The Courier-Post has an investigative article today about absentee rates of teachers in the Camden city district schools. It's not pretty. Teachers have a generous leave policy, sick days that roll over until retirement (with a recently created cap), and a possible absentee rate this is higher than the student rate of absence. I say possible because apparently the record keeping on this kind of thing is poor. Absentee rates may be higher. I'm betting that the roll over days are meticulously kept...
I don't want to jump on the teacher bashing bandwagon, because I believe they do have a difficult job. Anyone who thinks a teacher works from 8-3 and has summers off, obviously has never been a teacher. Teachers have to do breakfast duty to monitor kids who come for their morning meal. They have to do lunch duty and give up their own meal. They have to do bus duty after school and stay late. They grade papers, do lesson plans, prepare materials during the after 3pm time. They take time to supervise after school activities, attend parent teacher meetings, make follow up phone calls at night, and the list goes on. It's easy to bash teachers for taking too much sick time, but let's keep it in perspective.
Camden schools have a teacher absence issue. This not only relates to the loss of continuity for students, but the cost of the additional pay laid out for substitute teachers. There are learning impacts and financial impacts for the district. Neither are good.
One of the points raised in the article is that teachers are stressed and sometimes need a down day. Um, you're kidding right? How can a teacher that lives outside the district be more stressed than a student that lives in the district? Think about the fact that your students make it to class and you are not there because you need a down day? Really? If the job is too stressful, find another job. The future of these scholars is a life and death issue - their education is what may save their life from the streets, from crime, from poverty. And you have stress?
I'm in a Camden elementary school once a week and now am increasing to twice a week until my little sister gets her science grades up. I see the good and the bad of what teachers have to deal with. I see the crummy conditions in which teachers have to teach, supervise, and be professionals. I see the difficulty that students create and have in getting to school, being in school, learning, and interacting with their peers. But it is what it is and it is the job you signed up for. But I worry greatly about a district that can't even keep proper records! How can it possibly support it professional staff in the classroom?
Make no mistake about it - the success of the education system in Camden is crucial. It affects not only the lives of the students, but their families as well. It affects the economic options for the city and everyone who lives in the city. It affects the business environment, the housing environment, and the city tax stream. Everyone in Camden should be working to create a world class educational system. And if that means starting with better record keeping, then get on it! We have a world class University here that I am sure could send some business students over to clean up the record keeping infrastructure in a few days. We MUST hold the district accountable and be there to HELP and SUPPORT the district. The district MUST be willing to accept help and stop being an insulated, self-indulgent island.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Conventional Revitalization will not save Camden
John Kromer, author of the recent book Fixing Broken Cities, wrote an op ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer about the future of Camden. He gives several suggestions to the new mayor of Camden on development projects that will help turn the city around. Each has its value and all are conventional redevelopment techniques that are taught in every urban planning, urban studies, or urban development course in higher ed in this country. I respect Mr. Kromer, who did a stint in Camden as the redevelopment director. He knows his stuff and is a seasoned professional.
But I have to say, I think he is absolutely wrong on this one.
Conventional redevelopment assumes that what a city needs is rateables - property that will produce a stream of tax revenue to the city, and a density of uses that will create activity, energy, and spending of discretionary income. This is a winning formula for most urban downtowns in the last 20 years. Commerical development surrounded by tourist bubbles and hipster bubbles yields a positive economic cash flow. Camden certainly needs a positive economic cash flow. But rateables will not save Camden. I have a different view on the future.
Camden will not prosper without jobs and education. It is that simple.
Camden can build mixed income housing in Lanning Square for Cooper Hospital, mixed use at the water front (both north and south of the bridge), and rebuild its downtown (including the new DRPA developments planned around the transit stops) and marvel at the edifices. It won't solve the city's problems.
Camden has taxable property right now. The problem is that property owners cannot afford the taxes and new buyers wont buy because they don't think there is a return on investment, let alone adequate services for taxes paid. Bringing in more people who have higher incomes will yield two things - subsidized development that won't yield a positive tax revenue stream and expectations of a higher level of service that will be costly for the city.
Camden residents need jobs and education. It's that simple. Camden residents need assistance with business start-ups and expansion, green manufacturing, light industry, and urban agriculture. If Camden gets that right, it will create a climate for investment and that's when you can do the conventional redevelopment projects. Every dollar of federal grants, foundation assistance, and city revenue should be spent on items that create jobs and support education for residents of Camden. It's very nice that the Camden Reinvestment money paid for the RU law school expansion. It is a beautiful example of conventional revitalization. It does nothing to help educate the citizens of Camden. Same goes for the aquarium, music center, baseball stadium, and Victor building. All beautiful and each a fine example of conventional redevelopment. None of these provide education to the residents or significant job opportunities.
