Sobering Moment--Problem Deeper Than We Knew
On a recent evening I found myself at a local Oakland theatre watching the movie “Good Deeds”. The movie, beautifully set in San Francisco (could have been Oakland, but that will be a story for another blog), tells the story of a successful CEO cast in the wrong life and a single mother working as a corporate cleaning lady. In one very poignant scene, the cleaning lady asked the CEO if he knew the price of a gallon of milk. Sadly the CEO did not.
This story, for me, has many lessons—the divide between the haves and the have nots, the disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street, and the very real struggle the underemployed and jobless face each day. For millions of Americans, and thousands of Oaklanders, the price of milk represents a quandary. How do I feed my family? What choices do I make if I am very tight on money? What will I do without a job or a job that does not pay enough to maintain a decent standard of living? For these Americans/Oaklanders the rising price of milk and other necessities drives home a larger point of deeper despair. The larger point, we are all connected to this, and so to the solution in some meaningful way
Lengths of Despair
I was struck by a recent article in the New York Times entitled “How Far Would You Go for a Comeback”. The article tells the story of several men who have left their homes in Anywhere, USA, some of them on the brink of bankruptcy or homelessness, for jobs in the oil industry in Williston, ND. For these men, Williston, where the unemployment rate is 1% vs the national average of 8.3% (Oakland is at 16.5%), is a source of salvation allowing them to send money back home to their families thereby keeping their lives afloat. One, a trained cook, who at one time owned his own home, had been reduced to picking up cans, musing in the process “if we’d get $10 to $15, we used it, we did what we had to do”. Part of me admires this indomitable example of the American spirit. The other part of me is filled with profound sadness that able bodied men and women, who want to work, support themselves and their families, increasingly often, don’t have the option to do so. This is not the American dream.
Oakland is filled with people of similar resiliency. We recovered from the big earthquake of 1989, the Oakland Hills fires of 1991 and most recently the sit ins of Occupy Oakland. This resiliency, alone, has not adequately prepared us for the country’s current recession. This recession has proved to be a beast of considerably greater magnitude than the aforementioned tragedies. It has left our city with an unemployment rate of 16.5% or twice the national average. There are many reasons for this fact. David Simon, writer of the Wire, and winner of a MacArthur genius award grant, writes about the ghettoization of America. He asserts that many lower skilled jobs have been pushed to the outskirts or overseas. Additionally, for various other reasons (perception of dangerous city and an out of control crime problem, too much bureaucracy at the city level, lack of a favorable tax climate and perception around level of disposable income of city’s residents available for purchase of company goods and services) we have seen other companies relocate from Oakland or out of California taking precious jobs with them.
This joblessness has pushed up both crime and general feelings of desperation in our city. What are we to do? I remember growing up in the shadows of the Bay Area, the child of a single mother facing similar struggles. My mother dug deep, sometimes working two jobs. She made sure I had access to good schools. These schools provided me access: access to a good college and a law school. Ultimately theses schools led to good jobs. Assuming we make some fundamental changes to our primary education system, I believe we can have similar experiences here in Oakland.
There is Hope (for Oakland)
There must be personal accountability to be sure—secure additional training, ensuring we are involved in our schools and children’s scholastic endeavors, demonstrating a willingness to share costs such as healthcare with businesses and engage in community policing to help make our neighborhoods safer. We, as the residents of Oakland, must be willing to do whatever it takes to get this city back on its feet. Demonstrating such a “cant fail attitude” through actions such as the above in a vacuum are likely not enough. There is also a role for government and business. Oakland has many pluses that should attract business: a largely educated workforce—colleges (Berkeley and Cal State East Bay), community colleges (Peralta), unions that train many workers in trades, a solid transportation system and access to a water front. We also have a Port and sports teams that could also be greater engines of economic growth.
We must aggressively market our positives to attract businesses if we want well paying jobs in our city. We must support our Mayor and her economic development team in this activity. We can do this through the “personal accountability” actions above, participating in the Mayor’s block by block program, and encouraging the companies we work for to come to Oakland. I have done this with my own company. My company is now in the process of building a location in East Oakland that will provide 70-100 healthcare based jobs. Imagine if we all made a concerted effort to do this kind of outreach. As the current Chair of the Oakland Workforce Investment Board I believe we have what it takes to succeed. It will take a material number of jobs to reduce our 16.5% unemployment rate.
We must be bold and audacious in attaching this number. A few examples:
• Appropriate tax breaks for small business so that may create jobs
• A unified effort, including a healthy Oakland effort where we are take better care of our health, that reduces healthcare costs and makes it more attractive for businesses to provide jobs
• Using our unique attributes as a city as real sales tools to attract businesses that can hire thousands of workers at a time
• Doubling or tripling the size of our police force and leveraging technology (like Shotspotter) and advanced data techniques to combat our crime problem and combat the perception that our city is an unsafe place for workers to work
• Organizing a standing business council that the Mayor may rely on for real, tangible ideas; this can be done as a roundtable with our chambers and labor councils as well
• Ensuring that our city government continues to build diversity and attract people, both elected and employees, with deep budget and economic experience
• Work to develop a more efficient government, with a surplus, where hard choices are made to encourage savings and the creation of a surplus, and discourages spending where certain items cannot be readily paid for
I do not claim to have all the ideas, but these are a start. I believe we can achieve our goals through hard work and concerted effort. However, until we take such actions, dare to be bold and audacious in our thinking, for many Oaklanders, like many Americans more generally, the price of milk will continue to matter—a lot!
Friday, March 23, 2012
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
2011 Heisman—And the Winner Is….
There has been a lot of hype around this year’s Heisman. Many predict a very close race with Baylor’s RGIII or Robert Griffin III appearing to have the most late momentum of any of the candidates. Who is most deserving of the award? Many debate whether the Heisman should go to the “best” or “most valuable” player in college football. Still others suggest it should go to the most well rounded.
To resolve this debate, at least in my own mind, I went to the Heisman website. Here is what it sets forth as the criteria for the Heisman trophy:
The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work. The Trust, furthermore, has a charitable mission to support amateur athletics and to provide greater opportunities to the youth of our country. Our goal through these charitable endeavors is for the Heisman Trophy to symbolize the fostering of a sense of community responsibility and service to our youth, especially those disadvantaged or afflicted.
Under this definition, it became clear to me that the award should go to the player with the best demonstrated ability who, through hard work, and with integrity, made the most outstanding contributions to college football in 2011. In other words, this definition goes beyond stats and to the player that produces superior stats while acting with integrity and is a role model to the youth of our country.
There are 870 media votes, broken into six geographic voting regions and 55 former Heisman winners that make up the voting for the award. When the results are announced on Saturday night, I believe the winner will be RGIII and here is why.
RGIII
• Eye popping stats. 3,998 passing yards, 36 TDs at a 72% completion rate, and 644 rushing yards for 9 more TDs. I believe he will carry the Southwest, Mid Atlantic and Northeast regions. He graduated in three years and was a member of the honor roll. Demonstrated service in the community. Also a track All American that worked his way back from a knee injury.
Andrew Luck
• Apologies Cardinal Fan. Stanford’s 3rd runner up finish in last three years. Luck, likely the #1 overall pick in next year’s NFL draft has the stats: 3,170 passing yards, 35 TDS at a 70% completion rate, but did not do enough in the big games or down the stretch. Mainly, a poor performance on national TV vs. Oregon will cost him the award. Luck, also an honor roll student, good teammate and well regarded member of the community will carry voting in the West region, but will still settle for second.
Trent Richardson and Tyrann Mathieu
• Will cancel each other out splitting the Southeast region voting.
• Both great stats; IMHO Mathieu is best player in college football.
