Will Ideology Block Possible Economic Assistance?

Well, it’s the start of a new month, and hopefully, the start of warmer weather and political tidings in Washington…the kind of potential issue that Beyond The Political Spectrum was created to explore. However, my suspicions are that last night’s piece on CBS’ 60 Minutes about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal—a rising star of the Republican Party—will portent the usual amount of acrimony in national political discourse that we’ve seen over the years.
Why do I say this? Because Jindal, along with the governors of South Carolina, Idaho, Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas all question whether or not the nearly $800 billion earmarked for the economic stimulus plan championed and signed almost 2 weeks ago by President Obama will work to stimulate the country’s ailing economy. For this reason, most of these same governors say (ostensibly) that they will not accept [some] portions of the stimulus fund money. Although this is a valid concern, avoiding anything short of full compliance with implementing the plan smacks more of politics than statesmanship by these governors, especially given the unprecedented nature of not only the country’s current economic situation, but those of the very same states where these governors serve the interests of the people.

Rising political star among conservatives, Republican Govenor Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, along with others opposes the stimulus plan

What can it hurt to support the stimulus plan? If it fails, opponents can justify their stance without the taint of trying to sabotage it by choosing not to accept all of the financial assistance the money is intended to provide; the president and his supporters would be forced to eat crow, and Republicans could then ride another 1994-like wave back into power and show us how the economy should be dealth with. If it succeeds, then the country is better off, and the people can get on with their lives of the living-by-credit and paycheck-to-paycheck status quo that was the reality prior to the now 15-month long economic downturn.
A cynical analysis would conclude that these governors—all Republicans—are putting their political party’s ideology, along with possible political aspirations of a 2012 White House run in ahead of the immediate needs of the people of their respective states. This cynicism could be supported, in a sense by Jindal’s revelation in the 60 Minutes interview, that he considers the late former President Ronald Reagan to have written the book on creating a healthy economy, ideologically speaking. And when pressed about his future aspirations as to a potential White House run, Jindal simply answered “I have the job I want (as governor).” In political parlance, that translates to “I’m leaving my options open…but I don’t want to telegraph my intentions just yet.” Sounds somewhat justified.
And aside from their beliefs that the stimulus plan may fail are their individual arguments. For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s concern “is there’s going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long.” As my teenager nieces would say, “Well, duh…” What money from the federal government doesn’t have some strings attached? How much more different is this aspect of the stimulus package than other federal funds sent to the states? If any of these governors “sees” any difference between the attached “strings” of the economic stimulus package and other funds distributed by the feds to the states, then it is as surely as an ulterior motive in politics to be a perspective that is politically inspired. This is especially true considering that built-in provisions in the stimulus package allows for state legislatures to accept any money that their governors reject; these governors could reject the money and still look like staunch conservatives in front of their core ideological constituents.
It seems that upon simply examining possible options, any reservations that the governors of the various states in questions have do not stand up to the yardstick of impartial or justified concern. Consider Mississippi’s Haley Barbour’s contention that accepting unemployment dollars offered up by the stimulus package would “force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out.” Is it too difficult for a state’s legislature to enact fiscal policies tied to spending any stimulus-related money that wouldn’t interfere with its mandated use and distribution? Come on…what happened to the thinking and problem solving acumen that conservatives were supposed to be so noted for?
So, as a public service to those of a particular ideological bent who do not want to appear to be (irresponsibly so) putting their personal aspirations or petty dogmas ahead of the needs of their constituents, I have a simple suggestion for those governors even thinking about not accepting any money from the president’s economic stimulus package…simply give your portion of it to the other states which are experiencing similar economic issues. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind taking it…just offer it up to states with economies on life support like Michigan and California. Just simply ignore the fact that your own state economies are pretty much in the same crapper as those of many other states who could benefit from your generosity and selfless philanthropy. Only then can I and others across the country accept that your reservations are devoid of selfishness.

