The Black Liberal Boomer Blog

Cory screwed up. That much is clear.

Cory knows he screwed up. That much is also clear.

The celebrated Superman Mayor of Newark (he who rescues women from burning buildings and shovels everybody else's sidewalks on cold winter days) appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday morning and announced how nauseated he was by the Obama campaign ads targeting Mitt Romey's tenure at Bain Capital, even going so far as to compare those ads to the ill-advised and now aborted (last I heard) approach by the right to re-link Obama to his ex-Pastor Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure Mayor Booker can still hear the wind whistling by his ears as he tumbles swiftly from grace. And, as might be expected, Booker has been on a relentless save-my-ass campaign to explain and re-explain himself pretty much from the minute he stepped off the set at Meet the Press, woke up, and then realized "Oh shit..."

Forgive me Obama. I knew not what I done did.

Of course the Republicans quickly manufactured an ad taking full advantage of Booker's screw-up; "We Stand With Cory." To which Cory quickly responded in the following manner (as reprinted From USA Today):

"Anybody in the GOP wants to stand with me, please stand with me. Stand with me for marriage equality, as Barack Obama stands up for," he said. "Stand with me for not turning the clock back on women in terms of medical issues, like Barack Obama is standing again. Stand with me on making healthcare more accessible to all. Stand with me for making college more affordable as President Obama is doing."

Not bad. Just goes to show that Cory didn't go into politics for nothing. He knows what he has to do - what he better do - to mend fences with The Family. But that being said, considering how good of a politician Booker is, and him knowing this is an election year where many observers predict the presidential race will be a close one - the question still lingers like a persistent stench in the air; what was the brother thinking? How could he slip up (if that's what it was) and equate criticism of Romney's tenure at Bain Capital with the Republican attempt to use Rev. Jeremiah Wright as their own Obama heat-seeking missile?

Consider the following from Slate

But what about the job losses? According to the Wall Street Journal, 22 percent of the 77 companies the paper analyzed from Romney's tenure (at Bain) went bankrupt or closed their doors. Another 8 percent lost Bain money. How did Romney decide winners and losers? What does that tell us about how he'll make choices as president? If the market dictated the winners and losers, what should people conclude about the way government might change under his stewardship? If this unpleasant portion of his business experience isn't relevant to the skills he'll need as president, which skills are relevant? Where does he draw the line?

In other words, Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain makes it pretty hard for him to claim he's anybody's idea of a jobs creator. And Booker, who I believe to be a pretty well-informed individual, has to know this about the relationship between Bain and Romney, right? But hey, even if he (remarkably) didn't know anything about it, every Democrat with even a hair's breadth of aspiration knows that it is virtual suicide to openly criticize the Top Dog during campaign season, especially when you're criticizing one of the strongest weapons in his arsenal. That there is Politics 101. It's also common sense. If you have an issue with how the campaign is doing things, then contact the campaign. I'm sure they would return his calls. But Meet the Press?

(Hopefully) this issue will die down relatively soon, and Booker will once again be on the same page with the rest of the team. But somebody needs to tell the man that when you're a politician? Sometimes it's a good idea to keep your honest opinions to yourself.  Because politics is all about being a team player. And because, as the rest of us have learned, honesty is not always the best policy.

The New York Times just ran a story a few days ago based on a US Census Bureau report announcing that, for the first time in American history, white folks are the nationwide minority among the newborn. In other words, us colored are birthin' more babies than white people. So naturally, the response among some (in the declining majority camp) has been to frustrate themselves over what this means about America's future. Does this mean that we're now becoming a minority majority country, someone asked? And what does that mean? Should we round up all the women and children and lead them to a safe white place?

OK, first thing. If we weren't a minority majority country for all those centuries that white folks had us by the numbers, then why should America suddenly be labeled a 'minority majority' country once the former minorities become the majority? Sounds to me like somebody just can't let that 'minority' designation go. Gotta find some way to keep that in there, right?

Except that no. Time to face up to the new dawn, people. To those of us who have been following this issue, this isn't exactly news. The writing has been on the walls (on the wombs..?) for quite some time now. The US Census predicts that by the year 2050 whites will not only be the minority among the newborn population but among the entire US of A population (see video above). Look out y'all, here we come.

