The Missing Experience Factor

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching the candidates are pressing their main messages with renewed intensity. The key to campaigning appears to be to “stay on message” regardless of the chaos around you. I am not sure how substantive it is to have a candidate repeat the same slogan over and over, to our political discourse, but this seems to be the conventional wisdom. The daily mantra for Hillary Clinton is “strength and experience”. The ex-First Lady cites her experience as a major difference between her and her opponents and one worthy of giving her the nomination. Something about her being able to “hit the ground” running, to where we aren’t quite sure. The experience that Ms. Clinton is touting is not just her experience as a junior Senator from New York, given that her closest two rivals also share that experience, no it is her experience in the White House as First Lady.

But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.

And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.[1]

I for one believe that her experience as First Lady is not necessarily transferable to the position she is now vying for, no more than I believe that First Lady Laura Bush is qualified to be President based on her experiences in the White House. For some reason in this country it is assumed and accepted by many that political positions are hereditary and therefore subject to transfer between fathers and sons, husbands and wives, or brothers. I have often found the reasoning for this strange and not very convincing. I think that many times history has borne out the fact that this idea of transference is not a reliable method of picking our leaders.

While I agree that as First Lady Hillary played an important role and was I am sure privy to more than she is letting on due to security concerns, but even so there is a big difference in being the mate of a President and the President. No matter how close the two may have been, the responsibility for decisions was always on Mr. Clinton, as well as the repercussions of those decisions. If Ms. Clinton can demonstrate where she was in fact the “decider” on policy and the recipient of the responsibility for those decisions then I think she has a case, until then however her claims to that experience I think is misleading.

Understandably, the relationship between husband and wife is exclusive and while the dynamics of that relationship is unique to each couple, it is commonly assumed that most decisions are shared or at least discussed between spouses. I am sure the Presidency is similar, but to what degree does a President discuss and share with their spouse? Because we have never had a female President we only have one side of the equation to consider. The question then becomes how much influence and information was shared between the Clintons? Ms. Clinton has been murky in this area, except to produce generalizations concerning her access to the decision making process. The problem I have with Ms. Clinton touting her White House experience is that we have no way of knowing the extent of her involvement and even if she were in fact part of the discussions providing input and making decisions are not the same.

Friends of Mrs. Clinton say that she acted as adviser, analyst, devil’s advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Mr. Clinton often consulted her, and that Mrs. Clinton gained experience that Mr. Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack — indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have.[2]

So, I guess my question is, does being First Lady give Ms. Clinton a leg up on her opponents in the experience department? Does my being married to a doctor give me valuable experience to begin diagnosing ailments, dispensing medication, and performing medical procedures? I am inclined to say no. While Ms. Clinton may have a better understanding of the stress, the difficulty, and the protocol of the Presidency, in my mind that does not equate to a marketable difference between her and her opponents in experience. The experience she brings as being the spouse of a President is distinctive compared to any of the other candidates this year or in years past, but again I have difficulty translating that to her now being uniquely qualified to be President. Maybe it’s a woman thing and I am not getting it, but what I do know is that being around the White House is no guarantee that someone is ready and qualified to be President. Maybe if that were true our current occupant would have done a better job.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?hp

Read more!

War On Terror; Fought By Foreign Mercenaries

I find it interesting that with General/President Musharraf’s government in trouble we are now getting reports that our billions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan is being misappropriated. It seems that for five years we have been contributing about a billion dollars a year to a program known as Coalition Support Funds. This of course is just a fancy name being used for a program that pays the Pakistanis to continue fighting a war they don’t want to fight and the results prove that out. The Coalition Support Funds are designed to reimburse the Pakistani military for conducting missions against the Taliban and al Qaeda in the mountainous border regions of Pakistan. My question is this, if the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the other terrorists are a threat to Pakistan as well as the US as the Bush administration and President Musharraf have stated why do we have to pay them to fight?

Early last week, six years after President Bush first began pouring billions of dollars into Pakistan’s military after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon completed a review that produced a classified plan to help the Pakistani military build an effective counterinsurgency force.[1]

Once again it seems like the only way we can get people to fight alongside of us in this “War on Terror” is to pay them. While this is not surprising it does raise some other interesting issues, such as why is it that now when Mr. Musharraf’s political position seems precarious these allegations are beginning to surface? Are we to believe that for all these years no one noticed that Pakistan was not using the money to buy the military hardware they were supposed to, but instead purchasing advanced systems to compete with India? Where were they purchasing this advanced hardware from with our tax payer dollars?

