sort of social conservatism that black communities desperately need. I take this opportunity to cite my previous works vis a vis Hymowitz and Moynihan and hope such matters bear fruit.

Race Relations Then & Now

This is now.

That was then.

I'd say that progress is pretty obvious.

Brooksley Born & The Regulatory Limit of Democrats

Larry Summers will be one of the names tossed around for consideration on Team Obama. There's a particularly interesting piece of baggage that Summers has with respect to Brooksley Born. Here follows a very interesting story from the NYT:

In 1997, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading, began exploring derivatives regulation. The commission, then led by a lawyer named Brooksley E. Born, invited comments about how best to oversee certain derivatives.

Ms. Born was concerned that unfettered, opaque trading could “threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it,” she said in Congressional testimony. She called for greater disclosure of trades and reserves to cushion against losses.

Ms. Born’s views incited fierce opposition from Mr. Greenspan and Robert E. Rubin, the Treasury secretary then. Treasury lawyers concluded that merely discussing new rules threatened the derivatives market. Mr. Greenspan warned that too many rules would damage Wall Street, prompting traders to take their business overseas.

“Greenspan told Brooksley that she essentially didn’t know what she was doing and she’d cause a financial crisis,” said Michael Greenberger, who was a senior director at the commission. “Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.”

Ms. Born declined to comment. Mr. Rubin, now a senior executive at the banking giant Citigroup, says that he favored regulating derivatives — particularly increasing potential loss reserves — but that he saw no way of doing so while he was running the Treasury.

“All of the forces in the system were arrayed against it,” he said. “The industry certainly didn’t want any increase in these requirements. There was no potential for mobilizing public opinion.”

Mr. Greenberger asserts that the political climate would have been different had Mr. Rubin called for regulation.

In early 1998, Mr. Rubin’s deputy, Lawrence H. Summers, called Ms. Born and chastised her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis, according to Mr. Greenberger. Mr. Summers said he could not recall the conversation but agreed with Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin that Ms. Born’s proposal was “highly problematic.”

On April 21, 1998, senior federal financial regulators convened in a wood-paneled conference room at the Treasury to discuss Ms. Born’s proposal. Mr. Rubin and Mr. Greenspan implored her to reconsider, according to both Mr. Greenberger and Mr. Levitt.

Ms. Born pushed ahead. On June 5, 1998, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Levitt called on Congress to prevent Ms. Born from acting until more senior regulators developed their own recommendations. Mr. Levitt says he now regrets that decision. Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin were “joined at the hip on this,” he said. “They were certainly very fiercely opposed to this and persuaded me that this would cause chaos.”

Ms. Born soon gained a potent example. In the fall of 1998, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management nearly collapsed, dragged down by disastrous bets on, among other things, derivatives. More than a dozen banks pooled $3.6 billion for a private rescue to prevent the fund from slipping into bankruptcy and endangering other firms.

Despite that event, Congress froze the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s regulatory authority for six months. The following year, Ms. Born departed.

In November 1999, senior regulators — including Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin — recommended that Congress permanently strip the C.F.T.C. of regulatory authority over derivatives.

This is a story that I absolutely had to have in Cobb, just so there's no mistake.

Mercenaries 2 Completed

I have played the Chinese against the UN. I have, at my whim, subverted Venezuelan revolutionaries, kidnapped and executed executives, run tanks through VZ government palaces and exploded oil platforms. I have launched missiles at reinforced bunkers, chased gunboats through minefields, and dropped shipping containers on the heads of civilians from black helicopters. I have hijacked troop transports, destroyed historic castles and run guns for Jamaican pirates. I have blownup billboards with rocket launchers and run missile gunships aground. I have thrown more grenades and flipped more jeeps than I can count. I have stolen millions of dollars, sabotaged fuel depots, tasked satellites over refineries and dropped the mother of all bombs on a hillside favela. I have dealt with money grubbing gringo mercenaries, ball busting female insurgents, Rastafarian bird smugglers, pierced Irish playboys, ambitious Chinese colonels and drunken Russian pilots. I have swung from helicopter skids and thrown men to their deaths 3000 feet above the jungle floor. I have snuck through government checkpoints in rustbucket heaps armed with only a sidearm. I have called in carpet bombing airstrikes on UN peacekeepers. I have rained artillery fire on office buildings in the middle of business districts and watched them crumble in huge clouds of concrete dust while chomping a cigar. I have pistol whipped dignitaries and handcuffed them only to execute them because I have double crossed the clients who already paid my bounty. I have run armored personnel carriers through tarpaper shacks and demolished military barracks with C4. I have crawled out from under the wreckage of helicopters falling from the sky, victims of combat air patrols. I have dropped fuel air devices, cluster bombs and even a nuclear bunker buster that I extorted from an American general just to get revenge.

What can I say? I had a badass time.

GTMO Focus

The AP reported yesterday on private talks going on with the new transition team about the fate of the GTMO prisoners. The ACLU is trying to push Obama left, and the details of the facts about GTMO should be driving Obots crazy. To wit: (emphasis mine)

Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. But, underscoring the difficult decisions Obama must make to fulfill his pledge of shutting down Guantanamo, the plan could require the creation of a new legal system to handle the classified information inherent in some of the most sensitive cases.

Many of the about 250 Guantanamo detainees are cleared for release, but the Bush administration has not been to find a country willing to take them.

Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But as details surfaced Monday, it drew criticism from Democrats who oppose creating a new legal system and from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. mainland.

I have long been a proponent of a separate circuit of courts specifically to deal with enemy combatants and domestic terrorists, and I've been called a bunch of names because of that. Now that Obama is considering the very same concept, I expect the same ranters to whistle and stare at the ceiling.

Here's what I said:

It is also becoming clearer to me that between what we have at Gitmo, old treaties, the Hamdan decision, it's a patchwork. I think there is a strong case for a new type of circuit court with new powers of investigation to handle the kinds of cases we are likely to encounter with Jihadists and non-state actors going forward. I think those who have, even under the influence of BDS, suggested that there is too much Executive power arrogated by GWBush are backing into the truth. I say that the Congress clearly isn't doing a decent enough job, and that anybody with gripes about Gitmo should be behind a new sort of judiciary power.

                                                                          

This is one thing that Obama can do right, he's probably halfway there. But the ACLU is going to fight him tooth and nail because they already fight the centrists and the DLC. Their new campaign aims and dumbing down the issue to 'reverse Bush', and I suspect that Obots will be challenged to take the issue seriously. In the meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt has finally become useful again, taking a lawyer's eye to the detail.

Also note this essay in which I said:

What is convenient about my construction here is that it reflects with some accuracy the scenario which Judge Posner has stated and the sort of exception that demonstrates the weaknesses of conventional criminal indictments and search warrants. If one can presume that there can be a reasonably high standard of scrutiny applied to determine the appropriate court for criminal facilitation of organized crime - ie RICO vs American MI5, then we would be fine. The problem is that this is now an exclusive province of the executive branch. The absence of a counter-terrorist court system incents the executives to make a military case out of everything - to fight terror as if it were state on state war. It clearly is not and it clearly is not mere organized crime.

Obama Gonna What?: Part 1 - Prison Industrial Complex

The Great Black Hope will be full of surprises. I like my boy Jimi Izrael's take on a top 20 list, but I'm going to go skeptical for the moment. There are a number of problems that have been zealously placed at the foot of Conservatism and evil white men which continue to make many black partisans look at once credible and foolish. Foolish to me, credible to their compatriots in Sherwood Forest. Now that there's a new Sheriff in town, many of the woodland squatters believe that the world will invert and that their quality of life will slide uphill instead of down. I think they're in for a number of rude awakenings about well, reality. And I want to take this moment to mark some of their superstitions.

Over in the Black Republicans thread, the one I have lost all interest in commenting on, I have drawn some of those flies who are buzzing loudly about this and that myth upon which many Americans have been sustaining their political outrage. Uptownsteve is one such insect who intends to bite us all to pieces - us being the lame ducks of the W era. Now that his candidate is about to snatch the dentures of office, perhaps he thinks his bites will draw more blood. We'll see about that. In fact, let's lay down some markers shall we?

Separately and distinctly I will begin a series - Obama Gonna What? Which are somewhat tangential to the markers of the Crow Cafe. So now that certain folks are convinced that the notorious War on Drugs was racist and that today BATF agents sit on their cans while white slackers meth themselves to a tooth-killing soul oblivion. In other words, blacks got sent to their own private GTMO while whites could chill stupefied and unmolested. Injustice! they shout.

I'm of the Old School Conservative opinion that drug dealers should all go to jail, every last one of them, all tried as adults. Drug users should be fired from their jobs and sent to live in halfway houses in South Dakota. If they starve or freeze to death in winter, tough titty. I'm sure that with all the new government spending we should be able to find enough low rent buses and newly hired bus drivers to take these slackers out of our fair cities. Why South Dakota? Because South Dakota is the state that allows for usurious credit companies to operate with obscene margins. If the slackers can't get a job, they can live on South Dakota's credit.

As for the Prison Industrial Complex itself, it is part and parcel of a nation which is obsessively moral when it comes to the misappropriation of funds. Even if you rob a Quickie Mart of a mere 100 bucks, the long arm of the law will toss you into the clink. That's a good thing. Last time I recall, we had free education for the masses into which the lesson "Don't Steal" was equitably distributed no matter one's race, creed, color, native language, religion, class, mental challenge, political affiliation, ethnic background, physical ability, sexual orientation, or iPod playlist. It is impossible to be clearer that, although perhaps Obama might have us consider the politics of difference of the Tattooed, and the Pierced aka the alternative skinned. Nevertheless I'm certain that a YouTube showing somebody's belly ring getting literally ripped off might have some positive impact in imparting the proper concept. Not to mention that it would be great fun to watch.

So we have prisons, and we have some fraction of Americans who just cannot manage to stay away from them. Awww. What's Obama Gonna Do? Will he dismantle the PIC? Or will he make substantial reforms and change we can actually measure? Or will he, like Bill Clinton, the original and first black president, make a lot of nice intelligent speeches and blame the other guys for the horrid conditions, and then do nothing? Hmm. You tell me, he's your messiah.

The Elephant's Right of Way

I've spent a little time tweaking a few things and adding a few things to my Research Notebooks. In the Guide to Cobb - Concepts & Terms, I want to add this one which I've probably not given adequate respect. I think it is particularly instructive at this moment in American history.

