The Futility of Colorblindness: President Obama & Certain House Financial Services Committee Members

For war billions more, but no more for the poor.–Rev. Joseph Lowery

It has been argued that the United States is in a “post-racial” era because of the election of President Barack Obama. While I was happy that President Obama was elected, I knew that his election would be irrelevant to the hierarchical power structure in the society of the United States. In fact, the President will not be able to address the problems identified by several members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) because of the demographic makeup of and power distribution in the United States. A recent dispute between the President and the several members of the CBC has reaffirmed my view.

Rev. Lowery’s eulogy at Coretta Scott King’s funeral was criticized, but it is seemingly playing out in recent times. The country has extended much of its treasury to the financial sector (said to be the economic lifeblood of the country). Agreeing with the need for a functioning financial sector also leads a reasonable person to require stringent regulations to guarantee against careless risk taking. The money was distributed, the regulations will not come as both Represenative Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd receive the bulk of their campaign contributions from these firms.

Needless to mention, the United States is engaged in two major military operations costing the taxpayers billions of dollars per month. Regardless of the economic maladies, the money flows without limit.

The zeal to protect the financial sector and advance warcraft, sadly, is not replicated for some others. Representative Maxine Waters, speaking on behalf of Congressional Black Caucus members who are on the House Financial Services Committee, stated that the suffering of the poor is not being addressed.

Each of us serves on the Financial Services Committee and we have not been forceful enough in our efforts to protect the most vulnerable of our population. We cannot address system risk on a broad scale without taking steps to prevent the crumbling of our community’s infrastructure. Since last September, we have continuously voted for bailouts and reform for the very institutions that created this devastation, without properly protecting the African American community, or small business.

That stops today.

While we appreciate the need for the expansion of regulatory authority, we can no longer afford for our public policy to be defined by the worldview of Wall Street. Policy for the least of these must be integrated into everything that we do. We must protect and defend our individual constituents, as well as the small businesses and institutions that serve them.

Also, the New York Times published an article discussing the plight that some Black people are facing in looking for employment.

The President held a “jobs summit” in which he explained that he was open to all alternatives, but options were limited. Rep. Waters noted that she did not think the President’s jobs summit was sufficient to address the problems.

Responding to the criticism, in an interview with the Detroit Free Press and USA Today, the President stated that his best approach for unemployment in the African-American community is to address the problems in the American community.

The President’s statement sounds good, fair, and balanced, except that given the vast power disparity among the races in the United States, the same solution for all will not necessarily fix similar problems in every segment of society in the United States. For example, tax breaks will work for those who own property, but what about those who rent?

United States (population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.1%	211,460,626
Black	12.3	34,658,190
Native American	0.9	2,475,956
Asian	3.6	10,242,998

Given the President’s expensive surge in Afghanistan, continuing support of the irresponsible financial sector, overwhelming and intractible power concentration with the haves in society (who are also, not coincidentally, influential political contributors), the President will not be able to do very much for those of all races without power. It may be a long four years.

Gaza: Operation Cast Lead’s Troubling Timing

U.S. Election day: November 4, 2008 (Barack Obama wins election)

Operation Cast Lead: started-December 27, 2008, ended-January 18, 2009

President Obama’s Inauguration: January 20, 2009 (noon)  [President George W. Bush's term ended at 11:59 a.m.]

The Goldstone report of the United Nations Human Rights Council is here.

Gaza’s territorial waters contain a large amount of natural gas.

U.N. General Assembly: Brief Summary of Speech of Iran President Mahmoud Amadinejad

At the September meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, a number of high-level leaders from different countries gave speeches to the General Assembly. The newspapers attempted to provide summaries, but a better source these days is to read the text of the speeches yourself.

One speech that was noticed this week was the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A number of newspapers negatively characterized his speech. Reading the text showed that the speech was indeed critical (as President Barack Obama delivered critiques of President Ahmadinejad (President Ahmadinejad listened to President Obama’s speech, the representatives of a number of other countries walked out during Ahmadinejad’s speech–I’m not sure of the effectiveness of this tactic today with the Internet always seeking content) , but also well-composed.