But I'm sure the concern about what to call this latest development isn't the largest concern among some of our more paranoid brethren. The Big Concern is what happens to White Power once the numbers decline? And does the (possible) deterioration of White Power mean that whites will become targets of revenge for all that pent up anger going back to slavery?

Who knows, man. I'm trying to leave the prediction game alone. I predicted that Obama was going to wait until after the election before he openly supported gay marriage, and that this was the best course to take. Within about a day after I wrote that post here on JJP, here comes Obama making his announcement that he supports same sex marriage, right? So enough with the predictions. But I will say that, historically speaking, just because whites are due to  become the minority in a relatively brief amount of time hardly means they will switch places with the poor and dispossessed. Globally speaking, white people have been the minority pretty much forever and a day. And globally speaking, they have pretty much been running things for just about that long. Just take a look at how colonialism worked. That wasn't the work of a majority population taking over a minority. Quite the opposite. Just sayin I think white folks are pretty good at holding their own when it comes to power.

Does this mean things will remain the same? Hell no. I seriously doubt it. The so-called minorities throughout the world - and here at home - have been paying attention to how the game is played, and I suspect there will be some rule changes taking effect. But don't expect whites to be evicted from Wall Street anytime soon, if you catch my meaning.

As for the whole vengeful chickens full of pent-up anger coming home to roost thing, I doubt that as well. At least insofar as the non-white population rising up as one righteously angry mob to make the White Man pay for past injustices. To be honest, I'd like to believe we all have better things to do than revenge. If Nelson Mandela can come to such a conclusion in favor of moving forward, after all of the sheer hell white folks put him and his beloved South Africa through, then I believe such a necessary direction is instructive for the rest of us.

So rest easy white folks. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

The latest Obama-could-be-in-trouble story comes to us (in a roundabout way) courtesy of Vice President Joe Biden, who earned some headlines recently when he said, in response to a question from a reporter, that he doesn't have a problem with gay marriage. Education Secretary Arne Duncan later saidvirtually the same thing, once again apparently in response to a question posed by an inquiring-minds-want-to-know reporter.

Then, after both Biden and Duncan did the politically risky thing of saying what they actually thought about an important issue without first getting clearance from the Big House,  various and assorted aides and spokestypes were dispatched with overflowing buckets of water to put out the fire, reassuring all that Biden's position really isn't all that different from that of the President, whose views on gay marriage have been 'evolving' for the past two years. 'Nothing to see here' was the story they tried to spin, insisting that there was no rift at all between the position of the Big Guy and the Big Guy No. 2 plus Duncan.

OK, a couple of things to consider here. First of all, at least from what I've read, both Biden and Duncan spoke out in response to questioning from reporters. They didn't hold a press conference of their own to announce they whole-heartedly supported gay marriage. Granted, it does make things run considerably smoother when everybody stays completely on message and never veers, but that rarely happens except when you're dealing with robots - and it never, ever happens when Joe Biden is involved. This is noteworthy because it raises the possibility that this is a policy rift headline created, at least in part, by reporters. Obama  still hasn't come right out and said he supports gay marriage, saying it is an issue he is still struggling with. Biden and Duncan don't have a problem with gay marriage at all. Does this mean thunderclouds are rumbling over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.? I kinda doubt it.

Second, how important is it really between now and November for Obama to come out and say he supports gay marriage (assuming that he actually does and is only holding back for political reasons, an assumption I'm not so sure is correct)? Does this help him win in 2012? Sure, maybe it's not nice to be that coldly political and calculating, but no matter how much many of us may hate politics, the president is a politician and some of us really do need to get used to that. And politically speaking, Obama stands to lose more than he will gain if he makes that announcement in an election year.

Let's do the math (which you can bet Obama's people already have); gays - including the not insignificant number of gays and transgenders currently at work in the Obama administration administration- will be thrilled. So will straight supporters of gay rights. This is an importnat constituency and not a small constituency - but far from a majority constituency that could cost Obama the election. Especially not when the alternative is Mitt Romney.

On the flip side, we black folks are known as a group not all that supportive of gay marriage (not including me, BTW, because I do support it 100%), which means openly supporting gay marriage could cost Obama traction among his most devout constituency. It could also cost him among working class whites, meaning those union women and men from middle America who he very much needs. Latinos are leaning toward Obama by a margin of more than 6 to 1, and they aren't much better than us when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

Any one of these three constituencies alone could cause problems if enough of them decided to stay at home. All three of them together? That could swell into an election-losing sized problem.

