What did Clinton say that wa so bad?

What has Bill Clinton said that is not true, in regards to South Carolina and Obama’s victory? When did black folks start having a problem with truth as our history in this nation has never required skirting or embellishing truth in regards to race, to have the moral high ground. So now why is a racial truth so controversial with many black folks? Like always, truth is controversial when people don’t want to accept it! It is what it is. There is a competition going on for the Democratic nomination and Bill Clinton exercised a truth in this competition. Racial truths are not playing the race card; they are simply observations of reality.

I only have a problem with truth when it is not the whole truth. For example, I have a problem with people who vacuously point to truths about present problems in the black community, without noting the historical actions that begat those reactions. Such superficial truths are racist in that that make the cause of the problems seem born from “blackness” or genetics, rather than a history of mistreatment. The present is the summation or derivative of the temporal continuum of action and reactions. So when people leave out the historical actions that beget present day reactions, they are being disingenuous, ignorant and or racist.

Bill Clinton did not do anything of the sort. When Clinton made the statement about Jesse Jackson, it was in the context of what he had stated earlier about how he understood the excitement that blacks have, due to history, of electing a qualified black candidate. That truth was evidenced in 80 and 84 when Jackson won the State off the black vote. It well known that blacks make up over half of SC Democratic electorate. In other words, Clinton pointed out the truth of why Obama won so convincingly in SC, which is the demonstrated fact that blacks in SC tend to overwhelmingly side with a qualified and inspirational black candidate….as exemplified by Jesse Jackson and not withstanding Al Sharpton (not as qualified).

Bill Clinton wanted to minimize the victory in SC where as proponents of Obama wanted to maximize it, for the sake of momentum. That is the nature of competition folks. I mean…..winning SC was like an NFL team beating the Detroit Lions and thinking the victory demonstrates that they are ready for the Super Bowl. South Carolina is hardly a Microcosm of America and it does not have a good track record in nominating the Democrat nominee. Bill Clinton was not wrong or racist in pointing that out. It was and is simply the truth. Proponents of Obama, on the other hand, are attempting to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the truth. That is not right. That is a common tactic that has been used against our leaders and now some black supporters of Obama are employing the same practice.


If Bill Clinton pointed out the history of racism in America and that black poverty rate in America is 3 times the rate of whites, related to the racial history in America, putting our poverty in proper perspective, blacks would have applauded. Why? The reason is that it is a truth that we see as beneficial to our interest. However, Clinton pointing out a racial truth (why Obama won so large in SC), causes some blacks to cry foul and suggesting that Clinton has stooped down low, playing the race card. Nope, Clinton played the truth card. No one called him a liar and that is because he did not prevaricate. They just don’t like what he said.

As I pointed out in another essay, the group that appears racist in this election is blacks. Iowa and New Hampshire voted before blacks really got to demonstrate their leanings. Actions create equal and opposite reactions, especially in regards to race in America. Now that blacks are demonstrating that they are not voting for white candidates that will not be ignored by many whites, rightly or wrongly. As it becomes more obvious that blacks are supporting the black candidate, expect it to trigger and equal and opposite reaction that eventually will erode the support of white undecided voters. If they were inclined to be non racial in their choice, the appearance of blacks being racial will work against Obama. Whites don’t tend to respect histories influence on the present and hence they don’t see black support for Obama in a historical context. Rather, they just see it as racist, for if they dared supported white candidates, over black candidates, like blacks support the black candidate over white candidates, they would be seen as racist.

I am a system analysis by profession and not a political analyst. My first allegiance is to truth and righteousness. Truth trumps race for me. As a system analyst, when something goes foul programmatically, the first suspect is “Change”. During the tenure of the next president, it is highly probable that we will enter a depression like economic era. The US economy really needs to contract at least 20% to correct itself, by getting rid of the national debt, personal debt and have an economy where consumption is income driven and not debt driven. The government and Fed are resisting this correction which will likely lead to a crash in the next few years. Who is going to get the blame? People are going to look for what “changed” and I hope that change is not the nation’s first black president.


Actions…..reactions. The rule of nature that will not be circumvented.

Actions begetting Reactions: The rule of Nature

What is the potential, if not probable, backlash from black folks dumping the Clintons for a black candidate? Hillary is not Bill, but blacks have had a relationship with the Clintons longer than they have had a relationship with Obama, from the perspective of the Clintons. Thus, to the Clintons, as well as others, it may appear that blacks are selling out the white Clintons for one of their own. Every action has a reaction, however, often equal and opposite, and that could spell a problem for black interest in this nation going forward, if Hillary wins.

If blacks will not stand behind people who think, rightly or wrongly, that they have stood behind us, there will be a consequence. I think if Hillary gets elected and goes on to win the presidency, she will have less of an open ear to groups like the Congressional Black Caucus, Civil Rights leaders and black and their special interest in general. I mean why should she stand by us when we did not stand by her, a Clinton? I am not saying that this sort of thinking is right or wrong, but it is definitely in the scope of human nature and she is human. As the old saying goes; "Hell have no fury like a women scorned". So as blacks now are seeing the Clintons differently, the Clintons are now seeing blacks differently as well.

I think that by blacks overwhelmingly siding with Obama it will have a negative impact on the Obama candidacy overall, even if his primary competition was Edwards and not Clinton. The overwhelming support by blacks, for Obama, makes it appear as if blacks are going to support the black candidate, which may lead some whites to feel that they are justified in supporting the white candidate, if all other things seem equal. Moreover, it will make women feel that they should rally to support the women candidate. Why should blacks care what white folks think? Simple...they have much more power than we do in this process of America.

So here is the problem with that for Obama. It’s called mathematics. There are far more whites and far more women in America than there are blacks and the “vote for who looks like me” methodology will hurt Obama, because there are not enough people in America who look like Obama to win at that game. So as Black support for Obama nears 100%, it will produce an equal and opposite reaction among white voters.

If black people were split more evenly between Obama and another candidate, it would go a long ways to reduce the racial, look like me, overtones and resentment that is taking place in the Democratic primaries now. The Republicans have to be sitting back and enjoying the Democratic Party as it suffers from its diversity of interest cannibalizing each other before they do battle with Republicans. War between Grass Hoppers delights the Crows.

I think the entity that will benefit most from what is happening is the Republican Party and the group, in the end, who will be hurt the most, is African Americans. Of course, the greater the risk, the greater the potential reward. So I can certainly understand why blacks are willing to take the risk for the perceived benefit of having the first black President. However, personally, I think the risk at this point in time is much greater than the reward would be. We are betting that America has REALLY changed and if it has not....we will pay the price.

You cannot fault the slaves who are bold enough to run away for freedom. However, the slave has to do it when the odds are more in favor of success, as opposed to being caught and brought back and whipped for trying to escape. I do not particularly care for Hilary Clinton. In truth, I don't like her. Of the three standing I would make a strategic vote for Edwards, but he is no longer viable, so it would be Clinton. I am just saying that we need to be careful in our strategy to seek freedom. It needs to be based more on a plan and strategy as opposed to impulse and emotions.

