Kapitol Hill

The Cost of the Covenant

It has been more than 40 years since the March on Washington and what could be described as the "height" of the Civil Rights movement.  Soon after Martin L. King, Jr. described his "dream," Congress passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and  the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  After some 400 years of slavery and nearly 100 years under Jim Crow, America was finally on its way to practicing the true democracy its founding fathers described -- particularly as illuminated in Thomas Jefferson's words, which said, "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Chief among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

African-Americans, who were discarded when those word were first written, suddenly were now legally able to reclaim the rights the Emancipation Proclamation and the era of Reconstruction could not provide.  When Manny Marable, the prominent African-American Historian professor at Columbia University was asked to describe the state of Black America 40 years since that march on Washington he said, "it is the best of times and the worst of times, at the same time."

That description best illustrates the tale of two classes of one race.  Since the march on Washington there are more Black millionaires and white collar executives -- minorities and women now are CEOs of 15-percent of the Fortune 100 companies -- chief among these are Ken Chenault at American Express and Dick Parsons at Time Warner.  More blacks are attending college and going on to enter fields once seen as "white only."  The Black Middle Class is the post-success story of the Civil Rights era.

Yet, those signs of progress cannot overshadow the 10% unemployment in the black community, the economic divide in salary, home ownership and wealth, as well as the deteriorating environment of urban schools where in places like New York City inner city students receive about $2000 less than their suburban counterparts.

The best of times and the worst of times indeed.

For those who dwell in the best of times for the black community, it is incumbent upon them to ensure the rising tide lifts all boats.  For the seventh time,  Tavis Smiley, a PBS talk-show host, tried to spotlight the growing gap, which hinders so many African-Americans at his annual "State of Black America" seminar.

This year the all-day discussion was held in Houston, Texas and was -- as all of them have been -- a sold out affair.  While some see this as a sign of positive effort on the side of the African-American community -- it seems to be an exercise in preaching to the choir.

This year's seminar focused on a newly created "Covenant with Black America" in which the detailed 10 issues  for a better Black community.  However, those who probably needed to hear the insight of people like Cornell West the most were the victims of the very economic divide those who attended the event talked about for eight hours.

It is hard for me to contemplate why it costs $20 per person to attend this event.  Especially when it was hosted by at least one person and attended by others who could without a doubt afford to rent any facility they wanted or use their network of contacts to persuade the venue to be organized through philanthropy.  Thereby opening the venue to those who probably need a covenant the most.

According the the U.S. Census Bureau ten percent of the nations poor live in Texas.  In Houston some 15 percent of people live in poverty and the median income is just over $35,000.  Surely there could've been space for some cheap or charity seats for these disenfranchised residents.

For the poor single mother who works 60 hours a week to place food on the table for her child to eat, the choice between buying a few groceries or purchasing a ticket to an event becomes no choice at all.  Even more disturbing to this author is the fact that the "Covenant with Black America" has actually been published into a 270-plus page book and made available via amazon.com for $12.00 --plus shipping and handling.

While the increasingly expanding black middle class can afford this book and pay with a simple credit card, the availability for those disenfranchised members of the black community the access is increasingly limited.  Not only do those who are living in the worst of times have difficulty finding the $12 to spare but where do they find a computer or even a credit card to purchase the book if they had the money?

Some may see this argument as being too cynical, but it clearly illustrates the bottom-line question:  who is the covenant for?  Surely it can't be for all of Black America because all of Black America don't have access to it or even heard of its existence.

When you're fighting for survival -- luxuries such as caring about the greater society becomes a burden of those  with the free time and income to ponder such solutions.

Even the Covenant itself seems a bit classist.  For those who aren't familiar with the ten covenants ,there are a few which seem to have been created in a vacuum.  For example, the first covenant suggest the right to "secure the right to health care and well-being."  Certainly everyone has the right to health care -- the problem is some 30 million Americans -- not just blacks-- go through the day without it because they can't afford it nor does the low-wage job they work provide it for them.   