Read More

Special Education in Public School (Or "Who's Pimping Our Kids?") Pt. 2

Continued from Part 1 (http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search/label/Entitlements)


And make no mistake about it…money is at the root of why budget-conscious school officials and parents of many low-income special education students seem to sanction this system of handcuffing their children’s futures. However the parents of many special education students—those directly responsible for their material and psychological well-being—and indirectly responsible for the decisions of school boards—are the most responsible for prostituting children for money.
With poverty rates and limited means of income being realities in many urban and inner-city (as well as a few rural) areas, money in any form, from any quarter has a level of value that transcends its intrinsic economic worth. And with many fathers absent in these same areas, single mothers, the more responsible of among those being overwhelmed simply trying to maintain body and soul, are left to care for children. The problem arises when these and other socioeconomic factors converge to create both conditions and opportunities for exploiting these students, even among those single parents who responsible and well-intentioned.
Now while I’m no psychologist, I know that people, children especially tend to learn at different speeds along a spectrum ranging from retardation to gifted. And just as there are variations in learning concepts, there are variations in personality traits along a similar spectrum that range from rare to the all-too-common. But too many parents confuse the most uncommon of these attributes with a “learning disability.” And, for whatever reason(s), obliging medical specialists tend to too easily diagnose any number of individual behaviors as representing “mental impairment”…and by extension, “learning impaired.” In response to this growing definition of a “disability,” the Social Security Administration in the early 1990s expanded the list of qualifying mental impairments for children that merited (a corruption of the word my personal experiences with special education) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments from the Social Security Administration. For many irresponsible single parents, any deviation from “normal” (i.e., “common”) behavior was seen as a potential diagnosis of some mental and/or behavior affliction worthy of SSI payments…”free money.” In more than a few cases, a diagnosis of ADD, ADHD, or any number of behavioral “disorders” are nothing more than cases of irresponsible or lazy parenting (somewhat understandable given the high incidence of stable households, absent fathers, and actual time to parent considering the need to sometimes work multiple jobs). In many areas of the country, these monthly payments made in the name of children with true mental/learning impairments as well as those who simply needs their hides tanned are euphemistically (sometimes pejoratively) called “crazy checks.
The entire motive of money helped me to understand the counterproductive policies I saw (and continue to see) in place, and the incentive that many parents have for maintaining a defense of this status quo. It helps me understand why there is no consistent attendance policy for special education students, many of them so disruptive and unruly that the teacher’s themselves don’t so much as bat an eyelash at their noticeable classroom absences; just so long as their “attendance” continues to garner state and federal funding. And on a related note, it helped me to understand why parents of disruptive students are so eager to come to their “special” child’s defense whenever a suspension or expulsion a possibility; in order to continue to receive “crazy checks,” a requirement of school attendance is mandated in many cases for these children. I experienced teenage felons—some with serious charges that included sexual assault, home invasion, and drug charges—being forced on teachers simply because their parents raised enough hell behind a principal’s closed door. I now understand why many teachers receive such a bad rap “for not educating our youth,” when many of our youth are simply not teachable in any traditional setting given the many distractions and systemic dysfunctions of their home environments. I understood how and why many parents of special education students have once-a-month (in the form of “crazy checks”) incentives to not make serious attempts to redress their children’s “disabilities.” Around the 3rd of every month, the day when SSI payments are received, I (and I’ll wager many of the teachers) got a respite from the stress many of these students caused us due to their skipping class to go to the store with their mothers to purchase new clothes, shoes, and other un-necessities. It was and continues to be striking to me that SSI payments are rarely, if ever used to pay for additional courses which would go a long ways toward addressing “learning impairment” in these children. It seems to me that the money would be better used in the form of a voucher for private and/or supplemental tutoring for these “learning disabled” children…Heaven knows the Ritalin isn’t enough. To many parents, these “special” children are financial mother lodes. I have seen in a few cases where all the siblings in entire families (including first cousins) are diagnosed to the point where the family is granted SSI for every child. Again, while I’m no clinical psychologist, I’m sure that families where every sibling is diagnosed as having impaired behavior issues speaks more to family and social dysfunction than to an organic cause.
My personal prescriptions for addressing this issue—which I’m sure most are not going to like—of those who would pimp our kids for the money their “special” status affords them is to simply take the “pimps” out of the equations. Disciple should be meted out according to a uniform set of state-mandated guidelines (or federal if states should be found lacking). In-class/in-school offenses that warrant arrest should result in automatic expulsions...no exceptions. Teachers have a hard enough time working under normal conditions. We don’t need to burden them additionally with jungle warfare-level worries about being attacked by students who know good and well that they can’t be struck back, or who know that they will be simply slapped on the wrist and sent back to the scene of their crimes. Personally, I would go so far as to create a database for those same students, so that they will not be able to just leave one district and go cause trouble in another. Other lesser offenses would be treated the same, not on a basis of how overbearing a parent can be. The responsibility for discipline needs to be taken out of the haves of administrators who are blinded by dollar signs
On a more direct front, parents need to be held not only accountable, but legally responsible for their children’s behavior. If they are willing to accept any benefits from their children’s diagnoses, then they should be also just as willing to accept any liabilities stemming from the same. Physiological capacity and freedom should not be the sole requirements to bear children; we allow individuals to enter the military at 18, become licensed drivers, get married, and drop out of school at 16 (in most states), but allow anyone at any age to have a child. Something about that doesn’t set right. And for many of the children borne to young and/or inexperienced and dysfunctional parents, you are reading the possible end result. We require pre-marriage counseling in many states, so why not the same for potential parents? Why not mandate parenting classes for those who would bring children to the world with little worldly experience themselves? The litmus test could be a combination of income, education (at least a complete high school education), and ability to provide materially and psychological welfare. Children whose parents do not undergo the prescribed counseling and classes risk having their children become wards of the state until they complete the requirements. Although I am a firm believer in individual liberty, it cannot be total and without restraint. If nothing else, the state of special education proves this.
Finally, the government should stay out of the business of interfering with child-rearing as it relates to punishment. Despite what New Age psychologists and sociologists say about them, there is nothing wrong with spanking. Children have rights, but they also have their place, and thinking that they are the equal of adults or questioning our judgment is not among them. Parents need to be afforded the right to discipline their children as they see fit, without abusing them. And before we start asking “Who says/What constitutes abuse,” maybe we should look to those sharp and witty social critics, Mathew Parker and Trey Stone.