Triaged America?

Just think of what it would be like if hospitals decided to no longer triage its emergency room patients or no longer decided to target and treat specific diseases. Instead, the new business model going forward would be to treat every illness the same and to only address those sicknesses that are common amongst all people. Lets then say that this became a national mandate. How well would it be received by the public and why? Who would benefit and who would lose?

Change in America, in regards to race, means essentially the same thing. America now wants a generalized treatment of social ills. No more special interest treatments! Only those problems that are common amongst the general population will be treated, as too many people in the general population are upset that others are getting more or different attention than from what they are getting. It does not matter that some problems are more severe in degree and or kind than “the general” populations, and hence, a need for triage and targeting of the specifics. To hell with that, every entity is to be treated the same, regardless of history or condition.

Even more absurd and callous than that, in this parallel, is that even mentioning the fact that your injury is different, in degree and or kind gets you ostracized as playing the “special injury card”. The analogous concept in an Emergency waiting room is the “someone is sicker than you card”, that allows someone injured more serioisly and differently than you to be treated before you and different than you (i.e. discrimination). Is it fair to let someone sicker than you go before you and have that sickness treated based upon its specific merits, which may be different than yours? One would hope that America could be so understanding about the socioeconomic condition of blacks in America. America still needs a triaged social policy that targets, separates and treats based upon the specific and often different causes, effects, history of the population.

Here is a thought. Who gets to define “change” so that we will know it when we see it? Who gets to define what "working together" is so that we will know it when we see it? I imagine that these terms will be filled democratically by virtue of majority rule. Right? I mean that is the fairest thing to do....right? Well, who is the racial majority in America, by far? Whites just happen to be the racial majority so the definition of “change” and other rhetoric will be defined by their perceptions and beliefs. They are certainly not going to be defined by 13% of the total population that has little weight in the majority rule construct, and even less socioeconomic strength to lobby in its behalf. So it’s obvious to see that more things suppose to “change” the more they are actually going to remain the same.

So what must be understood is that the “Change” people seek, in regards to race, and regards to politics, is simply the majority getting minority to accept things the majority's way. In other words, America is to be defined by its “average” and not its extremes, which are seen as the root of division. It’s the “general rule”, so to speak, over the exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately for the black community in America, the general rule is not greatly influenced by the us. In a tug of war, 13 pulling against 70 will produce an obvious winner. So any problem endemic, disproportionate, acute or different in kind, if not degree, from the “general rule” of America, will not be addressed or targeted for treatment. That is ominous for poor blacks, but seems acceptable for many middle class blacks who share more in common with the white population these days, to benefit from policy representing the needs of the majority (whites).

There are different pathways to the same destination. The problem is that if the path or reason for poverty is not the same for everyone. A generalized, white, approach based upon the causes of poverty and social problems within the white community, at it is becoming the template, for change, will not work efficiently on other groups whose path to the destination differed. Black America has the most unique path to the destination of poverty and social problems here in America. Hence, having social policy geared towards the generalized path based upon shared experiences will not work for black people.

As an example, let’s take the issue of legalization of drugs. The black community has been ravaged, more than any other, over the last several decades, from drugs. The reason being is that drug dealing offered economic opportunity, albeit illegal, to many poor black communities. One can also make the argument that the community was purposely targeted, after the riots against the “system” in the 60’s, so that it would implode and not explode.

The violence associated with drugs is very similar to the violence associated with illegal liquor selling during prohibition. So eliminating the prohibition of certain drugs could radically reduce violence and other problems in the black communities, just like violence was radically reduced when prohibition was repealed. However, since the “general population” does not suffer the effects of this violence anywhere near the rate of the black community, the benefit cost analysis is different and hence they see more of a cost than benefit. Consequently, something that could potentially benefit the black community is stymied by majority rule benefit cost analysis.

People need to look for the debit anytime people start talking about credits. Every credit has a debit in nature and life as nothing is gained without something being lost or given up. The change that people are looking for will come at a cost and price to many. An America less divisive is not necessarily a good thing. Before the Civil Rights movement, whites in the South thought things were pretty good and were arrogant and or uncaring enough to think that they could speak for blacks. The only way to get from injustice to justice was via divisiveness and agitators who forced the issue. That change represented a loss of a degree of white privilege and impunity, but resulted in the gain or rights for blacks in the South.

When white America thinks of the causes of division, they see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as the postcard child for why America is divided. Its people like them who are constantly pointing out and talking about issues of race. In other words, it’s not whites or the history of whites that manifested a racial divided America observable by anyone with open eyes; rather, the symptoms are the cause. So the change required to bring America together is defined, by the general population which is white, is to discredit, demote and remove people like Jackson and Sharpton and all who think as they do. The goal is to sweep the legacy of America’s racial past and its influence on the racial conditions of the present, under the rug forever. That is the change that America is seeking with the help of middle and upper class blacks joining together in class warfare against the black underclass.

Political this and that

I have a lot of different thoughts running through my head today, concerning the poor state of politics, to such degree that I do not know where to start or how to organize them. Some thoughts seem to dominate more than the others, however. For example; why do the republicans hate the Clinton’s so much? The enemy (Clintons) of my enemy (Republicans) is thus my friend, although I don't particularly like or care for this new friend. Also, who thrust Obama into the limelight and Why? Furthermore, why has Obama been treated with kid gloves in the primaries, with many black folks crying foul when he is not? If Obama were able to win the Democratic nomination, he would be eviscerated by the attack machine of the Republican party who knows how to play on white racial prejudice and fears.

In regards to the Clintons, what can I glean from the fact that they are despised so much by the Republicans? The answer is akin to the same reason why some women in a bar or club will immediately dislike a beautiful woman who walks in, to the degree that they want to tear her down. The Republicans hate the Clintons due to the same root emotion as those women in bars. It’s fear. They feel threatened by the strong competition. It will be harder for them to get the attention they want and what they want when there is strong competition. So the compeition must somehow be torn down, by those in fear, in order to reduce their attraction.

The Clinton’s know how to play politics! Bill Clinton is a master at understanding the strategy and game. He aggressively goes after what he wants and he takes no prisoners. He understands his Republican competition. In fact, his methodologies are very Republican like. He knows how to play their games and uses it to the advantage of his goals and the Democratic Party, better than the Republicans can, which irks the republicans. No one likes to be beaten at their own game. If the Clinton’s were conservative Republicans, they would have replaced Ronald Reagan as the modern icons of the party. Although Clinton reallly did nothing for blacks, other than symbolism, the enemy (Bill Clinton) of our enemy (conservative racist) became the friend of blacks.

In regards to Barak, how and why did he gain name recognition? The answer is his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. At that convention he was anointed and exalted for being a great speaker, but more importantly, for being a different kind of black leader. He immediately became the symbol of the type of black leader who could bring America together, by virtue of closing the chapter on the traditional Civil Rights style black leaders who continue to unapologetically fight for justice on behalf of blacks. Whites see this as divisive and that America could come together racially if not for these racial agitators.