The Bush administration has kept a blind eye to the human rights abuses, the loss of democracy, and the misappropriation of funds that has been occurring in Pakistan. Why would they be concerned about those small details when they have done likewise here in America? Tyranny knows tyranny. Rather than complete the mission in Afghanistan and actually make the world safer as they claim, they instead choose to expand their war into Iraq. Now as they exit the world stage; we have a war on at least two fronts and we are not “winning” either and we are no safer. But Forgiven, there have been no more attacks in the US while Bush has been in office; we are fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here. Understand one thing, the 9/11 attack was a one-time deal. It was not part of some global plot by al Qaeda to take over the United States or the world, it was designed to scare the hell out of us and it did that. The question now becomes where do we go from here?

Do we continue to pour boatloads of money into a black pit not only in America, but to every little tin-horn dictator who promises results? Unfortunately for Mr. Bush and his Neo-Con clowns, the world is more complex than their rhetoric allows. Just as our system is based on the intra-workings of many parties and agendas, so it is in any country. Every leader has to answer to someone and regardless of what they promise they still have to sell at home. In too many cases this requires cold hard cash to grease the wheels of government, so we expect results but only based on our schema. Other countries of course have their own procedures and they often times to do not emulate ours.

For their part, Pakistani officials angrily accused the United States of refusing to sell Pakistan the advanced helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft, radios and night-vision equipment it needs.

“There have been many aspects of equipment that we’ve been keen on getting,” said Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad, the Pakistani military’s chief spokesman. “There have been many delays which have hampered this war against extremists.”

But by mid-2007, the $1 billion-a-year figure became public, largely because of the objections of some military officials and defense experts who said that during an ill-fated peace treaty between the military and militants in the tribal areas in 2005 and 2006, the money kept flowing. Pakistan continued to submit receipts for reimbursement, even though Pakistani troops had stopped fighting.[2]

Anytime our “allies” want more money they complain about how we are hampering their efforts to prosecute a war that we in fact started. Money often times used to enrich the dictators and their cronies, while the ones designed to benefit from the aid continue to go without. Do we really believe that the troops in Pakistan see Osama bin Laden as an enemy to their lives in the sense that we do? And it’s not just the “war on terror”, it is also used in the war on drugs. We expect other country’s troops to wage war on our behalf against their countrymen and crops that have been growing for centuries, all in an attempt to keep the drugs from our streets and the world’s biggest market.

We have replaced diplomacy and mutual benefit with bribery and intimidation. Is there any wonder our foreign policy is in shambles? The sad part is that the upcoming election only promises more of the same. It is time we reexamined our priorities as well as our allies and develop a foreign policy that matches the reality of the world and not the false history that we continue to try and hold on to. The world has changed, unfortunately we have not.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Read more!

Merry Christmas

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in waddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Glory in the Highest

Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:

“ Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men![1]

As we gear up and celebrate the trappings of capitalism, I would just like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. I will be spending the day serving meals at my church for those less fortunate and then I will be spending time with my family. I hope that we can all try to do something for those who aren’t as fortunate and spread the joy and the love that is Christmas. I know in my life it isn’t about the giant miracles, but the quiet daily obedience to the hope that we can make a difference in how we live together in this world. It all starts not with a loud bang, but with a quiet whisper a daily commitment to serving someone other than myself. It doesn’t matter what nationality, religion, or race we can all use this time we have to make the world a better place one small kindness at a time.

Merry Christmas, Idah Saidan Wa Sanah Jadidah, Boas Festas e Feliz Ano Novo, Gun Tso Sun Tan'Gung Haw Sun, Sretan Bozic, Glædelig Jul, Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar! or Zalig Kerstfeast, Cristmas-e-shoma mobarak bashad, Joyeux Noel, Froehliche Weihnachten, Kala Christouyenna!, Mo'adim Lesimkha. Chena tova, Shub Naya Baras, Kellemes Karacsonyi unnepeket, Idah Saidan Wa Sanah Jadidah, Buone Feste Natalizie, Shinnen omedeto. Kurisumasu Omedeto, Merry Keshmish, Pozdrevlyayu s prazdnikom Rozhdestva is Novim Godom, Hristos se rodi, God Jul and (Och) Ett Gott Nytt År, Noeliniz Ve Yeni Yiliniz Kutlu Olsun, Chung Mung Giang Sinh, Cestitamo Bozic, Rehus-Beal-Ledeats, Melkin Yelidet Beaal, Jwaye Nowel or to Jesus Edo Bri'cho o Rish D'Shato Brichto,

[1] The Bible – Luke 2:1-14

Read more!

