Democrats, Delegates and Domination

As any political junkie knows by now, the democratic race to the nomination has turned into quite the quandary. Clinton and Obama are locked in a race that may drag on to the convention and their campaigns are increasingly ripping each other apart. With most of the pledged delegates already allocated and with Obama's henchman blocking re-votes in Michigan and Florida, it is nearly impossible for Clinton to win more pledged delegates and highly unlikely that she will win the popular vote. With that understanding, what rationale does she have to stay in the race? The obvious answer is her belief that she can convince "superdelegates" that she is the stronger candidate in the general election and hope that they reverse the will of the people. Let me repeat: that they reverse the will of the people.

Sadly, this idea is at the very heart of what the Democratic Party has come to stand for. The mistrust in the American people to know what is good for them, whether it is healthcare or savings accounts or the democratic nominee for president, the party that claims to represent the “common man” has in place a policy that does the exact opposite of the image they like to project. Superdelegates currently comprise 20% of all pledged delegates-more than enough to overturn any close race for the nomination. Contrary to popular belief, they exist not to enforce the will of the people, but to act as a check and balance to the voice of the people when they feel it is necessary. This is not individual freedom, but government domination. This is not democratic, but tyrannical and it stinks of control, mistrust and deception. As an American, I hope the Democratic Party follows the will of the people. However, as a John McCain supporter, I can only wish for continued turmoil in the Democratic Party.

Affirmative Action

For the most comprehensive debate on affirmative action between today's top race pundit's, click the link below. You can listen to the entire debate or various excerpts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16337441

American Gangster

“No black man has accomplished what the American mafia hasn’t in a 100 years!”

The white guy who yells this in the movie’s preview was the reason I went to see American Gangster - to learn about the black man who sold more drugs, killed more efficiently and controlled the streets of New York City better than the Italian Mafia. But why? Later I would realize that the previews sold me and I am sure countless other future viewers with the promise of learning about a glorified black drug dealer. Walking into the theater, I was excited to watch a film about one of Harlem’s sons, a black entrepreneur who lived the American Dream, rather than a film about its most notorious dope supplier. Although the film did not glorify Frank Lucas the way I had assumed it would, what drove me to pay the $11.25 for the ticket is troublesome: an urge to see a glorified black American drug dealer beat “the system”, even if it meant pumping his own community with drugs that would soon destroy it. The unsettling part is that I know I am not alone. I can imagine young inner city kids walking out of the theater idolizing Frank Lucas, crowning him “real” and maybe even wondering what it’s like to be like him. Now this does not mean that I would rather the film not have been made. I would love to see similar movies about famous black criminals and crime bosses the same way moviegoers adore the Godfather Trilogy, Casino, Goodfellas and other Italian Mafia movies. My problem is that it took far too much introspection for me to see Frank Lucas for who he really was: a ruthless killer and avaricious heroin dealer who desecrated the bodies of American soldiers killed in Vietnam by having doped shipped back in the caskets of sometimes dead men. Instead, my initial perception of him was not the drug dealer, but the black entrepreneur. Not the killer, but the upholder of justice in his community. Not a virus to America, but its living dream. He was a “real” black man simply because he beat “the system” and accomplished more than the white man, even if it compromised the health and safety of his own people. Thinking back on my initial thoughts and feelings, I learned something: that I am still somewhat brainwashed with the belief that black people will always be victims and therefore should not be held to the same moral standard as others…...this is a grave misperception.

The Feast of The Goat

Growing up in a traditional Dominican home, I remember my grandmother telling me about the glory days of the Trujillo dictatorship. "Nobody stole", "the economy was strong", "people respected each other", she would tell me. On her dresser was a black and white photo of Trujillo in military garb sporting a mustache similar to that of Hitler's. Amidst the stories and photos, however, something felt wrong: my grandmother's idealized recollections and what I was taught about freedom and democracy were complete polar opposites; they both couldn't be right. Why would my grandmother idolize a dictator? Why would her brother proudly carry his draft card that initiated him into Trujillo's military? With this in mind, I decided to read Mario Vargas Llosa's, The Feast of the Goat.

The story is about a young female expatriate that returns to the Dominican Republic many years after the Trujillo dictatorship of the 1950’s. Having left the island in her teens, Urania returns in her forties and recalls what the island was like when "his Excellency" was in power. The bulk of her memories take place during the final days of the dictatorship and the rough transition to democracy. The novel reads like a Quentin Tarrantino movie as we see the planning of the assassination, the attempt itself, and the aftermath through the eyes of the conspirators: the Goat, and future Dominican President, Joaquin Balaguer.

