Obama's Denunciathon

Yeah, I know there's no such word as "denunciathon", but how else do you describe Barack Obama's gutting of Pastor Jeremiah Wright? After Wright's performances this past weekend, Obama found himself in hot water again. Why? Why do ministers like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson, and many more get away with slinging hate, but Wright becomes someone special?

Black America believes it knows the answer. Barack Obama should know, but he won't say it. For to acknowledge a double standard exists based on race would surely torpedo his "change" candidacy. The notion that white politicians can accept endorsements from clergymen who call another branch of Christianity "whores", but that Barack Obama must own the most incendiary remarks of Jeremiah Wright is a curious one indeed. For most black people, the idea that Obama's membership in Wright's former church is the difference (as any self respecting pundit will tell you) is splitting hairs at best.

At worst, it continues a tradition of racialist politics that should have died at the end of the 20th century. It won't because the media in America understands one thing very clearly. It's predominately white audience is uncomfortable with the idea of racial soul searching. It has been since the end of the 1960s. Therefore it's far easier to search the souls of black folks and ferret out what they see as racism, or in Wright's case, a race based lack of patriotism, even gratitude for the black experience in America. Besides, reversing the racial equation is money in the bank.

It may also mortally wound Barack Obama's candidacy for president.  

Voter Fraud or Voter Exclusion?

George W. Bush crafted the current makeup of the US Supreme Court for rulings like the one they handed down yesterday upholding Indiana's voter identification law. It was a splintered, 6-3 ruling that some voting experts say won't have a great impact on presidential voting. Yet it comes little more than a week before that state's presidential primary. 

We know that Republicans argue for such ID laws, which require a photo identification in order to vote. They point to the need to root out "voter fraud", but usually present no evidence such fraud actually exists. That was pointed out in one part of the split majority decision of the court. Yet the back and forth over whether individual states can require photo IDs or other hurdles to the franchise ignores one central point.

Why do the states have control over the process in the first place? Yes, it's been their historic purview, but can anyone argue the mishmash of current state laws deters voter fraud? What about people who vote in more than one state (and don't think it doesn't happen)? And what of the partisan divide that created photo ID laws in the first place?

Why shouldn't their be, at least for presidential elections, a uniform, national standard to determine voter eligibility? The states may squeal like stuck pigs, but don't think the battle the court just ruled on is over. The court simply ruled the challengers didn't prove the law placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. There will be more challenges in the future.

Shouldn't we at least start thinking about making things the same for all of us?  

The Buzz in the Store

I've gone grocery shopping literally thousands of times in my life. Usually it's a mundane task, picking the items needed for a few days to a week. Over this past weekend, I had a unique experience while in my local supermarket. It was so different, I'm wondering if others are experiencing the same thing.

As I walked the aisles as usual, I noticed people were staring at items on various shelves. It wasn't long before I realized they were staring in disbelief. Next thing I know, I'm engaged in conversation with a gentleman about just how much prices have been rising lately. He explained he was just back from Florida, where he saw the same thing, but thought it was unique to the Sunshine State.

No such luck. We both realized yes, prices are rising, and not by a little, by a lot. As I ended that conversation with a rueful smile, I realized it wasn't the only one going on. It seemed aisle after aisle had people, some friends, some strangers, talking about the rising price of food. Several cellphone conversations were going on, loud enough to hear, where shoppers were talking to spouses about whether to buy the intended product, or just the cheapest one.

It's starting to hit home, folks. Americans are starting to feel the pinch that's causing food riots and rationing in other parts of the world. And it's not just about food. Transportation costs, whether we're talking about gas prices, toll or mass transit increases are also going up. So too are those adjustable rate mortgages so many Americans got suckered into buying during the height of the housing boom. It's the perfect storm of rising prices, while wages seem to be stagnating.

It's this storm that anyone who would be our president ought to be talking about.   

No Surprise

New Yorkers with long memories never thought the three police officers accused in the Sean bell 50 shot case would be convicted. Not guilty on all counts is the legacy of the NYPD when it comes to shooting and killing unarmed civilians. Cynics will say nobody should have expected anything different this time around. They'd be right.

The ugly history goes way back, at least as far back to a young man named Clifford Glover. He was just 12 when he was shot and killed by a cop who walked. Randolph Evans was only two years older and only lived about two years longer. In his case, the cop said he went temporarily, briefly insane. No time for him either.