In the minds of many, bringing America together is in reality a euphemism for removing agitating Civil Rights type black leaders and thinking from the negotiating table. Many people want to put the past behind us and ignore its aftermath upon the present…..racially. Thus, anyone who then dares link the racial past to the racial present, notwithstanding the validity of the link, is seen as being divisive and must be demoted. Truth hurts many and naturally produces divides between righteous and unrighteous, fact and fiction, fantasy and reality. As long as their is right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice...division should exist, lest we all accept whats wrong, whats, bad and injustice. There should be no compromise between these extremes!

Essentially, Barak Obama was white America’s opportunity to demote a certain type of black leadership and thinking by promoting the type of black leader and thinking more acceptable for them. This was simply a subconscious conspiracy of like minds as whites are sick and tired of the race issue and its implication and exposure of them. There are many Harvard Educated intelligent white folks who could have said what Obama said, without it catapulting him or her to a run for the President. Obama attraction for white America is racial. The change and coming together, as they see it, is blacks moving to the position of whites, but not whites moving closer to the position of blacks. In their mind, that what “change” means.

In light of that, is it hard to see why Obama has tried to keep race out of the debate? He was branded and elevated for a purpose in regards to race, by white America. That is not to suggest that he is not talented, qualified and charismatic and that blacks don’t find his politics and style appealing. Moreover, many blacks are tired of traditional black leaders as well, which is not unexpected given the influential power of the media and their constant attacks on black leaders. Obama is a mediator, but there should be no mediation between right and wrong. If Barak was President instead of Lincoln, how would he have brought both sides together on the issue of slavery? Would he have compromised that blacks be made indentured servants, as opposed to slaves, to give something to both sides? Sometimes compromise is not what is needed.

Finally, why is Obama being treated with kid gloves? Like I noted above, one of the reasons is that that his candidacy looses viability as soon as it becomes racial, like America. He cannot maintain the black vote and a strong white vote if he is asked tough question that reflect the racial divide in the response. For example, when is someone going to ask Obama about Reparations and what he thinks of the concept or need, if not viability? There are many issues in America where blacks and whites have divergent and passionate opposite views. He is not being asked any such question, because to do so would threaten the process of bringing America together, by exposing the truth of the divide. No one is to note that the Emperor has no clothes on.

So now Obama has climbed into the ring of politics to carry forth this mission, which he seems perfectly happy to do, and now some blacks are crying foul when he gets punched. Think of it this way. Say a professional female boxer wanted to fight a professional male boxer of the same weight class. At that point in time, the male boxer cannot win. If he fights her like he fights his male competitors and tries to knock her head off, he will be looked down upon. Politics is a rough and nasty game and the fact that Obama decided to step into the ring; he cannot expect to be treated with kid gloves by the Clintons. If the Clintons don’t do it, the Republicans will be relentless in their pounding.

The problem with the Democrats is...

The problem for Democrats is that the Party constituents do not know how to play the game of two party politics as well as constituents of the Republican Party. Republicans are passionate about one thing more than anything else and that is keeping a Liberal out of the White House. Their anti-liberal passion trumps any passion they have for any of their favorite Republican, more so than the Democrats are able to trump their party favorites to strategically unify to defeat the Republicans.

If you are a coach trying to steer your team to victory, you have to play the players who are going to get the job done and that is not necessarily the coach’s favorite. When Randy Moss played for the Minnesota Vikings, he was seen as a jerk and a-hole and I am sure that there were receivers on the team who the coach liked a lot more, however, they could not catch the ball and score touchdowns like Moss could. The problem with Democrats is that they want to play their favorites and seem to place little value in the strategy of putting the player on the field that is most likely to score touchdowns against the Republicans in the general election.

Personally, I am a radical and there is currently no party for radicalism, as I feel that America needs radical changes. That said, there are still only two options and my choice of the two bad options would be Democrat. Of the Democrats, my favorite was Kucinich, he had radical ideals most of which I agreed with. However, he has no viability. My second favorite, ignoring strategy, would be Obama. I really like the brother. I like how he carries himself and I think he is as competent, if not more, than any other president to date. My least favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton. She was once asked about the issue of reparations and the way she answered it, so crudely, so undiplomatically and so emphatically no that I never cared for her much after that. That noted, if a Democrat asked me who to vote for I would say Clinton, assuming that winning the general election against the Republicans was the goal.


Democrats cannot seem to understand that a great place to vacation is not necessarily a great place to live. They don’t seem to realize that their favorite candidate might not have what it takes to be the nation’s consensus favorite candidate in the general election, through no fault of the candidate. They cannot seem to unify in a strategy to benefit the collective interest of the party and would rather place more value in the sub interest of the party. This has created the type of division and disunity that leads to the party's nomination not being the best player to get the job done against the Republicans.

The Democrats cannot see the forest for the trees. The Republican party may seem weak right now, but I can guarantee you at the end of the day they will put forward the best player on their team who has the best chance of keeping a liberal out of the White House. The same cannot be said about the Democrats due to the fact that their passion to keep a Republican out of the White House is less than their passion for their favorite canidate in the primaries. This is not how to play the flawed game of two party politics. We need to scrap the two party system, but for now, that is the game that needs to be played and Democrats are behaving as if the viable options are not binary.

Right now, despite the terrible tenure of the Republicans in the executive and legislature since 2000, if the economy holds on through November, via rebates and money (credit) give aways...look for the divisions in the Democratic party, resulting from the efforts to get the 1st black president or the 1st female president, to ultimately result in the 44th president.......being a Republican! When that happens....you can bet that the same people who placed individual interest over party interest and viablity in the general election, will be complaining on Blogs and Forums about how the Republicans are screwing things up. Yet, they will only have themselves to blame for not focusing on the collective interest of the parties viability in the Presidential election against a Republican.

Obama: Should blacks run down hill or walk?

There is a rather crude joke that goes something like this. There were two bulls on top of a hill overlooking several cows. The young bull, in his immature exuberance, suggested to the older bull that they run down and “Do” one of the cows. The older bull, in his wisdom, then responded by saying; “No, lets walk down and “Do” them all!”. That is the difference between wisdom/self control and immaturity/lack of self control. Its the difference between understanding the big picture, how things work, and having a strategy versus ignoring the big picture, ignoring how things work, and having no strategy except what feels good (the idea of a black president).

I am reminded of that when I hear many black folks reject reasons for not supporting Obama, this time around. In some (many) black folk’s immature and uncontrolled excitement over having the first black president, they are losing sight of political strategy. We want to run down the hill and “Do” them all. Wiser black folks, however, realize that winning the Democratic primary is not the same as winning the presidency, no matter how much George Bush and the Republicans have screwed up. It’s not a forgone conclusion that a Democrat is going to win the White House. The democrats will have to win the South to win the presidency and the South is too traditional, still, to elect a Northern Liberal black or women (Damn Yankees).