The second covenant focuses on "establishing a public education system in which all our children achieve at a high level."  This should be the goal of all Americans, but yet we cannot look to the federal government to improve our schools with more funding when we fail to hold our local districts to the fire by hiring inadequate administrators and protecting unqualified and worse uncertified teachers.

The sixth covenant says Black America must claim our democracy -- but how can Black America re-claim something it fails to participate in.  Black voter turnout in the last two presidential elections was still disproportionately low and the rate of black registration lags behind the national average.  Black America must participate in the process if it is going to demand something from its politicians.

The greater problem with each of these is they seem to broad to wrap any size arms around.  Everyone want to have health care, good schools and an active electorate -- these are black people's issues these are American ones. 

But the devil is in the details and perhaps somewhere in those valuable pages of the "Covenant" there are clear solutions to these issues.  It is a commendable act for Smiley and his host of panelist to take time out of their lives to organize such a program.  Without question, there are tremendous issues, which Black America must face and face soon.  But while we use energy to fight for former felons voting rights, we ignore the fact the next generation of black voters are sitting on the sidelines -- clueless to the impact their pull of the lever might provide.

The covenant Tavis moderated through this week may be a useful tool for the continued progress of Black America; however, I'm just not sure if the progress being focused on will make those living the best of times better  at the expense of the worst-- just try to  live.

If the covenant doesn't assist in making all of Black America better -- the cost in the long term may be too great for any of us to pay.

Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week.  Please feel free to leave a comment and don't forget to check

Leadership Roulette

Quick can you name the leader of the African-American community?  This week the Associated Press tried to get a group of African-Americans to do just that and the list may surprise you -- or maybe not.

Jesse Jackson with 15 percent of the vote and Condoleezza Rice  with 11 percent got the most support in the AP- AOL Black Voices survey.  The poll asked people to name the nation's "most important black leader,"   Following Jackson and Rice on the list were former Secretary of State  Colin Powell and Illinois freshman Senator Barack Obama with eight and six percent respectively.

These answers might not be as surprising simply because those four black faces were the most identifiable to the majority of the American people. 

The survey went further by asking whether it was even appropriate to even ask the question.  Many African Americans  sided by questioning whether any one person can wear the leadership mantle for such a large and diverse group of people.

Nearly a one-third of those surveyed declined to volunteer a name.

Rounding out the list were Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan who got 4 percent and talk show host Oprah Winfrey who received 3 percent.

A follow-up question on the survey asked whether those polled thought the present black leadership was actually effective.  Less than one in five of those polled, 18 percent, said the current black leadership is doing a "very effective" job  while half described African American leadership as "somewhat effective."

And it seems to be that 50-percent which may have non-traditional leaders and the Republican party grinning from ear to ear.  Recently, one political season was titled the year of the woman.  This year may end up being the year of the black politician and particularly the black Republican politician.

The Washington Post's George Will made this point in his column this past week.    Will accurately identified this year's  political season cold produce two additional black U.S. Senators and two black governors.

On the senate front  Maryland's Michael Steel -- the current lieutenant governor is a serious contender and in Michigan, Keith Butler is making headway, as well.

Kapitol Hill pointed out last Summer the football legend Lynn Swann would run for governor of Pennsylvania and the other black Republican looking to live in his state's governor's mansion is  Ohio's Ken Blackwell, the Buckeye State's current secretary of state.

During the 2004 elections President Bush's political machine made a point to slice into the overwhelming support blacks have given to the Democratic Party.  He ended up with 11-percent of the black vote a significant jump from the just below eight percent he won in 2000.

This increase in black politicians and the increase in Bush's vote tally doesn't necessarily mean blacks are becoming more politically conservative; however, it could mean the GOP has been able to culture a message of social conservatism -- which most African-American seem to sway -- especially with topics like gay marriage and other hot button issues.

But the fact a majority of African-Americans have lost confidence or focus in who speaks for them also is playing a role.  The Black community has never been a monolithic group -- it is still divided over issues like school vouchers and welfare reform.  Nevertheless,  it was clear in the 1960s Martin L.King, Jr carried overwhelming support.  In a similar poll take then more than 60-percent of African-American's identified him as the most significant black leader.