The names from memory come back into focus every time this sad act is repeated. Arthur Miller, Luis Baez, Eleanor Bumpers, have we forgotten anyone? Then fast forward to Abner Louima, victim of gross police torture. He was one of the few who lived, and ironically, two cops in his case did time. No such luck for Anthony Baez (at least on state charges), Patrick Dorismond, Amadou Diallo, and Ousmane Zongo (though the cop in this case was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, he did no time). When angry black citizens say cops get away with killing unarmed black folks, these are the names they're talking about.

And now Sean Bell is added to the list. The city will likely settle any civil suits that come from this case. Millions will be paid out, as they were in several other recent cases.

But nothing changes. 

Third Time No Charm

There are few clearer examples of the Keystone Cop nature of George Bush's war on terror than that of the Liberty City Seven. Actually, there are only six, since one was acquitted at trial last December. You may remember these guys. They were accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, and trying to join Al Qaeda as well. When first busted, the Justice Dept. tried to say they were Islamic militants complete with a plan to buy weapons. Turns out most of them were haitian immigrants.

Quiet as it's kept, the government's case began to fall apart at the first trial. Testimony revealed an FBI search of the group's headquarters in Miami's Liberty City found no weapons, and no evidence of any kind of preparations for an attack. The first trial ended with one acquittal and the jury unable to decide unanimously about the other six. 

No matter. A second trial was undertaken. That one ended last week with the same result as the first. The jury was unable to decide. This could be a tribute to the government's lack of evidence that these defendants were anything other than entrapped by informants. So, what does Uncle Sam do? Go back to the well one more time.

You may notice that the results of these two cases hardly got the publicity the initial arrests did back in June of '06. Back then, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez presented wiretaps and informant reports in a headline grabbing manner. These men were, according to Gonzalez, one big reason why America had to remain vigilant against the dangers of terror at home.

Maybe not so much now, huh?    

The Long Haul

Hillary Clinton looked calm and resilient last night as she spoke to the faithful after winning Pennsylvania. Her margin of victory was right on the cusp of what the pundits said she needed to move forward. Her campaign, however, must not be pleased with many of the media post mortems they're looking at today.

An awful lot of them are saying Pennsylvania solved nothing, and only marginally boosted her chances of taking the nomination from Barack Obama. The New York Times went even further. In an editorial titled "The Low Road to Victory", the paper, which endorsed her, raked her over the coals for her negative campaigning in Pennsylvania. They aren't the only ones. That Osama bin Laden ad she dropped this past past weekend has become the poster child for all that's wrong with this election cycle.

Some are starting to ask whether the Clinton campaign's ceaseless attacks on Barack Obama will have long term negative consequences for the Democratic Party's chances in November. The short answer is simple. It might, but why would Hillary abandon an attack strategy that appears to be working? Pennsylvanians voted for her even as they acknowledged in exit polls that she was more negative than her opponent.

Obama faces a different problem, that of the simple sports metaphor, knockout blow. He hasn't been able to deliver one. He's got to win one upcoming primary big in order to get the superdelegates to deliver it for him. As we've said before, there are grave political risks in always being the counterpuncher. He seemed to have gotten that message at the end of the campaign trail in Pennsylvania.

Let's see if Obama is ready to be the aggressor, and how Clinton reacts.   

Earth Day?

Let's start by making one thing clear. This is not about slagging people who really take environmental issues seriously. There are many, I know several, and they're dedicated people. But what about the rest of us? Is Earth Day about actually changing our own footprints on this slowly degrading planet?

Or is it just about making a green background on a Web page, a sort of St. Patrick's Day in April? How many of us recycle all the time? When we look to buy a new car, do we look at style, or gas mileage? How often do we use mass transit instead of driving somewhere by ourselves? Better still, how about using that bicycle sitting in our garage? 

I hate to say this, but Earth Day is not making us less selfish about how we use the planet's resources. Necessity does that. On this Earth Day, the average price of gasoline is at $3.51 a gallon. Some are predicting gas hitting the painful $4.00 plateau by summer, if that's even a plateau at this point. If anything will start to make us think greener, paying more for basics will.

Then there's the little matter of our homes. I was stunned to find out the other day that cars don't leave nearly as big an environmental footprint as buildings do. Yes, folks, our houses pollute and suck up energy at the same time. What are we prepared to do about it? 

Because thinking green for one day won't cut it.   

Obama's Aggression

So here we are, on the eve of yet another "crucial" Democratic presidential primary. This time it's Pennsylvania, the one we've waited six agonizing weeks for. Conventional wisdom is Hillary Clinton has to win, and win big, to keep her flagging campaign alive. For Barack Obama, there's been a change in strategy.