I describe a short selection of his speech below. I recommend reading the text in full.

President Ahmadinejad described the theme of his speech at the beginning–the difference of to worldviews, one based on materialism and imperialism and another based on human dignity and respect for all people.

Specifically, President Ahmadinejad critiqued the policy of the United States just printing currency, which passes U.S. debt to other countries.

It is no longer possible to inject thousands of billions of dollars of unreal wealth to the world economy simply by printing worthless paper assets, or transfer inflation as well as social and economic problems to others through creating sever budget deficits. The engine of unbridled capitalism with its unfair system of thought has reached the end of road and is unable to move. The era of capitalist thinking and imposition of one’s thoughts on the international community, intended to predominate the world in the name of globalization and the age of setting up empires is over. It is no longer possible to humiliate nations and impose double standard policies on the world community.

President Ahmadinejad also criticized the use of democracy to bully other nations.

Approaches in which realization of the interests of certain powers is considered as the only criteria to weigh democracy, and using the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit under the mantle of freedom as a democratic practice, and approaches  through which sometimes dictators are portrayed as democrats, lack legitimacy and must be totally rejected.

President Ahmadinejad also critiqued Israel’s was against Gaza in which Gaza was destroyed but is unable to rebuild. Gaza was unable to defend itself as it does not have a military or heavy arms to thwart an invasion. [Comment: That the "war" was ended simultaneously with the end of George W. Bush's term is particularly galling.]

How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even
prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peacelovers,  and portraying the victims as terrorists.

President Obama: Reality Will Prevent Real Movement in the Peace Process

I guess its commendable that President Barack Obama refers to the Palestinian Authority President and the Prime Minister of Israel equally. The reality of the situation is Israel is the exceptionally stronger party (with U.S. support, military, and nuclear weapons).

The Palestinian Authority is fundamentally unable to form a state as it stands right now, regardless of the rhetoric. Moreover, expectations for the Palestinians to concede more is unreasonable.

The Palestinians:

• have no control over their air,  land, borders, or water;
• have no military or means (weapons, etc.) to protect their territory or citizens from external invasion [the same could be said for Iraq and Afghanistan were the U.S. military to leave those territories completely];
• do not have a contiguous territory within the West Bank or with the Gaza Strip; and
• are located adjacent to a state that possesses nuclear weapons.

I’ll agree with the President that the time for the actual State of Palestine is indeed today (if at all).

“Colorblindness”: Summary of President Barack Obama’s July 17, 2009 Speech at the NAACP’s Convention in New York City

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, delivered a speech at the centennial convention of the NAACP in New York City on July 17, 2009. The President’s speech generally recognized the limitations that exist in society for Black Americans, but also encouraged continued work to improve oneself regardless of the barriers.

In theory, these are good ideas. For these theories to work better in reality, the effort of the government must meet the effort of those who strive to improve. The reader of the speech must first know that the societal majority in the United States is the White race.

United States (population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.1%	211,460,626
Black	12.3	34,658,190
Native American	0.9	2,475,956
Asian	3.6	10,242,998

The President’s speech is vague on proposals to address problems of systemic discrimination, but specific and acerbic on criticizing the behavior of those who suffered. Of course, those who have suffered have a responsibility to act properly, but the social majority also has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has a true and equal opportunity to succeed.

A summary of the President speech follows (with my observations in brackets).

Change

Founders of the NAACP understood how change would come—unjust laws overturned, legislation needed to be passed, Presidents needed to be pressured into action. The President explained that the founders of the NAACP understood that change would have to come from the people, people who were tired of lynchings and violence (racial), Black people who were tired after raising other people’s children and operating their households who decided to walk rather than taking the bus (Montgomery bus boycott) [perhaps also anti-Black racial injustice?].