As I briefly mentioned in what I think to be the sole point of disagreement between myself and the Grey Conservative, I agree that America is the world's policeman. I said it this way:

America is the world's policeman, the world's bread basket, the world's bank, the world's medical research lab, the world's university and the world's movie theatre. We are a lot of things to the world, without which the world doesn't do jack.

You may not like the fact that we are the world's policeman but you shouldn't be irresponsible on that point because if we withdraw from any of these functions, the world suffers. America must be constructively engaged with nations around the world in military affairs and it must not be abashed in putting boots on the ground, wherever, whenever. To his great credit, GWB has re-established that stance - the one Reagan feared to do.

Unless and until America uses its military for overt and just purposes, the nations of world will suffer from covert, proxy, false flag and mercenary operations.

I think the final point bears emphasis - it is exactly why this is a war on terror, not a war on nations. We are making that difference quite clear.

But I want to talk about the reasonable way to deal with the fact that we have become these things, and note that in my earlier political incarnation as a Progressive, I had a much more cynical take on the boom of the 80s. I used to call them the Go-Go Eighties and the Roaring Eighties, because I presumed them to be an era of excess which would inevitably result in a crash. The crash took 20 years to come and it had nothing to do with what I believed. I was at once fascinated and repelled by great wealth, while defensive of meritocracy, I was contemptuous of the middle class, while adopting a sort of global cosmopolitan attitude, I was nonetheless convinced that most affluent people were phony and really unaware of the reasons they valued the things they did. Much of that latter attitude was established by the influence of Marshall Blonsky.

At any rate, my growing understanding of Conservatism changed all that because I found in Conservatives the willingness and the desire to defend meritocracy and yet respect the middle class, to make peace with elites through the continuum of history and to maintain a humility and respect all at once. In the principle defense of Liberty and of the Commons through the emphasis of common denominators of human respect via Natural Law it all comes together. But there remains the American exceptionalism. What to do with the common man, and what of the deprived?

If the weak have anything in life to fear, it is the strong. The defense of rights are, after all, the gift of the strong. And what the modern conservative understands is that freedom from tyranny comes through the sacred honor of protecting the property of the individual from usurpations. It is that fundamental covenant which best protects the individual of talent from being robbed on the regular, and it is toward the end of the establishment of the Constitutional Republic which embodies the power necessary to keep that covenant that our Founders were dedicated. Whether or not they have done an unimprovable job is the future's to judge but the fundamental fact remains, there has to be some way to keep the strong from being predators. For that purpose we are a nation of laws and not a nation of men.

Teleologically speaking that is what we have achieved in America, and it is what we have reasonably come to expect. We agree that no man should be above the law, by any right, divine or otherwise. And in so doing we have created an arena for competition whose rules bind us all. By these rules, we can get rich, and 95% of millionaires in America earn their riches, they don't *inherit* their riches. An old friend at Columbia B School used to remind me that in America, everybody wants to be rich whereas in Europe everybody wants to shoot the rich. We like the rich in America because they don't prey on us. It is very easy for Americans to admire Bill Gates and admonish Bernie Ebbers. It is very American for us to create a series of communities and competitive arenas that generate a Tiger Woods. And we know we have nothing to fear from such a multi-multi-millionaire, despite the fact that he's an elephant.

Speaking modestly, the most scary thing outside of war is a fight between elephants. I don't mean the African beasts, but those who are wealthy. This conflict occurs on a constant basis, and I didn't quite realize that in my old incarnation. When I went to work for Xerox Corporation in the 80s, it was one of the top 50 companies in Corporate America. And to my young view, Corporate America was 'the powers that be', implying a sort of static establishment that simply emanated power. The very idea that a giant American corporation might be vulnerable was almost unthinkable to me. And yet these institutions are very dynamic and fluid. General Motors was once the colossus, and today it has been practically bankrupted by unions. My industry has undergone tremendous change. Data General is gone. Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) is gone. Amdahl is gone. These were giants, and yet they have fallen - collapsed and been reabsorbed into that deep tumultuous sea that is American business.

What keeps Tiger Woods American? What keeps Warren Buffett American? Moreover, why would they stay American in the same country that has millionaires who are rogues? The core of my thesis is that America remains the sanctuary for elephants. It is an elephant playground, and an elephant graveyard. And we could easily, any day get stomped. But it is much more likely to be our fate that we are mugged, or our housed robbed, or raped or murdered than to have our entire lives and property confiscated by some elephant. We need to be concerned more with rats and jackals than elephants. Elephants tend to fight elephants. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is our ability to maintain a very large playing field that keeps us from getting crowded out by the massive players. We are, no matter what our station in life, fortunate that the covenant our Republic keeps is satisfactory to the strong and inspirational to the weak. Because it is in defense of that covenant that keeps us all of our strong men from enslaving our weak men.

Growing up in America always implies asking oneself in youth, what am I going to be when I grow up. We imagine ourselves, most of us, with some modicum of success. And we expect that we should be able to achieve that through excellence and by following the rules. The ambitions of all of us have constraints of course. But for the overwhelming majority, we look up. For myself, especially in rejecting some of the more exploitative entertainments, I have looked to a genre of teaching I can best describe as 'lessons for kings'. I am under the impression, though it has been a while since I checked that the American affluent class is the biggest and most ethnically and religiously diverse in the history of the planet. I have always been one of those who worried - what do you do with a billion literate people?

I cannot be 100% certain that we have arrived at the final answer. Things might get better, then again things could get out of hand and we might lose the combinations that led us to this massive prosperity and freedom. But of one thing I am certain - the elephants will dance where they feel most comfortable, and they will stomp, buck and rear if they get cramped, woe be to those are in the way.

The greatness of America or any nation is found in its ability to create and maintain a society in which the powerful and great coexist peacefully with the weak and meek. Despite all the noise and agitation of those Boomers whose minds were cauterized in the fires of 1968's Us vs Them, America is not fundamentally at war with itself. It is part of our basic social nature here to not be a nation of laws for the sake of following laws, but that doing so will reward our achievements and protect them from thievery. That covenant is still in place.

The American Dream. Why do you think that still has meaning? Because you still want to be an elephant.

 

Cigarette Mr. Nulan?

I have decided after several half-hearted attempts and various headaches to put Craig Nulan before my one man firing squad and boot him from Cobb.

Last words and testimony go here. Execution is at midnight.

Subrealism Camp

Tantamount Morality

I came across an interesting idea. While beginning my research into the case law affirming the rights of gays and same-sex couples I happened across a case in which a doctor objected to passing out contraceptives because he was Catholic. I don't know which way the case went, but it posed an interesting question.

What is the legal standard in applying a moral objection with respect to the free exercise of religion? How does the State recognize one as a Catholic if one claims an objection to compliance with some regulation? Do you have to be a 'good Catholic'? This is a question that is of interest to me personally since I am at odds with the Church I have chosen to be my own. I have come to a number of conclusions and some of these are asserted in some ways as Catholic 'dogma'. I put 'dogma' and 'good Catholic' in quotes because these are terms of art of the religion itself. How does the State recognize or interpret the usage of religious terms with regard to establishing the standing of an individual to claim a conscientious objection?

I see myself offering the following testimony in response to a question - knowing it is an overlong response for a witness.

I understand Catholic values, I was taught in Catholic school. I believe many things for exactly the same reasons Catholics do. My opposition to [objectionable task] employs the same moral logic as the Catholic Church does. I believe this as much as any Catholic. Does the State of California have to register me as a Catholic for my belief to have much meaning to me as you would assume it does to any Catholic?

Isn't that interesting?

A Return To Faith

It is not thy task to complete the work, neither art thou a free man that thou canst withdraw thyself; if thou hast learned much, great shall be thy reward, for He that doth hire thee will surely repay thee for thy toil; yet the requital of the pious is in the future.
-- Rabbi Tarfon

This morning's dreams were of me as Jack Lemmon having become something of a star in a live broadcast of a commercial in which my Felix Unger-like behavior running off script had the audience in stitches. The producer then embraced this spontaneous success and paired me with Dan Rowan, and somehow I became Dick Martin, except that I was still Jack Lemmon. The pair of us wandered around, found a bridge and began spontaneously composing songs, which is something I do quite well in my best dreams. As we danced on the cables high above the roadway, somehow a briefcase shared between us fell to the roadway and exploded destroying several automobiles and causing a pileup. We laughed it off as nobody was hurt. In the next scene I found myself singing another song in a neighborhood of Craftsmen homes with large front lawns, and on one of these lawns, surrounded by people of all ages, I began singing a new song about the struggle of blackfolks in America. It was finally a song of triumph. As the penultimate song of my dream I can still remember a few words of it, but not enough to write here and do them justice.

So at the close of my dream all were gathered around with joined hands and I began my final song whose words and melody were simple and powerful. I led the gathered in prayer.

Glory Glory Glory God Glory Glory Glory God Glory Glory Glory God Father, Spirit and Son

Halleluja Halleluja Halleluja God
Halleluja Halleluja Halleluja God
Halleluja Halleluja Halleluja God
Father, Spirit and Son

We Love You, Love You, Love You God
We Love You, Love You, Love You God
We Love You, Love You, Love You God
Father, Spirit and Son

And then as the chorus began to hum, in that old Negro tradition, I preached over the choir. I said something that went like this:

People of God, children of God, we are gathered together here today for simple reasons. We are simple creatures. Each and every heart in each and every one of us has the love of God, and so we may be vessels of his spirit. But our hearts are our own. I ask you to look into your hearts this morning, because sometimes we let them have too much pain, too much anger, too much sin. Sometimes we have a little fear, uncertainty or doubt in our hearts. Sometimes we have a little envy or jealousy or spite in our hearts. Sometimes it's arrogance, pride or vanity. Sometimes we have a little lying, a little cheating, or even stealing in our hearts. And we know it. And so we come here and allow the presence of God roll that away. It's that simple. I want you to raise your hands today like an antenna on a mountaintop and let God in. All you need to do is receive Him and you will be filled with God's spirit, and not only will you be filled, but you will radiate His love and purpose. It is that simple.