The Huckabee Yelp

As the Baptist preacher, turned governor, turned Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee continues to rise in the polls, it will be very interesting the imaginative ways the Republican establishment will use to derail his candidacy and still maintain its strangle hold on the evangelicals who are flocking to him. In just two short weeks we have been treated to new revelations concerning the “man who would be king”. There was the “pardoned rapists” story, the unelectable story, and now the release of private letters written by Mr. Huckabee while in Arkansas. The Republican dirty tricks department is in full-throttle mode and as his numbers continue to increase the tricks will get dirtier and the tone is going to get meaner.

As Mike Huckabee gains ground on his rivals for the Republican nomination, opponents have quietly begun highlighting the slew of ethics issues the social conservative faced during his political career in Arkansas.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found Huckabee trailing only Mitt Romney — and by less than the margin of error — in Iowa, where the primary season kicks off with Jan. 3 caucuses.

But opposition research files on Huckabee’s ethics stand at the ready, and their contents have begun seeping into press releases.[1]

The only way for the Republican establishment to discredit Mr. Huckabee and retain the evangelicals they will need is to attack him on two fronts. The first will be to question his ethics and try to expose him as a hypocrite (as if in the Republican Party that would be a deal breaker); using this method it would appear that the candidate self-destructed, he really wasn’t a “true believer”. The second front will be to attack him as being “too liberal” on social issues, this would include immigration, taxes, and social spending. By using either of these two weapons against him the Republicans can smear the candidate, but still maintain the “moral” high ground.

What the Huckabee candidacy has exposed is the lie that has been the lynchpin of Republican politics since Nixon’s campaign, the lie is that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives share commonality of views and issues. The truth is that they don’t and the destruction of the Huckabee campaign will expose it for all to see. While the fiscal conservatives have always needed the social conservatives, it has always been a one way relationship. The fiscal conservative candidate would pay lip service to the social conservative agenda and they would be allowed to speak at the nominating convention, but then after the election the fiscal conservatives would go back to business as usual. That business of course is to turn on the public faucet for the wealthy to fill their pails at the public’s expense. This game has been played out in election after election.

What no one counted on was that a “true” social conservative would ever get the nomination; this is the fly in the ointment. It is ok for Republican candidates to pander to the social conservatives to get their votes so long as the social conservatives remain on the fringes. The problem with pandering to the lowest common denominator is that every cycle requires you to offer more, so if you are pandering to bigots, racists, and intolerant people the line keeps getting lower and lower. The rhetoric has to get nastier to satisfy the mob. Up until now, the fiscal conservatives have been able to feed the “monster” and still remain viable in a national election. Sure there have been the occasional social conservative candidates, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and of course Pat Buchanan; but they have always polled low enough to not raise any alarm. Usually, the fiscal conservatives could present a candidate who could project himself as a “true believer”, but this year is different.

This year you have a pro-life Mayor who committed adultery, a Mormon Governor from a liberal state, and a secular Senator with no ties to the social conservatives; it couldn’t get worse for the fiscal conservatives. The rise of Mike Huckabee should have been predictable for the Republican strategists, but of course due to their arrogance of intelligence they believed that they could continue to roll out the “perpetrators” and continue to keep the social conservatives inline. You keep stoking these fires and someone is bound to get burnt. The Republicans, using the Karl Rove play book, have stoked the fires of the social conservatives with their phony “value” issues until now there is a flame that is threatening to consume the rest of the Party. The social conservatives are now ready to exert a larger influence over the Party than ever before, now they want one of their own, a true believer.

The previous social conservative movements have all been orchestrated by the fiscal conservatives to imitate a real movement, but it was always under the guidance of a fiscal conservative masquerading as a social conservative. Mike Huckabee represents the day of reckoning for the fiscal conservatives. He has recognized the “frailty” of the current crop of wannabes and has rushed in to fill the void. To the chagrin of the Party establishment his message is playing better than the “anointed” candidates and it scares the hell out of them. They know that on the national stage Mr. Huckabee will be vulnerable to all types of attacks and would probably lose in a landslide. The thing about the message of hate and intolerance is that it may play well to the Party base, but it doesn’t play so well to the nation as a whole.