• Mathieu loses points for drug related suspension. Does not comport with integrity requirement or set good example for our youth. That said, the “Honey Badger”, if he can stay focused is the odds on favorite to win the award in 2012
Montee Ball
• If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Montee likely to carry the Midwest region, and had startlingly good stats: 1,759 rushing yards and 38 TDS, but was the second best player on his own team, had no signature games and played in the Big 10. In other words, outside of the Midwest, and no offense to Montee, but no one watched or cared who has a vote. Good season though.
To resolve this debate, at least in my own mind, I went to the Heisman website. Here is what it sets forth as the criteria for the Heisman trophy:
The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work. The Trust, furthermore, has a charitable mission to support amateur athletics and to provide greater opportunities to the youth of our country. Our goal through these charitable endeavors is for the Heisman Trophy to symbolize the fostering of a sense of community responsibility and service to our youth, especially those disadvantaged or afflicted.
Under this definition, it became clear to me that the award should go to the player with the best demonstrated ability who, through hard work, and with integrity, made the most outstanding contributions to college football in 2011. In other words, this definition goes beyond stats and to the player that produces superior stats while acting with integrity and is a role model to the youth of our country.
There are 870 media votes, broken into six geographic voting regions and 55 former Heisman winners that make up the voting for the award. When the results are announced on Saturday night, I believe the winner will be RGIII and here is why.
RGIII
• Eye popping stats. 3,998 passing yards, 36 TDs at a 72% completion rate, and 644 rushing yards for 9 more TDs. I believe he will carry the Southwest, Mid Atlantic and Northeast regions. He graduated in three years and was a member of the honor roll. Demonstrated service in the community. Also a track All American that worked his way back from a knee injury.
Andrew Luck
• Apologies Cardinal Fan. Stanford’s 3rd runner up finish in last three years. Luck, likely the #1 overall pick in next year’s NFL draft has the stats: 3,170 passing yards, 35 TDS at a 70% completion rate, but did not do enough in the big games or down the stretch. Mainly, a poor performance on national TV vs. Oregon will cost him the award. Luck, also an honor roll student, good teammate and well regarded member of the community will carry voting in the West region, but will still settle for second.
Trent Richardson and Tyrann Mathieu
• Will cancel each other out splitting the Southeast region voting.
• Both great stats; IMHO Mathieu is best player in college football.
• Mathieu loses points for drug related suspension. Does not comport with integrity requirement or set good example for our youth. That said, the “Honey Badger”, if he can stay focused is the odds on favorite to win the award in 2012
Montee Ball
• If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Montee likely to carry the Midwest region, and had startlingly good stats: 1,759 rushing yards and 38 TDS, but was the second best player on his own team, had no signature games and played in the Big 10. In other words, outside of the Midwest, and no offense to Montee, but no one watched or cared who has a vote. Good season though.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
When Civil Disobedience Becomes Anarchy; : Occupy Oakland’s Misplaced Agenda
Overview
I have been watching what is going on with the Occupy Oakland (“OO”) movement for a few weeks. I have witnessed the Occupy (National) movement grow worldwide, as well as root itself in local communities all across our country. Oakland has become one of those local communities, and in many ways, the poster child for this movement. Ostensibly, the movement started with good intentions: (1) to curb, or at least better regulate, perceived corporate greed on Wall Street; (2) to revise the tax laws such that those richest Americans (the “1%’ers”) would share the fair taxation burden with the rest of the country (the” 99%’ers”); and (3) to stimulate the economy and provide job growth. Oakland, with its high unemployment rate, violent crime problems, health care disparities and foreclosure scandals, would seem then, a convenient and appropriate symbol for what is happening elsewhere in the country, and the world. I get it. People are hurt and angry. They are afraid.
I too live in Oakland. I have lived in this community for more than 15 years. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, with its free speech history, and the son of a mother who participated in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, I certainly respect free speech, advocacy for change, and even the right to protest. When, however, I see the pursuit of these aims start to tear down my community I become concerned. I am concerned that these protests have become misplaced, and if not done in a more constructive manner going forward, threaten both the safety of our city and the goals OO claims to be pursuing.
Everyone is Upset
A week ago, in an attempt to bring order to an unruly crowd the Mayor’s office ordered the police to remove the protestors from City Hall. One protestor, a war veteran (Scott Olsen), was badly injured. My prayers remain with Scott and his family. The Mayor then announced that the protestors could only protest at City Hall between the hours of 10 and 6. This position was later reversed, again allowing the protestors to establish an encampment at City Hall 24 x7. Now the protestors are angry with the Mayor and police. The Mayor seems to be off sides with her interim police chief. The police are angry with the Mayor (see the open letter from the Oakland police union to the Mayor in the November 1, 2011, Chronicle). Oakland citizens are angry with the Mayor, protestors, and some, the police. There has even been a movement started to recall Mayor Quan. Whew. That is a lot of anger.
I read that OO is calling for a day of protest, on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 when they will “stop commerce”. They are calling for the closure of every bank, corporation and school. I am not sure how closing down business, in a city badly hurting for both new businesses and jobs advances the aims of OO. I for one am against such a closure. As a member of the city’s Workforce Investment Board, I know as much as many, that our city is on the edge of solvency, and as such, the last thing we need to do is stop commerce. To the contrary, we need to show business that Oakland is a place to locate due to our proximity to colleges such as Berkeley, transportation, the Bay and a skilled workforce. Attracting business will stimulate the economy and provide badly needed jobs. What kind of message do we send to our children, by giving them a day off, to protest a city that is broke when they need to be in class, learning and securing a better future?
I think that we need to take a collective step back. The right question at this time is not whether we should recall Mayor Quan, but rather how we as a collective: City Hall, the police, other leaders like Assemblyman Swanson and Congresswoman Lee, OO, business, labor and the residents of Oakland work together to peacefully achieve the goals outlined above.
Civil Disobedience
There are many views on this topic and its use to drive change. Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK are three leaders on the subject of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau's 1848 essay Civil Disobedience, has had a wide influence on many practitioners of civil disobedience. The driving idea behind the essay is that citizens are morally responsible for their support of aggressors, even when such support is required by law. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War. He writes, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too”.
Gandhi similarly asserted “the fact is that all non-cooperation is not violent and non-violent non-cooperation can never be an act of violence”. MLK also urged a non-violent approach: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is force to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
It would seem that OO has part of this right. OO, and the others in the Occupy movement more generally, have put a spotlight on the issues raised above. People are listening. The Economist in its latest issue “Rage Against the Machine” states the Occupy movement has re-focused the debate. The world is paying attention. How then do we achieve: (1) better regulation of Wall Street; (2) more fair taxation and (3) secure new jobs? Well if OO is an example I guess it is throwing items at the police (including feces), refusing to engage in meaningful, productive dialogue and, now, planning to “shut down commerce”. These tactics feel a lot more like anarchy to me given that they are characterized by lawlessness, violence and political disorder. MLK further stated that “the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” It appears, to me, that OO has taken the concepts of Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK and bastardized them. Protest is one thing, actions when they detract from an orderly society, is another.
Free Speech and its Limitations
OO may counter the arguments above by asserting that their actions are covered by “Free Speech”. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are, however, exceptions to this protection based upon: obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words (among other limitations). Government may further limit speech with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Time, place, or manner restrictions must:
1. Be content neutral
2. Be narrowly tailored
3. Serve a significant governmental interest
4. Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
In my opinion limiting the hours that OO may occupy city hall is reasonable. Concerns about riots, public health and sanitation and safety to Oakland residents and its police force are all reasonable justifications. The city has spent well over a $1M on police activities surrounding this protest. These funds are being spent is at the same time when are City is fighting for its financial life and residents are facing yet another parcel tax. I for one, do not want to pay for this kind of activity. I would rather my tax dollars go to fund more police, better schools, public health initiatives and programs that get our residents back to work.