We Receive You, Receive You, Receive You God
We Receive You, Receive You, Receive You God
We Receive You, Receive You, Receive You God
Father, Spirit and Son

We Radiate You, Radiate You, Radiate You God
We Radiate You, Radiate You, Radiate You God
We Radiate You, Radiate You, Radiate You God
Father, Spirit and Son

By the time I got to the last verse, I was in tears, as I am now, and waking on this Sunday morning, touched in my sleep by the blessing of dreams. It was 6:16am.

The family movie for the Saturday night was of course, Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthau in Neil Simon's classic production. It's coming to be our new tradition. The last one was Arthur with Dudley Moore. This morning I checked my email and the last comments on the blog as well as a few stories and I discovered not only the change in tone but the synchronicity of all that turn, especially in Bardo's last comment. And now I remember that I should put in the word of Rabbi Tarfon from Dennis Prager's last happiness hour. Because I remember now how he, more than any other in Right Radio shares my temperament, although the other Dennis, Miller makes me laugh more often.

So it is after all the pursuit of happiness that binds us and it is the joy of morality that compels us. To have a clean conscience and a heart filled with the spirit of God and a mind brimming with the curiosity to appreciate the natural world, these are great forces and fulfilling passions which are capable of deflecting all fear of sin and destruction we are heir to on life's journey. Sing a new song unto the Lord.

The NYT article seems to be genuinely shocked that the burdens of the election have rolled away, and must report the recriminations against Joe Lieberman. American Thinker admonishes Obama's pro-choice stand and suggests it may be too late for him to heed Henry VII's advice to his son to keep the Church on his side. And we are back to matters of faith in the blog and, it seems, everywhere else. It is only natural that in defeat one must look back and fall back and get back. This is where I see people going, it is where I must go. I have been happy for the happiness of others but now I see an opportunity for deeper renewal. What indeed have I let into my heart for the sake of making noise on behalf of my contingent?

And so it comes to Tarfon and in the religious context we settle our accounts, we adjust our attitude, we receive and radiate, we rededicate. We rest. We march. We dream. We sing. I continue to write, and the sun is coming up this morning.

Mankiw Advises Obama

On health care and other matters:

Mankiw also recommends that Obama embrace McCain’s refundable health insurance tax credit. Mankiw describes this as the Furman-McCain plan because it was advanced by Jason Furman, a former student of Mankiw’s and Obama’s director of economic policy, before McCain ever proposed it.

Now It Can Be Said: Part One

Taleb Throws a Right Cross

The most exciting interview this morning with Keene and Prewitt was with Nassim Taleb who comes out swinging against Portfolio Theory. His watchword is that the more it looks like science, the less it works. His new direction is towards tinkering.

The bad news is that he finds that it's going to take a long time to get the current class of academics to change their ways. Those tenured academics who sit at the throne of Merton and Scholes are going to perhaps have to die off before the industry changes. There are a million miseduated MBAs out there according to Taleb, the auther of The Black Swan. His question is how do we survive economically in a world of imperfect information - how do we reverse the hubris of economists?

The answers may be deceptively simple. But understand this, Taleb says that quantitative risk management is essentially dead, and he says that he can prove it. His analysis includes 20million securities over 40 years and he finds that over half of them react to a single variable. The implications are that risk simply cannot me managed with math. There's probably a better way to say it, but he is unequivocal on the point.

His solution is tinkering. He says that the culture of America is especially amenable to an empirical bias. We accept small failures in this culture. We expect people to make mistakes and get back on the horse. Tinkering is encouraged. Trial and error.

Secondly he suggests that the way to manage risk is to only put a small fraction of one's portfolio at risk. The idea of spreading risk through weighting is dead says Taleb. You invest in zero risk or near zero risk items for the overwhelming majority of your portfolio and then let the rest be pure speculation. The result is low risk. What's near zero risk? You tell me.

Finally, he suggest that we pay particular attention to military discipline. Armies always plan for the impossible and highly highly unlikely scenario, and they constantly reassess that every day. What blew up today? It's a different kind of mentality than doubling down and playing the odds on the possibility that you can model the deck of cards.

We're thus going to end up with a different set of tools for managing assets in the future. Taleb invokes Steins rule, what can't go on forever will eventually stop. Portfolio theory cannot go on forever.

Black Republicans: Doing vs Being

It has been suggested without much subtlety that now that Barack Obama has won the Presidency, that the 'white masters' of the Republican Party will cast off black conservatives from their ranks. Following this assumption to its implications, it follows that black conservatives were nothing more than suckups to the party in power and that their duty was to keep, by increasing minority membership in GOP, the Republicans a steamrolling majority party.

It's a rather crude analysis based on the continuing misunderstanding of the value of conservatism itself. Allow me to make a correction.

At bottom the question is what is the advantage of being a Black Republican. The answer is found in looking at the alternative. What indeed is the value of being a Black Democrat? The value, for the overwhelming majority who would 'be' is found in the act of voting, a momentary exercise. But behind the act of voting, if this momentary exercise is to be taken as something other than random, is the discipline of thinking. Thoughtful blackfolks who vote Democrat do so because they have accumulated a set of useful ideas and they expect their candidates to express and run with those ideas. So it is not so much what one does in the voting booth that lends credibility to the democratic process but the legitimacy and value of the ideas in play.

Thoughtful blackfolks do not get their cues on the usefulness of ideas through some shallow idolization of political candidates. It's not about JFK or FDR or LBJ so much as it is with the ideas behind them. Blackfolks rightly look to intellectuals like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Booker T Washington and WEB DuBois to understand their worldview and ideas. In that constellation of thought and ideas, they find what is useful and true and agitate for their political candidates to act upon the principles of those ideas and conform to those worldviews. It is during the campaigns that voters determine the fidelity of candidates to ideas and solutions. The doing is about the time taken in service of understanding the value and usefulness of those ideas and their implications in policy. The being is the momentary act walking under a banner of like-minded people.

There is difficulty of course, with the only recently liberated African American in accessing ideas other than those preoccupied with immediate liberation. But there certainly are a set of African Americans so fully liberated that they might expand their consumption of ideas and worldviews to those beyond those aimed at the slave, the pauper, the servant, the underclass.

And so it is only natural to see some thoughtful blackfolks take their intellectual cues from intellectuals like Edmund Burke, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott and Milton Friedman. It is entirely reasonable to consider their worldviews and their ideas. In that constellation of ideas, blackfolks would choose those they find useful and encourage politicians to apply and run with those ideas. The doing is about the time taken in service of understand the value and usefulness of those ideas and their implications in policy. The being is the momentary acto fo walking under a banner of like-minded people.

So what's the advantage of 'being' a Black Republican? There isn't much outside except having the company of like-minded people. But that's just a simple social benefit, rather like being a fan of a football team. If this is as deep as the analysis goes - merely to the 'being' it does a great deal of disrespect to those who discipline themselves to the task of comprehending great ideas and finding the usefulness of them in their lives. It seems to me that this is the great attraction of politics to thoughtful people in the first place.

We happen to live in a society, which like all societies is full of people with various capacities and desires to apply themselves intellectually over any meaningful period of time. That does not mean, under our Constitution, that they should suffer any disenfranchisement. Everybody gets a vote no matter how serious or shallow they are. So there are, of course, people who find their entire political raison d'etre in the social benefit of being a fan of a winning team. This is part and parcel of populism and identity politics with which all thoughtful people are aware.

The advantage of conservatism to African Americans is a greater understanding and perspective on a greater set of ideas than those which we have traditionally applied our consideration. To know more is its own benefit. To understand those ideas against which one has been opposed through ignorance is to gain a greater grasp of the political system and all of the interests in it. This is a capacity that more African Americans must develop if they are to advance in this society and in the world.

Lest anyone doubt. I do not mean to imply or suggest that there is only one direction in which the thoughtful African American might mature their political sensibilities. There are not simply Conservative, but Libertarian, Anarchic, Marxist and other categories of thinkers and ideas in Western Traditions and many schools of thought within any and all of those branches. If anyone cares to take a very simple axiom 'By any means necessary' seriously, then one cannot be so simple-minded as to do nothing more than follow the same intellectual and political path without any further investigation.

A Sad Hilarity

Racial animus in the post-election days took a very strange turn. The best XBox 360 games of the year are coming out this month and although I'm playing a new one, I joined some of my online buddies to play an old favorite, Rainbow Six Vegas 2.

The version of conflict we were playing is called total conquest and in our case it was a 5 on 5 team game. The aim of the game is for your team to locate and activate three satellite base stations and defend them before the other team can. Each team has assault rifles and grenades. So your team might have possession of two of the three and the other team rushes you and takes over one of the uplinks. If you keep all three uplinks in your possession for 30 seconds, you win. If you shoot a member of the opposing team, they will respawn in 10 seconds. Each match is played until a 30 second connection is made by one team or the other, or until time runs out. You have five minutes.

Our team consisted of generally middle aged men, black and white from various parts of the country. The lot of us have been gaming together for about 4 years. Later in the evening we were joined by a younger couple who just got married. The other team consisted of some younger kids, one said he was 21, black and white who suddenly got in a squabble about the proper use of the word 'nigger'.

Between rounds, in the lobby where the terms and rules of the game are setup by the host, everybody can hear everyone. During the game, you can only hear your own team. Once the squabble started, the young team started throwing insults of every sort. I swear I heard everything, and I mean every stupid thing ever said about race from the young team insulting each other - that is when I could pick out phrases going back and forth between the five of them. And then the action began.

It took our team about two minutes to win the first round which is pretty swift. We got back to the lobby and they were still going at it. 'Oh you stupid redneck, you're probably in the KKK'. Next round we win with almost no opposition, oh wait, they got uplink Charlie. I grenade one of the commandos, boom, and recapture Charlie. Round over, we win again. We're cracking up because the rabble is going at full blast as soon as we get back to the lobby.  'Nobody you know or I know stole you from Africa, you fucking idiot'. Round three. The guys on our team, especially me and the host who is 60 really start cracking up when one of the kids says, 'Your probably like 34 years old playing video games, what do you know?' And this went on for about 30 minutes straight and in the later rounds they started fragging each other - shooting members of their own team in combat. They managed to take a few uplinks and kill a few members of our team, but they never achieved total conquest. Not once.

Hilarious. Sad.

Baxter Was Right

Ahem. Score another for Bowen. I bring you this prediction that I made in May of this year.