So, as the deconstruction of Mike Huckabee plays out it will be interesting to note the role of the media in his downfall. The Republicans will use their trusty friends in the fourth estate to write the stories that they have leaked. All of this will be done of course in the interest of the public’s right to know, if only they were as forthcoming with all of their candidates.

[1] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7000.html

Read more!

It’s The Mormonism

Despite his national speech in Texas concerning religion and government, Mitt Romney has a problem. It’s not a new problem, but it is one that will prevent him from becoming President. The reason it will prevent him from getting the Republican nomination is not because of his religion, but because of how he has cast his campaign around his religion. If Mr. Romney had run on leadership and business experience he could have avoided the whole Mormon issue, instead he has pandered to the Right on religious values thus bringing his religion to the forefront. By doing so he caused the same voters he was pandering to, to begin questioning his religion. And from the poll numbers and the rise of Mike Huckabee they didn’t like what they saw.

"Evangelicals like to find someone who shares their faith and their values. Usually you find one or the other; in Huckabee you find both," explained the Rev. Hal Lane, the pastor of West Side Baptist Church in Greenwood.

Romney knows he has a problem making himself acceptable to voters in a state where about 725,000 people are Baptists, like Burdette. That's a big reason that the candidate made a highly publicized speech Dec. 6 in Texas to explain the relationship of his faith to his values and politics.[1]

Unfortunately for Mr. Romney many of the religious right voters he courted, despite their protestations to the contrary, are bigots. They don’t understand Mormonism and you didn’t explain it to them when you had a chance, now you are seeing the true nature of your conservative brethren. They are not going to vote for you. The thing about America is that the polls are inaccurate. The reason they are inaccurate is because very few people will actually say what they truly believe, usually they say what they think they are suppose to say. It is only when they are alone or around like minded individuals do they feel comfortable enough to tell the truth.

The truth is simply this; many of your religious conservative friends do not believe that Mormons are Christians. When Mr. Huckabee ”innocently” asked about Jesus and the devil being brothers he knew exactly what he was doing and his rise bears that out. The fiscal conservatives don’t care what religion you are because their religion is money, but those down home true believers are the ones who are flocking to Huckabee by the boat loads. It is a dangerous game when you mix politics and religion, especially if your religion isn’t their religion.

The sad part about it all is that no one wants to deal with this issue truthfully, because if they do then they will expose the religious right for what they really are. Why do you think Pat Robertson endorsed an adulterer and pro-choice liberal from New York? You, Mr. Romney are not their kind of people. These people sad to say are intolerant of not only blacks, Latinos, and poor people; they are also intolerant of those who do not share their exact beliefs. The Evangelical movement in America has done more to promote disunity of the Church than any other movement in the history of the Church. Because of their narrowly defined views and belief that they possess the only “real truth” from God, they have alienated more than they have united.

The reason Mitt Romney’s speech failed is because he failed the litmus test. He failed the test by not taking it. The voters he hoped to assuage with his speech were waiting for him to explain Mormonism to them and to let them know that he was one of them, he didn’t do that. Instead he tried to play bait and switch, while he claimed that religion was not relevant to the political arena, he let those people know at the same time he still believed as they did.

But he did so, unfortunately, in a typically Romney-like way, with a corrupt little wink-and-nod to his evangelical inquisitors--oh, but don't worry, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind," etc.; just don't ask me about Mormon underwear. It is corrupt not because it is untrue, but because it aims to let him eat his cake and have it, too. He rejected demands to explain his faith, but did so while letting his interlocutors know that he was really one of them. Too clever by half, in the end, because they will not actually believe him, but this is what comes of positions of moral conviction devised by management consultants.[2]

The truth is that we are a nation of hypocrites. We espoused our belief in separation of Church and State but by our very process of electing leaders we violate those beliefs. These are supposed to be two Christians and you see the intolerance, imagine if one were a Muslim or Hindu? I however do not feel sorry for either, they both have used their religions to pander to the forces of intolerance and bigotry and everyone knows what happens if you play with fire. The Republicans are now scrambling to derail Mike Huckabee’s momentum, but they were the ones who opened the door for him to run through by their years of courting religious fanatics and bigots. I for one hope that he is the nominee, they deserve each other.

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23368.html
[2] http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/484tthrj.asp?pg=2

Read more!