Solutions—How do we Move Forward
I do not claim to have all of the answers, however, below represent a few potential answers:
1. An open forum where the Mayor, City Council, Police Chief, DA, representatives from OO, the business and labor communities and residents of Oakland can engage in a meaningful dialogue around how best to achieve the stated goals.
2. An economic council, made up of business leaders, to help advise the Mayor on creating more jobs in Oakland.
3. A plan to secure additional police officers, as well as support for a strong, autonomous Policy Chief who can drive policy decisions and further develop a plan for a safer Oakland.
4. Reasonable restrictions around time, place and manner of the OO protests.
5. Protection for the businesses of Oakland should this day of protest materialize.
6. Reporting by City Hall, against specific metrics, to show that our City is making the right progress.
7. Voting. Hold our elected officials responsible for reforming the tax laws so that the 1%’ers are paying their fair share and that there exists the proper level of regulation for Wall Street. Put pressure on all members of Congress to achieve these goals and let them know that they are accountable to us.
Thank you for reading. I do not expect full agreement with my views. I welcome meaningful, productive debate. I am deeply committed to this community and its well being, and as such, am happy to be a part of any solution. My hope is that we can filter out the “noise” (recall efforts etc) and put our efforts into those things that can produce tangible results related to those goals set forth above
I have been watching what is going on with the Occupy Oakland (“OO”) movement for a few weeks. I have witnessed the Occupy (National) movement grow worldwide, as well as root itself in local communities all across our country. Oakland has become one of those local communities, and in many ways, the poster child for this movement. Ostensibly, the movement started with good intentions: (1) to curb, or at least better regulate, perceived corporate greed on Wall Street; (2) to revise the tax laws such that those richest Americans (the “1%’ers”) would share the fair taxation burden with the rest of the country (the” 99%’ers”); and (3) to stimulate the economy and provide job growth. Oakland, with its high unemployment rate, violent crime problems, health care disparities and foreclosure scandals, would seem then, a convenient and appropriate symbol for what is happening elsewhere in the country, and the world. I get it. People are hurt and angry. They are afraid.
I too live in Oakland. I have lived in this community for more than 15 years. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, with its free speech history, and the son of a mother who participated in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, I certainly respect free speech, advocacy for change, and even the right to protest. When, however, I see the pursuit of these aims start to tear down my community I become concerned. I am concerned that these protests have become misplaced, and if not done in a more constructive manner going forward, threaten both the safety of our city and the goals OO claims to be pursuing.
Everyone is Upset
A week ago, in an attempt to bring order to an unruly crowd the Mayor’s office ordered the police to remove the protestors from City Hall. One protestor, a war veteran (Scott Olsen), was badly injured. My prayers remain with Scott and his family. The Mayor then announced that the protestors could only protest at City Hall between the hours of 10 and 6. This position was later reversed, again allowing the protestors to establish an encampment at City Hall 24 x7. Now the protestors are angry with the Mayor and police. The Mayor seems to be off sides with her interim police chief. The police are angry with the Mayor (see the open letter from the Oakland police union to the Mayor in the November 1, 2011, Chronicle). Oakland citizens are angry with the Mayor, protestors, and some, the police. There has even been a movement started to recall Mayor Quan. Whew. That is a lot of anger.
I read that OO is calling for a day of protest, on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 when they will “stop commerce”. They are calling for the closure of every bank, corporation and school. I am not sure how closing down business, in a city badly hurting for both new businesses and jobs advances the aims of OO. I for one am against such a closure. As a member of the city’s Workforce Investment Board, I know as much as many, that our city is on the edge of solvency, and as such, the last thing we need to do is stop commerce. To the contrary, we need to show business that Oakland is a place to locate due to our proximity to colleges such as Berkeley, transportation, the Bay and a skilled workforce. Attracting business will stimulate the economy and provide badly needed jobs. What kind of message do we send to our children, by giving them a day off, to protest a city that is broke when they need to be in class, learning and securing a better future?
I think that we need to take a collective step back. The right question at this time is not whether we should recall Mayor Quan, but rather how we as a collective: City Hall, the police, other leaders like Assemblyman Swanson and Congresswoman Lee, OO, business, labor and the residents of Oakland work together to peacefully achieve the goals outlined above.
Civil Disobedience
There are many views on this topic and its use to drive change. Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK are three leaders on the subject of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau's 1848 essay Civil Disobedience, has had a wide influence on many practitioners of civil disobedience. The driving idea behind the essay is that citizens are morally responsible for their support of aggressors, even when such support is required by law. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War. He writes, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too”.
Gandhi similarly asserted “the fact is that all non-cooperation is not violent and non-violent non-cooperation can never be an act of violence”. MLK also urged a non-violent approach: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is force to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
It would seem that OO has part of this right. OO, and the others in the Occupy movement more generally, have put a spotlight on the issues raised above. People are listening. The Economist in its latest issue “Rage Against the Machine” states the Occupy movement has re-focused the debate. The world is paying attention. How then do we achieve: (1) better regulation of Wall Street; (2) more fair taxation and (3) secure new jobs? Well if OO is an example I guess it is throwing items at the police (including feces), refusing to engage in meaningful, productive dialogue and, now, planning to “shut down commerce”. These tactics feel a lot more like anarchy to me given that they are characterized by lawlessness, violence and political disorder. MLK further stated that “the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” It appears, to me, that OO has taken the concepts of Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK and bastardized them. Protest is one thing, actions when they detract from an orderly society, is another.
Free Speech and its Limitations
OO may counter the arguments above by asserting that their actions are covered by “Free Speech”. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are, however, exceptions to this protection based upon: obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words (among other limitations). Government may further limit speech with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Time, place, or manner restrictions must:
1. Be content neutral
2. Be narrowly tailored
3. Serve a significant governmental interest
4. Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
In my opinion limiting the hours that OO may occupy city hall is reasonable. Concerns about riots, public health and sanitation and safety to Oakland residents and its police force are all reasonable justifications. The city has spent well over a $1M on police activities surrounding this protest. These funds are being spent is at the same time when are City is fighting for its financial life and residents are facing yet another parcel tax. I for one, do not want to pay for this kind of activity. I would rather my tax dollars go to fund more police, better schools, public health initiatives and programs that get our residents back to work.
Solutions—How do we Move Forward
I do not claim to have all of the answers, however, below represent a few potential answers:
1. An open forum where the Mayor, City Council, Police Chief, DA, representatives from OO, the business and labor communities and residents of Oakland can engage in a meaningful dialogue around how best to achieve the stated goals.
2. An economic council, made up of business leaders, to help advise the Mayor on creating more jobs in Oakland.
3. A plan to secure additional police officers, as well as support for a strong, autonomous Policy Chief who can drive policy decisions and further develop a plan for a safer Oakland.
4. Reasonable restrictions around time, place and manner of the OO protests.
5. Protection for the businesses of Oakland should this day of protest materialize.
6. Reporting by City Hall, against specific metrics, to show that our City is making the right progress.
7. Voting. Hold our elected officials responsible for reforming the tax laws so that the 1%’ers are paying their fair share and that there exists the proper level of regulation for Wall Street. Put pressure on all members of Congress to achieve these goals and let them know that they are accountable to us.