I predict that California will have a a constitutional amendment in defense of marriage, and that activists for the cause of gay marriage have made a fatal error. California has insured every right except the express permission to redefine marriage, and now the State Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds in defiance of the will of the people. It's going to get loud and ugly and it is now most definitely a constitutional crisis.

It's rather interesting to see the backtracking and hair splitting of those calling for a new legal challenge to this, the second and harsher rebuttal to the. Evidently there are two levels of constitutional amendment. Who knew? The claim is that the passage of Prop 8 represented basically a MAJOR change to the California Constitution and that it was worded as a MINOR change. And we are to know that a MAJOR change requires a different standard of passage than we just saw. Hoo brother.

So all the hectic business we just went through, according to activists for the cause of Gay Marriage wasn't a real constitutional change but a halfway real constitutional change. So we need an intervention to make a super duper really extra change to the constitution.

Somebody please do me the favor, lazybones that I am, to illustrate exactly what money all these same-sex couples aren't getting because obviously these people don't give a rats' about principle.

Sounds Like Europe

Wait for it...

If The Madness Has Subsided

I am semi-hopeful that now that the election is over, that certain of my ex-blog links may be tending to more civil audiences, misguided though they may be. So I'm going to give a shot of lending my ear to three or four Democrats who have been demonstrably reasonable in times passed.

Those would be Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, Brad DeLong and Sean-Paul Kelley. Now that they don't have Bush to kick around any longer, they may have to come up with some actual original thinking about the world we live in. Not that I expect much, I do expect better than I've seen.

Uncle Who?

The interesting dynamic here is that Nader is one of those relics that people just have to ask, why the hell are they still around? I think the American conversation around the same racial terms that have been so significant for so long are going to go like this interview for the forseeable future.

Mongers and Gates: The Last Refuge of Scoundrels

The title says it all.

Metablather. I'm hereby declaring war on metablather - the self-defeating politics of the disrespect of politics. It should be of some concern to those invested in rhetorical patronage, which unfortunately includes a substantial gang of partisans. I have no time to waste on talk of who is more unloved by their opposition. Who's a fearmonger, what's a tasergate? I don't care. It's political theatre of the sort I find distasteful. Shutup already.

First Breath: Rahm Emanuel

Alexander Cockburn hates Rahm Emanuel. That can only be good. This is what he wrote three Decembers ago.

Yet, as they contemplate political ruin in next year's election, these Republicans can take solace in the fact that, if defeated, their replacements may not differ in any meaningful way on important issues of the day.  That at least is the hope and dream of Democratic apparatchik Rahm Emmanuel and the corporate toadies he represents. Ominously, Emmanuel, a relict of the Clinton White House, heads the Democratic National Campaign Committee. As such, he decides which candidates for the House should get money and other support from the national party.  At a time when any fool can see that the public hates the war more this month than last, and will hate it even more next month and the month after that, Emmanuel is doing his best to recruit candidates, preferably rich ones, guaranteed to eschew vocal opposition to the war.  Clear evidence for this proclivity is evident in the race to succeed Henry Hyde, in Chicago's 6th District. In the last election progressive candidate Christine Cegalis actually got 44.2 per cent of the vote against the sixteen-term Hyde, despite being outspent $700,000 to $160,000 in a conservative district with no elected Democrats at all.

I seem to recall that when I was a Democrat, I liked Rahm Emanuel because of his expression finally of contempt for the slovenly nature of Bill Clinton's White House, and his personal disgust with the man himself. With Obama picking RE has his Chief of Staff, there can be no clearer indication that Obama intends to clear the Democratic decks of the Clintons. Whoohoo! By the way, has anybody heard from them yesterday or the day before? Hmmm.

Already, it's interesting. There may not be a lot to know about Obama, but Emanuel leaves a broad swath of commentary in his wake.

The New Vibe

Yesterday morning, my boy Iz tweeted me on the strange vibe he was getting from white folks. I was still in my pajamas at the time as I am now. But when I finally got out and about yesterday, the vibe was alive.

As one of those people who really didn't care whether OJ was guilty or not - in fact, I honestly can't remember if I took his side or not and the parallel didn't enter my mind until this very second - it was just another day for me. And yet people seemed determined to hip me to something on their minds.

The other thing I recall right now from my honking trip Tuesday through the hood, was how I felt when I was in New York the weekend of the LA Riots. The moment that the not-guilty verdict flashed over the TV screen I found myself walking alone in the dead of night in Brooklyn thinking about my brotherhood with every black person at that moment, and yet there were no other blacks to be seen on the streets. It was all just a powerful vibration, unexpressed and probably unexpressable. As a writer, I had to transcribe the feeling into text. What came out was an essay I called 'White Flight Friday'. And even now as I reflect on those memories, they seem out of context and out of time. Some things are just never fully communicated. Perhaps community is only something you feel.

On yesterday's occasion there was a parking attendant to remind me that I was the third well-dressed black man he had encountered in rapid succession. I couldn't really understand much he was saying through his accent other than '3 black guys', and 'black president'.  I mumbled a reply like "I guess so", being somewhat caught off guard and distracted with other matters.

As I was thirty minutes early for my appointment in West LA, I sat in the bright modern lobby on the first floor of a building full of dot com companies. I whipped out the Treo and began to read some of the flames from that mornings blogging. "Aren't you the gentleman who.., no I'm sorry". People were breaching my space arbitrarily. This is not altogether disconcerting, but I'm noticing it, the lift in their eyes and the expectation. I could tell that people were looking at me slightly differently. Like..there's one of them Obama blacks. Suit, tie, erudition, wedding ring...  Who knows? I'm projecting. It's a vibe.

After the relatively successful meeting, I headed back to other haunts. Since I was in a happy mood anyway extending from the knowledge that I'm finding more business here in LA and the generally bouyant mood I continue from not having to hear people fighting about who the next President is going to be, I decided to get a hand car wash. As the guys took care of that business I went to one of my favorite cigar shops and picked up a new Calibri and a magnum Montecristo. I pressed back into the leather couch and watched 45 minutes of The Situation Room, which was truly awful. I realized how out of touch I must be to the set of folks who depend on CNN for their news. And yet I remember when I used to think that Wolf Blitzer was, by far, the smartest journalist in America. Maybe America hasn't changed much at all, but I have. I blew smoke rings with relish and then blew them away in disgust as Blitzer congratulated himself on having the highest ratings on election night, due in part to this new 'beam me up' technology. And so I watch the goofy mug of Will I Am as he stands in a circular green screen studio with 40 cameras watching his every move - except of course the kind that crucified Joe the Plumber. He prepares to be holographed into perpetuity. Help us Obama wan Kenobi, you're our only hope.

Not long ago I wrote What's Your Excuse documenting what I called the Obama Effect. I said nothing changes, but attitude changes. And if I believe what I tell my own children, then attitude is everything. It determines what you're going to get and where you focus your energies. I can tell that a lot of attitude is changing in America, I can feel the new vibe. It's nothing more or less powerful than the OJ vibe or the LA Riot vibe  - it's definitely a cultural sensation along similar lines of race and class, but it's more like a Cosby Show vibe, except that the disbelief is gone. This is a time in America when personal spaces are breached for the sake of making some kind of new communication which is essentially unexpressable. I'm a better writer now than I was in 92 so I'll try to express it - this changing attitude. Which means that I'm going to have to speak to people (ick).

Here are the dimensions of race which are ironically stuck. On the one hand, in the same context as the end of 50 page book radical black political cosmic slop that has passed for leadership, there's now a real standup guy in the spotlight.

A lot of shiny happy Republicans have decided that now is the time to celebrate the fact that Barack Obama has a winning style and can talk seriously about basic family values. They are sanguine about the possibilities that Obama can be once and for all the absolute positive role model for everyone. As Eddie Murphy once said, Can a black man can have a suitcase? Yes. This is what I call the Obama Effect, the idea that the success of Barack Obama marks an era of positivity for blackfolks, ie translates into posistive gain by racial affiliation.

On the other hand, nothing about what Obama *is* changes the basic race hustle in America. In that regard, he's just another Cosby. Shelby Steele nails it. Because no matter what the attitude.. well:

"There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her. But what about black Americans? Won't an Obama presidency at last lead us across a centuries-old gulf of alienation into the recognition that America really is our country? Might this milestone not infuse black America with a new American nationalism? And wouldn't this be revolutionary in itself? Like most Americans, I would love to see an Obama presidency nudge things in this direction. But the larger reality is the profound disparity between black and white Americans that will persist even under the glow of an Obama presidency. The black illegitimacy rate remains at 70%. Blacks did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black, though we are only 13% of the population. The academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class. All this disparity will continue to accuse blacks of inferiority and whites of racism -- thus refueling our racial politics -- despite the level of melanin in the president's skin. The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us 'overcome' -- America's favorite racial word. If we can just have the right inspiration, a heroic role model, a symbolism of hope, a new sense of possibility. It is an American cultural habit to endure our racial tensions by periodically alighting on little islands of fresh hope and idealism. But true reform, like the civil rights victories of the '60s, never happens until people become exhausted with their suffering. Then they don't care who the president is. Presidents follow the culture; they don't lead it. I hope for a competent president."

Obama got what he wanted. Did you get what you wanted? The new vibe is respect for the Obama Type which is the Cosby Type which is the same type it ever was, rooted in traditional American family values and everything the Old School is, was and ever shall be about. Just a new wave of 'Hey, aint' this cool?' Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and the grand old flag.

I may be projecting - I haven't been stopping and asking and listening to what is really on people's minds as they break my personal space. But I'm going to start and I'm going to see what the Obama Effect really is, what this new vibe is really trying to communicate, what this attitude might be. I don't expect that there will be any focus of energies, a change of attitude doesn't necessarily mean a change in direction or ambition. We'll see.

What do you think the new attitude is? What does it mean?

Strike Two for Colin Powell

Please Colin, fade away you old soldier. It was you who told the world that Iraq was crawling with WMD. Now this? (October 10)

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ reputation for integrity and truth is “sterling.”  The four-star general testified today as a character witness in Stevens’ federal trial.  Alaska’s senior Senator faces seven felony counts of lying on his financial disclosure forms.  He’s accused of taking more than $250,000 in gifts, mostly from oil field services company Veco.

Just. Shut. Up.