Regulators, Mount Up

As the mortgage crisis continues to worsen and the big R word (recession) is showing up more and more in stories about the economy, it once again illustrates the true intentions of corporations and the Congressional minions who do their bidding. For the past three decades the conservatives and the corporations have been continually assaulting the regulatory arm of the Federal Government. Whether it is the inspectors that safeguard our food supply, our water, or our medicines all have been under attack. Although it is never presented in truth, but always in code, the fact remains that the goal has been to weaken our ability to regulate their business practices.

The code is couched in language like “big government”, free market, and self-regulation. The results of course have always been the same; pollution, tainted food and medicines, and loss of consumer choice. Because they have been so good at their marketing practices anyone who has the audacity to request regulation is immediately labeled a socialist or obstructionist. Every time deregulation has come to an industry the consumers have suffered, whether it was communications, travel, or banking. Deregulation requires us to rely upon the greediest to recognize the common good and to do it, instead of maximizing their gains. Why anyone would think that this would work is beyond me.

The scary part is that even when misdeeds are reported by the few regulators we have, they often times go unheeded. Whether it is Medicare fraud, war profiteering, or gas price gouging the response is often times the same; inaction on the part of superiors or a cover-up. How many stories have we read of government “whistleblowers” who were retaliated against by managers or supervisors, hell we even had to create a law making retaliation illegal? The latest in the long saga of ignored warnings is the mortgage crisis, it appears that almost a decade ago there were warning signs and alerts that were being ignored. This included a direct warning to Alan Greenspan, our economic guru and market manipulator. Although Mr. Greenspan has always claimed political neutrality, many of his policies were timed to benefit the current and past Republican administrations.

In order to keep the “recovery” on track for young Mr. Bush, Mr. Greenspan ignored warnings from a Federal Reserve governor and an advocacy group to investigate the growing lending crisis. Lenders were initiating risky loans as early as 2001 and were generating mortgages that would balloon into unmanageable payments for the borrowers. I remember when I first heard of the balloon mortgages, my first reaction was disbelief and slowly over time turned into anger. The concept to me seemed as solvent as the “junk bond” fiasco that took place two decades earlier, both were predicated on greed and the lack of financial knowledge of the consumers. Just because someone can get credit doesn’t mean they understand credit.

WASHINGTON — Until the boom in subprime mortgages turned into a national nightmare this summer, the few people who tried to warn federal banking officials might as well have been talking to themselves.

Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.

But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.[1]

Because Mr. Greenspan was trying to create the illusion of prosperity to buoy the fortunes of President Bush, he refused to rein in a lending market that had gone crazy. In what is being called the pursuit of innovation and Mr. Bush’s “ownership society”, lenders were allowed to generate loans to low-income or sub-prime borrowers. While in theory this was an excellent goal, because it represented a market that had longed been ignored and discriminated against. However, when theory became practical application the sharks began to infest the waters. These consumers who were not credit savvy were placed into loans that promised initially low interest rates, but were back ended with astronomical rates that based on their incomes the consumers could not afford. Also included in many of these loans were predatory lending fees and clauses that bound the consumers to these high interest loans for years.

Customarily, mortgaged loans are generated by one institution only to be sold to another lender after about a year. Many of these loans were created with high buy-out clauses that prevented the loans from being sold or allowing the consumer to shop the loan for a lower interest rate. The good news is you finally get a home; the bad news is in three years you won’t be able to afford it. This is the results of the Republicans privatization of HUD. Rather than having the government regulate and assist with these new homeowners, the conservatives believe that the consumers are best served by private industry. The same private industry that ravaged the communications, healthcare, and airline industries was entrusted with the lives and homes of unwary consumers. Now, that shouldn’t have set off any red lights or alarms.

“Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers?” Mr. Gramlich asked in a speech he prepared last August for the Fed’s symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo. “The question answers itself — the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”[2]

The problem I have with corporate America and their Congressional minions is not capitalism, everyone is entitled to make a buck; no it is their greed. With these guys there is never enough money, power, or stuff. The truth of the matter is there was no Bush recovery; it was all smoke and mirrors orchestrated by Greenspan, the markets, and the corporations. This explains why even with a “so-called” recovery middle and poor Americans were still struggling and there was no consumer confidence. I just hope the next administration will have the courage of its convictions and will rein in the greed that has been allowed to run rampant for nearly a decade.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/business/18subprime.html
[2] Ibid.

Read more!