Further Suggested Reading Related To Special Education

"Getting the Elephant Out of the Living Room: Finding Ways to Reduce the
Disproportionate Placement of Minority Students into Special Education"
Presentation at the OSEP Project Directors’ Conference 2006
Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2006).
Pedro Noguera, New York University
http://www.osep-meeting.org/2006conf/Presentations/Monday/4_Lunch/A_Keynote_PNoguera.ppt



"Keeping Black Boys Out of Special Education"
J. Kunjufu. (2005). African Images, Chicago, Illinois.
Reviewed by the African American Literature Book Club, Harlem, New York.

“This critical analysis looks at the disproportionate number of African American males in special education. Arguing that the problem is race and gender driven, questions covered include: (a) why does Europe send more females to special education?; (b) why does America lead the world in giving children Ritalin?; (c) is there a relationship between sugar, Ritalin, and cocaine?; and (d) is there a relationship between special education and prison? More than 100 strategies to help teachers and parents keep Black boys in the regular classroom are described, such as revising teacher expectations, increasing parental involvement, changing teaching styles from a left-brain abstract approach to a right brain hands-on approach, redoing the curriculum, understanding the impact of mass media, and fostering healthy eating habits.”
For purchase – Barnes & Noble:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn=0974900028

Read More

Special Education in Public School (Or "Who's Pimping Our Kids?") Pt. 1

About week ago, I found myself up late one night for no other reason than somehow my body’s timing was off (having taken an unplanned nap earlier that day, my usual sleep pattern was thrown out of kilter). Looking for something to nudge me back into my normal sleep pattern, I started flipping through the television channels only to locate a guilty pleasure of mine…South Park.
For those who know of the often controversial animated series, it uses bawdy, sometimes gutter humor to make social commentary about the often idiotic tendencies and beliefs we harbor as a society by skewering our most heartfelt beliefs via parody. On the night I was watching, Park was in rare form. Creators Matthew Parker and Trey Stone used their highly popular and successful vehicle to poke fun at an issue that is somewhat close to me…our predilection as a society to label any disruptive behavior found in our children with some alphabet-soup-laden title. In this particular episode, they focused on the absurdity of over diagnosing of children—at least in many kids—with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).



