NewView

To Err is Human and to Forgive is Divine

"The weak can never forgive.  Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."

--Mahatma Gandhi--

"The hatred you are carrying is a live coal in your heart - far more damaging to yourself than them."

--Lawana Blackwell--

"The stupid never forgive or forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."

--Thomas Szasz--

Michael Vick will be a free man on Monday.  His home incarceration will be officially over and he will be allowed to re-enter society.  That is when the drama may begin.  

Michael Vick may have many talents that the general public do not know about.  However, he has one talent that many people do know about and that is a talent for playing football.  His actions after he was drafted and given millions of dollars by the Atlanta Falcons have cost him a small fortune, his freedom, and possibly his career.  The actions I am referring to was his involvement in a dog fighting ring that lead to his federal indictment, guilty plea, and incarceration.  Michael Vick has paid a lot for his involvement in dog fighting.  He should have paid a lot because there is no excuse or reason for him to have been involved in something as heartless and barbaric as dog fighting.  Yet, the bottom line is that Michael Vick will either demonstrate through his actions that he is worthy of a second chance or he will show that he is not.  In any case, he should be given an opportunity to show which category he belongs.

There are probably several teams that are willing to give Michael Vick an opportunity to show that he is still a very good football player, which means Michael Vick still has a chance to salvage his name, reputation, and financial future.  When and if he is given that opportunity, he must work hard to show he is still a NFL star and he also must work hard to educate people (especially young men) about the barbarity of dog fighting and how it is not worth the potential costs.  The only thing that may stand in his way is whether organizations like PETA will stage protests of team(s) that may give him a chance.   The ironic thing about that is that any protests by PETA or any other animal rights organization or activist may pose more of a risk for that organization(s) than it will for Michael Vick.  

Any animal rights organization or activist that tries to keep Michael Vick out of the NFL runs the risk of being marginalized.  PETA has to be careful with how they react to Michael Vick.   If PETA or people that are members of PETA or people that are members of an animal rights organization decide to make it their mission to keep Michael Vick out of the NFL by staging protests of any team that gives him a chance they may find that that strategy will back fire on them.  Their protests could swing public opinion in favor of Michael Vick and against them.  They could appear to be a bunch of liberals that are so out of touch with the rest of the world that they value the life of an animal above a human's.  Their best course of action is to wait and see how Michael Vick conducts himself after Monday. 

PETA has a golden opportunity to bring animal abuse (i.e. dog fighting) to the forefront of the American collective consciousness.  They can use the story of Michael Vick as a cautionary tale to let men and women (especially young men) know that dog fighting is a cruel act that is beneath any human being and that the price anyone will pay for engaging in such a cruel act is not worth it.  They can also use the Michael Vick news story to enlighten America know about the dangers to animals and humans that dog fighting presents and how often it occurs in neighborhoods throughout the country.  But most of all PETA can present itself to the rest of America as a reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate organization that is comprised of intelligent, caring, and reasonable people instead of coming off as mean, spiteful, and spoiled zealots that is hell bent on revenge and care more about animals than humans.

It may be in PETA's, other animal rights organizations', and animals rights activists' best interest to forgive Michael Vick but that does not mean that they must forget.

Trust is Always Earned and Never Just Given

"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know the best - and therefore never scrutinize or question."

--Stephen Jay Gould--

"Anyone who goes through life trusting people without making sure that they are worthy of trust is a fool."

--Elizabeth Aston--

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

--Abraham Lincoln--

There are few things scarier to experience than to run into a thug late at night that has a problem with you and is hell bent on starting a fight or some sort of physical confrontation.  It is even more scary when that thug is accompanied by one or more of his "boys" that are ready, willing, and able to back the thug up no matter what happens.  And it is even scarier when that thug is wearing a gun and a badge.  Unfortunately, that situation happens from time to time and the main reason it does continue to happen is that we allow it.