From One War Zone To Another

This is the story of a mother who had to make the desperate choice of sending her son from one war zone (the mean streets of America) to another war zone (the streets of Liberia) in order to try and save his life. It is the choice no mother should ever have to make, but unfortunately it is a choice many black mothers have had to make over the years. Maybe it wasn’t the civil war of Liberia, but it could have been Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Many a black parent has sent a child off to war so they might escape the killing fields of urban America.

She had made up the lies that coaxed him on the plane, and arranged for her brother to take him into his household. She did this knowing much of what her Americanized son would face there: the empty belly, the threat of public whippings, the cramped sense of possibility.

Yet she was equally sure of this: He would be better off there than in Park Hill, the Staten Island neighborhood where she was bringing up two sons and two daughters.

Augustus had been well schooled in the lessons of Park Hill, which has taken in so many waves of refugees over the last 30 years that it is known in some quarters as Little Liberia. By his teenage years, he had adopted a street name (Ghostface) and a gang affiliation (Bloodline) and learned how drugs coursed through the neighborhood into the hands of customers.[1]

It is frightening to believe that a young black man is safer in a civil war in a foreign country than he is at home in America. He is, if that home happens to be in the gang and drug infested streets of the inner city. Our cities are turning into war zones pitting one young black man against another for the limited resources that the drug trade has created. Young men are risking their freedom and their lives to live a lifestyle of false promise and false bravado, leaving their mothers to worry and mourn their early departures. Departures usually brought about by the hand of another black man.

This story highlights the growing disconnect occurring between the youth and the adults of our communities. There is a divergence between the goals and aspirations of the parents and the “reality” of the streets beckoning their sons. For many young black men the streets are offering a better alternative to the hard won lessons of their parents. They watch as their single mothers struggle to make ends meet with the low wage jobs they are forced to take, while at the same time they see the fast money and lifestyle being offered by gangs and the streets. They struggle in an educational system that doesn’t want them and a support system that doesn’t exist. Due to a lack of male guidance they grow up with a distorted sense of manhood and the responsibilities that it brings. They love and at the same time detest their mothers for the lives they have been given.

What does this say about us as a society, that we are willing to let another generation of young black men die or be imprisoned without any effort to integrate them into society? I find it hard to believe that with all of the intellectuals and studies that have been done, we can’t solve this. So the question then becomes, do we want to solve it? For years we read and see story after story of the untimely death of another black youth at the hands of another black youth and yet we do nothing. We can provide hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy a country and yet we can’t find any money to help build our own country? These young men are the by-product of our neglect and of a system that does not value their talents or their imaginations. They are the forgotten children of black men who did not understand or accept that being a father is more than being a “baby’s daddy”, black men who have by the millions placed the burden of raising their children on the woman.

“My mom’s friends, I respect them, but they don’t know about life,” he said, glassy-eyed, as the television flickered in the corner. “My thugs, they know about life, because they were in the struggle, too.”

His friends had seen darkness in the world, Augustus said, just as he had. Some had gotten shot. Some had been arrested. They knew what was up.

“That type of people,” he said, “they got big dreams.”[2]

This situation is wrong on so many levels. This situation is about more than money; money alone will not fix this. The time has come in this nation in general and in the black community specifically to make this situation a priority. We have allowed the myths and the lies of the streets to go unchallenged to our children, they have lost touch with reality and have replaced it with someone else’s false reality. The reality they live in is real only because we allow it to be, we allow them to believe that the dead end life of drug dealing and gang banging is preferable to honest living and work. There is no one to offset the allure of easy money with the reality of its consequences, which is death, prison, and emptiness. There is no one to teach them that being a man is not about smoking dope, making babies, and killing other young men. There is no one to teach them the hard lessons of being man, going to work, raising your kids and loving your wife.

No mother should ever have to choose to send her son to a war to save him, but if things don’t change soon in our communities it very well may be safer than being at home. And that is a tragedy for all of us. The whole world is lessened by the senseless violence that is cutting down our young men before they ever get to live. The whole world is lessened by a system that renders them useless before they reach their teens. We have no idea the contribution these lost young souls could have on the world, what gifts they could bring. Instead we readily accept their destruction and chalk it up to another bad ass kid that gets shot and killed. I hope one of these days they will be recognized as human again and worthy of our support and our anger. All they receive now is our pity and pity is just one step up from contempt.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/nyregion/14liberians.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/nyregion/14liberians.html

Read more!