If we want Obama to win a second term, then some of us are going to have to get used to the way the game is played. And we need to remember that the President has already been more openly - and legislatively - supportive of gay rights than  any other president up to this point. We also need to keep in mind that there is less holding Obama back in a second term, especially if enough Democrats are returned to the Senate to thwart a filibuster. As of now the chances of Democrats getting the House back appear slim.

So right now I figure the President is playing the only card he can afford to play on the gay marriage issue. As far as all this fuss about the growing pressures on him to speak up and speak out right now? Whatever pressure there really is, and I don't think it's as much as some of these stories make it out to be, it won't last long.

Detroit has been identified by its crime rate for a long, long time. That reputation didn't just happen to us by accident, most Detroiters can tell you there's considerably more to Detroit than the violence. And what Detroiters can also tell you is that, as a predominantly African American city that has in many ways become synonymous with the term Urban America (so goes Detroit, so goes Black America), there are clearly identifiable reasons why it is so easy for many to casually dismiss Motown as another casualty of blackness. Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee earned a huge amount of my respect when he spoke so clearly on those issues in a recent issue of a local publication, the Michigan Citizen. The following two quotes from a much longer article (well worth reading) are the ones that immediately grabbed my attention - and my appreciation:

Many believe Detroit is a violent city, is that accurate?

I think it’s grossly inaccurate. There’s a small percentage of people involved in a great percentage of the problems. And what I am very resistant to doing is bowing to media pressure to “get tough on crime,” which to me is a euphemism to crack down on these young Black folks. When you indiscriminately do that and paint everybody with the same brush, you’re going to catch kids that are not bad kids up in that web. You are going to make the mistake and over police and violate the rights of somebody that is absolutely doing nothing that deserves that. I want my department to be one ... that honors the rights of the citizens of the city of Detroit. Not to be compliant with a consent judgment, but because it’s the right thing to do.

 

Do you see any correlation between youth violence and the demise of the Detroit Public School system?

I think they definitively go hand in hand ... If you look at some of the socio-economic factors that play in to the issues in the city of Detroit ... for instance the illiteracy rate, how high it is and people say we just need jobs in Detroit. Well, that sounds good, but if you bring a job base into the city and you have the structurally unemployed that for all intents and purposes are unemployable because the education system has failed them or we have failed them in some kind of manner, where if somebody can’t read ... or do the things necessary to hold that job ... or don’t have the requisite job skill, then we’re just doing a song and dance ... if you travel back to October/November when people were starting to be put off public assistance and the law was retroactive, it is no mistake that my larcenies are going up. It is no mistake that my car thefts are going up. Because ... these social nets that were just snatched without a transition, well these folks have got to eat. Then it becomes a matter of survival. Is it an excuse? Absolutely not. But it exacerbates what’s already a very difficult situation on the ground for our citizens.

Maybe I should just trust the polls. In my gut it doesn't make sense what I'm hearing, but if the polls are the true barometer of what's going on out there, then maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe I'm missing a lot.

Because here's what I don't quite get; more than a few pundits, news commentators, and news stories have all been pedaling the story that  the general election race between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is going to be a real nail-biter that will take us down to the wire. In earlier months, when the Republicans were doing their best to self-destruct, Obama was given a fairly comfortable lead over Romney and everyone else, but now that Romney is the clear leader the latest storyline is that the Republican troops have resigned themselves to the fact that Romney is The Guy and they are rallying behind him. And now that they are all united behind their guy, whatever reservations they may have - and there are plenty - the numbers indicate that this rallying of the conservative base around the Mittster is creating enough of a bump that Obama may have one hell of a fight on his hands come the general election campaign.

And I agree that in politics few things are certain except that they're not. The sure front-runner can be dog catcher within a matter of weeks - or days. But I must admit I'm having a  hard time understanding how this race is supposed to be so damned close. Sure, I'm an avowed Obama supporter and want the man to win a second term. But you don't have to be an Obama fan to see how much Mitt Romney has distanced himself from practically every voting constituency except for rich white folks like himself and angry not-quite-so-rich folks who just cannot stand Obama and want him out of there even if they're not that enthused about Romney. That does not equal the majority of voting age Americans.