Camden just received $25 million in Neighborhood Stabilization funding from the feds. It will help to build, rehab, and tear down housing - all of which is badly needed. The estimates are that it will create 300 jobs. Let's be clear...it will create 300 employment opportunities. Some will last a month, some will last a year. Construction is a piecemeal industry and when the electrician's job is done, the drywall guy takes over. They are not the same person and these jobs don't last that long. Will Camden residents will get 100% of these jobs?
The most important strategy our new Mayor can take on is to devote the city to creating permanent jobs and to ensuring a world class education for K-12. The mayor has just been granted extraordinary powers over the city AND the school district. I hope she will use them well. Here are my recommendations (no offense Mr. Kromer, but I hope she takes my advise and not yours).
1. build things that will produce jobs, businesses, and green industry
2. commit to a public education system that works and support that system with every financial, political, and social piece of capital that Camden has.
3. reduce city services to the essentials of fire, police and courts, sanitation, and infrastructure. Make those services extremely efficient.
4. Every other worker should be focused on jobs and education - every planner, every human resource worker, every social service worker, every IT person - should have a clear mission and singular focus.
I know these are radical, and somewhat heretical suggestions. I'm not against redevelopment and in fact have taught and sung its praises for 20 years. I'm not against social services and helping folks with housing. I'm a neighborhood advocate. But Camden is on life support and unless the supplies get moving, people will die - just as we are witnessing in Haiti. Every reporter, every viewer of that catastrophe is asking - why aren't supplies getting to the people that need them? The large organizations, the military, and UN are worried about logistics and order and not creating more problems. Meanwhile people die in the streets.
Camden is at a crossroads. We have a golden opportunity to make the city a better place for its residents. What will it be Madame Mayor?
But I have to say, I think he is absolutely wrong on this one.
Conventional redevelopment assumes that what a city needs is rateables - property that will produce a stream of tax revenue to the city, and a density of uses that will create activity, energy, and spending of discretionary income. This is a winning formula for most urban downtowns in the last 20 years. Commerical development surrounded by tourist bubbles and hipster bubbles yields a positive economic cash flow. Camden certainly needs a positive economic cash flow. But rateables will not save Camden. I have a different view on the future.
Camden will not prosper without jobs and education. It is that simple.
Camden can build mixed income housing in Lanning Square for Cooper Hospital, mixed use at the water front (both north and south of the bridge), and rebuild its downtown (including the new DRPA developments planned around the transit stops) and marvel at the edifices. It won't solve the city's problems.
Camden has taxable property right now. The problem is that property owners cannot afford the taxes and new buyers wont buy because they don't think there is a return on investment, let alone adequate services for taxes paid. Bringing in more people who have higher incomes will yield two things - subsidized development that won't yield a positive tax revenue stream and expectations of a higher level of service that will be costly for the city.
Camden residents need jobs and education. It's that simple. Camden residents need assistance with business start-ups and expansion, green manufacturing, light industry, and urban agriculture. If Camden gets that right, it will create a climate for investment and that's when you can do the conventional redevelopment projects. Every dollar of federal grants, foundation assistance, and city revenue should be spent on items that create jobs and support education for residents of Camden. It's very nice that the Camden Reinvestment money paid for the RU law school expansion. It is a beautiful example of conventional revitalization. It does nothing to help educate the citizens of Camden. Same goes for the aquarium, music center, baseball stadium, and Victor building. All beautiful and each a fine example of conventional redevelopment. None of these provide education to the residents or significant job opportunities.
Camden just received $25 million in Neighborhood Stabilization funding from the feds. It will help to build, rehab, and tear down housing - all of which is badly needed. The estimates are that it will create 300 jobs. Let's be clear...it will create 300 employment opportunities. Some will last a month, some will last a year. Construction is a piecemeal industry and when the electrician's job is done, the drywall guy takes over. They are not the same person and these jobs don't last that long. Will Camden residents will get 100% of these jobs?
The most important strategy our new Mayor can take on is to devote the city to creating permanent jobs and to ensuring a world class education for K-12. The mayor has just been granted extraordinary powers over the city AND the school district. I hope she will use them well. Here are my recommendations (no offense Mr. Kromer, but I hope she takes my advise and not yours).