It is safe to say that just because a politician happens to be black doesn't necessarily mean they will look out for the interest of black people and that will be the challenge the neo-black conservative candidates will have to overcome.

If they come off as too conservative on issues like the War in Iraq and how to assist the disenfranchised there could be a backlash.  If they seemingly side with the black community on more liberal platforms such as affirmative action they're declaration of being Republicans could seem disingenuous and black voters may see them as trying to cater to them just for a votes sake.

The solution for not only these potential black leaders but those who still are worthy to make the list is to be honest and care about people and their problems.  If they can do this the gamble won't seem as risky and the reward might be more beneficial.

Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week.   Please feel free to leave a comment and don't for get to check back next week for a new installment.

Drum Major for Freedom of Speech

If anyone thought the protests over cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad as a terrorists would dwindle after a few days, the continued often violent demonstrations this week should put an end to that hopeful optimism.

Thousands of Muslim protesters have continued to march in the streets shouting violent threats to Western nations, which have either supported the printing or gone as far as printing them themselves.  The initial published cartoons were distributed in a Danish newspaper to provoke at the very least debate over the extremism, which has spread throughout the Arab world.  It's doubtful the editors of the paper believed the furor would grow or would to date, 11 people lose their lives because of their decision.  In fact the publisher of the Danish newspaper has since apologized for his editors' actions.

But that apology seems to be a bit too late.  In fact, many newspapers across Europe and at least one in the United States has republished them in what those editors have called a pillar to the rights of  freedom of speech.  Those who have continued to fuel these hostile flames say they are doing so to show support for their Danish counterparts, taking a stand for civilized society to disagree and debate nonviolently and more importantly for people to have the right to say whatever they want despite the fact it might offend someone else.

Yet, it is hard to take these arguments without a grain of salt.  We should not forget this is an age when the media is as influenced by market demand as any other business.  The higher the number of papers publishers sell the higher their advertising prices.  It seems odd that these newspapers in the name of social justice are making their readers pay to participate in such a noble goal.

While most of the American networks and cable outlets have decided not to broadcast the cartoons (the most offensive one shows the Prophet's turban in the shape of a bomb with a fuse), that fact hasn't prevented the 24-hour monsters from discussing the issue hour after hour after hour.

Often, most critics of the demonstrations dismiss any thought of offensiveness and suggest civilized people are intelligent enough to understand freedom of speech dictates one must take being offended as a symptom of free societies.  One writer, Andrew Sullivan of Time magazine, this week wrote a commentary this week outlining that fact in "Your Taboo, Not Mine."

However, it is unfortunate this logic doesn't extend to the critics own taboos.  The other story, which cable news outlets can't seem to let go is the three minutes of the six hour funeral of Coretta Scott King.  At her funeral Reverend Joseph Lowery and President Jimmy Carter made comments some observers thought were political and inappropriate because President Bush happened to have been there.

Both Lowery and Carter superficially spoke to current issues such as the War in Iraq, NSA eavesdropping and the failure of the government during Katrina.  Many conservative pundits found such remarks inappropriate at the least and offensive at the most and have used any occasion and any two minutes on the topic to say so.

Does anyone else smell  hypocrisy in these two incidents.  On one hand it is okay to offend nearly a third of the world's population, but it is taboo and offensive to discuss civil rights issues at the funeral of a civil rights icon merely because the President of the United States decides to attend?

If President Bush didn't believe those types of topics would come up all he had to do was get a tape of the Rosa  Parks funeral and just listen to the first twenty minutes.  It took four hours before any hint of politics stood at the podium last week.

It should be noted that there were four U.S. Presidents at Coretta Scott King's funeral and not one attended the funeral of her husband whose mantle of racial injustice she picked up following Martin's assassination.

On one famous occasion, Martin Luther King,Jr. gave a sermon in which he detailed what he would want them to say at his funeral. He told the crowd he didn't want them to shower his legacy with accolades and fond memories of how great he was and the prizes and fame he had won. 

In fact, his request was far from that.  He said,

"Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school. (Yes)

I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. (Yes)

I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. (Yes)

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness."