A Fried Chicken In Every Pot

The other thing I want to say today, and then I'll get my ass off to work, is that people need to lighten up. And I especially mean frickin' baby boomers with their over masticated ideas about what is so gawd-awfully significant about Obama being a black man in the Oval Office and all the 'I thought I'd never seen this in my life' stuff. I thought I'd never see the end of the Cold War. I thought I'd never see the World Trade Center collapse. I never thought I'd see Saddam Hussein in US captivity. I thought I'd never see New Orleans destroyed. But there are certain things that are inevitable, like a black president, or HDTV or genetic mods to animals, plants and people. They are part of the arc of American possibility, and they are things that we expect of ourselves and that the world expects of America. I also especially mean blackfolks and newbie voters who think a revolution is afoot, as if Barack Obama is not going to behave like a Democrat.

But most of all, I think we should lighten up about race. As far as I'm concerned, and I probably don't say it enough, all of the important stuff was settled many years ago. We have long secured Civil Rights and now should be bored with their politics. As I have been saying, those gains are permanent and nobody is going backwards. We ought now, as blackfolks primarily in the middle class, as we have been for at least a couple decades (was it the Cosby Show era that marked the break, or when more blacks graduated from 'predominantly white' universities than HBCUs?), be concerned with the politics of social power. New aims, new rules, new aesthetics.

I've been cracking up all morning about the title of this blog post. I think it's hilarious. And I know for some it can only be that way because of the reality of Obama's success. But Obama is not the social capital of black America, he never was and he never will be. That's all on us, as Americans. If we are strong, we can take a joke, and for far too long I think we have been pretending that blackfolks aren't strong. We are unchanged in substance through this election and uplifted in spirit in this shining moment. The world is still what it is and our capacity to deal with it does not turn on a dime, but our attitudes matter. And I think a lot of the backbiting and hypersensitivity of this election should be over and we should take it light, crack a joke, take a joke.

Last night I was invited to any number of election parties. I refused them all. I didn't want to look into the eyes of winners and losers. That's not how I see my fellow Americans. Some are just wiser than others, some are better stewards of this nation. It is with the wiser and better stewards that I want to spend my time, and while I sympathize with the crowds and love our ability to share in the great drama of the democratic process, my preference is to deal with change on my own terms. In my responsibilities as a writer, the visual and the personal is a great distraction. But that's just me.

Now I am eager and enthusiastic to hang with people who are feeling the joy, who are feeling energized by the possibility of improving and doing the right thing.

One more thing. I know it might be too much to ask, but will everyone finally admit what I've known all along? The Southern Strategy is Dead.

Basking

Drafting a Star

As soon as I read Tooley's comparison of Obama's election to the trade of Ewing to the Knicks, the first thing I thought was.. more like Benoit Benjamin.

So I looked up Benoit's career and found some very cool stuff on Wikipedia, which is the names of all of the first and second round draft picks going all the way back to 1947. It was in '57 that the first black face was picked, that of Elgin Baylor. And then in '60 we got Oscar Robertson (The Big O) and Lenny Wilkens. Earl 'The Pearl' Monroe came in 67, the same year as Phil Jackson, ten years after Baylor. Dr. J was drafted in '72.

The interesting thing is that in any year you look at the first round draft picks, only one or two names stand out. These guys are the best of the best and yet only a few of them become recognizable, fewer still become stars, and only handful ever make the Hall of Fame. Ewing, the famously gifted talent, never got a championship ring. He came ever so close year after year.

I was expecting today, an outside chance of a trifecta in my picks: Phillies, Hamilton and McCain. But sports ain't like politics - the political contest doesn't always go the strongest or fastest man, but to the man who thinks he can. But when it comes to breaking racial barriers, however, I think the parallels to sports are apt. Everybody is thrilled and proud (rightly or wrongly) that 'America' makes this great leap forward, but stars are not born, they are a long time in the making. There are at least 50 black Americans who might have been The One, and there are many more to come, now in places we don't suspect or know where to look. And the evolution of realized possibility in the Obama victory accellerates someone else's ambition.

There are no shortcuts of course. There's nothing particularly unusual about the trajectory from Harvard Law to the Illinois Statehouse to the US Senate that lands one into the White House. The paths are well worn, like the paths to the NBA. There are lots more people on that path than you might think. And so in all the celebration of Obama's success as a black man, let us keep in mind that this is the very beginning of that beginning. Like Elgin Baylor, Barack Obama is a pioneer. America's number one pick in a great tradition. But there are a lot more on that same path - so get used to it.

Some Useful Perspectives

I've considered giving today a holiday. Can't say if it will happen though. I'm still absorbing all the news this morning. But already there are some paragraphs I find worthy of mentioning around my reading list:

From Thomas PM Barnett:

For the vast majority of Americans, nothing will change. We'll continue in our pursuits, in our campaigns, and in our dreams. For me personally, all I see is a field slightly tilted in my direction, not so much in understanding of the world, but in distraction from unduly screwing up that world--and that is enough. It is never about the BEST answer, but always about the least worst one. I have hopes for the Obama administration--not high hopes but just enough. I don't expect anything from this administration in terms of advancing my long-held agenda. I simply expect that it won't make my path any more difficult, when I knew in my heart that a McCain administration would have been a huge obstacle. Why not more celebration and "hope"? The grand strategist needs only the next best iteration. That's it. That's all he hopes for and it is all he demands. The work does not change. The campaign continues. The battle--room by room--remains unabated. Remember: when you think horizontally and explore in terms of decades, you don't get too excited or too bummed out. You simply calculate the correlation of forces and press on. And so the history of this day is full of the personal and the profound, the petty and the professional.

From Information Dissemination:

Barak Obama built strength in the Democratic Party base specifically by adopting the primary issues of that constituency as his own, best exampled by his opposition to the Iraq War and every other Bush policy. That voting record is about the only thing anyone has to judge what Obama believes in governance, but I do not believe it is relevant. After defeating Hillary Clinton in the primary, Barak Obama "shifted", or "changed course" by almost immediately dropping his opposition to the Patriot Act and adjusting his policies on the Iraq war. We have seen it on other issues as well, NAFTA is another example.

In each case, Barak Obama represents a political enigma because he can change course with a perception of thoughtfulness that few in the nations political class can. I fully expect another major shift as Barak Obama moves from being the Democratic Party nominee to the President-elect of the United States. While some say he will be the most radical President in American history, I see a moderate who will change course in order to adopt and build a larger constituency.

That is his historical pattern, and if done right he will be the change candidate he has been telling America he is. If done right, as the most interesting and compelling politician in my lifetime, a brilliant communicator unique in having a complimentary communication team and strategy, the extent to which the Republican Party is broken won't be fully realized until Barak Obama begins his second term in 2012.

From Ron Radosh:

All of the above leaves the big question unresolved. How will Obama govern? Will he listen to moderate centrist Democrats like William Galston  who advises him to go slow, not overreach, and not emulate FDR with implementation of a series of massive new governmental programs in the first 100 days; or will he go with those who are advising him to strike boldly and with a possibly filibuster proof Senate,  begin his Administration with the immediate launching of ambitious and expensive government programs? Will he, as Fred Barnes argues, immediately decide to govern from the Left?

Whatever happens, I agree with Roger Kimball and others on this site who have commented that while the outcome may not be what we like, as citizens of this country we have a responsibility to help the new President do what he can to govern wisely, and not undertake measures that out of spite and anger help to tear down the country. Let us responsibly work to let Barack Obama know that he is President of all the American people, and not just that far Left he once used on his path to national leadership

.

From American Thinker:

Now that he's won, letting The Great Unifier rule without opposition would be risky and inimical to the American political tradition.  Obama is peddling the tired notion that America is weary of the divisiveness of partisan politics but his own record shows no evidence of unifying ability.  It's obvious that people are frustrated by Congress' inability to make even the most minor progress on the great issues of our day, but partisan bickering is only a symptom of a general lack of leadership in both houses and both parties - and not something the election came close to solving.  Aside from being great entertainment, aggressively partisan debates are just a standard part of making laws, and they're real debates, not the sanitized snoozers put on by a debate commission.

The energy and enthusiastic support behind the newly-elected Obama will be used by the media to claim a mandate and intimidate or discourage opposition.  Here are five reasons to ignore that story line and gear up for a long fight..

From Avery Tooley

..I’m kinda nervous about this because of all the expectations. This is like when Patrick Ewing got picked by the Knicks, only worse. That is to say, given the state of affairs across the board, I’m actually wondering what a successful presidency would look like. Will it be a situation where anything less than a “championship” (whatever that might be) would be considered to be a failure because of the high expectations, or will the fervor temper into something more manageable?

 

Honk

I drove home through the old neighborhood today and I have to make a confession. I honked. No joke, no irony. At Crenshaw and King, people were out in traffic and there was a sign, 'Honk 4 Obama' and homie was jumping up and down. I didn't really wait for the chorus to hear if other folks were honking, I just did it. All I knew at the time was McCain had 8 and Obama had 3. But the temptation was too much to resist.

I had to turn down 'Alligator Woman' which was on the box at the time just to hear my own horn. To the left of me in a Mercedes 600 something was an older man who looked like Kofi Annan, and he was smiling and honking. To the right of me was a middle age black woman in a minivan who seemed completely oblivious to the situation. Behind me was a large older pickup truck which had a camoflage paint job and some weird grillwork out of Mad Max. I had passed it before I came to the stop and I noticed the big sign in the window 'Reparations Now'. I can't tell if the driver was honking. I turned down the music to hear how much honking was going on. Not much. But I had my moment of stolen pleasure.

As I continued to cruise down Crenshaw, there was nothing else happening that matched the enthusiasm of the moment. Most of the signs on the boule were in support of Bernard Parks for one of those jobs for life the LA County Supervisor. He's in a battle against Mark Ridley-Thomas, both black men and Democrats. Both are trying to identify themselves more with Obama than the other. I can't tell whom I'd rather see win. I'm connected to some people who are connected to Ridley-Thomas but Parks is a mensch. Neither of them are particularly inspiring. I don't think I'd ever honk, even for a moment. I have a feeling however that Ridley-Thomas is a much better pol.

So I'm happy for the people that are happy. I toast to joy. For those people who can mark their lives at this moment swooning, my glass is raised to your happiness.