1. build things that will produce jobs, businesses, and green industry
2. commit to a public education system that works and support that system with every financial, political, and social piece of capital that Camden has.
3. reduce city services to the essentials of fire, police and courts, sanitation, and infrastructure. Make those services extremely efficient.
4. Every other worker should be focused on jobs and education - every planner, every human resource worker, every social service worker, every IT person - should have a clear mission and singular focus.
I know these are radical, and somewhat heretical suggestions. I'm not against redevelopment and in fact have taught and sung its praises for 20 years. I'm not against social services and helping folks with housing. I'm a neighborhood advocate. But Camden is on life support and unless the supplies get moving, people will die - just as we are witnessing in Haiti. Every reporter, every viewer of that catastrophe is asking - why aren't supplies getting to the people that need them? The large organizations, the military, and UN are worried about logistics and order and not creating more problems. Meanwhile people die in the streets.
Camden is at a crossroads. We have a golden opportunity to make the city a better place for its residents. What will it be Madame Mayor?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
It's MLK day - what is the measure?
Like many people, I have been paying attention to the Haiti earthquake aftermath. What a luxury that I get to sit here and type my thoughts on a computer and you get to read them. I have a bottle of water here, a comfortable chair, and time on my hands. The world in many places is cruel and difficult. It's hard for those of us in industrialized nations to see that. In some cases, it is just hard for people in middle and upper class surroundings to see that. Life is not great on the streets of Camden either, or Chicago, or D.C. or Kansas City. People die violent deaths, people go hungry, people are cold, and people live in their cars. Haves and have-nots - whether it is at the scale of country or at the scale of person - are an economic conundrum of a market-based society.
Prejudice and bigotry is, at its heart, a have/have-not dichotomy that is fueled by market forces. When people compete, we need a measure by which to assign value. If some people can be permanently marked down because of the color of the skin, there is a floor to which some people will never sink. This is why arguing against prejudice and bigotry is flawed. As long as one group can always have an "edge" on another group, it is in their self-interest to perpetuate those differences. Dr. King talked about the content of character and not the color of skin. Unfortunately, the content of character is not a recognizable commodity in the pursuit of economic advantage (unless you have a fixed, caste system as India once had). Color of skin, however, is measurable and indelible. Of course there are are exceptions - Sammy Sosa used a skin lightening product and has dramatically changed his color. Why he did this is for him to explain to his shrink, but he did not have to do it for economic gain.
Yet, Sammy may be perpetuating social myths. In many ethnic and race-based cultures there are social pecking orders that are based on skin color. The lighter the shade, the "higher" the status. This pecking order has had an effect on who gets what job or career, social standing in the community, who gets to marry whom, etc. So, perhaps the content of character does have a "look" that is measurable. I don't buy it, but then I am not part of this conversation.
President Obama, our first African-American president (a parent who is African and a parent who is American) has made MLK day a national day of service. People all over the country will be out and about tomorrow at parades, church services, community gatherings, and stopping in at food banks, neighborhood centers, soup kitchens, and wherever else they can lend a hand. We'll text our donations on our cell phones for Haiti relief funds and pause for a moment to count our own blessings. We'll put up with the nonsensical rantings of the pundits like Beck and Limbaugh who will no doubt take the occassion to lambast our President and besmirch the legacy of civil rights.
What do we do on Tuesday?
Work, school, chores, errands, and all the other elements of our daily life will consume our attention. We'll get back into the competition and assume our spots on the ladder, jockeying for position and for some of us, sighing relief that there will always be someone below us. Even as the tragedy of Haiti unfolded, there were haves and have-nots. Rescuers from foreign countries went to the UN building and promptly dug out white victims. Other white Americans were ferried onto planes for transport to reach medical attention outside of Haiti. Meanwhile, Haitains dropped dead in the street from exposure and wounds or died silently under the rubble. White journalists are roaming the streets bringing us the story - if they managed to get there with their equipment, why can't the - well you know the story.
This year, as you observe MLK day, in whatever fashion you do - even if it is just a passing glance as you enjoy a day off from work - think about how you benefit by silently oppressing others. We can't all be equal in our resources, but can we create a playing field where some are not economically penalized at their first breath because of their skin color?