This past weekend, the senator from Illinois came out swinging at his rival. By and large, Obama has been content to counterpunch as Clinton has been the one on the offensive. As a result, he's failed to deliver primary wins in several key states before now. This tactical change may also have it's roots in the recent rough road the Obama campaign has found itself traveling.

Pundits and cable reporters are calling this the most important primary yet. No big deal. They've said that about at least a half dozen contests before now. There's no guarantee that a narrow Clinton win or an unlikely Obama victory will drive her from the race. The pressure on her will increase, for sure, but Hillary has shown herself to be a strong willed person who can resist that sort of thing.

A big Clinton win would have the effect of reopening the race, and making the next two primaries, in Indiana and North Carolina, the most important ones of the campaign. Predictions about who will win Pennsylvania and by how much are at this point as meaningless as all the polls that have been taken up until now.

So let the voters decide.

For Want of Food

The American media is just now starting to pick up on the dimensions of a global food shortage that threatens to topple governments and take lives. Consider that while we here in the US are coping with rising prices for many food staples, there are places in the world where food is getting impossible to come by. In Egypt, the military has been tasked to bake bread. In Thailand, one of the world's biggest rice exporters, there are now limits on how much can be bought by consumers. Riot police patrol the streets of Senegal's largest cities, seeking to stem the violence that often accompanies rapid food price hikes.

And then there's Haiti. When food goes up 50% a year in the Western Hemisphere's poorest country, you have a recipe for disaster. People have been killed as the poor protest the cost of food, and the inability of government to do much about it. Pictures of people rummaging through dumps in Port Au Prince are just now starting to get printed in US papers.

Which brings up the following question. We are supposed to be the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We've been told for many years we can produce enough food to feed the world. In fact, some farmers here are paid not to produce certain crops. So why hasn't there been a mumbling word about the global food crisis from our leaders? Why, after 45 minutes of debate questions about flag lapel pins and the Weather Underground was there no question put to the candidates about how they'd deal with this?

If we think the only by-product of this shortage for us is the rising cost of food, we are sadly mistaken. We may be powerful, but we aren't immune to the problems of the world. It may be too much to ask our current stumblebum president to act. But there are three people seeking to take his place.

Where are they? 

The Cost of Foolishness

I didn't watch last night's Democratic presidential debate. I was working. However, a cursory reading of day after media coverage of the event makes me glad I didn't. They'll tell you, the pundits will, that Barack Obama was on the defensive, and that it wasn't a great debate for him. That may be true, but the real losers here are us, the American people. If the substance of the debate was what the media tell us it was, we're all in deep trouble.

Mostly, the questions, parries, and thrusts seem to have been about past associations (Obama's) , past statements (Clinton's), and not a whole lot else. That's sad, because there's much to talk about, much to debate. Oil prices are going through the roof, causing real pain at the gas pump. Folks in all sorts of jobs across this country are making ends meet by the thinnest of margins. There's a worldwide food shortage most Americans aren't even aware of. And what do candidates choose to talk about? The Weather Underground? Jeremiah Wright? Bosnia and sniper fire?

We ought to hang our heads in shame. If we can't demand more substance from our candidates and the media that questions them, we deserve what we get. How in the world have we gotten to this place? To begin to answer that question would take up much more space than this blog allows, but we can start someplace.

It's time to start raising the bar for everyone connected to the American political process. The foolishness must end, and the public must end it.  

Money, Power, Stupidity

So what is it about some politicians? They seem unable to do their jobs without putting their hands in the public till. Recently, it was Brooklyn Assemblywoman (now former) Diane Gordon who was convicted of promising to help a developer get a piece of land in her district in return for "her dream home".

Now former Newark Mayor Sharpe James can add his name to the list. He's been convicted on all five counts he faced in connection with rigging the sale of nine parcels of city land to his mistress at a dirt cheap price. She quickly resold them at a rather large profit. Both James and Tamika Riley face four to seven year prison terms under federal sentencing guidelines.

That the people mentioned here are Democrats merely shows that greed and corruption aren't the sole province of any one political party. The question, how the public can be safeguarded from such foolishness? The short answer is, we can't. After all, we elect these people and there is no foolproof way to tell ahead of time who will betray their oath of office and who won't.