I'll get back to some serious analysis on this later. Right now, I'm like the dad at his knucklehead son's wedding. You won't catch me saying anything rude. Hell, it might even work out better than any of us expected. Obama is ours, we can no better disclaim him than we could the red, white and blue. Obama is going to be our President. For better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer until the clock rolls around once again.

I'm throwing rice and I'm honking my horn. Yay America!

A New Day

As GM Goes So Goes the Nation

A great discussion on Bloomberg this morning gets to the core of the failure of GM now that it's trying to merge with the even weaker Chrysler. John Casesa explains why Toyota can last through a recession whereas GM is failing.

Q. Does Toytota have a cas burn issue?

A.No. Toyota has no debt, is generating cash and Toyota can last through a very very long slowdown, not good for Toytoa but they've got the staying power.

Q: But they've got the balance sheet; it comes down to balance sheet analysis. When did we give up the balance sheet? When did GM and Ford and the others just give it away? Two years ago or ten years ago?

A: One thing I'd like to suggest is that you read Roger Lowenstien's book While America Aged about the pension crisis and there's a third of that book is about the history of labor relationships and benefits in the auto industry. Since the end of WW2 the US auto companies and the union have been negotiating ever richer wage, pension and health care benefits. It's been the cumulative effect of this .. and we probably passed critical point 20 years ago in the 80s; so guys like Rick Waggoner and Alan Mutually are trying to undo mistakes that were made 20 years ago... That's why they call it 'Generous Motors'...These companies in the early 60s had margins of 25% on the dollar now it's negative.

Anybody who knows the auto industry knows that these wage and benefit concessions are the sorts of things that have made the US uncompetitive with Japan. The quality of American cars is no longer the issue - people are plenty happy with the product, but that's not helping the balance sheets of GM, which according to the Bloomberg guys has evaporated.

The dirty secret is that unlike Social Security which can be smartly reformed, increases in health care spending are exactly the kinds of entitlements that will drown the Federal government and take its balance sheet into the same toilet as GM's. Right now we are about 17% of GDP spending on health care. Bump that up a few points and see what happens. America becomes GM.

If you think jobs are flowing overseas now, just you wait.

Punic Futures

I listened to the final installment of Dan Carlin's 'Punic Nightmares' detailing the Punic Wars from somewhere around 218BC to 160BC between Rome and Carthage. These are the wars that include Cannae, the famous victory of Hannibal over the Roman legions.

It turns out that Hannibal didn't go back to Carthage for resupply for over a decade. He had been out on the road warring. The old adage that an army travels on its stomach is apt. So I've been thinking about one of the fundamental premises that has been knocked around with regard to America's force projection and our ability to be a global cop during economic tough times.

What we have demonstrated amply, despite the political incentives for the American left to deny, is our armed forces ability to work with populations in CT and counter-insurgency ROEs. In some of these cases we have basically paid off the idle tribesmen who would make war to feed themselves. To the extent that we are a stabilizing force in a chaotic environment, the US is doing something extraordinary. It just well may be that a constant stream of funds from the motherland is necessary to continue such operations. However, there must be some manner in which our combat soldiers know how to survive without umbilicals.

Part of the way that Hannibal was defeated was through what is now known as a Fabian strategy. To kill the bear, use a pack of wolves. Meet the large dominant army with coordinated small armies. Backbite, harry and grind the superior force down. In consideration of the particular strengths of American theater communications, such a strategy might work very well in combination with CT and CI. Note that CT and CI ROEs are, of necessity, not aimed for conquering, but towards stability and the establishment or re-establishment of a regime of justice. One could say that in 'forcing American values' on populations this is precisely how to go about it. We obviously know how to be the bear with the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force aka 'Shock & Awe'. We have learned in Iraq how to be the wolves - wolves in every street hunting down and killing the rabid stray dogs of AQ and the insurgency, but also converting many over to our pack.

An independent American systems-administration force could be very much like a self-sustaining wolfpack. If it comes to the point at which, some 40 years hence, America fails to maintain its economic predominance but retains its commitment to expanding liberty around the globe, fighting the rabid dogs of ethnic cleansing and taking down regional totalitarian bears, it's good to know that there are lessons in the history of warfare from which we can draw an understanding of how a massive overhead is not required.

If the principles of liberty are someday forced to survive on an isolated frontier, then they can and they will.

Black Intellectuals 1993

I think I started writing on the net back in 93. This from the Google Archive - very cool. As I got into some discussion with A. Charles about who was what back when, this is some of the context I was considering. No doubt I'm a much better writer now than I was back then.

look what i found. --- References: <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 06:43:19 GMT Lines: 275 In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Makala P Mweene) writes: >My favourite part of the academic year has come to a close with the end >of Black History month. I am talking about the public lecture circuit >and those sagacious, intrepid individuals who come around to tell all the >truth without fear or favour....I am going to play devil's advocate and >pass judgement on some of those I have seen in my stay in this great >land of yours........ >1) Haki Madhubuti; > Soft spoken, very well reasoned. Very realistic, very > intellectual and intelligent. Very articulate, well travelled and has >taken the lessons of life realistically and responded well to them.... >"The essence of his approach seems to be that families must be strengthened. >Children, especially boys, must have a father figure. He believes in the >power of fatherly example, by responsible men on behalf of single mothers >and wives of irresponsible husbands. He seems to intimate that polygamy shou >ld be a consideration for those women who cannot find compartible single >men......He espouses principles of economic self reliance and the raising >of children in a politically conscious, psychologically positive enviroment.." >A strong advocate of Education ...... grade A+

I've read a little bit of Haki's stuff here and there. His achilles heel is
that he a vicious homophobe. If he can get over that, he'll have a bit more
credibility, but with many he is beyond reclamation. He still can't
get over the idea of familiy values. That may be good for some folks
but, quick who was Martin Delany's daughter? Catch my drift?
> 2) Sister Souljah;
> Well proportioned, very articulate and extremely intelligent
>fire brand. SS does not pull any punches and advocates Black progress on a
>world-wide scale.
>"SS is strong advocate of strong personal discipline. Believes in doing and
>breathing for the race. Everything else does not matter. Appears to have come
>to the conclusion that black people alone will save themselves, that absol
>utely no one else will ever sincerely commit himself to right the innumerable
>wrongs that have been wrought against black people............"
>.........grade A.

I like her. She is an original. May she live long and prosper. She is strictly
a political activist though and falls through philosophical holes. Nothing that
she can't get over, I think.
>3) Maulana Karenga;
> A man who has read widely. His precise objectives were
>not clear to me. In my judgement somewhat burdened by an ego, as evidenced
>by his love for flowery quotations which at least half of his audience could
>not be reasonably expected to understand.
>He has however the skills of a teacher by which he is an enabled to present
>a well organised oratory. Tends to get too technical with the result of end
>ing up like a technical manual fully including the whole appendix of refere
>nces. Could do better by presenting his case in easy everyday logic rather
>than trying to look more full of information than encyclopedia Brit
>annica. He is an interesting entertaining orator, who in retrospect leaves
>you wondering what the gist of his presentation was ...
> ........grade B+

I havent heard brother Ron in a long time. Better he too technical than
completely wack like some other brothers out of Long Beach...
>4) Kwame Toure;
> Former firebrand appears to have mellowed and become a cynic.
>A man whose marxism and uncompromising outlook is not bound to please many
>in the light of rencent political history. Now residing in Guinea Africa,
>he believes that Black People should come together in a political party as
>the only way to best ensure their own suirvival. An intersting principle he
>espouses is that "bad organisation is better than no rgainisation". To this
>end his main thrust is to organise. He has correctly observed that the most
>organised portion of man kind rules over the disorganised part. The extent
>of the rule appears to be directly proportional to the extent of disoarganisa
>tion of the ruled. He is a man who could write an important chapter in black
>history if his call for organisation and the federation of Africa into one
>state is heeded
> .......grade B+

I doubt that Toure gets much respect in Africa as a political leader. I like
the fact that he is on the spiritual agenda. I take him as a wise man. Still,
he has little or no chance in my view of ever involving himself integrally
with any mass movement here in the US. It is our loss that we are not in
touch with him and have had to deal with upstart politicos before his life
has played out. It is precisely during the 80s where men such as himself
and old heads from the civil rights and black consciousness movements might
very well have done together what, as young men, their fire would not allow.
It only demonstrates the wrath of those in power that he must be at this
time, an expatriot. Thus he has his credibility and alas his hopeless position.
>5) Amiri Baraka;
> Appears to have no consistent political position and his
>appeal seemed to be based on his highly publicised objection to Spike Lee
>making the movie "Malcolm X". Insists that his actions were vindicated by
>the resulting of the movie, though he failed to give convicing evedence of
>this. The major part of his discussion consisted of criticizing Spike.
>Most of the rest was a diatribe against the black middle class as exempl
>ified in his poem;
> "The first generation of negros were intimidated by white supremacy"
> "The second genaration of Negros believed in white supremacy"
> "The third generation of Negros WERE white supremacy"
>Appears to believe that the black middle class is a big part of black America's
>problems. Insists he is a socialist and revolutionary who should be remembered
>as having fought to destroy western imperialism..
> .....Mr. Baraka is a complex man. If he has something to say, he was not
> able to communicate it in a convincing and useful way...
>To make matters worse, at the end of his presentation he went in to a tirade of
>insults and epithets, which ironically got him a standing ovation.
> .......grade B-

Baraka is a true radical thinker and artist. It's unfortunate that we look to
him for politics. Such a man, inevitably will contradict himself. Yet none of
us have unity of pen and sword, so let's see what he does next. Dissin the
sisters was not a smart move...
>6) Chuck D;
> Chuck D was billed as the highlight of the lecture season. He how
>ever turned out ot be more of an anticlimax. He was supposed to run the anch
>or leg and almost lost the race. His presentation was billed "The influence
>of hip-hop on the liberation movement". It would be more appropriate to say
>that man did not have direction. He jumped from one issue to another and did
>not articulate any well. The majority of the audience was disappointed and many
>walked out as soon as he said the last word from his speech, well before the
>question and answer began. Chuck came across as a militant blackman who is
>however not analytical. His speech was too profanity laced and cursed 3 words
>out of every four. He did not address the issue and his most notable point
>was to whine about exploitation in the music buisness for young blacks.
>This was the first time I had ever paid for such a presentation, and it would
>not have been worth it at any cost.
>......grade , I am tempted to give him the D in his name but I will give him a
>C+ for effort.

