Jerry Falwell is a man of accomplishment, a man of passion and faith. These things are evident. His civic mindedness is admirable. However, a vote for a Republican is not a vote for Jesus. Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, and on and on, prove that Republican's are not exception to the rule that man falls short of the glory. Falwell says he would like to take America back to a time such as his youth in the 30's and 40's, an era, he believes, when America was guided by a moral value system. Of course, the good Reverend was quick to point out that he wouldn't want the segregation of his native south to be a part of that flashback. I wonder... See that thinking is flawed from the first thought. The moral compass of America was never all that moral. One cannot return to a past Reverend Falwell calls moral, then have the audacity to want to leave out the demonic nature of discrimination. For the very foundation and system of the country to be in cahoots with racists, the original terror organization known as the Ku Klux Klan and other such organizations, politicians and law enforcement that legislated 2nd class status and a failure to protect and serve all citizens of the country, reveals, blatantly, a lack of moral authority. There was no justice in blacks only and white's only, the "strange fruit" swinging from southern trees in Billie Holiday's song or Japanese internment camps in the early 40's. There's enough injustice to go around that makes Falwell's rationalization of a moral America, hypocritical or outright blind.
The truth is that God, in the bible, gave every man free will to believe in the miracle of Jesus. No one was forced and while it is every Christian's job to conform themselves to the example set by Jesus, it is not our job to sit in judgement of others, nor force our will upon others, the same way a Christian would not want the belief system of another forced upon us. Leaders of nations are appointed by God. This is scriptural fact. Whether we like the leadership we eventually receive or not, Christians, as believers in the word of God, must understand and accept this sometimes bitter pill. I would not mind seeing prayer in public schools, while at the same time I agree to a woman's right to choose. If abortion is truly a hot button topic for conservatives then sex education better become a serious lecture topic in junior high and high schools. Abstinence for children unable to deal with unwanted pregnancies is ideal, but is not realistic in this era of civilization; a world that biblicially, is spinning toward an end full of pestilence, wars and rumors of wars amongst other chilling visions issued from the book of Revelation.
If Jerry Falwell does not advocate certain behaviors or people in his home, I am all for his right to run his house as he sees fit. What the Reverend need understand, however, is that the White House belongs to every American, even those he finds disagreement with in terms of spiritual outlook or specific lifestyles, and the occupant of that White House must build consensus and provide a place of comfort, compassion and vibrancy to all Americans.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
THE BALLOT, SO WHY THE BULLET?
The Democratic party at some point in the nation's history overtook the Republican party for control as the party of the "common man," the doer of good deeds, the free thinker, the social justice manufacturer. Black American's more than many others became the trusted confidante of any Democratic candidate at the local, state or national level. Today, the Democratic party has taken that confidence for granted and African-America has fallen into a trap of familiarity that damages progress.
The Republican party, with it's economic and social paradigms of do-it-yourself, seems to have not taken into account or dealt in a real way with the foundation America was built on. A foundation one of their own, Abraham Lincoln, found to be wanting when he, despite his political reasons, put an end to slavery and backed that sentiment with the civil war. Today's version of the Republican party has itself to blame for the distrustful and cyncical gaze cast upon it by the black community. However, this reality should not be a free card to Democrats. Black voters will never get the best of any politician or political system until Democratic candidates are made to acknowledge, through action, issues of import across large sections of black America. Should a Republican candidate be the one to address these issues, in a way that makes sense, black voters owe it to ourselves to listen, and yes, vote for this candidate, in spite of what the traditional thought lines are regarding the GOP amongst many in African-America.
Some politicos might say issues are addressed during every election as it relates to labor, gender, and racial issues. However, the type of acknowledgement Americans of all stripes needs from their politicians is not the standard political talk; slogans, catch phrases, and buzz words that taste good, but leave their patrons malnourished. Black America needs some meat on the bones of candidate offerings. Education, health care, a living wage and equality always seem to be issues revolving in the orbit of black America. We need plans; a direct way for community objectives to be accomplished. If presidential candidates are not offering this then black people need to pass on their candidacy and move on to the next option.
As shredded as the relationship between a throng of black America and Republicans has become, the black voter needs to, at least, take in what the Republican potentials are saying, as well as the Independent candidates. Black America must become a well rounded voter in 2008 or be faced with a knowledge of problems that are not going to be solved in a manner timely enough for children, parents or neighborhoods.