That episode of South Park sparked recollections of my personal experiences in the public education system over the years. During 2007 school year, I found myself in a long-term substitute teaching position student at an alternative public school for students who fell under the auspices of those needing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), more commonly known as “Special Education” students. Working with predominantly black and/or low-income student, to say that this particular experience was eye-opening would be something of a criminal understatement.
First, I have to say that most teachers work under conditions that would rival the military in terms of stress, the pressures to meet deadlines and create tangible results, and scrutiny from those who have no clue what such a vocation entails. And on this latter point, I would wager any amount of money that those who criticize teachers—especially those working in city/urban-type settings—would be pulling out their hairs if they were expected to work under such trying conditions. Further still, if they work with Special Education students, they should not only be knighted, but given sainthood, and have a special place in Heaven reserved for their eventual arrival; they are literally expected to turn water into wine…without the enjoyment. That having been said, and after my own experiences in the public school system, I reserve my own criticisms for others involved in the “education” of special needs students…students, their parents, and administrators/decision-makers.
Back in the day when I was an elementary school student in the public schools, those we called “Special Ed” students were those with obvious deficiencies…those who utilized special equipment to assist them in their regular day-to-day struggles such as wheelchairs, leg braces, electronic hearing aids, or in extreme cases, human assistants. In other cases, the special education students were those who had afflictions that we didn’t understand back then, but whose episodes would disrupt the learning process of the regular classrooms, such as Turret’s Syndrome or Epilepsy. They were all placed in a classroom at the far end of the school building. They rode the “special bus.” Granted, in retrospect this segregation (as it were) created a level of social stigma among the regular students, it was hard to ignore the kid who wore the football helmet all the time, even in the off season. But in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act mandated "free and appropriate public education" to all public school students with physical, mental, or behavioral disabilities. That wasn’t the problem.
The difference between then and now was the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which expanded the ‘75 act to include all children with disabilities—regardless of the type or severity of their disability—an education in the least restrictive environment. This essentially meant integrating “special needs” students with the general classroom (i.e., non-disabled students), with a minimal level of separation for special tutoring, instruction, or etc.
At issue is the expanding definition of what constitutes a “disability.” For example, there have been more than a few studies critical of the over diagnosis and the resulting over-prescribing of Ritalin for an increasing number of American children(http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9909/01/adhd.overdiagnosis/). For those significant number of cases where the diagnoses may not apply, it is suspected—and I’m very much inclined to believe—that these instances are nothing more than cases where parents don’t put their feet down insofar as punishment and direct parenting. In these cases, Ritalin should not be the first “remedy” of choice; I’ve always been partial to a more “natural” approach…a strong male father (or mother absent of the father) figure with the will and the legal sanction to use a hickory switch. While I’m far from the first person to believe that medical doctors, child psychologists, and other like professionals over diagnose and “discover” too many purported childhood behavior-related “disorders,” I am one of the few fortunate (or “unfortunate) enough to have experienced how such questionable medical practices adversely affects public education.
From my own experiences, integration creates a ready-made circus-like atmosphere in many classrooms, complete with “special” class clowns. The resulting dynamic is predictable; the focus of the teacher is shifted from instruction to maintaining classroom order and the attention of the already easily distracted class is commanded by disruptive “special education” students. And because of their special status, the disruptive students tend to be given a “pass” or light sanctions when their behavior warrants more. It doesn’t help that most parents are standing at the ready with a potential lawsuit cocked and loaded in the event that their “special” children are treated “differently than the other students.” And because of the increased levels of funding that special education students and programs which cater to them command from the states, it seems that there is a greater effort to keep them a part of the total student population, which further reinforces the kid-gloved treatment that they are given when it comes to their in-school behavior. The result is that learning suffers, grades and test scores suffer, and discipline suffers.
I can’t remember how many times I have seen the parents and guardians of disruptive students get phone calls from stressed-out and frustrated teachers about their child’s oftentimes reprehensible behavior, only to have those same parents return the teachers’ concerns with a chewing out, a justification, or an outright defense of their child’s behavior from these same parents. And of course, there is usually very little backing for the instructor’s recommendations from principalss and other administrators. The necessity of disciplining the unruly and/or instituting progressive actions meant to create a classroom atmosphere conducive to learning is irrelevant compared to the fear of giving upset parents any reason for either pulling these funding cash cows out of the school district—as if that were even likely in most low-income urban areas—or bringing legal actions against already cash-strapped school districts, no matter how frivolous, how much at fault lax parenting, or how undisciplined children contribute to this pathological dynamic of learning…such as it.

To Be Concluded...

Read More

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

With all the hubbub about potential financial meltdowns, skyrocketing unemployment numbers, and questionable wars taking up space front and center in the daily headlines, many of the news stories pushed into our peripheral vision are those which speak about who we are as a society…about where our individual and collective priorities lay. The following points represent what I call, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of our modern times.


The Good - For those of you who regularly watch any of the daily network news programs, or who pay a visit to Beyond The Spectrum’s sister page on You Tube, you have undoubtedly noticed what a black eye Wall Street and other financial institutions have given themselves of late. With hat-in-hand, many of these institutions came begging to the federal government for an infusion of taxpayer money meant to provide stabilize as a result of their bad business investments, chief among them loaning money to risky borrowers en masse. At the same time, the CEO’s and other high ranking employees of these financially teetering institutions were giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses and other perks of excess.
However, flying under the radar of cloud of bad news was the very good deed of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A self-made millionaire, Bloomberg, according to the most recent release of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the donated some $235 million dollars of his own money to over 1,200 different charities in 2008, making him the most single charitable donor in the United States. So we tip our hats off to His Honor. It’s nice to see that there is still some humanity left among America’s financially blessed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/nyregion/27bloomberg.html?_r=1&sq=philanthropy&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print