Thank you for reading. I do not expect full agreement with my views. I welcome meaningful, productive debate. I am deeply committed to this community and its well being, and as such, am happy to be a part of any solution. My hope is that we can filter out the “noise” (recall efforts etc) and put our efforts into those things that can produce tangible results related to those goals set forth above
Monday, March 21, 2011
A Well Reasoned "Blast Back" to the Fab 5
In the midst of all the fun I was having watching March Madness a more serious issue, on the topic, arose. First, the Fab 5 documentary on ESPN and then Grant Hill's response.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/grant-hills-response-to-jalen-rose/
I wanted to take a brief pause to comment, and to commend Mr. Hill for his response.
I think that is it is unfortunate that Jalen and some of the other members of the Fab 5, brought the attacks on Mr. Hill and other AAs who play at Duke, in that manner that they did in the documentary. I love that the Fab Five, as Grant suggests, represented a new movement, a new attitude in America. A brashness that five talented freshman could compete, and almost win, on the NCAAs biggest stage. That said, some of the comments raised by Jalen and the other Fab 5’ers are even worse that the “crabs in the barrel” mentality that often plagues our community. Even more than being jealous of another’s success, or opportunity, I think the remarks by some of the Fab Five are tantamount to encouraging our youth toward the glory elements of the “hip hop” movement, or path to the fastest buck, at the expense of a good quality education, which is in most cases actually required to achieve such aspirations. I would be ok with the Fab 5 saying “we are tougher than they are”, “play a different brand of ball, etc”, but to put down an AA, or anyone, for that matter for taking advantage of one of the finest educational experiences our county has to offer is just wrong. We as AA leaders, should be bringing glory to such opportunities, and highlighting the fact that only the smallest percentage of us will ever make it to major D1 sports, let along professional sports, and that without a quality education to fall back on we are doomed to a very second class set of opportunities as we pursue our life’s work outside of sports. We need to look no further than certain of the members of the Fab 5, who did not get an education, and their attendant struggles, to see the importance of this point.
As a person of color who attended (and is very proud and blessed to have had the opportunity) a predominately “white” HS, college and grad school, I reject that distinction between “down” or “real” blacks and “fake” or “uncle tom” blacks as false. We are all black. The distinctions, and ensuing judgments, between people generally, or even within a race should spring from actions, not one's stations in life or where they were fortunate or unfortunate, as they case may be, to go to school.
I applaud Grant for responding in the manner in which he did. His response was one of high minded reason, rather than name calling or trash talk. His response was thoughtful, well laid out and unemotional. In this situation it clearly would have been easy to give way to emotion. I hope by “being the change” he hopes to see in the world, Grant will serve as an example to Mr. Rose (who, as a TV analyst, is in position to influence many of our youth), the rest of the Fab 5 and kids more generally. I think he showed real courage in living up to the challenge set forth by Dubois in trying to lead, realizing the implications of the Fab 5 documentary go beyond any mere war of words between Duke and the members of the Fab 5. Clearly, unlike Mr. Rose, Mr. Hill is mindful, that many are watching and taking notes.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/grant-hills-response-to-jalen-rose/
I wanted to take a brief pause to comment, and to commend Mr. Hill for his response.
I think that is it is unfortunate that Jalen and some of the other members of the Fab 5, brought the attacks on Mr. Hill and other AAs who play at Duke, in that manner that they did in the documentary. I love that the Fab Five, as Grant suggests, represented a new movement, a new attitude in America. A brashness that five talented freshman could compete, and almost win, on the NCAAs biggest stage. That said, some of the comments raised by Jalen and the other Fab 5’ers are even worse that the “crabs in the barrel” mentality that often plagues our community. Even more than being jealous of another’s success, or opportunity, I think the remarks by some of the Fab Five are tantamount to encouraging our youth toward the glory elements of the “hip hop” movement, or path to the fastest buck, at the expense of a good quality education, which is in most cases actually required to achieve such aspirations. I would be ok with the Fab 5 saying “we are tougher than they are”, “play a different brand of ball, etc”, but to put down an AA, or anyone, for that matter for taking advantage of one of the finest educational experiences our county has to offer is just wrong. We as AA leaders, should be bringing glory to such opportunities, and highlighting the fact that only the smallest percentage of us will ever make it to major D1 sports, let along professional sports, and that without a quality education to fall back on we are doomed to a very second class set of opportunities as we pursue our life’s work outside of sports. We need to look no further than certain of the members of the Fab 5, who did not get an education, and their attendant struggles, to see the importance of this point.
As a person of color who attended (and is very proud and blessed to have had the opportunity) a predominately “white” HS, college and grad school, I reject that distinction between “down” or “real” blacks and “fake” or “uncle tom” blacks as false. We are all black. The distinctions, and ensuing judgments, between people generally, or even within a race should spring from actions, not one's stations in life or where they were fortunate or unfortunate, as they case may be, to go to school.
I applaud Grant for responding in the manner in which he did. His response was one of high minded reason, rather than name calling or trash talk. His response was thoughtful, well laid out and unemotional. In this situation it clearly would have been easy to give way to emotion. I hope by “being the change” he hopes to see in the world, Grant will serve as an example to Mr. Rose (who, as a TV analyst, is in position to influence many of our youth), the rest of the Fab 5 and kids more generally. I think he showed real courage in living up to the challenge set forth by Dubois in trying to lead, realizing the implications of the Fab 5 documentary go beyond any mere war of words between Duke and the members of the Fab 5. Clearly, unlike Mr. Rose, Mr. Hill is mindful, that many are watching and taking notes.
Monday, January 3, 2011
New CA AG Harris Makes History
AG Harris Makes History
January 3, 2011. Today Kamala Harris was sworn in as California’s Attorney General. Being a woman, African American and Indian—a ll firsts! It was an honor to be among the many enthusiastic supporters, many of us whom had played a part (no matter how small) in her historic feat, to see her sworn in. When she pledged to “defend the Constitution of the United States and CA against enemies both foreign and domestic” , a collective chill came over the crowd. Kamala “gets it”. That is the law is for all people.
A few highlights:
· She pledged to be tough on crime. Those who commit heinous acts will be removed from society—murders, sex traffickers and pedophiles to name a few.
· She also pledged to be smart on crime. With a 70% recidivism rate and spending at a 2x rate to higher education in our state, the current system is not working. Kamala pledged to promote programs that get people properly prepared to re-enter society—education, job training, etc. Additionally, as she has done in SF, she pledged to continue holding parents accountable for their children attending class. Finally, she promised that her office will use a data driven approach and best of breed practices from around the country to improve CA.
· Mortgage fraud, drugs and gang violence were also among her targets of first order.
· AG Harris also promised a better use of existing laws to combat cyber crime. Cyber criminals will face the same punishment as do those who commit physical crimes.
· In an acknowledgement that the Prop 8 debate will be re-opened, the new AG stated that people “should be free to marry whoever they love”.
With a transition team that features two former US Secretaries of State, it is clear that Kamala Harris is a different kind of AG. Of course, the proof will be in the results, however, if today’s speech is any indication of the possible, I think California may be pleasantly surprised by what this 20 year prosecutor accomplishes. Also unspoken was the future of the death penalty.
It is very clear that our new AG has a bright future. I had previously thought maybe Governor, Senator or even President could be on the horizon for her at some point. However, if one listened closely to her glowing admiration for another former Alameda County DA, Earl Warren, and comprehends the ambitions of her reform plan she starts to more resemble Thurgood Marshall (in the way he reshaped education through the Brown vs Board of Education case). Supreme Court Justice Harris… Another of the many options that are now possible for this amazing woman.
January 3, 2011. Today Kamala Harris was sworn in as California’s Attorney General. Being a woman, African American and Indian—a ll firsts! It was an honor to be among the many enthusiastic supporters, many of us whom had played a part (no matter how small) in her historic feat, to see her sworn in. When she pledged to “defend the Constitution of the United States and CA against enemies both foreign and domestic” , a collective chill came over the crowd. Kamala “gets it”. That is the law is for all people.