Do folks remember when Ralph Nader ran for president as an Independent/Green Party Canidate and some democrates voted for him, instead of Gore? What a great strategy that was. Folks exuberant about Nadar ran down hill, by voting for Nader, and instead of getting to "do" some cows....they got "Done" by Bush. The question is do blacks have more to gain by voting for a black in the primaries or more to lose by Republicans winning the general election? In a head to head match-up with Republican front runners, polls suggest that Obama does the worse and Edwards the best. If Obama ranks the least against Republicans, and the ultimate goal is to defeat the Republicans, then blacks should be voting for the democrat who has the highest rating against the top republicans....call me stupid...and aint Obama. Winning the democratic nomination is not winning the presidency! We must understand the opportunity cost of voting for Obama in the primaries

If the economy goes to hell (which is highly probable), during the 4 years of the next president, who will get blamed, what will be the benefit/cost of having a black president? Certainly in such a climate of whites losing jobs, wealth and status, Affirmative Action, monies targeted towards issues acute with blacks, programs and the like are out the window as a result of resentful whites. Unless there is targeted assistance to the black community for its disproportionate socioeconomic problems, those problems will remain disproportionate. A declining economy slams the door on such targeting because white who are hurting economically will fervently reject such policies in a representative, majority rule political construct in which they are the majority. That’s just fact and they have been aggressively fighting against AA in good times.

That noted, the worst thing to do in an economic downturn is to raise taxes, which would be the only way to fund the social programs needed to fix many acute problems in the black community. Moreover, with the unfunded liabilities of Medicaid, Medicare social security and decreased revenues due the retirement of baby boomers, the government is essentially broke, busted and disgusted and now cannot be trusted (to deliver needed social policy) and meet its liabilities. It is already 9 trillion dollars in debt. Maybe the next president can cut the budget of the Military industrial complex? Yeah right. So much of our economic GDP is tied to military expenditures that such a move would cripple the economy further. However, that is a moot point because politicians will protect military jobs for their district and will not vote for a cut in funding that will make things worse in their districts economically.

So the only real benefit of a black president would be so black youth can dream that they can one day be president, despite being black, and white folks can feel that they have been vindicated from the accusation that this is a racist nation. But how many black youth are going to be inspired by a president under constant attack for apparent incompetence as he gets blamed for the economic misfortunes that manifest under his rein? Like I said, I watched Detroit’s Black political leadership get blamed for the decline of “the D”, while folks conveniently ignored the decline in the Auto Industry and its disinvestment in the city. Some folks do not believe in the ability of black folks to govern as they blame all of Africa’s and all the other poor black countries fate of incompetent and corrupt black leaders. When America falls economically and a black president is in office, who the hell do you think is going to get the blame? When whites folks are in charge and something gets messed up, their race is not blamed. When black folks are in charge and something gets messed up, it reflects back on all of us. I did not make that up...that is just how it has been....unfortunately. Yet, black folks want to run down hill in their exuberance, not totally thinking this thing through. It’s really short sighted.

Call me crazy, but when the economy and this nations tanks, I don’t want the first black president sitting in the oval office, even if he had the chance to win. I want the same people who created this mess to be sitting there getting the blame for this mess….and its not black leadership or people. For me...its seems too risky for black Democrates to put their money on Obama....and risk another 4 more years under Republican leadership, when other Democrates are polled as having a much better chance at winning the General election. If black Democrates feel that there is a reason a good strong reason why they vote Democrat and not Republican....then the act of voting for Obama makes little sense....lest it not matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House.

Are blacks like me ready for a black president? That is the wrong question for a brother like me. There are some 40 million black folks in America. I am more concerned about the collective reality and well being of those 40 million than I am the occupation of a single black person. If I trusted that a black could actually become president in 2008 and that such would translate to improvement of the collective of 40 million blacks....then yes....I am ready. If a black person is to become president and have no net benefit for the 40 million collective or he gets blamed and labeled incompetent for a crashing economy.....then answer is no.....I am not ready.

The problem is that the two Party system does not work for America any longer. The binary options are woefully incompetent in meeting the needs of a diverse range on interest and beliefs that must somehow map to one of the two options for viability. Americans are not that cut and dried, either or, to be conveniently separated between democrats and republicans. But as long as we have this incompetent two Party construct, voters must compromise by often not picking their favorite candidate, but picking the candidate that strategically has the best chance to win in the two party system. The two party system means that people rarely get the candidate that they really want. However they strategize and comprise to get the candidate that can keep the other side out of office. The republicans have been better and realizing this than Democrats and that is why Republicans have reined in office longer than the Democrats lately.

Emergency Fed Rate Cut!!!

The Fed has just cut interest rates, today, to 3.5% in response to a tanking domestic and global stock market! Always remember that actions do not manifest without reactions, however. That’s a rule of thumb ignored by our nation’s political and economic leaders and a culture hell bent on maximizing the present, but at the expense of the future. The future has now arrived. The present is now that once distant future where the physics of reactionary energy, called consequence, was accruing and conserving. The buck now stops here and all of us living today will assume the consequence of profligate past behavior by government, citizens and economic entities who won points by adding to the present by subtracting from the future. We applauded them and their win-win propaganda which suggested that there were no negative consequences to be had.

Now comes the moment of reckoning and the Fed was forced to make a drastic cut in Fed Funds Rate. Remember, just last spring when the Fed was saying that all was well, by its forecast? Well, that is what they told everyone, whether they believed this or not is debatable, however. They backed their rhetoric up by their non action in the face of a deflating housing market, which they said would not spill over and negatively impact the general economy. Yeah right! Thus, it should be fairly obvious that the Fed has highly educated idiots or they are lying through their teeth or the economy is out of control and hence unmanageable by traditional methods, or all of the above. My guess (hypothesis, if you will, shared by many) is that the economy is out of control, in a bad way, and that the Fed is lying in order to control consumer psychology via the Markets.

The most powerful economic stimulant for the economy is consumers having an optimistic outlook for the future politically, economically, socially, culturally and morally, but primarily economically. Therefore, in order to keep the economy buoyant, the economy is being artificially stimulated by optimistic propaganda from leaders, with the collusion of mainstream media, who realize that economics has a large self fulfilling prophecy component to it. In other words, citizens/consumers thinking things are bad results in things being bad while citizens/consumers thinking things are good results in things being good. That is due to collective optimism or pessimism being tied so strongly to consumer consumption, which drives production, opportunity and the economy. Most of the Wall Street economic analyst you hear in the media are overly bullish, as a strategy to create a self fulfilling prophecy.

The effect of collective optimism or pessimism having been noted, the issue is what end of the spectrum does realism map to? Realism may naturally produce optimism or pessimism as a human response to the event. The times we are entering now are such that realism (of all the ominous indicators) should naturally produce pessimism and thus in turn pessimism will result in a loss of confidence, which in turn will remove the final pillar that is keeping the economy out of deep recession, if not depression. It is my belief that the stock market is the last symbol of wealth that is strongly tied to consumer confidence, housing being the other, but it has collapsed. Consequently, confidence levels will follow the direction of the stock market very closely and that is why the Fed’s action seems almost exclusively geared to influence the direction of the stock market.