I want to be crystal clear.  The purpose of this article is not to trash the overwhelming number of good, decent, and fair police officers that do their jobs everyday without incident.  Nor is the purpose of this article to hang a police officer that may have made a mistake due to a momentary lapse of judgment.  It is to bring the root issue out in the open and to deal with it.

A few weeks ago two cases where police officers who were accused of abusing their authority or flat out just breaking the law the officers were either acquitted or were found guilty but given no jail time. In the one case, the officers were acquitted because the judge (it was a bench trial so there was no jury) took the police officers' word over the several alleged victims in the case.  In the other case, the judge decided that the justice would not be best served by sending the police officer to prison since it was his first felony conviction.

I am not going to go on record saying that either case was decided wrong or sentenced incorrectly. Unlike many pundits with a political agenda or a philosophical bias, I accept the decision of the court -- especially since there is nothing that I know about the case that would indicate the court got it wrong. However, both cases are illustrative of the root cause of police brutality in Cook County.  It is blind, wishful, or negligent trust.

As a criminal defense attorney, I have tried my share of cases where the evidence against my client was essentially the police officer's word against my client's word.  The prosecutor, judge, and jury typically assume that the police have no reason to lie so they take his/her word as gospel truth.  I am not naive or deluded enough to assert that every client I have represented told me the truth or was innocent.  However, I have seen on more than one occasion cases that rested solely on the word of a police officer that was marginal at best and a bad piece of fiction at worst.  Yet, in those rare cases the prosecutor still went ahead with the case just as vehemently as they did in cases where the evidence was not so suspect.  And what is even more disturbing, members of the jury and judges here in Cook County tend to be like the prosecutors in that they tend to believe whatever the police say.

This is a problem because it sets police officers and the public up for failure.  Police officers are human, which means that most will fall into the old saying that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."  We should grant police officers power with limits, instead of limitless power until they mess with the politically connected or economically advantaged.  

We as a society want rough, tough, no nonsense people to be police officers.  We want men and women that are not afraid or hesitant to "mix it up" if that is what is required.  However, we want the police to only behave that way towards criminals.  When we interact with the police we want sound judgment, restraint, and patience.  Well, there is another saying that "virtue is a product of habit."

What happens when the police act human -- meaning that they (like the vast majority of human beings) have biases against certain groups of people or they have a bad day and take it out on someone or what if they can not tell the guilty from the innocent?  What happens then?  Bad things happen.  Therefore instead of them being addressed right away when they may be small incidents or minor inconveniences they go unaddressed and covered up because we as citizens want to place blind, wishful, or negligent trust in the police.  This leads the police officer, who is only human, to believe that he/she can do anything and get away with it so by the time they are held accountable it is due to a big, nasty, and potentially tragic incident.

The African-American community is no different than any other community.  We would like to turn a blind eye to police brutality.  We would like to place blind, wishful, and negligent trust in every police officer we meet.  But we do not get to live in a fantasy world because to many of us, our family members, or our friends have experienced a police officer that has abused his/her power and created an unjust, unfair, or uncomfortable situation.

However, there is a solution to the problem.  It is called accountability.  We must require or mayors, city council members, aldermen, the governor, etc. to create and/or maintain an independent and credible agency that watches the police and holds them accountable.  We also must not allow politicians and judges to hide behind the myth that the only way to demonstrate their commitment to law and order is to be an unconditional crony of the Fraternal Order of the Police or to always side with the police regardless of the situation -- just as we must not allow politicians, preacher politicians, and racial opportunists to always use the police as scape goats in order to get a couple of seconds of air time on TV.

It is time to take the blinders off.  Trust is always earned.  It is never given.  It is about time we the people started thinking for ourselves and required our public servants (i.e. the police and politicians) to maintain an environment of trust through accountability.

That is my view.  What is yours?  Submit your response to avgbrother@yahoo.com.  I will post the best response to this article on Thursday evening.  Or you can post a comment.

New Day

"So many new ideas are at first strange and horrible, though ultimately valuable that a very heavy responsibility rests upon those who would prevent their dissemination."

--J.B.S. Haldane--

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas.  I am frightened of the old ones."