Like the stunning girl hovering in the shadows of a red-light house party, black voters will have to play hard to get to see the agenda of politicians change. In making black votes a fluid entity instead of money in the bank the black agenda will become more important than it has been in some time. If one disputes the importance of black America all they need to do is look at the state of public education in inner-city America, unemployment in inner-city America and working poverty in inner-city America. If the black agenda, which calls for an address and quick change of these circumstances, was important, there would be qualified teachers leading class rooms, school buildings that are in repair instead of dis-repair, meaningful tax relief for the shrinking middle class and a living wage for those who work one job, two job, three job, four, to make ends meet, yet have no official health coverage outside of substandard care at county facilities.
The ballot has overtaken the bullet, but today, black voters, who will not present themselves as a people to be courted and catered to, by politicians across party lines, have taken the bullet and shot ourselves in the foot.
The Republican party, with it's economic and social paradigms of do-it-yourself, seems to have not taken into account or dealt in a real way with the foundation America was built on. A foundation one of their own, Abraham Lincoln, found to be wanting when he, despite his political reasons, put an end to slavery and backed that sentiment with the civil war. Today's version of the Republican party has itself to blame for the distrustful and cyncical gaze cast upon it by the black community. However, this reality should not be a free card to Democrats. Black voters will never get the best of any politician or political system until Democratic candidates are made to acknowledge, through action, issues of import across large sections of black America. Should a Republican candidate be the one to address these issues, in a way that makes sense, black voters owe it to ourselves to listen, and yes, vote for this candidate, in spite of what the traditional thought lines are regarding the GOP amongst many in African-America.
Some politicos might say issues are addressed during every election as it relates to labor, gender, and racial issues. However, the type of acknowledgement Americans of all stripes needs from their politicians is not the standard political talk; slogans, catch phrases, and buzz words that taste good, but leave their patrons malnourished. Black America needs some meat on the bones of candidate offerings. Education, health care, a living wage and equality always seem to be issues revolving in the orbit of black America. We need plans; a direct way for community objectives to be accomplished. If presidential candidates are not offering this then black people need to pass on their candidacy and move on to the next option.
As shredded as the relationship between a throng of black America and Republicans has become, the black voter needs to, at least, take in what the Republican potentials are saying, as well as the Independent candidates. Black America must become a well rounded voter in 2008 or be faced with a knowledge of problems that are not going to be solved in a manner timely enough for children, parents or neighborhoods.
Like the stunning girl hovering in the shadows of a red-light house party, black voters will have to play hard to get to see the agenda of politicians change. In making black votes a fluid entity instead of money in the bank the black agenda will become more important than it has been in some time. If one disputes the importance of black America all they need to do is look at the state of public education in inner-city America, unemployment in inner-city America and working poverty in inner-city America. If the black agenda, which calls for an address and quick change of these circumstances, was important, there would be qualified teachers leading class rooms, school buildings that are in repair instead of dis-repair, meaningful tax relief for the shrinking middle class and a living wage for those who work one job, two job, three job, four, to make ends meet, yet have no official health coverage outside of substandard care at county facilities.
The ballot has overtaken the bullet, but today, black voters, who will not present themselves as a people to be courted and catered to, by politicians across party lines, have taken the bullet and shot ourselves in the foot.
THE PROBLEM OF BASEBALL
Once upon a time existed a game where men hit a stitched leather ball with polished lumber and ran across dirt and grass like children free to play in the sunshine. This game was played across America and became the pastime of a nation; Baseball. With the World Baseball Classic quickly approaching it seems appropriate for a thought on the state of the game and why it has fallen out of favor in many parts of America.
When I was child growing up in Upstate New York and the mid-Atlantic, I had a Louisville Slugger, several gloves and a New York Yankees jersey that I wore proudly as an Easter Sunday suit and tie. I heard stories of Baseball greats, including my Uncle Ted, who would eventually be voted into the Western New York Baseball Hall of Fame. And I was far from unique. My friends in the neighborhood, black, white and Hispanic all owned the necessities to get a game on. Between quadruple-headers we’d trade baseball cards, “I’ll give you a Bill Matlock, Dave Parker and ‘Pops’ Stargell for “Yaz.” It wasn’t long before a fresh stick of gum thrown in would close the deal. It was kids’ business and in the summer months, a daily occurrence. On any empty field one could find boys and the odd young lady out pitching and catching nine innings. So how did a game that had once operated on the status quo of institutionalized racism, then transformed into a catalyst of social change through Branch Rickey and Mr. Jackie Robinson, fall into a state of irrelevance in the American social conscience? Arrogance.