The prospect of jail time for such actions seems not to deter those of a mind to gorge themselves at the public trough. No, the only potential remedy to the Sharpe Jameses and Diane Gordons is an electorate willing to cast them out at the first hint of corruption. For that matter, maybe we simply keep elected officials in their jobs too long, period. We re-elect office holders at an astounding rate.

If we lower that rate, maybe, just maybe they'll think twice before doing something as dumb as these two did.

Back Next Wednesday

I'm out of town starting today through next Tuesday. Back on Wednesday, 4-16.

Until then, take no shorts!

Mark

The General and the Pols

The top US commander in Iraq went to Capitol Hill Tuesday. Gen. David Petraeus made the presence of US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker almost an afterthought. It was Petraeus members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees wanted to talk to. And talk they did. The general was questioned by the three people who'd be his next boss (assuming he stays on the job that long). However, we know what the politicians got out of yesterday's hearings. The question is, what did the American people get?

The short answer is, not much. Petraeus says troop withdrawals beyond those promised through July would threaten the fragile gains made since the troop surge. He says security in Iraq is getting better, and the Iraqi military is holding its own, sort of. As for the political reconciliation the surge was supposed to buy, even Petraeus couldn't say that's happening. 

So here's the Petraeus plan, in a nutshell. The 20,000 extra troops used for the surge are pulled out by July. After that, a 45 day period of "evaluation". Then, a period of assessment whose length is still to be determined. In plain English, no substantial troop withdrawals while George W. Bush is still president. Not even a timetable for troop withdrawal this year. 

This is the endless war that so many Americans fear. It is unacceptable, yet Petraeus and his sponsor, Bush, seem bent on ramming it down our throats. Democrats in Congress have yet to figure out how to stop the war machine without looking like spineless capitulators. So, our emboldened president will go before the American people tomorrow, and most likely parrot the same tired lines Petraeus is using.

And what constitutes success in Iraq will remain a mystery.

Congestion Indigestion

So congestion pricing in New York City is dead, at least for now. The plan, which would have charged cars entering Manhattan's business core $8 apiece and trucks $21 died in the state legislature without ever coming up for a vote. The question is, why and how? Was congestion pricing simply a bad idea, or just one that wasn't properly presented and thought out?

One of the primary misconceptions about congestion pricing was precisely who would be affected. The fact is, an overwhelming majority of city residents wouldn't be affected at all. Somewhere between 80 and 85% of those living in the five boroughs use public transportation to get to and from work. Huge numbers of New Yorkers don't even own cars.

So then, in whose interest were those members of the State Assembly who opposed the pricing plan acting? Anyone who has driven in midtown Manhattan, day or night, has experienced the pollution spewing gridlock that threatens the long term economic viability of the city. Now that congestion pricing has gone down for the count, don't expect the politicians who killed it to come up with an alternative. Some were mentioned in passing, but none will get done.

Congestion pricing was never a perfect solution to New York's traffic woes. One big problem was that it was never properly explained to the public. Most people never thought the money generated by it would go to mass transit as promised. The fault for that lies in the hands of the very people we elect to govern us.

Not that they'll accept it.    

Condi for VP?

Apparently, some folks in the chattering class don't think it's impossible. In fact, there's one report that has the Secretary of State actively seeking the gig. It certainly would make an interesting pairing, John McCain and Condoleeza Rice. The question is, would it fly?

First, some obvious politics. If Hillary Clinton manages to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from Barack Obama, don't think for a minute that some black folks wouldn't gravitate to a ticket with a black person on it. Maybe not a majority, but enough to make people sit up and take notice. Rice has been highly visible the past few years, and adding her to the ticket could make McCain look inclusive. She can't really point to many foreign policy triumphs, but she's been working for George W. Bush, after all.

Ironically, one big negative for Rice happened on the domestic front. During Hurricane Katrina back in '05, she was shopping and taking in Broadway shows while folks in New Orleans were catching hell. Beyond that, little is known about her views on critical domestic issues like the economy, health care, the mortgage crisis, and the like.

Maybe that's just what John McCain is looking for, maybe not. But it sure makes for some interesting speculation.

Welcome to the Garden State

If New Jersey's politics were likened to a sport, it would be rugby. Political players in Jersey often come away from political battles (metaphorically, you understand) with teeth missing and lumps on their heads. In other words, you've been in a fight. Lately, Jersey's politics have taken interesting twists and turns on three fronts. 

New Jersey's senior (in more ways than one) senator, Frank Lautenberg, was called on to run after Bob Torricelli's tenure crashed and burned in an ethics scandal back in '02. The conventional wisdom at the time was that Lautenberg's return to the Senate would be for one term, and then he'd retire (again). After all, he's in his 80s.