The Bad – Actually, two stories tied notoriety for this category, both coming from Michigan. The first is the death of a 93-year-old man; not an unusual expectation given his advanced age. However, it is the manner of death that is most telling about what our priorities as a society. Mr. Marvin Schur (I prefers to use his full name and title, at least to preserve some dignity in the face of his ignominious passing), according the Oakland County Medical Examiner, froze to death in his Bay City, Michigan home a few days after having his home’s electrical consumption limited by the local power utility for $1,000 in unpaid bills, not totally unexpected (again) due to his advanced age and limited income.
According to the neighbor who found Schur’s body, “his furnace was not running, the insides of his windows ere full of ice the morning we found him.” I guess America consumes not just it’s young.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_re_us/frozen_indoors

The second piece of bad news from the state which currently has the highest unemployment rate (and as if it could tolerate more bad news) was the idiotic ruling by the state’s Court of Appeals. In a case brought by Lansing School District middle school teachers, the court ruled that disciplinary actions taken against students are [exclusively] within the school local school board. The case is based on the actions of the local board who failed to expel students for assaulting teachers by throwing chairs at them; they were simply suspended and allowed to return some time afterwards. For those who criticize the effectiveness of our public schools for preparing our children academically to compete in a globally-integrated and competitive economy, consider the conditions they are forced to work under.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990128052

The Ugly-Finally, the soap opera that has become Illinois politics is finally over. Late yesterday, the Illinois House voted to impeach now ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich. Days before yesterday’s action, the disgraced Blagojevich had gone on a Hail Mary PR blitz in an effort to save his job. Accused of attempting to sell now President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat, he had hired a Tampa-based PR firm—the same one contracted by social pariah and suspected wife murderer, former police sergeant Drew Peterson—to create a campaign designed to win over American sympathy in the face of then-mounting calls for him to step down. Perhaps what made his ill-conceived media blitz to alter his public image ugly was his protestation that his “persecution” put him in the same company as “Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Ghandi.” Furthermore, there was the “revelation” that he was going to offer the seat to talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, which even Stevie Wonder could see she was never going to accept, but opted to select another high-profile African-American, Roland Burris to replace Obama). But upon looking at the debacle objectively, unseen was the apparent pattern of invoking high profiles African-American names in his attempt to gain public favor. I submit the reason for this was due to African-Americans’ sense of undying loyalty to the Democratic Party as well as their sense of forgiving and [re-] embracing unsavory types.
After his acquittal in the mid 1990’s former football great O.J Simpson was cheered and embraced by the black community; he even traveled around the country, speaking at predominantly black churches. Michael Jackson was given the same treatment after his acquittal of molestation charges, and, in like fashion, was well-received at black churches. In a more related example, ex-Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry was re-elected and re-embraced by the people of the overwhelmingly black and Democratic nation’s capital, despite having been convicted of federal charges related to his often-seen video tape of his smoking crack in a hotel room with an undercover informant. Clearly, Blagojevich has not only been watched over the past couple months, but he has been watching as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6723687&page=1

Read More

Black Males & the “Obama Effect”

The day after the 2008 Elections, Beyond The Spectrum briefly—albeit cynically—explored the possibility of whether the successful election of Barack Obama would have a positive impact on the self-image of African-Americans in general, and male in particular. Given Obama’s stylish panache, professionalism, ability to articulate, and his upbringing—a narrative of the trials of single parenthood applicable to many such homes within the black community—there has been a lot made of what I shall call the “Obama Effect.” I define this would-be phenomenon as the potential for Obama’s current appeal and mainstream success to translate into inspiration among black males to the point where many would want to emulate him.
On this particular day, the Martin Luther King Holiday, and the day before the country’s first African-American takes the Oath of Office, it seems the urge to explore this notion has taken root among the mainstream media. On this morning’s National Public Radio’s (NPR) Morning Edition, Comedian Bill Cosby and noted psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussiant are interviewed on the subject of black male role models in the form of responsible black fathers
(listen to the podcast of this interview online at: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99546330&m=99546606).
For their part, the duo has been challenging the counter-productive negative self-images and mindsets that many lower-income blacks have in their 2007 book, Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. In fact, their co-authorship of this book (and high-profile spokesmen on the subject of negative black self-image) has found them making the rounds on many news programs, particularly since Cosby raised the ire of many traditional African-American leaders with his 2004 speech at an N.A.A.C.P. gala berating many self-defeating deficiencies within the black community, such speaking in Ebonics and associating good grades with “acting white.”
On this morning’s Today Show, NBC aired a couple of pieces with a similar overall theme. In one mini segment, Obama himself suggested that young black males should “pull your pants up,” a reference to the Urban-originated fashion “trend” of “sagging.” At the risk upsetting those wearing rose-colored glasses, I have my reservations as to whether Obama’s elegance will be a source of inspiration for those unfortunate young black males without the benefit of benevolent intervention, guidence, or self-motivation . My reservations come from the constant ignoring of rational thinking I find in many black urban males; consider fashion as an example.