The President explained that because of what the people did, we [unsure who the “we” refers to] are [are getting closer to being] a more perfect union. Because Jim Crow laws were overturned, the President continued, B Chief Executive Officers run Fortune 500 companies [5]. The President also stated that because civil rights were passed, Black mayors, Black Governors [3 in recent times (Wilder (VA), Patrick (MA), Paterson (NY)], and Black members of Congress [34 in House, 1 in Senate], and, implicitly, a Black President [1] served in places where they might have not only not been able to vote but also not able to take a sip of water.

Barriers

The President noted that even with these achievements, many barriers remain [The President did not explain the reasons for these barriers].

Employment-The economic crisis is bad but Black people are out of work more than anybody else, the President stated.

Health care-The President explained that health care costs crush everyone, but Black Americans are more likely to suffer a host of diseases but less likely to own health insurance than just about everybody else.

Prison-The President noted that the United States imprisons more people of all races but an Black child is five times more likely as a White child to go to prison.

HIV/AIDS-The President stated that the disease devastates nations abroad, particularly Africa. The disease also devastates Black people in the United States with devastating force, the President added.

New Foundation for Growth and Prosperity

The President stated that commitment is needed to overcome barriers. There should be a focus on eradicating prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination. The President stated that he is addressing this goal through tax credits, providing a second chance to ex-offenders, affordable housing, the Promise Neighborhoods, and providing unemployment insurance. [These ideas are good, but I do not see how they address the barriers caused by prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination.]

The President also presented a new foundation for growth and prosperity for all Americans—health insurance for everybody, energy reform, financial reform (with consumer protection to crack down on mortgage fraud, and education [It is interesting that the problems unique to Black people is subsumed into the problems of the larger society in a mere sentence. Also, Is a college degree absolutely required for success? College tuition is expensive, and starting salaries generally have not kept up with the expense].

The President devoted a significant portion of time on the education part of the new foundation. The President described his proposals for post-secondary, secondary, elementary, and pre-school education.

Parenting

The President stated that the new foundation would not make a difference if parents and community leaders fail to do their part by encouraging excellence in their children. The President explained that a new mindset was needed because one of the worst legacies of discrimination is the way we’ve (The President addressing the common background of being Black with the audience) internalized a sense of limitation—how so many in out community have come to expect so little from the world and themselves [The President did not explain why a Black person would have such an expectation. Discrimination and bigotry limited the horizons of many for a long time. Just changing that reality in the present is not sufficient to reverse the damage done over 400 years.]

The President explained that parents cannot tell kids to do well in school and fail to support them at home. The President suggested what a proper method is—no Xbox, reasonable bedtimes, attending PTA meetings, reading to children, and helping with homework.

Destiny Is in Your Hands

The President, addressing the limitation expectation, stated that the Black community (the President included) has to say that if you are Black, you face greater odds to grow up amid crime and gangs. If you are poor, the President added, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. The President advised that this is not a reason for bad grades, cutting class, giving up on education and dropping out. Destiny is in your hands—no excuses, the President noted. [Blacks are likely to face both the effects of race and of being poor. These two signifiers cause barriers to rise and the limitation mentality the President refers to. Although the burden to fight against the ill effects of race and poverty is placed on those being burdened.]

The President explained that children should set their sights higher—not to be stars in sports and music, but to be scientists, engineers, doctors, teachers, Supreme Court Justices, and Presidents.

Credit Cards: American Express Overlimit Fee Ban Is Expensive

The Credit CARD law (previous post here)is showing its futility. Credit card companies are given enough lead time to defeat the weak spirit of the bill.

American Express says it will no longer collect over-the-credit-limit fees. It sounds good until the price of the move is revealed at Consumerist.com–replacing fixed rate interest charges with variable interest charges (prime rate +11.99).