Although the novel starts slow, it quickly picks up speed as the conspiracy begins to take shape, and then becomes hard to put down. Undoubtedly, the stars of this novel are Trujillo because of his cruel, despotic tendencies and Joaquin Balaguer, who with Machiavellian skill has to fill a power vacuum, facing both the threat of assassination by the old regime and invasion by the United States.

Expecting just a well-written novel, I was surprised with the rich history lesson I received. Not only did I learn a lot about the Dominican Republic, but I also learned about how people are conditioned by their political surroundings. Much like my grandmother and the Dominicans who lived under Trujillo, a people starving enough for dignity, democracy, and an end to government corruption will eventually begin to idealize an era of torture and brutal repression.

The Logic of Life

For decades now, Americans have been well trained on either side of the Roe v. Wade debate. You are either pro-choice or pro-life, with very little grey in between. Another social issue, though not as casually popular, is the death penalty. Once again, you are either for or against the death penalty, with a very little grey area. Both sides can pose very convincing arguments, causing I am sure, regular people to flip-flop back and forth on these issues. Traditionally, liberals believe that fetuses aren’t yet real people, thus abortion not constituting murder, and that the government should refrain from telling women what to do with their bodies. With regards to capital punishment, it’s barbaric, it doesn’t work and innocent people are sometimes killed are some of a liberals core arguments. On the right, abortion is immoral. “Protect the sanctity of life” is uttered from one conservative to the next as a badge of "wholier than thou" honor. "If there's any doubt, stand by the side of life". Yet, when it comes to capital punishment, the idea of “Life” gets confounded. Here is what Alan Keyes has to say:

“There are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is in fact essential to our respect for life. If we do not, in our law, send the message to everyone that by calculatedly, coldly taking a human life — in a way that, for instance, assaults the structures of law in a society, or shows a cold-blooded and studied disregard for the value of that life — if we are not willing to implement the death penalty in those circumstances, then we are actually sending a message of contempt for human life”

What!

Alan Keyes will not be the first, second or tenth black president, but his conservative position on social issues is representative of conservative talk and radio show hosts and most of the major republican figures in this country. Can he or any individual logically explain how killing someone, even a convicted killer, sends a message to our citizenry and the world that we respect the sanctity of life and/or by not killing someone send a message of contempt for human life? There is a deep contradiction that exists when conservatives, the Republican Party or anyone for that matter legally opposes abortion in the name of preserving the sanctity of life and simultaneously supports the death penalty in the name of preserving the sanctity of life. To the logical-minded citizen, this should be one of the great inconsistencies in politics today.

THE ISLAMIST, part 2

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”

Maybe we should rethink part of this.

I finally finished reading the “The Islamist”, by Ed Hussein. Aside from his personal story of radicalism within Islam in Britain, he taught me in a way like never before how powerful words and ideas can be. As a radical Muslim practicing a highly politicized form of Islam, Hussein’s job, like most radicals in Britain was not to strap bombs to his chest, but to pass out leaflets and spread propaganda in London’s streets and Europe’s Mosque’s and Universities. “Pass the concepts” was an order given to Hussein in which he in turn gave to others that would lay the foundation for future terrorist attacks. It is the very concepts of Islamic radical scholars such as Abu Ala Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb and Taqiuddin al-Nabhani that inspired characters like Osama Bin Laden and continue to influence young Muslim minds, much like they did Hussein, all over the world. In the United States, but especially in parts of Europe such as Holland and London, radical Islamists spew hate and violence, sheltered by democracy’s unwavering right to free speech. The question then remains that if violent concepts are the prerequisite to violent action, why does democracy condemn terrorism, but not the minds that birth the ideas? If there is a direct correlation and causation between propaganda and terrorism, as Hussein suggests there is, then shouldn’t there be closer censorship over the messages that known radical groups preach and proliferate?

What Makes America Great?

Bobby Jindal.

This past Saturday, Bobby Jindal was elected governor of Louisiana, becoming the first Indian-American to hold the position in United States history and the youngest standing governor in the country. He is adamantly opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage and voted no on 84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. He wants to build a fence along the Mexican border, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and make permanent some of the Bush tax cuts. Governor Jindal is a true conservative.

Not only is he conservative, but he represents the fundamental principles of a party that is constantly unfairly deemed as racist and apathetic regarding people of color. Ironic then, that someone of Mr. Jindal's ethnic background, as a republican, is appointed to the highest executive position that a state has to offer. His appointment should send two messages to the ostensibly growing number of unpatriotic, politically obtuse Americans: First, that in few other countries could an individual of such a minute ethnic minority rise to this high a level of state government at so young an age. It will be quite the miracle when Iran elects a Sunni Muslim, let alone a Japanese man to give orders in Tehran. Second, Mr. Jindal is a perfect example that no where in core conservatism does it invoke discrimination against people of color. Conservatives preach hard-work, limited government entitlements and individual accountability, principles that were once the fabric of black and immigrant communities. Unfortunately, Condi, Colin and Clarence were brushed off as uncle-toms, but maybe this time things will be different. I don’t know if Governor Jindal has presidential aspirations, but if he does, I am sure the Republican Party will accept him with open arms.