Even before Obama, the black community was brimming with well-dressed black males of distinction. The beliefs, mannerisms, and overall demeanor of these would-be role models represented the gamut of socio-political thought; there was a potential role model for whatever social-political persuasion one sought to affiliate themselves with. On one end of the spectrum, mainstream role models such as community activists and pastors provides not only a spiritual base within the black community, but social activists such as Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X, both articulate and elegant in their own ways, represented those the more—relatively speaking—radical end of the role model spectrum.
Even today, many Hip-Hop moguls such as Jay-Z and 50 Cent have traded their previously preferred sense of street-inspired urban “gear” and gaudy “bling” for the more conservative look of tailored suits and ties. Among this latter set, the adoption of a more conservative approach to the symbolic trappings of success as well as adopting a more reserved behavior devoid of constant high-profile run-ins with the law signifies an evolution of thinking that the majority of Hip-Hop entrepreneurs have seemingly gone out of their way to ignore. And sadly, as Hip-Hop goes, so to does the mindset of those who idolize the counter-productive thinking and negative imagery of these individuals. Keeping in mind that “clothes make the man,” and that appearance is an indicator of the desire for success, the fact that so many black men fail to adopt a manner of dress that is conducive for success in a world where everyone else is seemingly passing them by in terms socioeconomic mobility, the issue seems to reflect that any effect which Obama could have as a factor for inspiration for a great deal of African-Americans is not forthcoming.
In this pathology of thinking, the advice and inspiration of the Cosbys and the Obamas, which many black parents are obviously failing notice or even emphasize is ignored, if not altogether marginalized within many segments of the black community. And until such time as many African-Americans learn to engage in meaningful introspection and dialogue as well as question their collective thinking as it relates to roles models, values, aspirations, and personal goals, pants will continue to “sag,” along with grades, and the hopes that under- and counter-productive black males will, instead of being inspired to look up will continue with to be infatuated with all things being “down” (pants included). Until such time, we can add the “Obama Effect” to other would-be pipe-dreams such as world peace, an end to world hunger, and the Cubs in the World Series.

Read More

Here Comes The Fuzz!

As a—for the most part—law abiding citizen, I am every bit a supporter of having a competent, professional police department protecting and serving us. It’s an often difficult, often thankless as well as dangerous profession that I myself would not want to perform. However as a minority male, seemingly always the target of questionable police actions, I must confess that my feelings are somewhat conflicted. Quite often, when I hear about instances of police misconduct such as the several high-profile examples in the news in recent times, I am torn between applauding their protection, and being appalled by the prospect of needing protection from them. Sadly, given the examples of unprofessional behavior exhibited by various police departments around the country, it’s not as if anyone’s hesitation to support all law enforcement activity isn’t without reason.


- This past Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the arrest of Morgan County Alabama Sheriff Greg Bartlett after skinny and underfed inmates testified that their ill-health and emaciated appearance was due to being fed illegally small food portions, ordered by Bartlett. Still more unbelievable was the fact that the Bartlett was acting totally within the limits of Alabama law, which permits letting sheriffs pocket money left over from feeding (or in this case, underfeeding) inmates, which he did to the tune of $212,000 over 3 years (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/national/main4706215.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4706215)


- On New Years Day in Oakland, California, unarmed Oscar Grant III was shot and killed by one of the city’s transit officers. What makes this tragedy stand out is that at least four transit riders who were witness to the shooting caught the incident on their cell phone cameras, which showed grant lying down on the pavement, handcuffed and apparently not resisting. This shooting led to civil unrest this week in downtown Oakland.





- In recent weeks in Berrien County, Michigan, county prosecutors were forced to petition the court to dismiss some 15 drug-related cases because of federal charges pending against a former police officer for, among other allegations, embezzling money and drugs from the Benton Harbor, Michigan police department. The officer in question, Andrew Collins, is alleged to have given false information in arrest reports as well as perjured testimony, which led to the dismissals.