Prejudice and bigotry is, at its heart, a have/have-not dichotomy that is fueled by market forces. When people compete, we need a measure by which to assign value. If some people can be permanently marked down because of the color of the skin, there is a floor to which some people will never sink. This is why arguing against prejudice and bigotry is flawed. As long as one group can always have an "edge" on another group, it is in their self-interest to perpetuate those differences. Dr. King talked about the content of character and not the color of skin. Unfortunately, the content of character is not a recognizable commodity in the pursuit of economic advantage (unless you have a fixed, caste system as India once had). Color of skin, however, is measurable and indelible. Of course there are are exceptions - Sammy Sosa used a skin lightening product and has dramatically changed his color. Why he did this is for him to explain to his shrink, but he did not have to do it for economic gain.
Yet, Sammy may be perpetuating social myths. In many ethnic and race-based cultures there are social pecking orders that are based on skin color. The lighter the shade, the "higher" the status. This pecking order has had an effect on who gets what job or career, social standing in the community, who gets to marry whom, etc. So, perhaps the content of character does have a "look" that is measurable. I don't buy it, but then I am not part of this conversation.
President Obama, our first African-American president (a parent who is African and a parent who is American) has made MLK day a national day of service. People all over the country will be out and about tomorrow at parades, church services, community gatherings, and stopping in at food banks, neighborhood centers, soup kitchens, and wherever else they can lend a hand. We'll text our donations on our cell phones for Haiti relief funds and pause for a moment to count our own blessings. We'll put up with the nonsensical rantings of the pundits like Beck and Limbaugh who will no doubt take the occassion to lambast our President and besmirch the legacy of civil rights.
What do we do on Tuesday?
Work, school, chores, errands, and all the other elements of our daily life will consume our attention. We'll get back into the competition and assume our spots on the ladder, jockeying for position and for some of us, sighing relief that there will always be someone below us. Even as the tragedy of Haiti unfolded, there were haves and have-nots. Rescuers from foreign countries went to the UN building and promptly dug out white victims. Other white Americans were ferried onto planes for transport to reach medical attention outside of Haiti. Meanwhile, Haitains dropped dead in the street from exposure and wounds or died silently under the rubble. White journalists are roaming the streets bringing us the story - if they managed to get there with their equipment, why can't the - well you know the story.
This year, as you observe MLK day, in whatever fashion you do - even if it is just a passing glance as you enjoy a day off from work - think about how you benefit by silently oppressing others. We can't all be equal in our resources, but can we create a playing field where some are not economically penalized at their first breath because of their skin color?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Getting Cities to Work
I've been thinking about cities my entire life and as an adult, I've gotten paid to do it. Nice gig. But I feel guilty that I don't have the answer. I'm supposed to be about creating new knowledge and transmitting it to the next generation of scholars. I feel like if I were good at my job, cities like Camden would not be "cities like Camden." But then I realize that there are a zillion economists in the world and they get Nobel prizes and none of them foretold the current depression or can figure out how to fix it. I don't feel so bad.
Still, I have enduring faith that cities can work. People can live densely together and enjoy an uban environment. If we sold city living the way suburban marketers sold suburbs, we couldn't get into a city apartment - kind of the way Manhattan is - the most expensive real estate in the country. But Camden is not Manhattan and neither is Kansas City. Why are some cities working and some aren't? Maybe other cities need a song.
I've been thinking a lot about crowdsourcing lately. I think it originated as an IT term that has now made its way into trendy status as an approach to problem solving. Some people have appropriated it as a modern version of public participation, particularly in urban planning contexts. The idea is that a crowd of people can contribute to a solution better than a single expert. We used to call this consensus building through facilitation. Now it's crowdsourcing.
But I think for cities there is a real utility in this concept. If things are not working in a city as I outlined in my last post, then how can we go about fixing them? That's the traditional approach, right? If it doesn't work, then fix it! American ingenuity and all that. But what if more, better, different doesn't work? What if there is no fixing it? 20 or more years ago, Time magazine had a cover story that basically said, let's just let cities go and not fix them. Regionalism was just beginning to be faddish and people said let the central city die and we'll all move to the suburbs. It hasn't happened. Why? If cities are so bad, why don't people abandon them? Is that what is happening to Detroit? I don't think so. But the idea of "fixing" a city is a fallacy. It needs to be organized and operated as an environment that fits with the people. What we sometimes do is change out the people to fit the environment, aka gentrification. But what if we used a crowdsourcing technique to find an optimum way for a particular city to work?