A few highlights:
· She pledged to be tough on crime. Those who commit heinous acts will be removed from society—murders, sex traffickers and pedophiles to name a few.
· She also pledged to be smart on crime. With a 70% recidivism rate and spending at a 2x rate to higher education in our state, the current system is not working. Kamala pledged to promote programs that get people properly prepared to re-enter society—education, job training, etc. Additionally, as she has done in SF, she pledged to continue holding parents accountable for their children attending class. Finally, she promised that her office will use a data driven approach and best of breed practices from around the country to improve CA.
· Mortgage fraud, drugs and gang violence were also among her targets of first order.
· AG Harris also promised a better use of existing laws to combat cyber crime. Cyber criminals will face the same punishment as do those who commit physical crimes.
· In an acknowledgement that the Prop 8 debate will be re-opened, the new AG stated that people “should be free to marry whoever they love”.
With a transition team that features two former US Secretaries of State, it is clear that Kamala Harris is a different kind of AG. Of course, the proof will be in the results, however, if today’s speech is any indication of the possible, I think California may be pleasantly surprised by what this 20 year prosecutor accomplishes. Also unspoken was the future of the death penalty.
It is very clear that our new AG has a bright future. I had previously thought maybe Governor, Senator or even President could be on the horizon for her at some point. However, if one listened closely to her glowing admiration for another former Alameda County DA, Earl Warren, and comprehends the ambitions of her reform plan she starts to more resemble Thurgood Marshall (in the way he reshaped education through the Brown vs Board of Education case). Supreme Court Justice Harris… Another of the many options that are now possible for this amazing woman.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Yes We Can, the Blueprint—How to Finish the Change We Started
The Audacity to Win
We won. I was reminded of the feeling that I and several other friends had the night we knew President Barack Obama had won the election for the President of the United States. Many of us, including me, played small parts in helping this victory happen. An African American had just become the 44th President of the United States. I recalled stepping outside to speak to my mother, a woman who had marched in the Civil Rights movement, and discussing what an historic moment we had just witnessed. We were both proud, but felt, in the final analysis, this victory would be viewed as hallow if we did not use it to make real change (i.e, pass broad laws that impact the majority of America and elect other similarly minded and diverse people at the local, state and federal levels). These feelings had been conjured up by the book I was reading on the way to the annual legislative meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus (“CBC”)—The Audacity to Win. Why exactly, it is, or was, audacious for an African American to have won the Presidency is a story for another time.
My feelings of excitement, happiness and desire to help make change that had been stirred by this powerful book were only re-enforced last night at the CBC Awards Gala when President Obama stepped on stage to speak to the crowd. Even before he spoke, one could feel the electricity in the room exuding from his person. Some, in the community, call it “swag”. Others say he has something special. Regardless, our President clearly has “it”. As he began his speech, everyone in the room could feel the same energy that had popularized what had become the President’s catch phrase during his run—“Yes We Can”. This excitement was bolstered by the President reviewing the many impressive accomplishments by his administration in their first 18 months. The excitement, however, was tempered by what the President called America being at the crossroads.
We are at the crossroads, as stated by the President, because despite having saved the country from another “Great Depression”, passed health care reform and brought an end to the Iraq war, the Republicans, and increasingly the Tea Party, feel the President is not doing a good job. Not only do they want undo many of the aforementioned changes, according to minority leader Boehner, they want to take the country back. This is where the irony gets rich. The last time the Republican minority felt this way, the then minority leader Gingrich, made a contract with America. I am not sure what Newt thought he would deliver under this contract, however, what ensued were eight years of policies that led America right off the cliff. On the day President Obama took office no other incoming President had faced so many challenges on so many different fronts: a crumbling economy, millions of Americans without jobs or healthcare, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increasingly sour relations with the world’s other super powers. As the President mused last night, it is now pretty funny that “the people who drove the country off the cliff, then watched us while we expended blood, sweat and tears to push the car, that is America, almost back on the road, while they drank slurppies and talked about what a poor job we are doing, now want back the keys to the car”??? No, the President said, resiliently, you can not have the keys to the car back. I suppose this is why the President called our current position a crossroads. To stay with the car analogy, we can hand the keys back to the Republicans, and some of their Tea Party friends (whoever these folks are), put the car in reverse and go backwards, or we can leave the car with the people that have made change, continue in drive and go forward. A precarious position indeed.
To be clear, while change has been made, we must go further as a country. As the legendary community activist, Harry Belafonte stated “President Obama will drive change, but can not do it alone”. It is clear that true change can not be about one man acting alone, it must be about a Nation working together. Mr. Belafonte further observes that a contributing factor to our being at the crossroads may be that our generation is missing true activists. In other words, the millions of Americans that will work at a grassroots level to help make the change we all claim to want. Viewed against this lens, we must realize that being active every four years, usually during a Presidential election for many of us, is not sufficient. Real change is made on all three levels of government—local, state and federal. I believe we must work on all three levels, and do so continuously. To do otherwise, is to fail to participate in the process that on a daily basis impacts all of our lives. If we fail to participate, we can not then complain that the change we seek did not come.
Real Progress
Recently, I had an opportunity to hear a very senior Senator speak. He told a powerful story on the US economy. On the morning before AIG would be taken over by the US government, a group of the top leadership, from each party, Senators and Congress people were summoned to a meeting with the President and Treasury Secretary, to discuss AIG and the broader economy. It became clear that unless AIG, and as we know now, a few others, were assisted, in other words saved, by the government, not only would they fail, our entire economy would become unhinged. Markets would have plunged, there would have been panicked runs on banks, and unemployment would certainly head toward the 25-35% “Great Depression” levels. The phrase “to big to fail”, for me, now was clearly defined.
Viewed properly against the backdrop of having to make critical decisions concerning institutions that were viewed as “to big to fail”, the only choice for this President and his administration, as they took office was to act decisively, and to make those actions big and bold. What then, have been the results of these actions? Recently I was provided the opportunity to attend a White House briefing on these matters. I admit to being impressed by the breadth of what this administration has been able to accomplish, especially given that it has only been 18 months. A few of these accomplishments:
The Economy
$750+B in TARP Funds. 1/3rd deployed.
Financial industry saved from ruin. Many regulatory changes made to make sure the possibility of a similar collapse in the future is lessened.
US Auto industry back on its feet
Reversal of a jobless trend—moved from losing 700,000 jobs a month to an economy that is currently adding jobs
Tax incentives for businesses to create jobs
Passage of a small business jobs bill and related lending fund
To be fair, the administration must do a better job of providing metrics as to how this $750B has been spent, its exact stimulative effect and the rate at which jobs will grow. This seems more a matter of communication and marketing, than flawed policy, so I think, given their stance as active listeners, they will improve in this area. This point about greater visibility and communication may also be made about many of the other changes being made by the administration. In short, tell us more, and more often.
Healthcare
Passage of healthcare reform that provides basic healthcare to most Americans
Additional money for preventative services
Control of escalating healthcare costs
Elimination of the lifetime benefit exclusion
Foreign Relations
Ending of the Iraq war
Steps toward ending the Afghanistan war
Continued negotiations in the Middle East
Actions, by the EPA and DEO, to reduce our dependence on foreign oils
Education
$4B for educational initiatives
Focus on those poorest performing 2000 US schools
Focus on HBCUs
Funding for more Americans to pursue higher education
As an aside, I think the administration would be smart to pick up Michelle Rhee, if she is not retained by the new Mayor, as DC schools chief. Her brand of innovative and outside of the box thinking may be just what America needs to make systemic change to its educational systems.