Meeting Dr. Paul

In every presidential race, there are the entertainers-candidates with no shot of winning whose mere presence is to excite the crowd and keep American’s watching at home from falling asleep. This year, we’ve witnessed Mike Gravel on the left and Ron Paul on the right. Although I have appreciated the outbursts from both of them, I’ve become a little annoyed at the growing adoration that democrats seem to have for Ron Paul. To be clear, I don’t expect many to vote for him over Billary or Barack, but the way liberals have crowned him the morally superior republican simply because of his adamant opposition to the Iraq War is just plain ignorant. If liberals knew anything at all about Dr. Paul, their idea about him might change. What would be some of his plans for the country? Let us review:

He wants to abolish the Department of Education, Medicaid and Medicare. You better start saving!
He wants to cut all federal funding for abortions and stem-cell research. Viva the hospital in the back way alley!
Homosexuals definitely aren’t adopting children. Sorry Steve, you didn’t make the cut.
There would be no section requesting your race on college applications. Sorry Jamal. I guess it’s time to hit the books
Welfare from the federal government – I don’t think so.
If an illegal alien gets hospitalized, you better call the Feds. Get stabbed Pablo; Walk it off!
And by the way, he sure isn’t taking us into Darfur to help the Sudanese.

Now this is just the tip of the iceberg on the views of a traditional libertarian. I suggest liberals learn the issues before anointing a candidate whollier than thou.

Cheney's Black Side

First Al and Strom....Now Dick and Obama.

Fox News reported yesterday that Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic presidental candidate, Senator Barack Obama, are 8th cousins. The link was apparently found by Lynne Cheney, the VP's wife, while doing research for her memoirs about growing up in Wyoming. After hearing the news, two things came to mind: first, why is Lynne Cheney writing a book? Second, is there an obsession with finding familial relations between black and white politically galvanized figures or am I being just paranoid? Don't be surprised if this turns into a trend and is used as a tactic to secure the black or brown vote in 2008. I can see the headlines now:
Hillary Clinton and Rosa Parks - 9th cousins
OR
John Edwards and Cesar Chavez, Linked by Spirit & Blood.

THE ISLAMIST

“My son, the Prophet is not our leader; he is our master, the source of our spiritual nourishment. Leaders are for political movements, which Islam is not. The Koran is his articulation, as inspired by God, not a political document. It is not a constitution, but guidance and serenity for the believing heart…Jihad is a just war against tyranny and oppression, fought by the Prophet after persecution, not ‘a way’”.

- The Islamist, by Ed Husain

I am currently in the middle of reading Ed Husain’s, “The Islamist”, the story of a young Indian man’s journey into radical Islam in Britain, his observations and eventual decision to reject fundamentalism. Husain reminds me of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who attracted international attention with her autobiography, “Infidel”, a story that stripped Islam bare and exposed its very real dark side. Although I am not yet finished with Husain’s book, I have realized that there is a silent, but ever growing organization of Muslim men and women who have publicly begun to reject the present day radicalism of Islam that dominates the media and that has monopolized the faith. These men and women are more than just authors and out-spoken critics of radicalism, but have rather become the vanguard in the fight against Islamic extremism, more potent than the American military, economic sanctions or UN delegates. If the world is going to win the battle against this ever growing breed of extremism, we need to start listening to the Husain’s and Ali’s, and giving them the exposure needed to win the hearts and minds of impressionable Muslims throughout the world.

Protecting One’s Own

In anticipation of an attack against Bill Cosby and his new book, “COME ON, PEOPLE! ON THE PATH FROM VICTIMS TO VICTORS”, I’d like to make it clear that he has one more soldier in the fight against guilty-feeling whites and pseudo-black leaders more obsessed with treating black American’s like victims rather than like the truly strong people that we are. Following in the tradition of Shelby Steel, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas and John McWhorter, Cosby has become one of America’s most honest voices on race politics. His unique celebrity status has helped bring to light an issue that has plagued a large part of black America for decades: a culture that embraces its role as a victim (to fulfill an appetite to maintain moral superiority over whites) and defines its racial authenticity as one that rejects law enforcement, meaningful employment and traditional education. As those like Cosby continue to publicly shine their own light, they give the rest of us, THE SILENT BLACK MAJORITY, the courage to do the same.