Detroit is taking up urban farming. Why? Because land is cheap and plentiful (though polluted) and people need food they can afford. People who want to have local and green lifestyles also may like being in proximity to other people and things to do. This is why green living has become popular in places such as Chicago (though I don't think Grant Park is about to turn into a farm just yet). The naysayers say that Detroit is a manufacturing city (correction, "was"), or a tourist city (see baseball stadium and casino downtown), or a high tech city (maybe?). What if it is a green place that the people there are comfortable taking on and more people who want that come there? This is what the creative class is about. People such as Richard Florida dubbed it so, and turned it into a synonym for "hipster." But creative has many different contexts and outcomes. The crowd will determine what the creativity is and then enjoy it.
Today the NJ legislature announced that it was returning power to Camden and ending state management of the city. In addition, the state would provide a guarentee of funding and impose a new occupational fee in lieu of property tax on non-property tax paying buildings where people are employed (schools, hospitals, nonprofits, churches, government buildings). Ratables and generating income is what the city must be about. What if the crowd decided differently? What if, through crowdsourcing, people came up with inovative ideas that made sense to them? What if this became the centerpiece of transformation? Let's face it, urban renewal is designed to produce benefits for investors, not citizens. So what if we tried urban transformation built by citizens? Would that generate the foundation for a working city?
Here is an example from Cleveland!
Still, I have enduring faith that cities can work. People can live densely together and enjoy an uban environment. If we sold city living the way suburban marketers sold suburbs, we couldn't get into a city apartment - kind of the way Manhattan is - the most expensive real estate in the country. But Camden is not Manhattan and neither is Kansas City. Why are some cities working and some aren't? Maybe other cities need a song.
I've been thinking a lot about crowdsourcing lately. I think it originated as an IT term that has now made its way into trendy status as an approach to problem solving. Some people have appropriated it as a modern version of public participation, particularly in urban planning contexts. The idea is that a crowd of people can contribute to a solution better than a single expert. We used to call this consensus building through facilitation. Now it's crowdsourcing.
But I think for cities there is a real utility in this concept. If things are not working in a city as I outlined in my last post, then how can we go about fixing them? That's the traditional approach, right? If it doesn't work, then fix it! American ingenuity and all that. But what if more, better, different doesn't work? What if there is no fixing it? 20 or more years ago, Time magazine had a cover story that basically said, let's just let cities go and not fix them. Regionalism was just beginning to be faddish and people said let the central city die and we'll all move to the suburbs. It hasn't happened. Why? If cities are so bad, why don't people abandon them? Is that what is happening to Detroit? I don't think so. But the idea of "fixing" a city is a fallacy. It needs to be organized and operated as an environment that fits with the people. What we sometimes do is change out the people to fit the environment, aka gentrification. But what if we used a crowdsourcing technique to find an optimum way for a particular city to work?
Detroit is taking up urban farming. Why? Because land is cheap and plentiful (though polluted) and people need food they can afford. People who want to have local and green lifestyles also may like being in proximity to other people and things to do. This is why green living has become popular in places such as Chicago (though I don't think Grant Park is about to turn into a farm just yet). The naysayers say that Detroit is a manufacturing city (correction, "was"), or a tourist city (see baseball stadium and casino downtown), or a high tech city (maybe?). What if it is a green place that the people there are comfortable taking on and more people who want that come there? This is what the creative class is about. People such as Richard Florida dubbed it so, and turned it into a synonym for "hipster." But creative has many different contexts and outcomes. The crowd will determine what the creativity is and then enjoy it.
Today the NJ legislature announced that it was returning power to Camden and ending state management of the city. In addition, the state would provide a guarentee of funding and impose a new occupational fee in lieu of property tax on non-property tax paying buildings where people are employed (schools, hospitals, nonprofits, churches, government buildings). Ratables and generating income is what the city must be about. What if the crowd decided differently? What if, through crowdsourcing, people came up with inovative ideas that made sense to them? What if this became the centerpiece of transformation? Let's face it, urban renewal is designed to produce benefits for investors, not citizens. So what if we tried urban transformation built by citizens? Would that generate the foundation for a working city?
Here is an example from Cleveland!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
2010: New Decade, New Results
New Year's Resolutions are piling up and will likely find their way to the circular file in most of our lives. But, I've got one that I am determined to see through.
I resolve to take whatever approaches are necessary to generate the results we all want to achieve in our pursuit of urban revitalization.