Baseball’s highest officials ceased working to attract new fans in an era of infinite sporting options and a fast food pop culture that holds history in slight regard. Many corporations have learned that lesson and have taken to marketing and positioning themselves into the social fabric of America. This is why the MTV’s and PlayStation’s of the world have usurped baseball for entertainment value cache with young America. This is why the National Football League has taken over the television ratings as the most popular sport amongst sports viewers and the Super Bowl has bumped the World Series down to third world status. Baseball has a puritanical fan base and die hard lighthouse keepers in George Will, Thomas Boswell, Peter Gammons’ and others who maintain the history of the game. But history doesn’t exist in the future and for baseball to flourish it must find new fans, new first love’s. Basketball and Football jerseys have been commandeered by Hip Hop nation a wardrobe choice saluting the historical past and respected present of those athletes. Rarely does one see a baseball jersey in the inner city or suburbs, and ever more rare is the sight of children filling sandlots with baseball games. Those lots have become empty shrines to what was and a nod that PlayStation, X-Box and other video game systems have taken “outside” from our youth. This is another burgeoning problem for America, but one symptomatic of a problem baseball seems to hide from. If a child is playing a video game, specifically a sports based video game, it seven out of ten times in Madden NFL or NBA Live.
Ratings for Major League Baseball’s fall showcase, The World Series, are half of what they were twenty years ago and have been on the decline for the past five years. Nascar’s claim of being the second most watched sport of American sports viewers goes to show how far baseball has fallen. Major League Executive Vice President of Business, Tim Brosnan argued that baseball, indeed, was the second most watched sport after football. This argument would have been preposterous as little as fifteen years ago. It’s a sad indicator of baseball’s current circumstance that its highest ranking officials can be challenged by a sport such as NASCAR, that is clearly popular, but hardly athletically dynamic or cosmopolitan. Even more telling is that baseball is willing to engage in an argument as to what sport is number two. The national pastime in a debate over which sport is most popular behind football? That would have been unheard of at the time of my birth. There would have been no question as to baseball’s dominance. And only fans in New England seem to be able to maintain the singular passion for baseball that once belonged to the entire nation.
So what to do? Baseball must implement marketing campaigns that allow potential new customers to get to know its players. It can be argued that the always valuable 18-25 year old set would be hard pressed to name the ten best players on baseball diamonds today. Baseball’s only effective marketing campaign was not chosen, but put upon them by a media’s attempts to “out” players and toss them into the firestorm that the steroid scandal became. Baseball writers, fans and purists must exist less in the minutiae of statistics, averages, percentages and history and recognize that seasonal accounting and a rich past does not buy the sport a future. This seems lost on Commissioner Bud Selig who has been criticized over a myriad of public relations gaffes over the years.
Providing a vision of what baseball is and can still be will be Selig’s legacy or undoing if he fails to lead the sport back to it’s rightful prominence in the canon of athletics. As for now, the state of the game is rich in contracts, but poor in interest from those fans it needs most; new fans who are watching MTV and playing video games and cannot even name baseball’s top all-stars, let alone tell anyone what a perfect game is.
When I was child growing up in Upstate New York and the mid-Atlantic, I had a Louisville Slugger, several gloves and a New York Yankees jersey that I wore proudly as an Easter Sunday suit and tie. I heard stories of Baseball greats, including my Uncle Ted, who would eventually be voted into the Western New York Baseball Hall of Fame. And I was far from unique. My friends in the neighborhood, black, white and Hispanic all owned the necessities to get a game on. Between quadruple-headers we’d trade baseball cards, “I’ll give you a Bill Matlock, Dave Parker and ‘Pops’ Stargell for “Yaz.” It wasn’t long before a fresh stick of gum thrown in would close the deal. It was kids’ business and in the summer months, a daily occurrence. On any empty field one could find boys and the odd young lady out pitching and catching nine innings. So how did a game that had once operated on the status quo of institutionalized racism, then transformed into a catalyst of social change through Branch Rickey and Mr. Jackie Robinson, fall into a state of irrelevance in the American social conscience? Arrogance.
Baseball’s highest officials ceased working to attract new fans in an era of infinite sporting options and a fast food pop culture that holds history in slight regard. Many corporations have learned that lesson and have taken to marketing and positioning themselves into the social fabric of America. This is why the MTV’s and PlayStation’s of the world have usurped baseball for entertainment value cache with young America. This is why the National Football League has taken over the television ratings as the most popular sport amongst sports viewers and the Super Bowl has bumped the World Series down to third world status. Baseball has a puritanical fan base and die hard lighthouse keepers in George Will, Thomas Boswell, Peter Gammons’ and others who maintain the history of the game. But history doesn’t exist in the future and for baseball to flourish it must find new fans, new first love’s. Basketball and Football jerseys have been commandeered by Hip Hop nation a wardrobe choice saluting the historical past and respected present of those athletes. Rarely does one see a baseball jersey in the inner city or suburbs, and ever more rare is the sight of children filling sandlots with baseball games. Those lots have become empty shrines to what was and a nod that PlayStation, X-Box and other video game systems have taken “outside” from our youth. This is another burgeoning problem for America, but one symptomatic of a problem baseball seems to hide from. If a child is playing a video game, specifically a sports based video game, it seven out of ten times in Madden NFL or NBA Live.