Remember what I said in the beginning, however, in that every action creates a reaction. So let’s look at this rate cut briefly and its consequences. In the very near term, the cut will be an immediate boost to reverse the stock sell off and markets decline. In the long term however, the dollar will be debased further and prices/inflation will rise considerably. The reason being is that essentially, the Fed is paying bank money to borrow money, so they can lend it and consumers can spend it. The REAL interest being charged is the Fed Fund rate minus the rate of inflation. Officially the inflation rate is running around 3.5% so if interest rates are 3.5% as well, that mean the loan is at zero interest. However, REAL inflation is actually much higher than 3.5%, as everyone can feel that it is. It’s probably around 7% on the low end. Thus, if that is true, then the Fed is paying borrowers 3.5% interest to borrow the banks money. The consequence is that the economy will be flooded with liquidity and hyperinflation will ensue.

That said, banks are not charging you and I those rates, just other banks needing to borrow cash to remain solvent. However, the people getting fixed rate loans at 7% or less are actually getting loans at no cost, if not being paid an interest from the transaction, given the true rate of inflation. This behavior is hyper inflationary given that it creates more debt/money without an equal increase in production or income. Our consumer and government income/production to debt ratio is such that our credit rating is in the free fall. Our collective FICO score has likely gone from over 700 to about 620, the demarcation point of poor credit and hence lenders backing off due to risk. That is a problem for our nation given that foreign nations are financing our consumption through lending us money, which they will stop doing because our income to debt ratio makes the risk to great.

We have become a Sub Prime nation.

Stay tuned.

Government Rebate Checks?

I am sorry to bore you with more economic mumbo jumbo, but unfortunately this mumbo jumbo is of the utmost importance in everyone’s life. I had to weigh in on the planned economic stimulus package that the White House and Congress are proposing to help boost the economy.

The first thing that I want to note is that this plan and its urgency is definitely an acknowledgement that there is serious trouble in the economy. However, it’s not the first economic rebate in recent years, as there was a similar rebate back in 2001, to help jump start the economy. The economic issues are a lot different from then, however, but in a bad way.

Secondly, one of the big problems with this rebate concept is born from the fact that so much production has been off shored from America. What is the net effect upon our economy if American consumers rush out and spend their rebate checks, like is hoped, yet they spend it all on goods made in China or some other foreign nation? How would it help the American economy to increase production and jobs in China, Japan or elsewhere? They get the production, jobs and income and in return we grow deeper in debt.

Thirdly, where is the money going to come from to pay for this, given that we are trillions of dollars in debt as a nation (government)? A government in debt and using its tax revenues to give to consumers, who are also in debt, more money to buy foreign produced goods, is not a smart move. It’s akin to giving a heroin addict, who is starting to sweat and quiver from withdrawal, more dope in order to make him or her feel better. However, feeling better is not always getting better. Many things that feel good to you are not good for you and can actually hurt you, especially when it takes more and more dope to experience the same high we got from less dope in the past.

Finally, the psychology of the consumer is not going to be manipulated so easily this time around, as during the last rebate. Most people have finally caught on that something is wrong…..in a different kind of way. In fact, many people may simply use that money to pay down debt or attempt to save it in preparation for hard times. It’s only an assumption that this rebate will lead to new spending and spending on American made goods and or services that could help stimulate the economy.

For every action there is a reaction. In other words, for every action there is a consequence or trade off. America is selling away its future in order to buy a better present. The pleasure of today will be offset or paid for with pain tomorrow. Everything is short term oriented when existence is a long term proposition, if not reality. Our economy was doped up on easy credit (debt) that gave us a high and masks our loss of market share of global GDP and a decline in our standard of living. As long as the economy is doped up with liquidity shot up our economic veins, we can continue to function.

The quagmire for the nation now is that we face the risk of overdosing because we do not want to go through the tough withdrawal symptoms (deep recession) that would allows us to stabilize our health, after we hit bottom. Politicians and politics don’t want to go through withdrawal under their leadership, as they are sure to be blamed for all the pain and suffering, which will cost them dearly in future elections. Thus, politics is interfering with economic as sometimes it requires a step back before one can take steps forward again. Politics, from both sides, keeps us doped up because when we feel good, politicians feel secure in their power, when were feeling bad, they feel insecure. Thus, they would rather have us overdose, than to voluntarily allow us to go through withdrawal.

People need to examine what was happening to the German Economy before the rise of Hitler....there are many ominous similarities to what is going on in America.

Economics

I am not going to say that I told you so, but at least 2 years ago ( Link1 ) I was warning people about a severe decline or crash in our economy, as well as, the concept of “Peak Oil” and how gas prices would rise considerably. People who are familiar with my opinion pieces, via forums and blogs, know that I have been trumpeting the alarm for sometime now. However, unfortunately I was usually dismissed as some anti-capitalist, anti-American doomsayers who actually wanted to see the fall of capitalism and America. I was viewed as a socialist/communist and folks retorted with historical examples of the failures of those systems (while ignoring the fallacies of our own) and how our system was so much more superior and impervious to a similar fate. Well, our system is now on the edges of something tragic and could fall over the proverbial cliff from the push of a combination of events.

The truth is that we are already in a recession, but it is simply hidden by how the government calculates the rate of inflation. The nominal growth of the economy needs to be adjusted by the degree or percentage by which prices have risen year over year. If nominal (unadjusted for price changes) growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 6% and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 3% over the same period, then REAL economic growth (GDP growth – CPI growth) would be only 3%. However, what if the real rate of inflation was 7%? That would mean that GDP declined by 1%. Well, government official CPI excludes commodities like food and energy, healthcare cost, the rise in the cost of education and a hose of other purchases that Americans make. Official CPI only measures those things that are not rising in price drastically, while excluding those things that most people purchase, that are.

Why? How can this be happening to the superior American people and our superior economic/political system? You will not hear the real reason why in the mainstream print or electronic media. Suffice it to say however, it is not the result of the sub prime crisis, which is simply a symptom of something larger. We have to be honest about how we made it to the top, which was largely from events outside our direct control, namely the Second World War which destroyed all the major economies except our own. This created a global monopoly for America Inc. and our nation and people prospered from it. Peace however, eventually allowed Great Britan, France, Germany, Western Europe and Japan to recover and turn America’s monopoly into an oligopoly with those recovering nations. That recovery led to our going off the Gold Standard, as a result of changing economic realities globally. A new fiat system was created, which kept us out of depression. Now, China, India, Brazil and others are turning the oligopoly into a truly competitive global market, where they have gained the economic comparative advantage in many industries and economic sectors. The fiat system that once saved us is now part of the problem.