Admittedly I’m no police officer, and as a consequence, am in no position to second guess the professional judgment of one, especially in crisis situations. However, I am aware of ethical human behavior and know that withholding meals from individuals to the point of ill-health, shooting unarmed men in already in custody, and stealing money & drugs do not require rocket-science-level thinking. As a society, we hold police officers to such a high level of esteem that we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in most cases, where their actions give pause for scrutiny. But one has to wonder that if tangible proof in the aforementioned (as well as other) cases were not available, would our predisposition to give these public servants the benefit of the doubt when it comes to acting within the law and the bounds of their duty blind us to official misconduct and dereliction of their duties? Even beyond wonder, a level of cynical scrutiny should be applied to this observation. Considering that police officers are fully aware that in this modern era of information and technological proliferation, dashboard-mounted video recorders, cell phone cameras, and internet-based websites that afford worldwide distribution of any newsworthy incident they are involved in, some bad apples still act with reckless and unprofessional abandon. It’s almost as if such a mindset reflects a level of arrogance that their more questionable actions will be not only understood by a public that is fear-ridden of being crime victims, but that such actions will be dismissed as being within the scope of their duty to “serve and protect.” It doesn’t help that police officers under such scrutiny will always fall back on the customary defense of, “You don’t understand what it’s like to be a police office (in a neighborhood where you’re not respected/liked).” Honestly I don’t, and I’ll wager that neither do most people who put their lives on the line on a daily basis. However, I do understand that anyone given discretion to act in defense of the law, who are armed with guns, tasers, nightsticks, body armor, backup, and other assorted implements capable of inflicting major injury or death are expected to act with a higher level of professional judgment and due care. Although no amount of training or screening can prevent every potential instance of police misconduct, such cases should signify a need to increase the standards and levels of training when it comes to recruiting police officers, especially in high crime areas. At the very least, a minimal of an Associates Degree should be required for those entrusted with protecting both their own lives as well as those of the public they serve, with perhaps an emphasis on sociology. Supplementing the education requirement should be ethics training, where failure would immediately disqualify a candidate. Probationary periods, where rookies are teamed up with veterans, should be extended. And (I know this one will elicit catcalls of disapproval) there should be a requirement that at least 50% of the street level police officers in any given area should be comprised of residents from that area. The logic of this last suggestion is that people from a particular area often have a particular view or insight of their neighborhood that outsiders would not. Finally, to prevent bad officers from hopping from one jurisdiction (where he/she is terminated for misconduct) only to find employment in another, there should be a national database listing such officers and their records, including reprimands, awards, and other performance distinctions. As a minority male, I am sad to say that I will never have the same admiration and respect for the police as I did when as a child. However, with a higher standard of qualifications for the police officers out there protecting my interests, I can at least gain a small level comfort knowing that the man or woman behind the badge won’t be as quick to mistake my reaching for my wallet as threat to his or her life…or my own.


What has your experience with the police been like? Post Comments.