Had we some more people in the space between Baraka and Chuck D, neither would
be so lost. Unfortunately our middle class is only so large. This will be
rectified...
>I would like to see the following whom I missed.
>a) Molefi Asante (all my friends give him rave reviews..)
>b) Frances Welsing (submitted a speech which left white students in uproar)
>c) Angela Davies....(I heard and read a lot abou her in Africa..)
>d) Alice Walker ....(I have a bone of contention with her..)
>e) any other interesting subject...
>Flames expected and accepted...

The Ultimate Words on Obama

By Obama himself. The man who has grown up before our lying eyes. Just vote no. This cannot be what anybody really hoped for.

He promised change and he delivered change. Change on all his principles.

The Hardline on Eight

I'm going adopt a libertarian opinion on Prop Eight that I think is reasonable. My sentiments are with the proponents and I will vote to affirm it despite a technical issue.

I have always asserted a state interest in domestic tranquility by which I mean that the state has some interest in registration of domestic partners for the implications of family court - essentially a recognition, if slightly Orwellian, of a gay common law marriage. I have however been more focused on the dishonesty of the advocates for the cause of gay marriage. I will however submit that there is a case to be made, for two reasons.

The first and most important is the possibility which I have been informed exists, that there are certain tax benefits and remaining inequalities between today's 'state of the art' civil unions and those of traditional marrieds in the State of California. I find it difficult to believe, but possible. My simple argument would be that it ought to be inevitable through a direct parallel to the Civil Rights Movement, for plaintiffs to bring the proper test cases before the courts and win in each and every instance. To shortcut that legal process by judicial fiat is unacceptable, but understandable. The very fact that the highest court in California was bold enough to make such a declaration is testimony to the fact that the prudent path would be rewarded.

The second has to do with the consequences of the burdens a legal recognition of marriage would put on religious traditions. I'm sure I've got the words right at least once, so let me find them lest I do damage to the intent of my argument.

We have common law marriages recognized by the state as regards property rights, benefits eligibility and parental rights. The state establishes, de facto civil unions which are not recognized as religious sacraments for these and other reasons, but these are entirely independent of those rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The rights and responsibilities of partners in civil unions and common law marriages are are defended for different reasons than that of a religious rite of gay marriage. Gay domestic partners should be considered similarly to common law partners for civil purposes.

Therefore the state should not *recognize* 'Marriage' any more than it recognizes 'Extreme Unction'. The state buries unidentified bodies in the ground but that does not make it a Funeral. The state recognizes civil unions but that doesn't make them Marriages.

It is important that the state make it clear that its acceptance of any marriage rited certified by a religious body is only accepted in the same way as any other religious rite, balanced as they are against the state's compelling interest in domestic tranquility. The state does not or should not give standing to religious exercise.

Is then Marriage recognized by the state? I beleive that the state can substantially recognize all the qualities of marriage without endorsement of its articles of faith. And for this reason a civil union can in fact be functionally equivalent to a marriage. But it cannot be a marriage which is, as I've said, axiomatically ordained of God. All protestation to the contrary, Churches do have the equivalent of a trademark on the word, and those who seek the mask of respectability afforded marriage without the blessing of the Church, well they are on their own without God.

What then of the weddings of atheists? Are their marriages ordained of God? Strictly speaking, they are civil unions. A justice of the peace is not a priest, so when a state vests authority in a justice of the peace it is not establishing religion.

The attempt of Prop 8 seen in this light is somewhat problematic in that it reduces the entirety of Holy Matrimony to the fundament of man + woman. Thus it cannot be said the state in defeating 8 is actually defeating the recognition of religious tradition. However if it is a fair representation of the substance of the matter in question, one should ask what the defeating of that substance by the recognition of the state does to actual religious practice. I am very concerned that religious practice can be compelled to be comported with the view of the state and this is the hard and bottom line.

I don't quite understand why I have not been able to find more language to that effect on the Pro Eight website. It was there last week but they've thrown all of their eggs into the obvious other point I made last week - this is for the children. Yes Gay Marriage will be taught in public schools like every other multicultural blathering.

I find it quite significant to the extent that American public education commodifies identity that some social declarations emanating from the state, even from case law, has come to be defining of ethics. In our Orwellian future, you are what the state allows. True and just values do not come from people, but from The People. As Holy Matrimony becomes a quaint derivative ceremony the end draws near.

Fifth in Brazil, First in the World

It came down to the last turns on the final lap, in the rain. I am so glad that I was spared the nail biting of a two hour drama that was the Brazilian Grand Prix, the final race of the 2008 Formula One racing season that resulted in Hamilton winning it all.

I set the TV up to play the show last night as I fell asleep on the couch. I got through the first hour alright knowing that Lewis Hamilton would have to place at least fifth in order to win if Massa won the race. Basically that was the worst win scenario. If Hamilton, who started fourth on the grid, were to slip behind he could have lost the championship that was practically his destiny since losing it last year. It was exactly what he pulled off. Now he is officially the youngest ever to win the F1 championship, the second in history to win it in the second season, and of course the only black guy to do so in history.

Hamilton is something of an odd duck character-wise. Simon Barnes from the Times Online captures something of his flavor:

Hamilton is exceptional, both in his empathy with his machine and his nerveless love of wheel-to-wheel racing. The idea of playing the percentages goes against every fibre of his being. That is why he is loved by the British for reasons beyond his nationality, and widely hated elsewhere, for reasons that also concern his colour, his nationality and the way he walked into Formula One without a trace of humility. It was either the arrogance of someone about to get his comeuppance or the utterly alienating self-assurance of a champion, and yesterday Hamilton showed us which.

I do have to say that of Hamilton. I like him, but he's not necessarily a likable bloke. He's a well-measured phenomenon on the verge of being nervy. He looks every bit the part of a dashing sort of celebrity, but he's deadly serious about the sport. He looks as if he simply cannot afford to have fun or even jokily brash. He just has to win, win and win. As a hero, he's almost unrecognizable. He gives glory to God and respect to his family and rivals, but you know out there on the track he is wholly and completely headlong and dangerously fast. I've come to recognize how often he locks up his tires just pushing to the last microsecond his rush into the corners. And it is this preternatural skill that makes him fearsome. It's as if every time Tiger Woods drove the ball over 300 yards it could possibly cause a real heart attack in his rival. Every time Hamilton passes a competitor on the track it's a rather death defying act for both of them, and you don't really get to like people who scare you like that. But that's what wins race when he comes from behind.

As for the Brazilian Grand Prix, I fell asleep in the middle of it when Hamilton was cruising around safely in the same position he had since the start of the race and woke up to screaming commentators two laps from the finish. It had just begun to drizzle and the race leaders were switching into intermediate tires. Everyone immediately pitted except for Massa who waited to see if others would. Somehow Vettel just blew past Hamilton in the rain and the nightmare of this year's race at Spa filled my sleepy head. People are going to crash, I thought. Massa who was far in the lead crossed the finish line while Hamilton was still in sixth place. The crowd for Massa's team Ferrari as well as his fellow Brazilians filling the stands went absolutely wild. With Hamilton in 6th, Massa would win all the marbles for the season. But it was not to be. At the last possible moment Hamilton got back into 5th. I still don't know how it happened, but it doesn't get more dramatic than this.

Hamilton's stardom is a questionable thing. Relatively speaking, nobody cares about F1. I would love to see a race myself - in fact if I were the rich retiree I might hope to become, I would do F1 dates like some people ski around the globe. What can I say? I'm a gearhead. My fingers are crossed for Hamilton and the sport. It's about to get more interesting.

BTW, F1 management have foreclosed all of the footage from YouTube. It turned out that Hamilton and Vettel got past Timo Glock in one of the final turns because Glock still had dry tires on, but Hamilton never got Vettel back. In a few days, they'll have their video online.

Something of a Prophet Something of a Fool

It's interesting listening to Stevie Wonder in retrospect. Today I happened to catch him in my iTunes back to back.

Living for the City
I can remember where I was the first time I heard the second part of Living for the City. I had no idea that it was the second part of the same song that just wasn't played on the radio. It was many years before I actually owned the LP of 'Songs in the Key of Life' or any Stevie Wonder records. This takes me to an interesting memory. I can remember going to the house of Whitman Mayo and listening to the entire album with all the adults.

Whitman Mayo is known and loved by the world as the character of Grady from Sanford & Son. He lived right off of Arbor Vitae in Inglewood. He ran a travel agency whose office was on Manchester just a block or so east of Crenshaw. I don't remember how it came to be that pops knew Mr Mayo, but there we were one Sunday afternoon listening to Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life knowing that he was the most brilliant, deeply prophetic talent on the planet. So what was it? Songs in the Key of Life or What's Goin' On? Either way it was black socially conscious music that was transforming American consciousness. Ahh the conscious brothers!

Anyway I simply didn't have any Stevie Wonder albums at home, not even this the greatest until I was making my own money and bought Hotter Than July. So when I heard the second part of Living for the City I was just shocked. It was in the dining room of my house on Wellington and the entire vignette with the poor country boy that gets sent to jail for running a five dollar drug errand hit me like a ton of bricks. And then the minor key harmonics of the chorus and the Stevie's gutteral voice was just too much. Overwhelming. Deep. Profound. That's what it is, man. A total gas!

I know what kind of consciousness is sustained by that sort of poetry. It was my sung science in the early 70s.

Gary Byrd
The first time I really thought about Gary Byrd or had any idea who he was came during the 80s. He put out a rap album with his group called the GBE for Gary Byrd Experience. It was deep, and all the DJs used to speak about him in hushed tones of reverence. Like he was at once very dignified but the sort of native intelligence that puts him at risk in the industry. He was one of those who could be said to be speaking truth to power - outside of the dance and the gospel, our only understanding of art.

It turns out that if you look at all of the political statements of Songs in the Key of Life, they come from the mind of Gary Byrd. While today they seem trite, pedantic and on the verge of scary, at the time they were the edge that made Songs more than just songs. Without Village Ghetto Land and Black Man, Songs in the Key of Life is not political at all it is singing about love from the heart.