Ratings for Major League Baseball’s fall showcase, The World Series, are half of what they were twenty years ago and have been on the decline for the past five years. Nascar’s claim of being the second most watched sport of American sports viewers goes to show how far baseball has fallen. Major League Executive Vice President of Business, Tim Brosnan argued that baseball, indeed, was the second most watched sport after football. This argument would have been preposterous as little as fifteen years ago. It’s a sad indicator of baseball’s current circumstance that its highest ranking officials can be challenged by a sport such as NASCAR, that is clearly popular, but hardly athletically dynamic or cosmopolitan. Even more telling is that baseball is willing to engage in an argument as to what sport is number two. The national pastime in a debate over which sport is most popular behind football? That would have been unheard of at the time of my birth. There would have been no question as to baseball’s dominance. And only fans in New England seem to be able to maintain the singular passion for baseball that once belonged to the entire nation.
So what to do? Baseball must implement marketing campaigns that allow potential new customers to get to know its players. It can be argued that the always valuable 18-25 year old set would be hard pressed to name the ten best players on baseball diamonds today. Baseball’s only effective marketing campaign was not chosen, but put upon them by a media’s attempts to “out” players and toss them into the firestorm that the steroid scandal became. Baseball writers, fans and purists must exist less in the minutiae of statistics, averages, percentages and history and recognize that seasonal accounting and a rich past does not buy the sport a future. This seems lost on Commissioner Bud Selig who has been criticized over a myriad of public relations gaffes over the years.
Providing a vision of what baseball is and can still be will be Selig’s legacy or undoing if he fails to lead the sport back to it’s rightful prominence in the canon of athletics. As for now, the state of the game is rich in contracts, but poor in interest from those fans it needs most; new fans who are watching MTV and playing video games and cannot even name baseball’s top all-stars, let alone tell anyone what a perfect game is.
ANGRY IS A BRAND THAT'S UNAFFORDABLE
The late and legendary soul singer Marvin Gaye sang about it. Its specter infests the Middle East and it breathes on America’s current political landscape, dividing citizens by party affiliations, ethnicities, genders, religions and sexual orientation. Anger. But what exactly is anger? And can it be ghettoized in the pantheon of emotions to an unwanted, third world status?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines anger as a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism. This word, this feeling, anger was politicized last week when GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman tagged New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as being too angry to win Presidential office. Anger, a natural emotion that allows us to express a profound displeasure has now stepped outside of being an indigenous part humanity, such as joy, sadness and the like, to being used as a label that thwarts difference of opinion and verbal discourse on issues of import. As with anger, the internal right to one’s own opinion spans from the beginnings of creation.
As America has traversed the era of political correctness we have become a different strain of humanity. Not a nation of critical thinkers that American history likes to portray us as being; the descendents of the Benjamin Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, Albert Einsteins and Martin Luther Kings, but a body of citizens who have become thin-skinned to dissent and disingenuous in our efforts to avoid those who would boldly disagree with our ways of thinking. Anger has become a label attached to differing viewpoints much like the letter given Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel, The Scarlett Letter; “A”, not for adultery, but for angry.
The anger label has become an effective way for those in authority to conquer challenges to methods of operation, difference in opinion or alternative viewpoints. Corporate CEO’s speak of ex-employees being disgruntled, once those employees expose inequities in business operations. Women who seek the right to the self-determination of their own bodies are referred to as “angry” amongst other things by right to life proponents.
The stereotype of the angry black man has long been used to lessen the effectiveness of African-American leadership in their denouncing of racism by those who seek to keep the status quo or possibly even worse, those who have no agenda and are afraid to deal with confrontation on any level. This inability or unwillingness to deal with a discourse of difference is becoming America’s unheralded, yet growing weakness.