--John Cage--

"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions."

--Oliver Wendell Holmes--

It is over due for me to say this.  We in the African-American community are suffering.  We are not just suffering from a lack of economic opportunities.  We are not just suffering from the effects of discrimination.  We are not just suffering from black on black crime or the destruction of drug addiction or high drop out rates or teenage pregnancy.  We are suffering from the lack of voices other than the usual suspects, which ultimately means we are suffering from a lack of new and different ideas.

We, like much of America, have many issues that we need to deal with in our community.  There may be many different ways of dealing with those issues, but we may never get to those suggestions as long as many new and valuable voices in our community are muted and ignored.  Although we currently live in the age of the internet where anyone and everyone can add their "two cents," there are way to few voices being heard in our community.  This is a problem because it has lead to stagnation in our community. That must end.

It is for this reason that this blog will attempt to raise different, and maybe at times controversial view points of old and new issues.  I am not promising that every view raised in this blog is the only view worth listening to or that the views that will be raised will be right or wrong or at times completely novel, but it will be honest.  I am not making any promises, except a genuine goal to confront topics with a desire to change things for the better.  Let's see what happens . . . 

Look Before You Leap

"It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated?"

--Alec Bourne--

"There is a big difference between being educated as opposed to being certified.  One is a lifelong pursuit.  The other is done at graduation."

--Bart E. Beals--

There has been a lot of debate since the high school basketball player announced that he was going to leave school before his senior year in order to play basketball in Europe.  The debate has raged about whether an athlete should leave high school before his senior year in order to pursue the money and play ball in Europe.  One side asserts that it makes the most sense to go after the money while it is available. The other side asserts that the athlete loses something by not getting his education.  Both sides miss the point.  The real question is what is education?  And is a diploma or degree always the result of getting an education?

In my opinion an education is a lifelong experience that is the result of an endless hunger for understanding about oneself, one's surroundings, and one's existence.  The only tools that are required to help satisfy that hunger is an intellectual curiosity and the skill of critical thinking.  There is a big difference between someone that knows how to fix a couple of problems on a car and a mechanic.  The one person can only fix what they have seen or done before because he/she does not really know how a car works.  The mechanic can fix most problems regardless of whether he/she has seen it before because they know how a car works and can use the skill of critical thinking to diagnose then solve the problem. Since critical thinking is a skill it is like wine.  It gets better with time and practice.

In my opinion the answer to the second question is no.  You do not need a degree to be educated.  You may need a degree to prove you are educated.  A diploma or degree is just a certification that a person has completed a designated number of courses depending on the discipline.  It does not guarantee that the person is intellectually curious or a critical thinker.  It does not certify that the person is a problem solver.  So . . . what does this have to do with whether an athlete should leave high school before his senior year to turn pro?  The answer is in the analysis.

Typically I do not oppose athletes choosing to postpone or even forgo college if a rare opportunity to become a first round draft choice and possibly a star professional athlete presents itself.  Since education is a lifelong process and you do not need a diploma or degree to be educated, I think there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that rare opportunity when it presents itself.  However, that is not the end of the analysis.  In the case of an American Athlete leaving his country and culture and losing his/her college eligibility to go to a different country with a different language and culture, I think the risks greatly outweigh the rewards so it is not a good idea.

If an athlete is already good enough before he even graduates from high school to play in Europe then that athlete has the potential to be something very special in the pros here in the United States where he can make even more money.  He would only need to use the next two years developing his athletic skills before receiving a very large initial payday with many more to come.  The bottom line is why risk his big bank for a little bank?

Special talents come along once and a while.  Look at Michael, LeBron, and Kobe.  The athlete would be better suited working on his sports skills and his image so that once he does turn pro he can win on the field of play and in court of public appeal.  The former will get the athlete into the hall of fame.  The latter will allow the athlete to make money long after his playing days are over.  Once the athlete is done playing for an owner he could have the net worth to become an owner.  The real question is why settle for a few millions when there is the possibility to make nearly half a billion?  You don't need a degree in math to know which one is better.