Examine this hypothetical. Suppose you work for a store that is the only store left standing in town after a tornado or hurricane smashes through town. The resultant is that your store is going to get all the business and you are going to get a big raise, by demanding it, to get your share of the huge profits your store now enjoys from the ability to charge higher prices due to the lack of competition. This artificial prosperity is the result of others misfortune and will last as long as other remain unfortunate. However, as old stores rebuild and new stores enter the market, with much lower prices, consumers will take their business away from your high priced store that was once the only option. The new stores, with their cheap labor, can offer much lower prices. Thus, in order to be competitive your store will have to lower wages to match their competition so that they can be price competitive….or go out of business. Either way, you as a worker in the store will suffer a loss in the form of no job or a job at much lower wages. America is that store that survived the storm while others were devastated by it. We artificially prospered from it and now reality of a lower standard of living is embarking upon us.

The over optimistic mindset of the consumer, augmented by government and media propaganda, the rampant creation of money (debt/credit via borrowing) is what is keeping the economy out of recession and depression right now. Most Americans still have a fantasy view of the natural superiority of our system to always keep us on top. We are the smartest and hardest working people on the planet and that will keep us on top. Yeah right. That is not reality. Our economy is now dependent upon consumers going into deeper and deeper debt in order to keep the economy buoyant. The reason that so many were willing to go into debt is because of two assets, their home and their investment portfolio (stocks). Working age people over 30 looked at their home and their stocks as their retirement nest egg. There was no need to save when homes were appreciating and stock prices were climbing well above the rate of inflation. Well the bottom has fallen out of the housing market and when it falls out of the stock market, consumers will radically reduce consumption in order to save more for retirement and an uncertain future. When consumers radically cut consumption, production is radically reduced causing a rise in unemployment, poverty and the like and a downward economic cycle of actions and reactions is unleashed.

This psychological threshold will be breached when the DOW falls below the 10,000 mark. There will not be a stock market crash, like during the last depression, however. There have been safe guards built into the system of trading to prevent that. Instead, what will happen is a long term (over a year’s time) cycle of ups and downs with the downs being much stronger than the ups? Overtime this will produce the same loss of wealth as a stock market one week crash. In the mean time, the monetary policy of lowering the cost of money (borrowing) is the strategy to keep consumers spending and providing stimulus for Wall Street. The effect of creating such a large amount of personal debt, however, is that citizens will become indentured servants to their debts. Not only that, such monetary policy will result in the collapsing of our currency and a hyperinflationary period that will send millions into abject poverty, government rationing and a radical change of America as we now know it. A more ominous accelerator of decline is when the FED starts to raise interest rates during the decline, to attempt to choke off the inflation it brought to life by lowering interest rates.

There is nothing that can be done at this point but attempt to control our fall. Standing tall is no longer a viable option. The reason being is that the fiscal and monetary policy used to control the economy will only make matters worse at this point. Normally, cutting taxes and lowering interest rates are the fiscal and monetary policy used to accelerate or decelerate economic activity. The problem now is that we almost have the pedal to the metal, so to speak, in regards to these policies, and the economy is still decelerating. If we press harder on the accelerator the engine might be damaged considerably. Cutting taxes in during war time and record levels of government debt will debase the currency. Lowering interest rates will also debase the currency. The debasing of the currency will lead to rampant inflation that destroys the purchasing power of income that because it does not keep pace with the rise in prices. Millions of people then become the working poor as their income which once afforded middle class comfort can only provide basic substance.

Meanwhile, the basic loss of comparative advantage under globalization and the free market continues to send American jobs and production oversees. The catch-22 for America and Americans is that we want to have our cake and eat it too, which is an impossibility. More precisely, we covet cheap prices. However, cheap prices come by virtue of cheap wages, as a general rule. A nation cannot sustain high wages and low prices as an economic model, due to how heavily wages and benefits are a component of price. That said, a high wage nation in transition to a low wage nation will manifest both high wages and low prices until the transition is complete from a higher wage nation to a lower or median wage nation, depending on the global free market price point of labor will produce. That is what is happening in America today as manufacturing, engineering, software design; call centers and a hose of other employment sectors are being off shored, while we are importing cheap labor from Mexico to drive down wages domestically as well.

If all that is not enough, I have yet to even integrate the effects of peak-oil (declining oil reserves growth/supplies married with increasing demand), the retirement of the baby boomers, war and the like. These things, even during good economic times, would hurt our economy, yet, they are manifesting at the same time as all these other factors. There are things that you can do to prepare yourself; however, very few can or will escape being hurt by this. Traditionally, it is under such times that governments embark upon wars to relive the population of angry males who could or would turn their wrath against the system and its elite. That way the internal threat can be sent off to war and die on the battlefields instead of filling the unemployment lines, jails and becoming radical militants attempting to overthrow the government, like the many anti-government militia groups that exist throughout America. War will help to create patriotism and get disenfranchised people feeling patriotic against an external enemy. It’s not hard to guess what nation that will be, if it happens.

Today, there are a lot more people who will read what I say and find agreement, due to the fact that it has become more obvious that something it terribly wrong. Yet, people still do not get it, even though they may feel the nation is sliding into recession. They likely think "been there done that" and feel that might decline but pick right back up creating record levels of wealth again in a few years. WRONG!! Not this time. Things will NEVER return to their zenith, after we hit bottom. There will not be a stronger bounce back this time around, although the nation will recover, it will never again be what it was economically because the world has changed too much.

5 reasons why blacks should not support Obama

1. His candidacy is being used to claim that racism in America is essentially dead, killing the need for programs such as Affirmative Action and along with it civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If you Google Obama and Race or if you listen to analyst on News programs, it’s obvious that Obama's strong showing is being used to slam the door on the issue of race in America. Some entities want you to believe a fallacy of composition by suggesting to you that because some whites vote or support Obama that such serves as vouchers for the remainder of whites. Thus, if 20% of voting age white America is willing to vote for Obama, how does that logically imply that the remaining 80% who don’t are not potentially or in fact racist? How does a white person voting for Obama mean that I will not be racially profiled and pulled over by a white cop? How does that mean that I will not get denied a job by the hiring manager of a company, due to the fact that I am black? How does that mean I will not be charged a higher interest rate for a loan than an equally qualified white? How does that mean I will not be followed around and watched at an upscale store? How does that mean that I will not have a noose hung at my office? To suggest that because some whites are not racist it demonstrates that all whites are not racist is as absurd as suggesting that because some whites are racist that all are.

2. There is a high possibility that America will sink into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression in the next 5 years. If there is a black President in office, it will be seen subconsciously or consciously as the fault of the President. There are so many ominous economic signs such as a falling dollar, rising consumer and government debt, trade deficits, the loss of comparative advantage, outsourcing, high oil prices; inflation….the list goes on and on. There is no monetary of fiscal policy which will solve these problems. Our nation simply consumes more than it produces via our borrowing growth far exceeding our income growth. The American economy or GDP needs a downward correction so that consumption falls in line with production and our spending is based upon what we have earned and not what we borrow. Attempting to hold this off via monetary and fiscal policy, especially the former, makes the correction that much worse when it is forced upon us in the form of a deep recession or depression. As a Michigander, I witnessed the Decline of Detroit proper nearly totally blamed on Black leadership, and not the declining fortunes of the Auto Industry that gave it life.