Labels pertaining to race, sexuality, gender and economic class have been used for centuries. Now this fact has crossed over to the world of emotions, as the label of “angry” has taken its place in the gallery of social construct and robs America of critical thought at grassroots levels on up. One is free to express their opinion, but in today’s climate face the danger of being dismissed with the tag of angry. This label doesn’t allow for progress. It hangs on with a death grip to the status quo without grappling with the possibility of newer, more appropriate ways of proceeding with political policy, social interactions or personal affiliations. This label has become a crutch that Americans need to quickly dispatch with if we are, as a nation, to walk into our future with clarity. Americans are not served by a culture that seeks to turn tables on the issues at hand by labeling dissenters and thereby lessening the impact of the opinion in this era of put-on political correctness. What this strategy truly does is absolves the labeler from their own opinions; a sort of short-hand denial of self-reflection where people refuse to take stock of their beliefs in relation to the challenge being presented or what their opinions say about them in a broader social context.
Casting opponents as angry has become a symbolic hiding place for those wishing to escape the possible effectiveness of true political-social discourses and it is up to American citizens to avoid this game of hide and seek. Holding public officials as well as individuals to a standard of discourse that will lead to self-reflection and an ear that is willing to listen to voices that do not agree with institutional or individual positions. If not, America faces the danger of becoming a nation unable to deal effectively with verbal dissent, which is the greatest right America offers to her citizenship. This lack of critical thought is a dam blocking the current of possibility in what is billed as a free society. But please don’t close the paper. I assure you, I am not angry.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines anger as a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism. This word, this feeling, anger was politicized last week when GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman tagged New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as being too angry to win Presidential office. Anger, a natural emotion that allows us to express a profound displeasure has now stepped outside of being an indigenous part humanity, such as joy, sadness and the like, to being used as a label that thwarts difference of opinion and verbal discourse on issues of import. As with anger, the internal right to one’s own opinion spans from the beginnings of creation.
As America has traversed the era of political correctness we have become a different strain of humanity. Not a nation of critical thinkers that American history likes to portray us as being; the descendents of the Benjamin Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, Albert Einsteins and Martin Luther Kings, but a body of citizens who have become thin-skinned to dissent and disingenuous in our efforts to avoid those who would boldly disagree with our ways of thinking. Anger has become a label attached to differing viewpoints much like the letter given Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel, The Scarlett Letter; “A”, not for adultery, but for angry.
The anger label has become an effective way for those in authority to conquer challenges to methods of operation, difference in opinion or alternative viewpoints. Corporate CEO’s speak of ex-employees being disgruntled, once those employees expose inequities in business operations. Women who seek the right to the self-determination of their own bodies are referred to as “angry” amongst other things by right to life proponents.
The stereotype of the angry black man has long been used to lessen the effectiveness of African-American leadership in their denouncing of racism by those who seek to keep the status quo or possibly even worse, those who have no agenda and are afraid to deal with confrontation on any level. This inability or unwillingness to deal with a discourse of difference is becoming America’s unheralded, yet growing weakness.
Labels pertaining to race, sexuality, gender and economic class have been used for centuries. Now this fact has crossed over to the world of emotions, as the label of “angry” has taken its place in the gallery of social construct and robs America of critical thought at grassroots levels on up. One is free to express their opinion, but in today’s climate face the danger of being dismissed with the tag of angry. This label doesn’t allow for progress. It hangs on with a death grip to the status quo without grappling with the possibility of newer, more appropriate ways of proceeding with political policy, social interactions or personal affiliations. This label has become a crutch that Americans need to quickly dispatch with if we are, as a nation, to walk into our future with clarity. Americans are not served by a culture that seeks to turn tables on the issues at hand by labeling dissenters and thereby lessening the impact of the opinion in this era of put-on political correctness. What this strategy truly does is absolves the labeler from their own opinions; a sort of short-hand denial of self-reflection where people refuse to take stock of their beliefs in relation to the challenge being presented or what their opinions say about them in a broader social context.
Casting opponents as angry has become a symbolic hiding place for those wishing to escape the possible effectiveness of true political-social discourses and it is up to American citizens to avoid this game of hide and seek. Holding public officials as well as individuals to a standard of discourse that will lead to self-reflection and an ear that is willing to listen to voices that do not agree with institutional or individual positions. If not, America faces the danger of becoming a nation unable to deal effectively with verbal dissent, which is the greatest right America offers to her citizenship. This lack of critical thought is a dam blocking the current of possibility in what is billed as a free society. But please don’t close the paper. I assure you, I am not angry.
STAR SPANGLED CANDIDATES
As the 2008 Presidential campaign trail gets more crowded, the Superville Review will be researching the main players and bit performers who want to be our fearless leader. Democrats to Republicans to Independents will be perused and critiqued. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)