The Unasked Question

"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge."

--Benjamin Disraeli--

 

"Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them."

--Paul Valery--

 

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

--H. L. Mencken--

 

 

John McCain pulled another rabbit out of his hat by attempting to make one man out of 300 million Americans into the persona of middle class regular "Joe" America.  America meet "Joe the Plumber."  Whereas I personally believe it is impossible to make one person speak for an entire group of people, "Joe the Plumber" provided America with a wonderful opportunity to take a close look at how a large group of Americans behave during every election.  And the media blew it.   

The media asked a lot of questions about "Joe the Plumber."  We found out his full name.  We found out how much he really makes a year.  We found out what type of home he lives in.  We even found out that he is not a licensed plumber, but what we did not find out is why does not support Barack Obama even though it appears to be in his economic interest.

It is rumored that thirty-six (36%) percent of Americans routinely vote against their interests.  Yet, no one wants to explore why that is the case.  "Joe the Plumber" appears to fall in that category.  Every reputable fact checking website has made it clear that "Joe the Plumber" would receive more tax relief and better health care protection under an Obama administration than he would under a McCain administration, yet "Joe the Plumber" appears to support John McCain.  Why?

That is the million dollar question that the media should be spending its time, because maybe then we will also learn why people in Ohio, Florida, Indiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and a bunch of other states continue to vote against their interests. 

 

The Character Issue

"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow.  The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."

--Abraham Lincoln--

"People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and courageously.  This is how character is built."

--Eleanor Roosevelt--

"The character of every act depends upon the circumstance in which it was done."

--Oliver Wendell Holmes--

Every four years we have a presidential election where at least one candidate runs on the "character" issue.  Yet, during the past two presidential election cycles at least one of the candidates has resorted to a scorched earth, divide and conquer, do anything to win strategy in an effort to get elected and no one seems to think that is not indicative of that candidate's character.  I think it is time that somebody raises the character bar.

I have never cared about a candidate's personal life.  I do not care whether a candidate is faithful to his/her spouse.  I do not care whether a candidate is a good father or mother or husband or wife.  I do not care which church (if any) that the candidate attends.  However, I do care whether the candidate runs on policy issues or "wedge" issues that are designed to divide and conquer.

You can not win a kingdom by burning down the land?  You can not gain a crown by destroying the throne?  If in the process of winning the game you destroy the sport, you are not a champion.  You are a cheat.  You are a fraud.  And you are a traitor to the very thing that you strive to gain.  The same is true about the Office of the President of the United States.

It takes character to run for the highest office in the land, to attempt to become the leader of the free world, to attain the most powerful office in the world and still have limits to what you will and will not do in order to get it.  Anyone can lie their way into office.  Anyone can prey upon all of the dirty prejudices, images, and fears that people may have in this country in order manipulate us into voting for them.  Anyone can divide a great nation for personal political gain, but only a rare states person will risk losing an election in order to preserve a nation.  That is character.  That is character that I look for in a candidate.  And that is character that I have rarely found in a politician.

I will not be a liar and a fraud.  I must admit that I am a supporter of Barack Obama so I am in no way an objective voter.  However, the reality is I am shocked and disappointed with John McCain.  I do not agree with him on most of the issues, but I always thought that he was a man of principle and integrity.  I guess I was wrong. 

The real test of character of a political candidate is the campaign that he/she conducts.  And maybe it is about time the McCain campaign is challenged to show some character and start discussing issues instead of slinging mud, because if he wins by slinging mud then his legacy will not be about the Iraq war or the economy.  It will be how to divide a nation in order to gain the Presidency.

 

 

 

Leadership

“The first duty of a leader is to make himself be loved without courting love. To be loved without 'playing up' to anyone - even to himself.”

 

--Andre Malraux--

 

“We can draw lessons from the past, but we cannot live in it.”

 

--Lyndon B. Johnson--

“Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, so far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb.”

