Obamanation?

So now that Barack Obama is going to be the first Black president, there are some other things that should be integrated. Here's my top 3

1. The Rockettes. I have yet to see two consecutive years with Black Rockettes, or any other obviously non-white race or ethnicity for that matter.
2. Food Network. Yes, I know that this one is random, but I'm a foodie who is addicted to watching food shows. There have been tokens, but not consistent representation by non-white chefs.
3. Hockey. I can't say that watch it nor do I really enjoy the sport, but with if the Palin effect can cause non-athletic mothers to declare themselves hockey moms, and if Jamaica can have a bobsled team, then there can be more Black hockey players.

So will there be an Obama effect? Will this be an Obamanation? I don't know, but hopefully I'll be alive to see.

Checkin My Fresh

So, by now, I think that everyone has seen the administration questionnaire that potential high level employees must fill out to be considered for position. I took one look and decided it was a cruel joke, but apparently it wasn't.

Aside from consulting your pastor, spouse, psychiatrist, psychologist, elementary school teachers, jumpoffs, children, friends of your childrens, parents of the friends of your children, lawyers, publicists, God, all email records, phone records, college roommates, high school acquaintances, among others to accurately fill out forms; wouldn't it be great if they could intersperse some light-hearted questions?

For example, after number 18, which solicits information about affiliation with embattled financial institutions that are currently receiving government funds; wouldn't it be cool if it were followed up by question 19 which asks: "Over the last 10 years, how many times have you caught somebody checking your fresh?"

Aside from the the fact that people are withdrawing their names from consideration for positions, people are probably going to be planning on divorces by the time they are finished with this questionnaire. Others still will be bitch slapping skeletons back into closets.

It is reasonable to understand the motives behind the need for this information, however it is beyond evasive and borders on being unconstitutional. There is no way that the administration will know everything about a person's life, character or the character of their families and associates before they are hired. It is important with the popularity of the internet to request this information that can be quite easily accessed by fast fingered bloggers, but where and how do you draw the line without turning people away?

Say it, Say it ...

One thing that struck me during Barack Obama's victory speech was the lack of a word. It was a word that had come to define him, his candidacy and the historic nature of this election. It was both what scared people and what endeared people. It was a word that he had before acknowledged, never leaning on it and very many meanings.

The implications of the word are vast, far reaching both forwards and toward ancient time. Throughout his campaign he became someone that could transcend the those implications by acknowledging but. For some acknowledging was not enough, people wanted him to go in. Him skimming the surface was a cause for suspicion that he maybe was not who he appeared. Though for others, the simple acknowledging created a comfort level that eased tension and shepherded a believable campaign of decidedly posts. Post-partisan, post-idelogical, post-divisiveness, and post-racial.

Yes, the word that Barack Obama did not use was Black. When he told the story about his journey to the presidency and then paralleled the story of 106 year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, who has had a lifetime of struggles, one thing he failed to mention was that she was Black.

His exclusion was absolutely deliberate. But I wonder why it was necessary. This could have been the perfect opportunity for Barack to let his hair down and acknowledge the historic nature of his victory. But he didn't, so I'll say it. Barack is Black and he's gonna be the next president of the United States of America!

Victory

Psych vs. Psychology

In my younger days, when I was trying to play a prank or a joke on someone, I would yell, "psych!" just before they figured it out. For people of my generation, there were so many things to say psych to that I can't believe it's hard for me to find reason to use it now.

By now we know that Barack Hussein Obama is the president-elect, and much respect to him, the campaign he ran, and the fact that it will become the text book for presidential candidates in the years to come. His ascent is simply one to marvel at, but the differences between his upbringing and the typical Black experience is also something to seriously consider.

Would it be possible for a Black man in America who had a regular upbringing in the lower 48 to aspire with such zeal and confidence for the presidency? While I am not a betting person, I think that it would have been highly unlikely for the level of acceptance and coalition building that Obama enjoyed to have similarly mobilized around a typical Black guy with a presidential quest.

Fundamentally, I think the psychology of low expectations and low outcomes has been ingrained so deep and for so long that the notion of a Black president is dismissed out of hand as being a lofty goal, but ultimately one that is unatainable. That prevailing psychology stops so many people in their tracks, impedes so much progress and denies deserving people great experiences. Yet when we psych ourselves up or out, it is just a temporary thing that breaks our nerves and allows us to go for broke in spite of everything.

When we psych ourselves, we are in control, and we know what the reality of the situation is. The psychological barriers are unseen, largely unspoken but surround us in claustrophobic bondage. What gave Barack Obama the audacity to hope and to dream big dreams that he actually carried out with precision? What makes him confident in the face of naysayers? What makes many other Black people so involved in the mundane of community-police relations, job hunting and forgoing income for educational aspirations that they never stop to think about leading the nation? How is it that the psychology of 'you are nothing and you will never amount to anything' never took hold of Barack Obama and turned him into a doubting Tom?It is remarkable the impact that culture and symbols can have one attitude and upbringing.

If Barack Obama's win means anything, it really taught me how detrimental and oppressive culture or a lack of a positive one can be on Black people in America. Imagine if we all woke up tomorrow and decided that we were going to run for president--psych!

Socialist America?