Disorderly Conduct in D.C.: An Analysis of a Case Involving Pepin Tuma

Questions has been raised regarding the scope of the law for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct in the District of Columbia, partly because of the events that occurred in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Colbert King, a columnist for The Washington Post, in a follow-up column to his previous column, discussed some complaints against the police filed in D.C.’s Office of Police Complaints to demonstrate the abuse of the charge of disorderly conduct.

I think that Mr. King could be on to something, but the cases have to be considered individually. For example, Pepin Tuma, a Washington, D.C. attorney, wrote about his experience about being charged with disorderly conduct after uttering a statement, “I hate the police,” at police officers involved in a investigation with another person. The facts of his case while seemingly clear-cut are simultaneously disconcerting as well. Tuma’s professional identity of a practicing lawyer weighs heavily in the analysis of his situation. I think that a person who is admitted to law school, studies the law in depth for three years, studies for, takes, and passes the bar examination, and is admitted to practice law within a jurisdiction as an officer of the court has a higher standard of behavior with regard to reasonable responses to witnessing police officers engaged in an investigation.

Tuma stated that while he was discussing the Cambridge, MA case with friends, he approached an area with police officers seemingly involved in a traffic stop. Tuma, from across the street, uttered in a tone of voice to be heard by officers on the scene, “I hate the police.” One officer that heard the statement, James Culp, questioned his conduct and placed him under arrest for disorderly conduct. Tuma, a gay man, stated that the officer said, “shut up, faggot.”

Tuma argues that he was simply offering his opinion about the police. However, the time, place, and manner in which he voiced his opinion could have negatively affected the police officers in the performance of their duties in the investigation with which they were involved.

Something in this case seems wrong. Because of this, Tuma’s case may not be as illustrative of abuse as he thinks. Tuma, a practicing attorney in the District of Columbia, is an officer of the court and should conduct himself appropriately when encountering situations involving the activity of law enforcement officers. His statement, “I hate the police,” is covered under the First Amendment. However, the time, place, and manner of his speech is a topic that is worthy of investigation. As an attorney, Tuma could have written or called his D.C. Councilmember or other appropriate authority with any concerns he may have about law enforcement officers in D.C.

While Tuma attempts to minimize the investigation of the police officers as a routine traffic stop, any traffic stop can become hazardous as well. Could Tuma’s statement at that time have provoked violence on the scene of the investigation? This is a fair question in analyzing Tuma’s behavior on U Street, N.W. in July. A police officer raised a similar argument in a case in the D.C.’s Office of Police Complaints.

The statement attributed to the officer would be in poor form and unprofessional, if true. I am sure that the officer will deny he uttered that statement. So with Tuma’s assertion and the officers likely denial, it would be difficult to prove that the statement was made.

While the consideration of the use of disorderly conduct is good, the use of Tuma’s incident as an example of abuse of the use of the charge of disorderly conduct is questionable because of the time, place, and manner of his conduct. Tuma’s professional status of an attorney, leads a reasonable person to ponder why he did not conduct himself more reasonably that day on U Street when observing police officers conduct an investigation.

The charges likely will be dismissed, but it will be a close case if a Tuma files a complaint of harassment against the police department through the Office of Police Complaints.

Post script

Disorderly conduct in the District of Columbia is defined at section 22-1321.

“Whoever, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby: (1) acts in such a manner as to annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others; (2) congregates with others on a public street and refuses to move on when ordered by the police; (3) shouts or makes a noise either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons; (4) interferes with any person in any place by jostling against such person or unnecessarily crowding such person or by placing a hand in the proximity of such person’s pocketbook, or handbag; or (5) causes a disturbance in any streetcar, railroad car, omnibus, or other public conveyance, by running through it, climbing through windows or upon the seats, or otherwise annoying passengers or employees, shall be fined not more than $250 or imprisoned not more than 90 days, or both.”

DC Office of Police Complaints

2005 complaint decision

Franciscan Friars: Simple Walk from Roanoke to D.C. Has Quietly Profound Effects

One morning on the Metro, I happened on a story in The Washington Post about some Franciscan friars who embarked on a walk from Roanoke, Virginia to Washington, D.C.