The stentorian recitations of Black Man from the kids like me were part and parcel of being young, gifted and black. I think back on those days in the terms of 'afro-bets'. That was our homeschooled gruel of black radical youth, the kind of thrashing of necessity to rage oneself out of the reductions placed on us by racial expectations - not only of our societies but of our parents. There is probably a great lot that could be written about how it is that parents find in their children those shameful things they associate with their own black weakness. Shouting down those demons with afrobetic facts went a long way to assert bold strengths. Things forgotten like old Trivial Pursuit Negro Edition were part of the Byrd pedagogy. Channeled through Stevie's music, he had us all rapt.

It all sounds like foolishness to my old ears now. Music to love by, to march by, to think by. Hard to say if anyone can do all that in one album with didactic lyrics. Perhaps there are some national anthems that strike the balance. But upon reflection of a great album, I am struck on how it falls today. Songs in the Key of Life contains one of the songs I have always promised to stop whatever I'm doing to give my wife affection. If you would have been at my wedding, you would have seen and heard 'Knocks Me Off My Feet' in that way.

Excuse me, I'm playing it and I have to call.

OK I'm back. What was I saying? Nevermind.

Dead Horsemen of the Apocalypse

It occurs to me that what is going on in most of the Right blogosphere that I concern myself with is that opinion makers are beating the dead horse of Obama's perceived flaws not to win any more converts but to set the stage for what the Right is to believe about him should he win the Presidency.

Aside from the shallowness of political thrash that has everything to do with attempted historical revisionism on Obama's occluded past, it sets up some rather low hurdles for President Obama to jump. Obama, deep in his heart is a Leftist and he has socialist roots and influences. It's anybody's guess how profound those are - what's rather odd however is how few fellow Harvard Law folks have been outspoken on the nature of his character there. I mean we only have a few years to look at, wasn't the time at Harvard longer than the time on the CAC? Who knows? The point is that however socialist his ideas, there's only so much that the President can get away with, and once a President Obama does *not* nationalize the American League and pass out red berets during the newly mandated 3rd inning stretch, how on Earth will we criticize him. I'm not sure the opposition is prepared for the sort of mistakes Obama actually will make.

What's sad and typical but hardly tragic is that Obama, who is capable of putting earnest passion into soundbites about unity, will be ill-suited to unite the nation. And this would be a good time for that sort of thing.

Holy Name Graduation 1974

Spence's List, Isolationism & The Softness of New Jacks

At my daughter's elementary school, I once had to complain to a teacher that they were not teaching sentence diagramming. I then made a brief effort to find any grammar book that did. My search was not rewarded. I haven't been as peckish as I should, but now I am starting to recognize the failure now several years out. One of the things that has brought this up is a large paper Scholar has to produce on Maya Angelou's atrocious multicultural abstract Inaugural Poem. Aside from the fact that everyone has had to live down the preposterous notion of Bill Clinton as a black president and the poison aspects of maintain a color-coded taxonomy of suffering, it's just a bad poem. They should be teaching about the caged bird. There's a lot of things 'they' should be teaching.

So I've been thinking about learning things the good old-fashioned way and the mortarboards of hard knocks, the pedagogy of Catholic catechism and the indelible lessons of bloodied noses, boxed ears, slapped wrists and swatted behinds. I say so particularly noting how out of touch the reality of a slapped wrist is with its metaphor. If any schoolteacher in this country were to actually slap the wrist of a child, she'd be up on charges. Instead we live in a nation of metrosexual passive aggressives (with their patron saint Obama) who have only suffered the metaphors of black eyes. The only thing they strain is credulity. It is only a matter of time until that subculture of our nation collapses into a sobbing heap. It's already in over its head.

While I didn't intend this message to focus on the character of our two candidates for President, it would be irresponsible for me to pass without noting the startling difference between the two. One is a warrior, the other an attorney. I love Arnold's parody of Obama's skinny legs and scrawny arms. It is perfectly apt.

Spence, my dear friend, has put together a list of 40 or so things that he believes should be the focus of the Executive. I take them to task as a whole for what they leave out. Consider the first ten and my comment in the context of the legacies of liberal politics:

1. Free college tuition. 2. Low interest loans to businesses/homes for energy improvements. 3. Promote micro-loans. 4. Universal preschool. 5. Green public transit. 6. Fund vertical gardens. 7. Fund the Algebra Project. 8. Promote wellness. 9. Create green-collar jobs. 10. Explore Free Government.

I can't help but think of Star Trek's holodeck or better yet, The Construct of The Matrix in which the imagined becomes the realized. Plug an electronic shishkebab into the back of your head, and there's your Algebra Project. You're eyes flutter for a moment, and then you wake up with Newtonian clarity. "I know algebra!" All the physicists at the Pentagon are wasting their time if they're not working to these ends according to the vision of Spence's philosophy. What I say of black politics, I say equally of Progressive politics, it is all about what to do about the marginalized person whose position is the legacy of some oppression. Let's just extend the metaphor a bit to say that the progressive endgame is the 'promised land'. That promised land is squarely in middle class America. There's nothing further - all the I have a dreaming, and we shall overcoming lands Americans in the material world of the American middle class, period. Beyond that, it has nothing to say. Everybody gets free headstart, free college, free algebra competency, jobs that are pollution free, free public transportation, and as close as we can get to free money - low interest loans, surely guaranteed by the government just in case you decide your skinny legs can't bear the burden. They want to turn the middle class of America from a grunting gutteral circus of blood, sweat and tears into a walled garden of polite dancing including a dark corner for the wild thang, just in case people get bored.

But nobody in such a world gets bitchslapped. Nobody gets abused, nobody hits any glass ceilings. All the real oppression is boxed out of the system. You simply register your gripe into the taxonomy of the Angelou Code and are admitted into the new protected class, brought to you by those biters, kickers, screamers, bullies and barbarians who make more than 250k (no wait, 200k) dollars per annum. Welcome to the pain-free zone, all you need is your psychic damage as baggage and your material world is cushioned in the downy softness of Progress. Such is the life charter of those dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the achievement of ever inflating welfare. People don't die of cancer around here. That's *preventable*. We can stop people from smoking. We can stop people from drinking. We can stop people from risking their lives and the lives of other. Hear me y'all. ITS ALL PREVENTABLE. People don't get their wrists slapped around here. We know what that leads to...

What color is authority? And who is bold enough to wear such a color today in America? The cadres of the people for a better future wear the color of Matthew 25:40.

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

It is for a reason I picked the New International Version of the Holy Bible. The new internationalists will start in America and they will continue their experiment all the way down. If you're living on 100 dollars a year, your day is coming soon, as soon as America is convinced that its wild west competitive days are coming to a well-managed end. Tame this beast and the rest of the world is a piece of cake. We've already got what they want, and we know how to extend life itself.

People tend to forget that doing for the weak is service to a King. It is payment to a regime of truth and the entire engine is powered by the barbarian beast of burden. Those of us outside of the protected class, those of us subjected to a different standard of right and righteousness are to be dumb animals. Our sinew, sweat and slobber don't have standing in the court of Progress. In this moral inversion, we are to be the silent, subservient help, in service to the general welfare of the protected class. Those of us without a color in the Angelou Code of multicultural complaint have no business partaking in the welfare state. If we are beyond the Pale, if we are not part of the Solution, if we engage in risky behaviors, if we dare to use physical punishments, if we are in the Oppressor Class, then we are not men but freaks. We Cheneys, we Rices, we Palins, we Joes are not to be trusted. We who defy the type, we God damned individuals. We who would bother to kick and scrap for more, to thow an elbow in the paint, to dance in the endzone with utter disrespect for the losers behind us. For there is no tribute valued by the King in doing for us. There is only the acceptability of our sacrifice. There is only our submission to the only value that has value which is all about the least brothers.

We who have decided not to be weak are off the list. Watch your back. The King is not happy with your excess.

Rice and Frazer for Africa

I caught some interesting verbiage in a Ghanaian editorial while updating my Somalia notebook.

Within the past 15 years, United States, for the first time, has implemented comprehensive Africa-wide policies that affect more people positively on the continent: President Bill Clinton left “Africa Growth and Opportunity Act” as United States’ legacy during his presidency and Pres. George W. Bush can make claim on America’s contribution towards Africa’s struggle with malaria and HIV-AIDS as his legacy. Thus, a question to ask, relevant to the discussion in this commentary, has to do with whether “President” Barack Obama would be willing, politically, to match or better what his previous two predecessors offered Africa.

The last time I was engaged with the issues of South East Africa, I was getting some BDS flack about how the US was only interested in destroying home rule in a 'clash of the civilizations' attack on Islamic courts. But Somalia's home rule has run amok and that apparent collapse of order has prompted the greatest increase in piracy we've seen in quite some time.

First world countries have tasked some serious ships to avert all that and protect trade.

Jabs

I think that I should take some time to talk about those things that get out into the media that I hear and I understand but don't mean so much to me. Which is to say, before I get accused of Obama Derangement Syndrome, there are a number of things that I don't disclaim so much as I discount. I'll talk about them and they are things that add up, but they are not, in my estimation, effective offensive weapons.

Obama Wasn't Born Here
I've been impressed with the credentials of the Democrat who just had his ass handed to him by saying he had no standing to sue. But then again he died by the sword. Life in the big city. I think that perhaps his case may have had some merit, but it was a goofy technicality. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama could have shut him and everybody else up by being forthcoming, and I take it as a mark of his character that he didn't. But I wasn't about to jump on that bandwagon and have never mentioned it. Now that bandwagon has a dead horse, I'm sure some will continue to beat it.

Destroying Joe
This is one of those things that I think is really shameful but can't be proven one way or another. That is to say it can't be proven that Obama directed people to rip Joe the Plumber's character and destroy his name.
It is completely reasonable to believe that it is 'merely' a coincidence that it is the big media spotlight. But still, his child support records. It is despicable that Obama supporters would have set out to destroy a man who asked a simple question and got a simple answer because that answer reflects poorly on their candidate. There is no smoking gun, just a dead man on the floor who just happened to make Obama look bad.

Ayers the Ghostwriter
This would sting like hell if it were proven to be true that Bill Ayers wrote Obama's book, but that's really difficult to prove and shouldn't really do more than go to character. I don't need my president to write a memoir before he's in office - it's never as interesting or informative as what's written during and after.

The Closed Plane
Reporters are getting the cold shoulder and expect Obama's White House, should the audacious happen, to be similar to that of GWB. You gets no access.