 

--Sir Winston Churchill--

 

 

Well, I am back from a much needed vacation.  Over the past several weeks I have watched the little drama that was created by Jesse Jackson's comments on Fox on July 6th.  The media immediately went after Jackson for his comments and they should have.  However, I have no interest in trying to rekindle the media scrutiny since it has at last died down.  Instead, I want to raise another issue.  An issue that has historically been overlooked and never asked.

 

The media is good at touching on the easy, shallow, and obvious issues.  I want to touch on a more subtle one.  I want to touch on the issue of leadership by asking a simple question.  What role do people like Jesse Jackson play in our community?  Or to be more direct, should a politician be considered a leader in our community?

 

My first reaction is to answer the latter question in the negative.  The answer to the first question seems obvious to me.  I will explain.

 

I must address my implied assertion that people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are de facto politicians.  People like Sharpton and Jackson may have been true leaders in our community in the past but they have become too close to the political establishments to be truly independent agitators for change in our community, which is what is needed to be a community leader.  Both of them ran for President.  Both have declared party affiliations and are a part of the party apparatus during Presidential elections.

 

It is not my intent to disparage or insult Jackson or Sharpton or any other local preacher or self styled community leader that has his/her hands in politics.  That is not the purpose of this article.  The purpose of this article is to raise the issue that once a person becomes a part of the partisan political process then they can not be a true leader in the community.  I want to be very clear.  There is a big difference between supporting a politician during a particular election solely based on that person’s positions on the issues as opposed to supporting a politician based on party affiliation or personal access.

 

The reason a partisan politician (de facto or otherwise) can not be a true leader in the community is that a community leader’s priority has to be the community.  It can not be a party. It can not be a career.  It can not be a personal agenda.  It must be the community.  And the only way to look out for a community is by addressing issues, which means that it is very unlikely that any particular political party will always be a friend.  Therefore it is not wise to get too comfortable with any political party.

 

It is about time that someone has raised this issue because our community just like the rest of our country has mistaken politicians for leaders and publicity for leadership for far too long.  The simplest definition of a leader is a person that has followers.  That is what we have had in our community for too many years.   Now we are finally starting to require more from people who are supposed to be our leaders.  We must not stop.  We must continue to challenge our alleged leaders to represent our interests instead of their own.

 

The truth is that the number one priority for a politician is to get elected.  Some politicians will sink lower than others in pursuit of that goal, but the priority is the same.  The same is also true for political actors.  The more votes that a political actor can deliver the more access he/she will have to politicians in power.  Access means power.  Power is usually the goal not the advancement of community agendas.

 

In order to get elected and remain in office a politician must compromise.  He/she must say and do things that they do not believe in or do not believe in as much as they lead “us” to think.  That is the nature of politics.  However, what happens when a question must be asked that will likely anger a strong voting block?  What happens when a position on an issue must be taken based solely on principle instead of political feasibility?  Is it reasonable to expect a politician or a political actor to take that stand or ask that question?  I think not. 

 

That is where the biggest difference between a community leader and a politician is exposed.  The community leader will push for unpopular issues based on what is best for his/her community, while a politician will try to avoid having to deal with unpopular issues.  Our community and our country need both community leaders and politicians.

 

Our community seems to have the politician thing down.  Now we must start to develop more community leaders.

Choices

“An executive is a person who always decides; sometimes he decides correctly, but he always decides.”

 

--John H. Patterson--

 

“The more alternatives, the more difficult the choice.”

 

--Abbe' D'Allanival--

 

“If you limit your choices only to what seems possible or reasonable, you disconnect yourself from what you truly want, and all that is left is a compromise.”

 

--Robert Fritz--

 

Although the Clintons have not received the memo the nomination process is about over.  Now the question has changed from who will be the nominee of the Democratic Party to who will be Barack Obama’s running mate.   A lot has been reported already about potential running mates for Barack Obama.  I will add my two cents.

 

I could write a short book on who would be the best running mate for Barack Obama, but this is an article not a book.  I will attempt to be brief in my analysis.  Most, if not all, presidential candidates choose a running mate because the running mate will give the nominee a better chance to win the general election than he/she would have on their own.  That usually means that the presidential candidate needs their running mate to help him/her win a key state or a few key states in the general election.  That is conventional wisdom.