Unlike many stories that I pass through quickly, this story held my interest until my stop at Foggy Bottom.

One of the things that struck me was the many people who turned to them for advice.  It is rather unusual to hear of this type of activity that the friars did. I am glad that they were able to reach so many hearts and minds on their journey.

It was a benefit to come across this article, and I wish the Friars well in their vocation.

Post Script

The Friars website

U.S. Judiciary: House and Senate Appropriations Committees Issue Reports–House Encourages Increased Outreach to Minority Law Students for Clerkships; Senate Bill Provides COLA

The Congress has issued reports on Appropriations legislation. I will focus on a portion of the bills that apply to the judicial branch. For full details on the reports for the other bills, see the Library of Congress.

The House Financial Services and General Government subcommittee of the Appropriations committee issued a report for the judiciary, as well as other government agencies within its jurisdiction and the District of Columbia. For the judiciary, the subcommittee stated that the goal of its bill “is to provide sufficient resources for the Federal Courts to perform their functions of dispensing equal justice under law in a fair, careful, and efficient manner.” Among several other items, the subcommittee encourages the judicial branch to examine ways to increase outreach to minority law students to increase their participation in law clerk jobs.

The Senate Financial Services and General Government subcommittee of the Appropriations committee also issued a report which included the judicial branch. The subcommittee stated that its funding levels “support the Federal judiciary’s role of providing equal justice under the law and include sufficient funds to support this critical mission.” Unlike the House Bill, the Senate Bill provides for a cost of living adjustment, or COLA, for the Supreme Court Justices and the judges in the judicial branch.

The language of the Senate’s COLA provision is:  “Sec. 307. Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, and from funds appropriated in this Act, Justices and judges of the United States are authorized during fiscal year 2010, to receive a salary adjustment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 461.”

Presumably, the differences in bill language will be resolved in the conference committee.

For more information

Public Law 97-92, sec. 140. (CRS Report)

H. 3170

House Report 111-202

S. 1432

Senate Report 111-43

Driving: Automobile Drivers’ Seats Becoming a Mobile Sofa; Public Transit Agencies Strenuously Emphasize Attention to Vehicle Operation

Driving is described as a complex activity requiring, “quick thinking and reactions, good perceptual abilities, and split-second decision-making.” Interestingly, the source for this statement is written for deciding when an person Alzheimer’s disease should stop driving. However, a similar analysis should occur in determining whether automobiles have too many distractions obfuscating a driver’s responsibility to other people using the public highways.  Similarly, the analysis should also include a study of the effects of electronic gadgetry on pedestrians and bicyclists.

An article in the New York Times seems to describe a situation that the driver’s seat is increasingly becoming a mobile sofa. The complexity of driving is de-emphasized in favor of spontaneous communication.

According to the New York Times, a driver was killed at an intersection in Oklahoma when another driver failed to obey a red traffic signal. The errant driver proceeded through the intersection at 45 miles per hour. The driver who struck the driver in the right of way was discussing an item of furniture found at a retail store with a neighbor on a cellphone.

The tenor of the New York Times article was sympathetic to the driver who ran the red traffic signal. The driver is described as an young, earnest, polite, law-abiding, and respectable person who just happened to cause a death through mere inattention to traffic conditions on the public highway.

The driver pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of negligent homicide (OK Code section 47-11-903), and was sentenced, in part, to 240 hours of community service.

In distinct contrast, some categories of drivers are required to respect the need for complete attention while operating a motor vehicle. In the Washington, DC area public transit agency, WMATA, a “zero tolerance policy” against cellphone or personal digital assistant use while operating WMATA buses or subway trains is being implemented. The rule came after a YouTube video showed a Metrorail operator using a cellphone while the train was in motion (before the Metrorail accident that occurred on June 22, 2009).

In truth, all users of the public highways and operators of public transit vehicles should be expected to focus total attention on the road for the safety of all.