A great man once said, if you can't be used, you're useless. A simplistic maxim, yes, but one that is no less true. In a capitalistic society we commodotize as many resources as we can and then buy and sell them in order to maximize profit. Adam Smith spoke about the invisible hand that controls that market, acting as a correcter and rewarder all at once. In economic terms, markets clear at a price that is defined as the point at which the consumer is maximizing their utility.

At the turn of this decade amidst the implosion of energy and telecommunication companies like Enron and Worldcom; employees were experiencing windfalls on Wall Street. These windfalls came in the form of stocks, bonuses and options. There was some discussion about the size of these compensation packages, but this carping was tamped down because companies were doing exceedingly well. The thought was, if the companies are doing well, then high executive compensation is not a bad thing. Companies and executives did not reject the compensation that they saw as being justly deserved. They were not required to turn a percentage of 'excess' profits over to the government. After all in capitalism, innovation and high profit margins are celebrated and heralded as evidence that competition works.

Therefore, I was extremely surprised after the failure of one insurance company, bank and brokerage firm after the other, panic set in about the necessity of a plan from the government to stem the failures. I had grown up with the understanding that America was capitalistic and adopted a laissez-faire policy on excessive government innovation into the markets. So why should the government bail these companies out? After all the government doesn't operate with the same profit maximization approach that private companies use, so why then should low risk money be put into a mechanism that is high risk/high return?

At a recent congressional hearing, Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman and staunch advocate of deregulation was left with mouth agape trying to reconcile the reason for bank failures and extremely risky investments that were improperly hedged. His reasoning had been, that for companies to maximize self-preservation they would seek for the appropriate formula of high risk/high return that was suitable for their balance sheet. In this way the companies would protect themselves from demise and self-police. As is the case, we see that many companies had severely overextended themselves in an effort to buy into the risky system of subprime mortgages that had been buoying companies for the first half of the 2000s. When the bottom began fall from under the housing market, so too did the risky home loans that had proliferated. With hemorrhaging balance sheets, and losses piling up, the final recourse was to tap into the government.

But in a capitalistic system, the government's role is extremely limited and certainly does not include artificially injecting large sums of money into the market to get it to work. Maybe we are not as capitalistic as we believe we are. Maybe these companies knew that the government would be there for a bailout and spent recklessly until they had to come come hat in hand to the government's doorstep asking for assistance. The unfortunate fault in this theory is that it is not a reciprocal relationship. When the economy was doing well and the housing bubble was growing at a record pace, capitalism was vociferously championed. Exorbitant sums of money awarded to executives was defended as deserved compensation. Yet, now that the markets have plunged and a mood of gloom has surfaced, the bulls of the market are seeking the protection of the matador.

The sad part is that they have been duly welcomed. Remarkably, the unfortunate part is that no one executive or member of the executive and senior level of management at the imperiled companies will become paupers. These minor setbacks while devastating will not destroy them. However, for the millions of people who have to put off retirement, or have to see their portfolios shrink like an obese person after gastric bypass, they have no golden parachute offered by the government. No assurance of the solvency of their investments, no assistance on any level.

Pimper's Paradise

Tonight I had a disturbing discussion about the ramifications of the upcoming election. While I definitely want Obama to win, I warned about the danger of pinning all hopes and dreams on one person. My essential question is: If Obama doesn't win, what should the recourse be? Also, when Obama does win, what will day 2 look like? We tend to get so wrapped up in the historic nature of this election that we believe Obama to be a figure that will deliver us from all the evil in the world. This is an unfair expectation for Obama to live up to as one man and also as the president of the ENTIRE United States of America. All too often we find ourselves attached to charismatic men that we expect to provide us with direction and hands-on leadership. However this sort of transformational leadership doesn't occur frequently, but when it does it has the collective power to create a movement that executes long lasting change. The potential is amazing and truly remarkable. It is a testament to the power of a collective that strives toward a common goal, and of the fact that everyone recognizes they play a part in the ultimate success of the movement.

Movements are not all about the leader though, the day to day work is grueling, often thankless, but it is done with the future in mind. A movement must have an economic base that works in tandem with its political aspirations. If people that vote are not in control of their own communities and neighborhoods, the effort is null. Also in this mix is the importance of education. So many institutions in this country rely on a poorly educated population to achieve optimal success for their specific functions. For example, in large urban areas, there is usually a contentious relationship between the police and the male population. This poor relationship is often predicated on the assumed poor education of the male population. Police often believe that they can have their way with this group because they don't know any better. In contrast, in areas that have high income and an assumption of higher education, the adversarial relationship highlighted in the previous example is replaced by a partnership.

When people are aware of and have the ability to articulate their rights, they are on equal footing as the police. However, when people yield no net benefit from the educational system that is supposed to provide a basic foundation for future success, the police/citizen relationship will never be positive. The police are at the clear advantage even when they are not in the right. Yet, historically the police have successfully used an assumed low education level to abuse their power within communities in which they operate. If in fact poor education has resulted in success for the police, who would it benefit to revamp the educational system? Therefore it is a trinity of sorts that confronts us. The underlying one is education. Without an education, people are without access to means of self-defense. Secondly, economic power represents interest, ownership and a source of capital accumulation. Lastly, political power feeds off the first two and becomes a capstone to the full actualization of power within a society. This is not to say that all three might not occur at the same time or in a different order, but the whole is greater than the sum. Without the three interacting and feeding off each other the ultimate goal of power cannot be fully realized.