 

Conventional wisdom dictates that Barack Obama should seriously look at the following four people as potential running mates: (1) Ted Strickland, (2) Hillary Clinton, (3) Ed Rendell, and (4) Kathleen Sebelius.  I will discuss each potential candidate.

 

 The next President of the United States will have “flipped” more swing states while retaining their own swing states than his/her opponent.  The battle ground for the Democratic Party in 2008 will be in the Midwest and the West.  The Democratic Party should forget the old, outdated strategy of shopping for a running mate from the south to “balance” the ticket.  They should instead campaign in all fifty states, but focus on the Midwest and the Western states.  That is where they can win, although a few southeastern states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia can be in play. 

 

The election may come down to what happens in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina.  As the Democratic Nominee, Barack Obama must try to retain Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.  He must also “flip” enough states to gain eighteen (18) or more Electoral College votes.  Judging by the strong showing of the Democratic Party as compared to the Republican Party in Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia, it is more than possible that Barack Obama can win those states in the general election on his own.  However, if Obama can win Florida, Ohio, or North Carolina and maintain the five democratic swing states, he can turn the general election from a squeaker into a blow out!

 

That is why Ted Strickland is probably the best choice for Barack Obama as a running mate.  Ted Strickland can provide a two edge sword to help win the general election.  He can help to provide a much needed win in Ohio.  He also has the pedigree to court the “blue collar” white vote in Pennsylvania and possibly Michigan, which may help to keep each state in the blue column.  That is just as important as the ability to deliver Ohio.  He is also an older politician with executive experience and a history of appealing to the moderate and even conservative electorate. 

 

Although Hillary Clinton may not be in as good of a position to help deliver Ohio as Governor Strickland, she still could be very helpful in helping to keep Ohio and Pennsylvania and to go after Florida.  The combination of keeping Pennsylvania and taking Ohio or Florida could make Obama an easy winner of the general election.  Hillary Clinton also has two things that Ted Strickland does not: Bill Clinton and she is a woman.  Barack Obama would get two attack dogs for the price of one by choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.  And the Clintons would be back in their element.  They would be able to play the race, gender, and class cards against the republicans, just the way they like it.  Plus, by choosing Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama may prevent John McCain from choosing Mayor Bloomberg as his running mate.  The major problem with choosing Hillary is the Clinton fatigue, the Hillary credibility gap, and once elected Obama would have to contend with two very vocal, very visible, and potentially uncontrollable vice-presidents for the price of one.

 

Ed Rendell would likely mean that Obama is a lock to retain Pennsylvania.  That alone is huge because Obama has a good chance to “flip” Iowa, Virginia, and Colorado on his own.  Plus Obama is likely to keep Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan (especially if McCain does not choose Romney as a running mate).  Therefore Obama needs to make certain that he keeps Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which Governor Rendell can help him to do. 

 

Many pundits have mentioned Governor Kathleen Sebelius as a good running mate for Barack Obama.  The electoral math does not support that theory.  However, the popular math may change that dynamic.  The long bitter primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many older white women with some bitter feelings toward Barack Obama.  He will need their vote in many states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, and Ohio to have a chance of winning in the general election.  Governor Sebelius could be the panacea to the bitterness that resulted from the primary fight between Clinton and Obama.  Governor Sebelius is a self made woman that can appeal to conservatives and “blue collar” whites and she could help to bring the female baby boomers that are Hillary Clinton supporters back into the blue column.  Governor Sebelius, a two term governor in a very red state that had the political courage to stand up for women’s choice, would be the perfect person to remind the angry baby boomers that if McCain gets into the White House then Roe v. Wade may become an endangered species.