Consider:

• Women voters now prefer Obama to Romney by a double-digit margin of at least 14 points according to one poll. More than a few say that it is virtually impossible to win an election with that many women committed to the other candidate.
• Hispanic voters favor Obama by a nearly 6 to 1 margin according to a poll conducted by FOX News Latino. Hispanics are becoming a critical constituency in states like Colorado and Arizona, let alone Texas.
• African American voters are once again expected to come out in large numbers (close to 90 percent) in favor of Obama.
• Although the rock star image has been tarnished somewhat due to the realities of politics and governing, which can be hard for the more idealistic young to stomach, it does appear that they will once again be more solidly in Obama's corner this time just like last election, although not as fervently as before. But even if they come out in lower numbers, the likelihood of them gambling on Mitt Romney this time around seems, well, remote to say the least.
• Not only are the Teamsters throwing their support behind Obama, which wasn't necessarily a shock, but they are committing thousands of door-to-door volunteers who now have the ability to knock not just on the doors of other union members but the general population. This could go a long way toward attracting the white working class that so many say are weary of Obama, especially in states like my home state Of Michigan and also Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

Once again, I'm not going to go so far out on a limb as to suggest that Obama is going to win this running away. He may not even win by the same comfortable margin as he did in 2008, due largely to the soon-to-be-seen impact of the massive voter suppression efforts that have been underway ever since Obama became President, and the disproportionate amount of funds being shoveled into the SuperPACs which Democrats simply cannot compete against. These are formidable barriers to be sure.

But even against those negatives, and factoring in disenchantment amongst the progressive block represented by those such as Prof. Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Ralph Nader, and others, the embarrassingly tepid support of Romney amongst his base - and his pathetic campaign - make it hard to imagine how he's going to present such a massive threat to a campaigner such as Obama with a more than impressive record of achievement that is only now receiving the exposure that it should have gotten long ago. It's hard to imagine an army of enthusiastic Romney supporters swarming the nation, especially when it is Romney himself whose perpetual gaffes are providing the Obama campaign with the best negative political ads they could ever ask for. Even conservative commentator Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show 'Morning Joe' blurted out publicly during prime time that none of the Republican political leaders and heavy hitters with whom he is in regular contact believed Romney was going to win in 2012.

As for those who want to trot out the losses of incumbent President Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the loss of Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis to George H.W. Bush in 1988 to show how a Democrat can lose this, I say you can't seriously be comparing Barack Obama to either one of those gentlemen. And especially in the case of Jimmy Carter, where not only can you not compare Carter to Obama, you damned sure can't compare Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan, whose actor's charisma and base of enthusiastic support were off the charts.

Sometimes I think you have to question the polls...

A little over a month ago there was this story in the Huffington Postabout a judge in Montana who was comparing black folks to dogs and implying that President Barack Obama's mother had sex with animals. And since Obama's mother was a white woman and his father was a black African then, well, I guess you could say it all kinda fits. At least in the mind of this judge in Montana.

This judge, by the way, is Montana's chief federal judge. Chief Federal Judge Richard Cebull to be exact.

Now, maybe Judge Cebull figured it wouldn't make much of a difference him saying these kinda things up there in Big Sky Country since,according to the US Census, the black population in Montana is 0.4 percent. Not to be confused with 4.0 percent, which would be miniscule enough to require a microscope. But no, the number we're talking about here, once again, is 0.4 percent. I'm not even sure that equals an entire black person. Maybe it's just the footprints of one who was passing through on his or her way to civilization.

So when he decided it was OK to share the following 'joke' via email with beloved friends and family, he probably figured to himself, "Hey, who's gonna turn me in? We're all white folks up here right? Hell, this just might be the last state on Earth where a white man can scream the word niggerrrrrrr! at the top of his lungs downtown in the middle of the day at lunchtime and not worry about a doggoned thing because, hey, we're all white folks up here and when everybody's white, well, the definition of what's politically correct kinda changes, doesn't it? And besides, I'm the damned chief federal judge, dude."

Oh. Right. The joke. OK, here it is. Stand by for laughter.

Courtesy of the Huffington Post:

"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine."

A joke then follows: "A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?' His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'"

So ha-ha, ho-ho, and all that. Good one judge.