So much for logic. Lautenberg's running for a second full term and now the state's Democratic political establishment is forced to choose sides. South Jersey Congressman Bob Andrews has chosen to challenge Lautenberg in the state's June primary. It could be one of the few places in America where a congressional incumbent faces a primary challenge. And rest assured, it'll be ugly.

If that weren't enough, New Jersey got dragged kicking and screaming into middle of New York City's war on traffic. New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to charge motorists who drive into Manhattan's business core. New York's City Council passed a congestion pricing bill, but included in it a requirement that $1 billion dollars be transferred from the Port Authority (a bi-state agency) to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (only New York). That has Jersey's Gov. Corzine hopping mad, mad enough to talk about suing (he's since backed off, a little). Any further explanation of this mess gets much too complicated for a simple blog like this.

And finally, there's Corzine himself. He's an early and ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Or is he? In an interview on CNBC, he hedged about whether he'd back Barack Obama if he had the most popular votes at the end of the primary cycle. While saying he backed Clinton, he used the phrase "reserve the right" three times during the interview. That led the blogosphere to shift into overdrive, speculating about whether Corzine's support was wavering. He swears it hasn't, but the damage was done.

So, in a nutshell, that's pit bull politics, Jersey style. We didn't even get a chance to talk about the state's budget woes, but no worries.

Some other time.

So  

Deal, BIG DEAL!

I know we usually talk about politics, but with a little less than three weeks to go before the Pennsylvania primary, the state budget being negotiated and congestion pricing on legislative hold, we thought there are other stories worth looking at, and commenting on.

The ongoing saga of Shawn Carter from Brooklyn, NY has taken a turn that has solidified his status as hip-hop's biggest mogul and dealmaker, ever. As the fabled rap artist Jay-Z, he's about to sign an agreement worth a staggering $150 million dollars. Even more startling is the fact that the deal isn't with a record company.

Jay-Z's rise from self proclaimed Brooklyn hustler to rap star to astute businessman is one to blow away Horatio Alger. If you didn't sit up and take notice when he put up $25 million dollars of his own money to invest in a sports arena in his home borough, you will now. The deal he's reportedly about to make is with concert promoter Live Nation. It's structure speaks volumes about the changing landscape of what used to be called the music business.

This deal is not just about putting out music. It involves concerts, merchandising, and financing for an entertainment vehicle of Jay-Z's choice. It's raised a few eyebrows, because his last album was only a modest success. No matter. Live Nation has already locked Madonna and U2 into deals like this. Live Nation plans to make its money on all these artists wherever and whenever it can. 

Jay-Z has become a beneficiary of the inability of the music business to make money, well, selling music. CD sales are down a third since 2000. Piracy continues unabated because the business ignored digital compression and file sharing until it was way too late. Falling sales made the music business seek revenue from traditional allies like radio. The two are currently in a nasty spat about whether radio should pay for playing music. So what happens? Artists with earning power through name recognition and concert touring are easily the most desirable.

And it all comes back to Jay-Z, who now describes himself as the Rolling Stones of hip-hop.

If this deal happens, who's to argue?  

Cuts, and More Cuts

Many of you may not know this, because it doesn't get the play that a lot of economic news does. The media, broadcast and print, has been going through a cycle of downsizing lately that have some folks in the business wondering when it will all end. Many of those wondering are looking for work at the same time.

Yes, if politicians can convince the rest of America that there's no recession, they'd have a hard time getting those who work in the information business to sign on. Haven't seen your favorite local news anchor or reporter on the air lately? How about your local deejay on the radio? Been missing a reporter or columnist's byline from your paper or magazine? There's a better than 50-50 chance they don't work there anymore.

Sadly, this latest wave of layoffs in media has little to do with competence, or even ratings success. Time was, those were the determining factors in whether a person kept their job. Not any more. As radio and television stations fell into the hands of big operators, their value became inflated. That began a decade ago, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Even successful outlets are getting rid of talent as they struggle to meet shareholder expectations.

Newspapers and magazines are beset by a slightly different set of problems. The Internet has siphoned off many of print media's traditional advertising base. Here in New York, not one but two free, easy to read papers compete with the major dailies, both broadsheet and tabloid.

The giant sucking sound of talent being cut from media staffs will have an impact on the quality of what you read, see, and hear.

In fact, It's already happening.

Note: Yesterdays entry can be found at markrileywithpoliticsplus.blogspot.com