 

I also feel compelled to at least mention two other intriguing candidates.  They are Claire McCaskill and Tim Kaine.  Barack Obama should run pretty strong in Missouri, but he may not be able to win the state on his own.  Claire McCaskill could be just what he needs to get over the hump to win Missouri and she could also help him with the bitter baby boomers that he will need to keep in the blue column in other states in order to win the general election.  Tim Kaine would likely make it a lock for Obama to win Virginia in the general election.  Virginia is not the size of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania or Florida, but it would be a very good feather in Obama’s cap in the general election that could spell victory.  Plus Kaine’s pedigree could help Obama go after North Carolina and Georgia. 

Missed Opportunities

“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.”

--Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.--

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”

--Abraham Lincoln--

"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions."

--Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.--

When history books are written about this election cycle many historians will write about how the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary made history and may have even shattered barriers. Volumes will be written about how Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s candidacies broke open barriers for African-Americans and women. I look forward to reading or even writing those volumes, but the truth is that the country has missed golden opportunities to deal with subjects and issues that are long overdue for attention. And the main reasons the opportunities have been missed are due to our cowardice and the media’s lack of back bone.

This election cycle has already presented a golden opportunity to face at least two ugly realities in our community and our country. One reality is that there is little to no diversity and courage in our media. The other is that we as a community and a country are easily manipulated by both major political parties as well as individual politicians because we punish the people that raise issues we do not want to hear when it is necessary to hear them and reward people that tell “us” what we want to hear when that is the last thing we need.

We as Americans are cowards at times because many times we do not want to face harsh realities about ourselves. The harsher the reality the less willing we are to face it and the media is more than willing to help us avoid it by telling “us” what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear. Our knee jerk reactions are used against our better judgment to manipulate our emotions to vote based on fear, prejudice, and hubris instead of wisdom, experience, and strength. Haven’t we finally learned the lessons of manipulation from our country’s decision to go into Iraq?

The number one culprit in the knee-jerk reactions derby is the media. The media is littered with too little diversity and too much cowardice. The media usually presents many faces, but only one perspective. When I say lack of diversity I am not referring just to the racial, economic, or gender make up of the media. I am referring to the lack of diversity of perspectives. The media seems to suffer from a bad case of the group think syndrome. Many times members of the media act as if they can not fathom any other perspective regardless of how legitimate it may be. It is not about who is right or wrong. The issue is whether the people need to hear different perspectives. In almost every case I think the country is always better off by being exposed to a diversity of perspectives.

The controversy surrounding the comments by Rev. Wright is a perfect example of the media’s lack of diversity of perspective. Rev. Wright is perceived as an un-American, hateful, and deeply flawed person because the media never addressed the glaring question of whether Rev. Wright’s comments accurately depicted his views or was manipulated to give a false message. The reason I call the media a coward for refusing to raise the possibility that the comments were taken out of context is that is what they normally do in a situation where there are controversial comments. The media will usually air the comments in order to stir up ratings then try to objectively place the comments within the context that they were given. Then the media will allow both sides of the debate to address the comments. Today on Meet the Press the media did that with the ad that the DNC is airing against John McCain that gives the impression that he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. The ad shows McCain stating that the U.S. could be in Iraq “for maybe a 100 years” but Tim Russet quickly pointed out McCain’s assertion that according to the transcripts from the town hall meeting where McCain made the comments that the comments where taken out of context. That was the correct thing to do. That was the professional thing to do. That was the informative thing to do. I do no think that was ever done for the comments by Rev. Wright. Why?

I believe the media has not extended the same objective coverage in the case of Rev. Wright because of fear of a backlash from people that will hurt their ratings. There is a war of ratings that is being waged between the three major cable news networks: MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. Fox news is on its own program. It is clear that they have bias political coverage against democrats and liberals. That is nothing new so I do not blame them for their bias coverage that was way over the top against Rev. Wright. However, MSNBC and CNN are another story. Both networks addressed the issue by having debates between the right and the left on the issue. I did not see anyone from the networks take an objective view of the comments and parse fact from fiction regarding the entire sermons and the real message. The media has instead chosen to continue to give a three to five second snippet from an hour long sermon and pretend that the misinterpreted comments are an accurate depiction of Rev. Wright’s message on that particular day. That is why the controversy is still alive and well because no one in the media has taken the time to separate the myth from the fact.