3. His platform of “change” has little substance. Obama is popular because he gives great speeches about a vision for a different America. Yet, he has not explained how he has the power to essentially change the “System”. The only thing that he really has the power to change is the perception that a black people are hindered by race in America and or its corollary that whites in America are racist. Obama has not been asked many tough questions, especially questions with racial overtones. Such questions and his response to those questions will have a seesaw effect. His response will increase his support among blacks, but lower it among whites or increase it among whites but lower it among blacks. The only answer that will have a neutral effect is to avoid answering the question and simply use a slogan such as “Change” or “Working together” or “Getting along”. That way each side can interpret it as getting the other side to see things their way. In reality, however, in a representative republic such as our, the interest or side that will be favored is the majority rule, which is the side of whites.

4. John Edwards is the best choice for the Democrats based upon empirical evidence. Southern white males have been the formula for defeating the “Southern Strength” of the Republican Party. Johnson, Carter and Clinton were the only democrats to win office since Kennedy. Politics changed drastically after the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 60’s and many Southern whites left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party as a result of democratic support for desegregation. Every since then, it has taken a Southern white male Democrat to win the presidency. Also, the best candidate for Democrats should be in sync with the Democratic candidate that Republicans despise the most, which is Clinton. I cannot help but use the analogy of how much Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were hated by whites in their time. The blacks that whites hated and feared the most were the blacks that were the best for our struggle. It may be true, following the same reasoning, that the Democrat most hated by Republicans is the Democrat best for liberals.

5. It’s easier for a white person in power to do the right thing towards blacks than it will be for a black person to do so. Unfortunately, it is often the case that when a black person is elevated to a position of power from a predominantly white source, they become harder on blacks. It maybe the case that they do not want to appear that they are showing favoritism towards blacks when their position of power is by virtue of whites. They may subconsciously feel that they must not only represent the white way of thinking, but must over compensate to demonstrate that way of thinking. They don’t want to risk alienating or angering the hand that is feeding their political viability. Consequently, a black person put in power by the white majority can often be the least likely to fight for policies that help the black masses. It’s tempting to fantasize that a black candidate can sneak into office by telling whites what they want to hear and then get into office and become a zealous advocate of black causes. However, there are to many checks and balances for that and power is so addictive that the office holder will not want to risk it, lest they or their party not be reelected.

Obama and Race

Every now and then I am inspired to write as a catharsis for frustration and disappointment emanating from someone with power and influence presenting disinformation to the masses. This time it was columnist George Will commenting on what the Obama victory in the Iowa Caucuses said about race relations in general and in particular how it means the demise of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the question of race and racism in America. Obama is now being used as exhibit A to demonstrate that the collective of white America is no longer racist. They see Obama's rise as the black movements fall, so they are attempting to prop him up as high as they can.

It’s Obvious to me that some white folks are attempting to project their wishes and or subterfuge as factual reality. Some whites, like George Will and countless others, maybe, subconsciously or consciously, trying to cloak their racism by highlighting the actions of whites who, for example, will vote for a black candidate. Would George Will vote for Barak Obama? If whites who vote for Obama means that these whites are not racist, does it then imply that whites who do not vote for him are? I will examine this later. Things are not always as they nominally appear.

I also think that it is prudent that I first set the current context of America in regards to race. The current context that this issue of politics exists is one of racial agendas, conscious and subconscious. White people have an agenda and black people have an agenda in regards to race. Neither race is agenda free, or unbiased, as a general rule, in regards to the issue of race. White people’s agenda is to have the black condition of America, today; seen purely as a condition created by blacks and not the legacy of past and or present white racism, lest they feel guilt and responsibility. However, that agenda is hidden by another agenda which is to not talk about race and ones opinion about race, as if they don't have them. Black people’s agenda is the opposite as blacks seek to have their condition seen as the legacy or result of past and present white racism and policy, lest they be seen as culturally and or genetically inferior. Contrarily, blacks also want to discuss the issue of race and bring the issue to the forefront.

White racism is now seen by whites as something to be ashamed of and hence hidden. It’s seen as something that makes one who wears the scarlet letter seems dirty, evil and someone who should be spat upon by society. Moreover, its admission and or exposure is seen as giving credibility to the need for offsetting policies like Affirmative action, as well as, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Consequently, no white wants to see him or herself as racist or to have others see them as such. To expose white racism is to legitimize an external cause to many deeply ingrained black socioeconomic problems and the need for government intervention, in the minds of many. That’s the context.

Whites have now coined a different, self serving, working definition of racism; one in which they are the arbitrators. This definition is predicated upon the presence of "hate" as one must harbor "hate" to be a white racist, while ignoring "rational" racism, which is simply the belief in black inferiority and its corollary white supremacy, born from statistical analysis. They also have the power to propagate this working definition via mainstream media and in turn the national media integrates this "New" definition into mainstream culture via the power of suggestion and repetition.

The reality is that most whites in America are very insecure about the issue of race. They feel as if they are walking on egg shells. I have heard many whites comment that they fear talking to blacks concerning the issue of race due to the fact that they may say something that offends blacks or say something that will bring accusations from blacks that they are racist. What? I am 100% heterosexual. I don’t have a fear of being seen as a homosexual or bi-sexual because I don’t have the tendency or fit any pattern of gay people, as far as I know. Let’s say, hypothetically of course, that I claimed to be heterosexual, yet, I had the desire to say things like “that guy has a nice butt or nice lips”, because that is how I actually felt, yet, also felt constrained due to fearing that someone will label me as gay, when I claim not to be. What’s wrong with that picture? At the very least its dishonesty via the sin of omission of ones true feelings.

I cannot understand what it is that so many white folks want to say, but do not say out of fear they will be misinterpreted as racist, if they are not indeed racist. I don’t get it. It seems to me that the true fear is one of being exposed and not necessarily one of being labeled incorrectly. As a heterosexual I do not walk around in fear that what I say or do will be seen as fitting the pattern of gay behavior, unless I am insecure about my own sexuality, which I am certainly not. If you are a guy and think that another guy has a nice butt, you’re probably gay. If you’re white and think that black higher rates of poverty are due to blacks being lazier and more irresponsible, then you’re probably a racist. In the 60's gays were insecure and in the closet and racist were overt and proud of it. Today, racist are now in the closet and gays are out in the open.

Given this current context as the background, how do whites mentally process a highly educated and qualified black candidate for office and what does it mean when whites choose one? Of course I cannot read minds, but I do understand human nature, denial and deception. What I can say, therefore, is that given the current reality and agenda of some whites it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of them are voting for Obama in an attempt to demonstrate the absence of racism. It seems obvious to me that if a highly qualified and educated black man fails to get the white vote that such would be seen, by some whites, as evidence of the claim that whites are not ready to elect a black candidate because of racism. This leads some to subconsciously question themselves as to why they were not picking the black candidate. Was it due to racism? This is what I mean by racial insecurity.