Except that, as it turns out, even in a state where the only existence of black people is found in rumors, there are still white folks who just don't think that kinda humor is funny. Even with no black folks around, and not many white liberals either, there are still some white folks in the year 2012 for whom such blatant, naked racism is just flat-out embarrassing and kinda fucked up. So now the judge has issued an apology which doesn't mean much since it obviously doesn't reflect any meaningful change of heart. But as of April 6, an investigation has now been launched into the judge's behavior by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and at least three judicial misconduct complaints have been issued against Cebull. A buncha folks are calling for him to step down as well.

Who knows how this will all turn out for Cebull in the end. Maybe he will actually get punished and forced to step down. Great. But what's done is done, and there is no rewind button on reality. This is our America, folks. Raw and unedited in the era of President Barack Obama.

This has been cross-posted at Black Liberal Boomer

Paul Robeson was born on April 9, 1898 in Princeton, NJ. He attended Rutgers University, exceled and lettered in four sports, was on the debate team, and earned a Phi Beta Kappa key for scholarship. Trained as an attorney, Paul Robeson became a world-acclaimed actor and singer. He worked tirelessly for African-American civil rights, but as an avowed Communist later in his life, his tours and passport were cancelled by the U.S. government. Mr. Robeson died on January 23, 1976.

In 1939, renowned opera singer Marian Anderson performed on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial after being denied admission to Constitutional Hall by the Daughters of the American Revolution. Over 75,000 people attended the concert; Ms. Anderson (February 27, 1897 - April 8, 1993) has been declared as having one of the most voices of all time.

Last month on Feb. 28 a story appearedin my hometown newspaper, theDetroit Free Press, detailing how homicides in my city have escalated by 25 percent since last year. Much of that steep incline resulted from the madness that has taken control of the city's east side, which now more closely resembles the wild wild west. Within a matter of weeks a 14-year-old teen murdered his own mother and a 9-month-old baby was killed by gunfire.

From the Detroit Free Press, Feb. 29, 2012:

First it was the 48205 zip code. Now it’s the entire east side of Detroit.

Responding to yet another spate of violence in the city of Detroit, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade today announced a federal crackdown on Detroit’s entire east side, saying the crime-plagued area has become the most violent section in the city and warrants federal attention. Homicides in particular, she stressed, are “intolerably high” on the east side, which saw a 75% jump in homicides last year. The west side saw a 27% drop in homicides last year.

“I made it my personal resolution in 2012 to reduce homicides in the city of Detroit,” McQuade said at a press conference this afternoon, flanked by 15 uniformed federal, local and state police officials. “We will not allow Detroit to be defined by violence and homicides.”

It was at almost exactly the same point in time one month ago when Trayvon Martin was killed by some maniac self-appointed comic book superhero. You know the rest I'm sure. And like most of you (I'm sure) I want that maniac behind bars yesterday and I want justice for Trayvon. Of course I do. That's an easy call.

But where was all this national outrage when that 14-year-old boy murdered his mother? Who among us was wearing their hoodie when 9-month-old Delric Miller IV was killed before he even got a chance to make his contribution to the world? If President Obama had a son, he may very well have looked like Trayvon Martin. But he may also have looked just like that 14-year-old boy who killed his mother. Or the 6-year-old boy who was killed by an AK-47 during an attempted carjacking. Or Delric Miller. Or...

Understand that I love and support this President. I do. But Trayvon is an easy one to claim. There are others, Mr. President. So many others. And I can assure you they aren't quite so easy to embrace openly during a campaign season.

Where is the national march and united cry of outrage for the black-on-black murders that are tearing Detroit apart? Who do we demand justice from for all of this?

It's because we're used to it. There's nothing new about us-killing us - or at least so we tell ourselves because we've forced ourselves to become numb to it as a survival technique. It's that monster in the mirror. The monster is the truth, and the truth is that black-on-black crime is much newer than white-on-black crime and white oppression overall. Black folks have been chewed up and spit out by White America ever since the first ancestor was dragged off the boat in chains all those hundreds of years ago. By comparison, black-on-black crime is the baby on the block.

It's crazy out here right now, people, and there's no sign yet of the cavalry.

Wait. I take that back. We are the damned cavalry.

Read more ...