Read More

Since We’re Bailing Out…

I suppose it’s somewhat symbolic that I have started writing this particular piece at 4 minutes to midnight on December 31. So as we leave what’s left of 2008, its hard not to reflect back on what has been a tumultuous year—something of a criminal understatement—in the financial world, culminating in scandals and bailouts.
In the coming year, not only can we anticipate more financial upheavals, but also attempts by state and local governments to stem this all-but-fated turmoil. But with all the talk bailouts, transfers of public funds intended to prop-up various failing institutions, and (possibly) embattled homeowners facing an avalanche of foreclosures, it seems that we are overlooking another possible candidate for a bailout: overburdened college graduates saddled with student loan debt.
Now before any of you Shelby Steele clones or Ayn Rand wannabes decide to slap me with the oh-so predictable label of “Socialist,” I am not talking about a wholesale bailout of everyone who’s ever taken out a student loan and failed to pay back this legal and moral obligation up to this point in time. What I’m suggesting is providing some relief to those who are being victimized by this current and unprecedented era of rapid changes in the marketplace that would have anyone hard-pressed to keep up as they struggle to survive.
Admittedly on the surface, this sounds like a ridiculous idea. But given the changing economic tides (and fortunes) of the nation, individuals—and families by extension—already fiscally fatigued from fighting the combined assault by the rising costs of consumer prices, loss of employment (due to off-shoring of labor/rapidly changing market trends), taxes, credit availability, and mortgage difficulties, are desperate for relief from just trying to stay in the shadow of the American Dream.
I’m not talking about helping to bail out irresponsible homeowners with risky credit ratings who shouldn't’t have been allowed anywhere near a mortgage application to begin with. What I’m suggesting is a morally sound level of financial assistance in the form of hardship-based debt forgiveness for those of us whom—it turns out—were sold a bill of goods insofar as the value of a college degree as it relates socioeconomic advancement. This is particularly true for those of us reared on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder who find ourselves waiting tables, sweeping floors, substitute teaching, or similarly and/or chronically underemployed instead of benefiting from an education meant to move us past our humble beginnings.
What I’m talking about specifically is a case-by-case analysis of each student in debt. Any debt relief should be contingent upon the total amount owed, the average annual income of the student since graduating college in relation to expected earning potential (all things being equal, only those who've actually graduated would be eligible, and even then, dependent on the aforementioned requirements), and an assessment of any and all honest attempts to make regular payments.
One form of a bailout for student loans recipients could be a graduated schedule, similar to the type used in one of the various repayment plans already in use. The level of forgiveness could be based on anticipated overall employment trends in relation to the likelihood that the debtor could conceivably find employment on a level which would enable both repayment the loans as well as afford modest level of living. In extreme cases, such as a history of chronic unemployment/underemployment, cutting the unpaid balance would go a long way toward helping those already struggling to make ends meet.
Exempt from this plan would be those individuals who have been fortunate enough to parlay their college experiences and degrees into career success. Also exempt would be those in with specific degrees that lead to immediate professional and semi-professional careers, such as teachers, social workers, nurses, and the like.
Agreed bailouts are a slippery slope. But if we're going to talk about bailing out individuals with risky credit ratings being given loans on houses they couldn't afford in the first place, and lenders, many of who employ executives with salaries which afford them over-the-top lifestyles and—unwarranted in many instances—golden parachute severance packages routinely running in the multi millions of dollars from these same bad loans, then why not help those of us who were only trying to make an honest go of things?
The mostly ideologically-based arguments against bailing out institutions such as the automobile manufacturers and lenders (with financial implications for the nation as a whole) and of individuals (such as those struggling with failed mortgage and student loan recipients) are somewhat predictable. One such argument is that students irresponsibly borrow money for college knowing that these loans are backed by government guarantees and the assumption that it (the government) will never run out of money. This unlimited availability of funds is what is believed to contribute to rising college costs, and a resulting lack of cost controls.
This argument assumes that people are predictable, which like the marketplace, they are not. Every bit player throughout every institution along the chain of economic production is hard to predict. That includes bankers who may risk making bad loans to risky debtors, company executives making bad business decisions, and the lowly worker trying to obtain a semblance of some part of the American Dream. Somewhere along this chain, people decide they want to move up both socially and economically and enroll in college with the hopes of doing so. Most sensible people, knowing full well that they must work to earn a living, know that they have to work in the repayment of student debt with their aspirations of living better. But again, people are not predictable…from the fickle job interviewer to those making the decision to move their companies offshore to lessen their labor costs.
In recent years, this unpredictability in both people and shifting economic market/employment trends has reached critical mass, culminating in what a recent piece by CNN.com revealed as a “record number of unemployed college graduates seeking work” (See “Have Degree-And Pink Slip.” http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/05/news/economy/degreed_workers/index.htm?postversion=2008120514)
Harder to understand is why such a suggestion for debt relief, considering that it would benefit the Middle Class (the group whom politicians love to pander to) the most has not even been given the benefit of a trial balloon to test its receptiveness by the American public? Probably because, like the notion of universal health care, it would receive almost overwhelming support from all but the most ideologically intransigent of die hard Free-Marketeers. Harder still is why even staunch conservatives wouldn’t be receptive to this idea, since most are always quick to articulate how fair it is to “put money back into the pockets of hard-working Americans?
If you look at it logically, student loan debt relief for those whose academic success has failed to translate into socioeconomic upward mobility would benefit the nation as a whole. We wouldn’t have to lower taxes, and have services suffer as a result. And struggling student debtors not forced to cough up anywhere up to several hundred dollars a month in a likewise struggling economy would be freed to spend scarce dollars on more items of necessity, which would halt the anticipated bloodbath of retailers expected to close in 2009 due to record-setting abysmal sales of this past holiday season. Lastly, such a gesture would go a long ways toward eliminating the cynicism that the average American harbors toward the government’s seeming favor to help out Big Business and the well-heeled at the expense of the average hard-working Little Man.
As I look up at the clock, it’s now 1:01 am…America, do you know where you priorities are? Here’s to the possibility of a progressive 2009.

Read More