Sometimes humans demonstrate the propensity of looking in the opposite direction than where they want to look, when they want to create the impression that they are not interested in something in the opposite direction. Thus, some people will vote for Obama because to vote for him is seen as the opposite behavior of one who is racist, which whites don't want to be seen as. These are people who are trying to demonstrate that they or America are not racist and feel that they have nothing to lose if the competing candidates essentially have the same platform. When all else is equal, a vote for the black candidate, because he is black, serves a purpose. I can already hear their vote being used as defense against accusations of racism. “Hey…I voted for Obama Pal. Don’t brings me that racism crap”. It might replace the “Some of my best friends are black” defense for racist accusations. Pundits are already using the Obama candidacy for this purpose.

Let me break this racism phenomenon in America down a bit further, via analogy, as some whites operate from this self serving working definition of racism. Far too many whites see racism as an absolute, no exceptions granted, all or nothing phenomenon motivated by hate in order to have a negative impact upon black America. I have literally had thousands of debates with whites on forums and blogs via the internet, over the years. The consensus rebuttal to claims and accusations of a racist America and its negative impact upon black America was for them to try and get me to see that not all whites are racist and in particular, that they were not racist.

The vast majority of whites I debated seemed to erroneously believe that for my claims to be true all whites had to be racist. Thus, by demonstrating, or attempting to, that they were not racist their rebuttal made invalid my claims of the existence and impact of white racism historically and contemporarily upon the present black condition. Huh? They operated from the train of thought that if some whites can be proven to be non racist, then racism does not exist, or it exists without impact upon blacks. Huh? I don’t know if they actually believe this nonsense, but it is certainly what they alluded and it was their only defense against my assertions.

George Will's comment fits and follows that pattern gleaned from countless debates with whites concerning race. Thus, Obama getting over 30% of the white Democrats vote in Iowa is now being used to demonstrate that race and racism is no longer an issue in America. Huh? Fact: The problem is that the majority of whites are republican and thus getting over 30% of the white liberal vote in Iowa likely represents no more than 20% of the aggregate white population in Iowa. So how does 20% voting for Obama exonerate the remaining 80% from potentially or in fact being racist? Huh? Arguing or demonstrating that some whites are not racist does not negate the potential existence of racism in other whites. That is a glaring fallacy widely argued in their defense.

Let’s look at the hypocrisy, if not absurdity, of this reasoning a little more from another angle in which whites probably can better relate....Crime. We know how white folks are scared to death of crime and particular crime from the black community. How much is crime a problem in America? How much is violent crime in the black community seen as a real problem in America? Now ask yourself what percentage of blacks in America commits acts of violent crime (murder, rape robbery)? I don't know the exact percentages but the answer is that a very, very small percentage of blacks actually commit violent crime; let’s say 5%, which is probably too high, as most is by repeat offenders.

Despite these small percentages, many white folks think that crime in the black community is out of control and they live in fear of the black criminal, subconsciously, if not consciously. How can black violent crime be seen as such a big problem and threat, in the eyes of whites, when less that 5% of blacks commit violent crimes and the vast majority of those are against other blacks? Yet, white racism is not seen as out of control and a threat to blacks when likely a much, much larger percentage of whites are racist? In other words, why do whites see such a small percentage of blacks as problematic for America and their safety, while suggesting that all or most whites have to be racist for it to be problematic for black America? If that is not absurd enough, they elude, indirectly, that law against racial discrimination eliminated the problem. Huh? Yeah right....just like laws eliminated murder, rape and robbery.

If only 16% of whites are racist, that is one white racist for every black man, women and child in America. Most blacks have to traverse the white world because whites run and control most things and there is no telling where that racist 16% are lurking. For sure a racist act is not usually the same intensity as a violent crime, but it results in denied housing, denied jobs, sub prime loans, loan rejection, higher sentencing, black youth being labeled behavior problems in school and more. All these things stunts black growth. People like George Will wants others to accept his fallacy of composition by suggesting that what is true of some parts is thus true for the whole. He is asserting that since some whites demonstrated apparently non-racist behavior in Iowa, then such implies that white racism does not exist. The only way for it to not be a problem is for it to not exist or to exist in such small percentage that it is impotent, which those votes don’t prove.


Obama’s victory in Iowa proved what in regards to race then? Even with all that said racism is not how one feels about a member of a race, but rather how one feels about the group. The vast majority of people believe that there are exceptions to general rules and hence are willing to grant exception to members of a race as not being “like” the stereotypical member of that group. Moreover, politics is not about whose color a politician represents, but rather, whose interest and values a politician will represent. Consequently and theoretically, a situation can manifest where a black candidate is representing mainstream white interest with the support of the majority of whites, while not having the support of the majority of blacks. A white candidate can be seen as representing mainstream black interest and have the support of the black majority while not having the support of the majority of whites.

The issue of race and racism in America is not exposed by the color of the individual candidates, but rather, the color of the mainstream interest group candidates represent. As I noted earlier, most whites vote republican while the vast majority of blacks vote democratic. Thus it is obvious that black mainstream issues differ from white mainstream issue. White racism manifest politically via a resistance to black mainstream issues and beliefs, not a resistance to a black candidate, who may very well support white mainstream issues and beliefs.

The legacy of racism in this nation has created competing issues and beliefs between blacks and whites in America. The color of the candidate only matters if one assumes or fears that the color of the candidate will always map to the mainstream interest of their race. Obama has not embraced the black mainstream and has not been widely embraced by blacks. This likely gives many whites comfort that Obama will not lean towards black interest because most whites see those interests as a threat to their own. Moreover, many blacks today are "used" in a strategy by whites against other blacks. They will prop up one black and use them to attempt a diminishing of other groups of blacks. If people like George Will are suggesting that Obama’s victory is discrediting Civil Rights type blacks, then it is obvious to me that some people’s motive is to vote for Obama for this purpose, given that there is not that much difference between the democratic candidates.

In closing, America has obviously come a long way in regards to race. That is crystal clear and I would never argue that such is not true. The country today is much, much better than it was in 1760, 1860 and 1960 in regards to race in black and white. We have come a long ways, but having coming a long ways is not the same as arriving at ones destination or not having a long ways to go. Many whites are now behaving like kids on a long road trip. They are always lamenting in a whine “are we there yet?”. “When are we going to be there”? They are tired, anxious and fidgety. They are tired of this trip. The difference is, however, that unlike our kids who have no power or control over the matter and who sit in the back seats, the opposite is true for white America. It is blacks who are riding in the back seats while whites collectively exercise control from the front seat. Consequently, on this long racial road trip, whites have decided to pull of the path and claim that we have arrived, because they are sick and tired of this trip. Meanwhile, blacks are sitting in the back with the obvious realization that this place we have pulled into does not look like the place we are supposed to be, no matter how much whites try to tell us it is.