Viewed through an objective lens, a great deal of progress has been made by this administration in its first 18 months. I think the President would acknowledge that more work remains. However, even acknowledging more work remains, it does appear that the foundation has been laid for further change. So then what remains? How do we achieve the change we all seek? On a related point, and as Duvall Patrick recently asked “how do we (also) guard the change we have achieved”?
The Path Forward—Being the “We”
During the process of electing President Obama many of us were fond of the quote “we are the we, that we have been waiting for”. To many, it signified that this was a movement, and this movement belonged to all of us. I believe we got off to a great start by getting President Obama elected. I wonder, however, if we have lived up to the “We” part of this change process since. To be fair, many, many Americans have continued to work hard in their communities for advancement. What does it say, however, when in California, for example, there was only a ~20% voter turn out in the June primary. To me it says a great many of us stopped, satisfied with having an African American President. We said to ourselves, “I worked hard, and maybe I will work hard again in 2011 or 2012 when it is time to get the President re-elected, however, until that time I have lots of other areas in my life that require attention”. I do not want to understate the difficulties of every day life. Although our economy has improved, many Americans still struggle with mortgages, joblessness and meeting basic needs. That said, to fully realize the change we seek, we will have to dig deep, work even harder…sacrifice.
John F. Kennedy said “pray not for easy lives, but for the strength to meet life’s challenges”. We must now summon this strength. We must all focus on protecting the advances that have been realized. Additionally, we must achieve a great turn out in the midterm elections, and continue getting America back to work. We have to get back to the same sort of grassroots actions that got President Obama elected: registering voters, getting voters to polls and microfinance initiatives that fund campaigns. To return to the example of California, if we turn out at 20% again in the fall elections, as opposed to the 70%+ rate at which we turned out in 2008, many leaders who would have continued to advance this change will lose: (i) Barbara Boxer will not be Senator; (ii) Jerry Brown will not be Governor; and (iii) Kamala Harris will not be Attorney General. On a related note, if we fail to act decisively and as a collective, there will be no African Americans in the US Senate. Kendrick Meek, Democrat, Florida, will need a Nation to achieve victory. We can not allow any of the aforementioned to become realities.
The change we seek is squarely in our hands. Our actions, or inaction, as the case may be, will determine the future of a generation. Will we act? Will we lead? Will “we” be the “we” that we have been waiting for? Let’s not put the car in reverse and go backwards. Our future can be bright if we strive. Let’s stay in drive and head toward an even brighter tomorrow
We won. I was reminded of the feeling that I and several other friends had the night we knew President Barack Obama had won the election for the President of the United States. Many of us, including me, played small parts in helping this victory happen. An African American had just become the 44th President of the United States. I recalled stepping outside to speak to my mother, a woman who had marched in the Civil Rights movement, and discussing what an historic moment we had just witnessed. We were both proud, but felt, in the final analysis, this victory would be viewed as hallow if we did not use it to make real change (i.e, pass broad laws that impact the majority of America and elect other similarly minded and diverse people at the local, state and federal levels). These feelings had been conjured up by the book I was reading on the way to the annual legislative meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus (“CBC”)—The Audacity to Win. Why exactly, it is, or was, audacious for an African American to have won the Presidency is a story for another time.
My feelings of excitement, happiness and desire to help make change that had been stirred by this powerful book were only re-enforced last night at the CBC Awards Gala when President Obama stepped on stage to speak to the crowd. Even before he spoke, one could feel the electricity in the room exuding from his person. Some, in the community, call it “swag”. Others say he has something special. Regardless, our President clearly has “it”. As he began his speech, everyone in the room could feel the same energy that had popularized what had become the President’s catch phrase during his run—“Yes We Can”. This excitement was bolstered by the President reviewing the many impressive accomplishments by his administration in their first 18 months. The excitement, however, was tempered by what the President called America being at the crossroads.
We are at the crossroads, as stated by the President, because despite having saved the country from another “Great Depression”, passed health care reform and brought an end to the Iraq war, the Republicans, and increasingly the Tea Party, feel the President is not doing a good job. Not only do they want undo many of the aforementioned changes, according to minority leader Boehner, they want to take the country back. This is where the irony gets rich. The last time the Republican minority felt this way, the then minority leader Gingrich, made a contract with America. I am not sure what Newt thought he would deliver under this contract, however, what ensued were eight years of policies that led America right off the cliff. On the day President Obama took office no other incoming President had faced so many challenges on so many different fronts: a crumbling economy, millions of Americans without jobs or healthcare, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increasingly sour relations with the world’s other super powers. As the President mused last night, it is now pretty funny that “the people who drove the country off the cliff, then watched us while we expended blood, sweat and tears to push the car, that is America, almost back on the road, while they drank slurppies and talked about what a poor job we are doing, now want back the keys to the car”??? No, the President said, resiliently, you can not have the keys to the car back. I suppose this is why the President called our current position a crossroads. To stay with the car analogy, we can hand the keys back to the Republicans, and some of their Tea Party friends (whoever these folks are), put the car in reverse and go backwards, or we can leave the car with the people that have made change, continue in drive and go forward. A precarious position indeed.
To be clear, while change has been made, we must go further as a country. As the legendary community activist, Harry Belafonte stated “President Obama will drive change, but can not do it alone”. It is clear that true change can not be about one man acting alone, it must be about a Nation working together. Mr. Belafonte further observes that a contributing factor to our being at the crossroads may be that our generation is missing true activists. In other words, the millions of Americans that will work at a grassroots level to help make the change we all claim to want. Viewed against this lens, we must realize that being active every four years, usually during a Presidential election for many of us, is not sufficient. Real change is made on all three levels of government—local, state and federal. I believe we must work on all three levels, and do so continuously. To do otherwise, is to fail to participate in the process that on a daily basis impacts all of our lives. If we fail to participate, we can not then complain that the change we seek did not come.
Real Progress
Recently, I had an opportunity to hear a very senior Senator speak. He told a powerful story on the US economy. On the morning before AIG would be taken over by the US government, a group of the top leadership, from each party, Senators and Congress people were summoned to a meeting with the President and Treasury Secretary, to discuss AIG and the broader economy. It became clear that unless AIG, and as we know now, a few others, were assisted, in other words saved, by the government, not only would they fail, our entire economy would become unhinged. Markets would have plunged, there would have been panicked runs on banks, and unemployment would certainly head toward the 25-35% “Great Depression” levels. The phrase “to big to fail”, for me, now was clearly defined.
Viewed properly against the backdrop of having to make critical decisions concerning institutions that were viewed as “to big to fail”, the only choice for this President and his administration, as they took office was to act decisively, and to make those actions big and bold. What then, have been the results of these actions? Recently I was provided the opportunity to attend a White House briefing on these matters. I admit to being impressed by the breadth of what this administration has been able to accomplish, especially given that it has only been 18 months. A few of these accomplishments:
The Economy
$750+B in TARP Funds. 1/3rd deployed.
Financial industry saved from ruin. Many regulatory changes made to make sure the possibility of a similar collapse in the future is lessened.
US Auto industry back on its feet
Reversal of a jobless trend—moved from losing 700,000 jobs a month to an economy that is currently adding jobs
Tax incentives for businesses to create jobs
Passage of a small business jobs bill and related lending fund
To be fair, the administration must do a better job of providing metrics as to how this $750B has been spent, its exact stimulative effect and the rate at which jobs will grow. This seems more a matter of communication and marketing, than flawed policy, so I think, given their stance as active listeners, they will improve in this area. This point about greater visibility and communication may also be made about many of the other changes being made by the administration. In short, tell us more, and more often.