I have seen several guest commentators such as Roland Martin, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, or Joe Madison that raised the perspective that the comments were grossly taken out of context and manipulated in order to prey upon some deeply rooted prejudices and suspicions about black folks in hopes of attacking Barack Obama. The only problem is that those commentators’ views are easily dismissed because the rest of the main stream media seem to embrace the perspective that Rev. Wright’s comments were controversial and therefore wrong, instead of manipulated, misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

However, there is still time for someone from the media to show some courage and address the comments in the context that they were given instead of the context that they have been edited.

Complete Relief

“Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

--Friedrich Nietzsche--

“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

--Voltaire--

“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”

--William H. Borah--

We have heard a lot of talk from both candidates for the Democratic Nomination for the Office of the President of the United States of America about the need for government action to address the mortgage crisis that is sweeping across this country. However, I have yet to hear about a part of the solution that must be included in order to give relief to millions of home owners. That is an immediate repeal or amendment of the Bankruptcy Act of 2005.

Both candidates for the Democratic Nomination have talked about the need for a bail out for home owners that have sub-prime loans where their payments have exploded to levels where they can not afford to make them and pay the rest of their bills. I do believe that something must be done to specifically address the issues that were created by an industry that wanted to prey upon a simple need to own a house. However, there are plenty of home owners as well as renters that are being pushed to the wall of homelessness or forced to retreat back home with their parents or other family members because they can not afford to pay all of their bills and they have no workable recourse under the law. They have no recourse under the law because the current Bankruptcy Law favors creditors and makes it difficult to discharge debt especially if you are a home owner.

Due to the current law people are locked into a debt structure and have no opportunity for relief so they could be forced to choose between paying their mortgage payments or their grocery bill. People are losing their homes because they can not afford to make their mortgage payments and the rest of their daily bills. One good way to give people permanent relief is to give them a chance to get out from under their debts if it becomes too much for them to bear. That is why the current Bankruptcy Law must be changed.

Under the current Bankruptcy Law many hard working people that can no longer pay all of their bills are forced into a Chapter 13 repayment system that may still saddle them with a repayment plan that they still can not make. This should be changed immediately!!!

A few changes to the current Law could mean relief for millions of people that are being forced out of their homes because they can no longer make all the payments on their daily debt. 1) The Law should be changed to provide a federal homestead exemption of at least $25,000 or the state exemption, whichever is higher. The homestead exemptions could also be increased at the state level by the state legislatures. 2) The Law should be changed to shift the burden of proving fraud from the filer to the creditors by eliminating the means test. 3) The Law should be changed to remove the prohibition of people with “high incomes” from being able to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7 when they have high non-dischargeable debts such as student loans and/or child support. 4) The Law should be changed back to valuing property by what it could be sold for at an emergency sale. 5) The Law should be changed to remove the requirement that people that file bankruptcy under Chapter 13 have to give a portion of their income to the IRS, instead of just submitting a repayment plan to the trustee.

The American people should require all of the Presidential Candidates to address the Bankruptcy issue along with the mortgage crisis. We should also make every senator and representative that voted for the current Bankruptcy Law to explain their vote. They should also be required to explain why they voted for a law that was labeled as The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, but instead was the Credit Card Industry Protection Act of 2005.

The Banking and Credit Card Industries gave more than $100 million dollars in political donations to lawmakers between 1999 and 2005. The credit card and banking industries said they needed the changes because they were saddled with annual losses of $3-4 billion due to well-off consumers taking advantage of loopholes in the old law to rack up and walk away from unpaid loans. Yet, they still retained enough profits to be able to make such huge political donations over a six year period. The reality is that the lawmakers that voted for the current Bankruptcy Law chose moneyed interests over the best interests of the American people and now we as a country are suffering the consequences. Maybe it is time that we as a country turned the tables and forced our lawmakers to correct their mistake.