Why shouldn't the funeral of his wife be any different?  President Clinton suggested Coretta Scott King was more than a symbol.  She was a woman who grieved, laughed, had pain and sorrow and joy.  But she was also a woman who fought against injustice and inequality and against oppression and like her husband became a drum major for justice and peace and righteousness.

If America is as free as those who defend the right to publish offensive cartoons believe it to be, surely there is room enough for one to be free to speak out against what they see as wrongs and ills no matter who's in the audience and they not be offended by such remarks. 

It seems what we need now is a drum major for the freedom of  all speech -- not just the words and images we agree we happened to agree with or believe would only offend those we could careless about in the first place.

Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week.  Please feel free to leave a comment and don't forget to check back next week for a new installment.

NOTE: Visit our new partner Kappas Against AIDS: www.kapitolhill.typepad.com/kappasagainstaids

SPECIAL EDITION: Signs & Symbols

Tensions throughout the Muslim world and beyond are growing to a feverish pitch.  Dozens of people have been hurt and at least five -- including a teenager in Somalia has been killed during protests across the Middle-East and countries with high levels of Muslim populations.   Thousands of protesters in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Thailand,  Australia,  Turkey, India, New Zealand and a number of countries in Europe are marching in the streets in anger of cartoons printed in a number of newspapers depicting the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb and other offensive ways.

The cartoons were first printed in a Danish newspaper months ago; however, the furor grew like wildfire when newspapers across the world reprinted them in some form of protest of freedom of speech.  Some are criticizing the protesters because they have increased their vocal protests to violence -- burning flags, storming embassies and fighting those who stand in their way.

These demonstrators are being called hypocritical because in their critics opinion, they are showing more angst at a cartoon than the real life image of kidnapped journalists weeping in front of cameras for their lives.

On the surface this argument has merit.  Why are Muslims more upset over an editorial image than real life terrorism?  To answer that question, one has to assume Muslims aren't.  Immediately after the terrorists attacks in Jordan last year, thousands of Muslims took to the streets shouting, "death to the terrorists!"  I suppose images like these don't stick in our minds as easily and saying Muslims are a symbol of anger is more believable.

Sometimes it seems the symbol means more than the substance.

This is probably why the news of nine southern churches being burned to the ground in Alabama is causing a stir and getting media attention.  Those who are students of the civil rights movement will recall the burning of  black churches as a common tool of intimidation used by the Klu Klux Klan to prevent African-Americans from voting and exercising other constitutional rights.

It is way too early to suggest this latest spat of burnings are racially motivated; however, it should not be ruled out.  The majority of the churches burned are African-American houses of worship.  Yet, a religious professor  was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor saying, " when you burn a church with no people in it, it's not murder its a message." 

A message and a symbol.

But it was up to President Clinton to remind 10,000 mourners  and millions other who hopefully watched some of it at the the funeral of Coretta Scott King, to not diminish this great woman to something less than what she was.  Clinton, one of four U.S. Presidents to attend the funeral, told the audience late in the day, "Let's not forget there is a woman in there.  Not a symbol. She was a person who lived, breathed, grieved, cried and laughed."

Coretta Scott King also was a woman who, despite the ever large shadow of her husband, created her own legacy.  President Bush said during his remarks, " she continued to live the legacy of her husband and in turn built her own."

The legacy she built was founded upon the right to equal justice for women, for gays, for the disenfranchised and the poor.  She was a heroin in the tale of the war on poverty.  Immediately after the death of her husband, she stepped into the spotlight and decided to continue Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Poor People's Campaign."  She returned to the sanitation workers in Memphis before she buried the civil rights leader because she not only supported her husband's fight -- she believed in it.

During the 1980s she marched alongside demonstrators protesting Apartheid in South Africa and used her fame to pressure Ronald Reagan to implement sanctions while moving public opinion to get her husband's birthday recognized as a national holiday.

Coretta Scott King was more than a symbol -- she was a sign of a hope to come and a dream to be realized -- if not now -- then one day.  She was a sign like a rainbow is a sign -- a promise of a brighter day ahead.  We only need to remember the image of a strong widow dressed in black with her faint veil at the funeral of her slain husband comforted her young daughter but more broadly comforting each mourning American during that time of pain to understand that fact.