Healthcare
Passage of healthcare reform that provides basic healthcare to most Americans
Additional money for preventative services
Control of escalating healthcare costs
Elimination of the lifetime benefit exclusion
Foreign Relations
Ending of the Iraq war
Steps toward ending the Afghanistan war
Continued negotiations in the Middle East
Actions, by the EPA and DEO, to reduce our dependence on foreign oils
Education
$4B for educational initiatives
Focus on those poorest performing 2000 US schools
Focus on HBCUs
Funding for more Americans to pursue higher education
As an aside, I think the administration would be smart to pick up Michelle Rhee, if she is not retained by the new Mayor, as DC schools chief. Her brand of innovative and outside of the box thinking may be just what America needs to make systemic change to its educational systems.
Viewed through an objective lens, a great deal of progress has been made by this administration in its first 18 months. I think the President would acknowledge that more work remains. However, even acknowledging more work remains, it does appear that the foundation has been laid for further change. So then what remains? How do we achieve the change we all seek? On a related point, and as Duvall Patrick recently asked “how do we (also) guard the change we have achieved”?
The Path Forward—Being the “We”
During the process of electing President Obama many of us were fond of the quote “we are the we, that we have been waiting for”. To many, it signified that this was a movement, and this movement belonged to all of us. I believe we got off to a great start by getting President Obama elected. I wonder, however, if we have lived up to the “We” part of this change process since. To be fair, many, many Americans have continued to work hard in their communities for advancement. What does it say, however, when in California, for example, there was only a ~20% voter turn out in the June primary. To me it says a great many of us stopped, satisfied with having an African American President. We said to ourselves, “I worked hard, and maybe I will work hard again in 2011 or 2012 when it is time to get the President re-elected, however, until that time I have lots of other areas in my life that require attention”. I do not want to understate the difficulties of every day life. Although our economy has improved, many Americans still struggle with mortgages, joblessness and meeting basic needs. That said, to fully realize the change we seek, we will have to dig deep, work even harder…sacrifice.
John F. Kennedy said “pray not for easy lives, but for the strength to meet life’s challenges”. We must now summon this strength. We must all focus on protecting the advances that have been realized. Additionally, we must achieve a great turn out in the midterm elections, and continue getting America back to work. We have to get back to the same sort of grassroots actions that got President Obama elected: registering voters, getting voters to polls and microfinance initiatives that fund campaigns. To return to the example of California, if we turn out at 20% again in the fall elections, as opposed to the 70%+ rate at which we turned out in 2008, many leaders who would have continued to advance this change will lose: (i) Barbara Boxer will not be Senator; (ii) Jerry Brown will not be Governor; and (iii) Kamala Harris will not be Attorney General. On a related note, if we fail to act decisively and as a collective, there will be no African Americans in the US Senate. Kendrick Meek, Democrat, Florida, will need a Nation to achieve victory. We can not allow any of the aforementioned to become realities.
The change we seek is squarely in our hands. Our actions, or inaction, as the case may be, will determine the future of a generation. Will we act? Will we lead? Will “we” be the “we” that we have been waiting for? Let’s not put the car in reverse and go backwards. Our future can be bright if we strive. Let’s stay in drive and head toward an even brighter tomorrow
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
(Why do) Things Fall Apart???
What is it all About
Today I write with a troubled soul. Those of you, who have read my blog or just generally know me, know that I am not exactly the sensitive type. I say that to ask you to bear with me as I try to express not just my own views, but also those of many friends and acquaintances, and maybe even a generation who undoubtedly share some of these same views. My subject today is love and relationships, and why are they, especially the later, proving to be so elusive to my generation. I say my generation. At this point, I am not sure if that is Gen X, Y or Z or some combination of all three. If it helps to have context, I am 41, single and never married.
So why is my soul troubled? You may have guessed from the title and first paragraph of this blog that I have recently experienced the ending of a relationship. This ending was surprising to many, including me, who saw great potential in this relationship. Of course I was, and I suppose still am, sad. Why couldn’t we overcome the differences that spelled the end of our relationship? I shall return to this point later in the blog. If this were all that was bothering me I doubt that I would be writing. After all I have my own circle of confidants for such sympathy and support. No, the source of my torment is bigger, far greater than just my own pain.
Recently, I have come across what seems an alarming number of people who have broken up, divorced or are in the process of the same. I was having drinks with some friends recently, when I came across an old friend. I immediately said “how are you, how is your husband”? She replied, sullenly, “Didn’t you know, we are getting divorced”. I was floored. I mean they have been together for more than a decade, have two beautiful kids and generally seemed like that family you hear about in the American dream. I have another set of friends who have been battling for several years, and at this point, appear only held together by a child they have in common. Believe it or not, I was pulled aside by a friend, in the same week as I ran into my divorcing friend with the same circumstances as my “battling” friends, seeking advice on whether to stay or go. Wow.
I think, then, my soul is troubled, not just because of my own relationship struggles, but because so many around me seem to be having the same, or worse trouble. Why? What has happened to our generation? I mean it seems we all want or are seeking love. The evidence is everywhere and has been written about extensively. In the music world for example, Prince sang about “everyone looking for the ladder”, India Arie crooned “I am ready for love” and my personal favorite, Sade, proclaimed herself “A soldier of love”. Death Cab for Cutie provides one of the more poignant examples of true love. In the song “I Will Follow You into the Dark” the group sings “if there is no one beside you when your soul embarks I will follow you into the dark”. It is basically one lover saying to another, who is dying, that I will commit suicide and join you in the “dark” rather than live in this world without you. I realize that this is a dramatic example, and I certainly do not advocate suicide (pro choice/pro life friends, this subject in another blog), but I think it makes a point about how powerful love can be and why many of us pursue it. Why then is love, and relationships, which are supposedly based on love, proving so elusive?
The Story behind the Stats
In the US one in every two marriages ends in divorce. For you statistics geeks that is 50%. In other words, the chances of a modern marriage lasting are no better than a coin flip—a silly game of chance. This rate is the highest it has been since 1970. A generation earlier the divorce rate in the US hovered slightly above 35%. Of course the rate varies based on many factors such as race, income, religion, etc, however, all in all it is a sobering statistic for those of us still “chasing the ladder”. Many more do not make it to marriage at all.
The reasons behind the statistics are plentiful:
Marriage
Lack of effort. People taking easy way out. If it does not work with minimal effort, the marriage is abandoned.
People set in their ways.
Starter marriages. I can get it right next time.
Failure to really know one another or share common values.
Lack of agreement on whether to have and/or how to raise children.
Money.
Infidelity.
Lack of communication and/or different styles of communication (Mars/Venus phenomenon).
Relationships/Getting to Marriage
Independence. I am good on my own. I do not need a mate to make a good living.
Alternatives. Couples deciding to just live together.
Career. Individuals wanting to “make it” prior to marriage or see marriage holding them back from advancement.
Lack of suitable candidates.
A related point to the preceding—either I will not wait on a suitable mate or do not believe I need one to have a child. Sperm bank and adoption seen as real options.
Global society makes it harder, not easier to connect. Yes, even with Facebook and Twitter.
In African American, and other minority communities, the disparities in education and career options between men and women.
The sad reality is that we now live in a “microwave society”. Often times if a relationship does not work or can not be fixed in an instant, it is over. We seem to want our relationships like we want our popcorn—when we want them and ready, to perfection, in four minutes or less. Unfortunately the real world does not work like that. Relationships are hard. They require lots of work. Nowadays it seems there is no longer any dependence of men and women. They can do without each other. Knowing this makes it easier to break off a relationship, often times over the smallest issue when either or both partners are not satisfied.
Of Consequences and Hope
In a simple sense, the consequences of failed marriages and relationships, more generally, are an increasingly cynical and bitter society—men and woman. A deeper look, however, reveals far more dire consequences: (i) people sad and losing hope; (ii) less true happiness; (iii) economic struggles; and (iv) a nation of children devoid or lacking family values. Of these consequences, the one that most troubles me most is (iv). Clearly there are many adults, who were the product of single parent homes, who are thriving and well adjusted. I was raised by a single mother. I think, all things considered, I am pretty well adjusted and generally happy. That said, there are far more folks negatively impacted by this issue (see education, employment and prison statistics to name a few). Assuming the parents are generally happy, and have decent communication, raising children is a task best shared by two. One, it is easier to divide the workload. Two, children need unique things from each parent as they grow and develop. Finally, with two parents there may be more money to provide for the family needs. As “republican” as it may sound, I would like to see a return to more two parent households, co-parenting, and yes, “family values”.
I do believe there is hope. As smart and as successful as our generation has been generally, I believe we can better figure out relationships and how to make them work. More tenacity is needed. Additionally, we have access to a greater number of resources than did past generations. Counseling, religion and friends and family are all sources of support for troubled times. If we use our intelligence, employ our tenacity and make good use of our resources, I believe we can do better.
Let me close by saying there is nothing wrong with being single. Relationships and marriage are not for everyone. There are plenty of single people who raise great kids, and God knows that there are many, many children who need good homes. For those that do pursue relationships, including marriage, mental readiness (including having dated sufficiently so as to be out of your system), willingness to work and faith in the possible or prerequisites.
Thanks for letting me speak. My soul is far less troubled than when I started writing. I remain hopeful, optimistic, and yes, still looking “for the ladder”. I hope you do too.
Today I write with a troubled soul. Those of you, who have read my blog or just generally know me, know that I am not exactly the sensitive type. I say that to ask you to bear with me as I try to express not just my own views, but also those of many friends and acquaintances, and maybe even a generation who undoubtedly share some of these same views. My subject today is love and relationships, and why are they, especially the later, proving to be so elusive to my generation. I say my generation. At this point, I am not sure if that is Gen X, Y or Z or some combination of all three. If it helps to have context, I am 41, single and never married.
So why is my soul troubled? You may have guessed from the title and first paragraph of this blog that I have recently experienced the ending of a relationship. This ending was surprising to many, including me, who saw great potential in this relationship. Of course I was, and I suppose still am, sad. Why couldn’t we overcome the differences that spelled the end of our relationship? I shall return to this point later in the blog. If this were all that was bothering me I doubt that I would be writing. After all I have my own circle of confidants for such sympathy and support. No, the source of my torment is bigger, far greater than just my own pain.
Recently, I have come across what seems an alarming number of people who have broken up, divorced or are in the process of the same. I was having drinks with some friends recently, when I came across an old friend. I immediately said “how are you, how is your husband”? She replied, sullenly, “Didn’t you know, we are getting divorced”. I was floored. I mean they have been together for more than a decade, have two beautiful kids and generally seemed like that family you hear about in the American dream. I have another set of friends who have been battling for several years, and at this point, appear only held together by a child they have in common. Believe it or not, I was pulled aside by a friend, in the same week as I ran into my divorcing friend with the same circumstances as my “battling” friends, seeking advice on whether to stay or go. Wow.
I think, then, my soul is troubled, not just because of my own relationship struggles, but because so many around me seem to be having the same, or worse trouble. Why? What has happened to our generation? I mean it seems we all want or are seeking love. The evidence is everywhere and has been written about extensively. In the music world for example, Prince sang about “everyone looking for the ladder”, India Arie crooned “I am ready for love” and my personal favorite, Sade, proclaimed herself “A soldier of love”. Death Cab for Cutie provides one of the more poignant examples of true love. In the song “I Will Follow You into the Dark” the group sings “if there is no one beside you when your soul embarks I will follow you into the dark”. It is basically one lover saying to another, who is dying, that I will commit suicide and join you in the “dark” rather than live in this world without you. I realize that this is a dramatic example, and I certainly do not advocate suicide (pro choice/pro life friends, this subject in another blog), but I think it makes a point about how powerful love can be and why many of us pursue it. Why then is love, and relationships, which are supposedly based on love, proving so elusive?
The Story behind the Stats
In the US one in every two marriages ends in divorce. For you statistics geeks that is 50%. In other words, the chances of a modern marriage lasting are no better than a coin flip—a silly game of chance. This rate is the highest it has been since 1970. A generation earlier the divorce rate in the US hovered slightly above 35%. Of course the rate varies based on many factors such as race, income, religion, etc, however, all in all it is a sobering statistic for those of us still “chasing the ladder”. Many more do not make it to marriage at all.
The reasons behind the statistics are plentiful:
Marriage
Lack of effort. People taking easy way out. If it does not work with minimal effort, the marriage is abandoned.
People set in their ways.
Starter marriages. I can get it right next time.
Failure to really know one another or share common values.
Lack of agreement on whether to have and/or how to raise children.
Money.
Infidelity.
Lack of communication and/or different styles of communication (Mars/Venus phenomenon).
Relationships/Getting to Marriage
Independence. I am good on my own. I do not need a mate to make a good living.
Alternatives. Couples deciding to just live together.
Career. Individuals wanting to “make it” prior to marriage or see marriage holding them back from advancement.
Lack of suitable candidates.
A related point to the preceding—either I will not wait on a suitable mate or do not believe I need one to have a child. Sperm bank and adoption seen as real options.
Global society makes it harder, not easier to connect. Yes, even with Facebook and Twitter.
In African American, and other minority communities, the disparities in education and career options between men and women.
The sad reality is that we now live in a “microwave society”. Often times if a relationship does not work or can not be fixed in an instant, it is over. We seem to want our relationships like we want our popcorn—when we want them and ready, to perfection, in four minutes or less. Unfortunately the real world does not work like that. Relationships are hard. They require lots of work. Nowadays it seems there is no longer any dependence of men and women. They can do without each other. Knowing this makes it easier to break off a relationship, often times over the smallest issue when either or both partners are not satisfied.
Of Consequences and Hope
In a simple sense, the consequences of failed marriages and relationships, more generally, are an increasingly cynical and bitter society—men and woman. A deeper look, however, reveals far more dire consequences: (i) people sad and losing hope; (ii) less true happiness; (iii) economic struggles; and (iv) a nation of children devoid or lacking family values. Of these consequences, the one that most troubles me most is (iv). Clearly there are many adults, who were the product of single parent homes, who are thriving and well adjusted. I was raised by a single mother. I think, all things considered, I am pretty well adjusted and generally happy. That said, there are far more folks negatively impacted by this issue (see education, employment and prison statistics to name a few). Assuming the parents are generally happy, and have decent communication, raising children is a task best shared by two. One, it is easier to divide the workload. Two, children need unique things from each parent as they grow and develop. Finally, with two parents there may be more money to provide for the family needs. As “republican” as it may sound, I would like to see a return to more two parent households, co-parenting, and yes, “family values”.
I do believe there is hope. As smart and as successful as our generation has been generally, I believe we can better figure out relationships and how to make them work. More tenacity is needed. Additionally, we have access to a greater number of resources than did past generations. Counseling, religion and friends and family are all sources of support for troubled times. If we use our intelligence, employ our tenacity and make good use of our resources, I believe we can do better.
Let me close by saying there is nothing wrong with being single. Relationships and marriage are not for everyone. There are plenty of single people who raise great kids, and God knows that there are many, many children who need good homes. For those that do pursue relationships, including marriage, mental readiness (including having dated sufficiently so as to be out of your system), willingness to work and faith in the possible or prerequisites.
Thanks for letting me speak. My soul is far less troubled than when I started writing. I remain hopeful, optimistic, and yes, still looking “for the ladder”. I hope you do too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