With the current symbols of offensive caricatures and charred churches making headlines,  we should  pray for for more signs of substance rather than  these symbols of  discontent.

Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week.  Please feel free to leave a comment and don't forget to check back next week for a new installment.

NOTE: Please visit our new partner, Kappas Against AIDS at www.kapitolhill.typepad.com/kaaids

Deemed Unnecessary?

President Bush is trying to shift the debate on education to a higher plain.  During his State of the Union Address last week, the President highlighted the issue of competitiveness -- or the lack thereof -- between American students and their counterparts in China and India.  In his speech, President Bush argued, American students are falling behind in key subjects are because of that he said, America is falling behind in its fight to stay on top of the job productivity ladder.

In his State of the Union Mister Bush said, "Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people, and we are going to keep that edge."  To keep that edge, the President announced a new initiative, which would focus on a re-energized math and science course structure.

The President's initiative would place some well needed funding into those courses and create a new program to provide incentives to teachers who wish to teach college-level course in America's high schools.    This  was one of the rare points during the speech that received a bipartisan response of applause and cheers. But as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details."

Today, Congress and the American people got their chance to see those details in the form of the President's 2007 Budget.  The White House delivered the four-volume packet to Capitol Hill today with much fanfare and a few mentions on the network evening news programs.

The overall budget totals $2.77 trillion -- yes, trillion dollars with most of the money going toward "War on Terrorism" in the shape of increases for homeland security and the Department of Defense.

But if the President truly wants to improve America's competitiveness through education, many of the cuts he has suggested for the Department of Education are -- well, indefensible.

This is the second year in a row the President's budget has called for cuts in education.  The 2005 budget cuts sliced up the student loan program and cut some 80,000 students completely from eligibility for Pell Grants for college.

This time his budget calls for a more than 6% cut in educational funding, which amounts to nearly $4 billion dollars.  To be fair, many of the cuts are being called reductions in funding.  However, those who depend on those services will see services reduced or halted because of lack of funding.  The President is calling the programs slated for cuts " inefficient" and are classified as "deemed unnecessary."

The Bush administration has placed 42 educational programs in the deemed unnecessary box and is requesting more money for school vouchers, which no matter what one's position is on their effectiveness, takes money out of the public treasury to fund private educational programs.

One of major targets is the federal vocational program's annual $1.2 billion dollars.  It seems strange that just a year ago, the President was touting vocational programs in high schools and community colleges as a vital source of skilled blue collar workers for Corporate America.

If the Administration was clearly interested in improving the health of America's educational system, there seems to be more pork-pointed programs and initiatives, which could be cut long before education get hit.
Particularly, when new studies show college graduates lack basic skills this country should be funding education program not cutting them.

Besides the vocational cuts, the President also has an eye on the arts, programs to keep schools drug-free
and parent-support resource centers.  It seems expanding students education foundation, keeping drugs out of schools and providing support for parents seeking help with their child's and sometimes their own education are all "deemed unnecessary."

What probably is more disturbing is that at the same time as the budget calls for cuts to educational programs,  there is still a tremendously low level of funding for the 2001 "No Child Left Behind," that nearly every school district in the country has criticized for lack of funding since its inception as well as an outline to make tax-cuts permanent.

If Congress agrees to these cuts in education (as well more than 100 other service programs like Medicare), the country may be feeling the ill effects long after the war in Iraq is over and Osama Bin Laden is dead.  America will be a more militarized, less economically stable and continue to rank near the bottom in cognitive educational skills -- more so for those who can't afford the charter and private educations now considered the safe haven for America's children.

Decades later -- far after these essential education programs are forgotten and the America lags behind  China and India, but also many countries in Europe it may be the American worker that is deemed unnecessary.

COMING UP TOMORROW: SPECIAL EDITION - DEATH OF CORETTA SCOTT KING

Kapitol Hill publishes a commentary every week.  Please feel free to leave a comment and don't forget to check back next week for a new installment.

Please visit our new partner: Kappas Against AIDS at www.kapitolhill.typepad.com/kaaids