I believe in the go hard or go home strategy. I don't like to take on small projects. :D
There are too many critical issues that must be addressed this decade to leave to the same old strategies. Detroit is changing and remaking itself before our very eyes. People are wising up to the devastation in our food supply from things like modified wheat and high fructose corn syrup. School systems are realizing that they must educate children and that the issues of the adults in the system are irrelevant if kids are not learning! Cities need to get on the ball and realize that they can't keep doing things the same way - because it is not working!
I read an article about Baton Rouge, LA and how they lost a homegrown tech company to North Carolina. Ouch. Seems that the school system was not producing an educated workforce that could take on the jobs at the company and LSU, the state university in this city, was farting around with some BS bureaucracy that the company did not have time to wait on. Gee, this sounds like Kansas City or Camden, or other cities that squander the resources they have and are inept at innovation or even supplying the basic services and conditions for which they could and should be responsible.
So what I hope to explore in this blog is how to keep this resolution. It cannot be done without taking into account the social polarization, racial divides, economic inequities, social injustices, and political demagoguery that we have all come to accept as the status quo. To suggest that "that's just the way it is" won't cut it anymore.
To quote a movie from my youth, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
But anger, dissatisfaction, and resistance will only take us so far. We need to have bold expectations that common results will actually occur. Kids will be educated and able to take on the world's challenges or at least be able to read at grade level upon graduation. Urban farming and green technology will become the mainstay of urban economies - or at least be present so that people will recognize that pollution and processed food are not the only option. Urban economies, development, and infrastructure will be sustainable and support the population - there is no compromise on this.
I know this is possible. There are brilliant ideas and movements available to achieve these results. The supply is there - we just have to demand it, purchase it, and implement it. Of course that is the tricky part - that requires serious conversation and building expectations.
Transformation is not easy or free. What are you willing to give up to make it happen?
Let's see how far we can take this.
PS: I get my attitude from the self discovery I have done through Landmark Education (www.landmarkeducation.com). For those in the Philadelphia area, we are having a discovery of self - create what is possible session on Jan. 7 at 7pm in downtown Philly. It's free and it will be an incredible 3 hours to create what is possible in the new year. You also can sign up for the Landmark Forum, the doorway to doing whatever it is you want to do in your life. Contact me for details!
I resolve to take whatever approaches are necessary to generate the results we all want to achieve in our pursuit of urban revitalization.
I believe in the go hard or go home strategy. I don't like to take on small projects. :D
There are too many critical issues that must be addressed this decade to leave to the same old strategies. Detroit is changing and remaking itself before our very eyes. People are wising up to the devastation in our food supply from things like modified wheat and high fructose corn syrup. School systems are realizing that they must educate children and that the issues of the adults in the system are irrelevant if kids are not learning! Cities need to get on the ball and realize that they can't keep doing things the same way - because it is not working!
I read an article about Baton Rouge, LA and how they lost a homegrown tech company to North Carolina. Ouch. Seems that the school system was not producing an educated workforce that could take on the jobs at the company and LSU, the state university in this city, was farting around with some BS bureaucracy that the company did not have time to wait on. Gee, this sounds like Kansas City or Camden, or other cities that squander the resources they have and are inept at innovation or even supplying the basic services and conditions for which they could and should be responsible.
- If a school district is not educating kids, it is not working.
- If a city is not working with that school district to make sure kids are educated, then the city is not working.
- If a city is more successful at incarcerating people than educating them, it is not working.
- If it is easier to get a free meal than to get a job, then the city is not working (and neither are the citizens).
- If people are more likely to buy junk food, processed food, and fast food than high quality fresh food, then the city is not working.
So what I hope to explore in this blog is how to keep this resolution. It cannot be done without taking into account the social polarization, racial divides, economic inequities, social injustices, and political demagoguery that we have all come to accept as the status quo. To suggest that "that's just the way it is" won't cut it anymore.
To quote a movie from my youth, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
But anger, dissatisfaction, and resistance will only take us so far. We need to have bold expectations that common results will actually occur. Kids will be educated and able to take on the world's challenges or at least be able to read at grade level upon graduation. Urban farming and green technology will become the mainstay of urban economies - or at least be present so that people will recognize that pollution and processed food are not the only option. Urban economies, development, and infrastructure will be sustainable and support the population - there is no compromise on this.
I know this is possible. There are brilliant ideas and movements available to achieve these results. The supply is there - we just have to demand it, purchase it, and implement it. Of course that is the tricky part - that requires serious conversation and building expectations.
Transformation is not easy or free. What are you willing to give up to make it happen?
Let's see how far we can take this.
PS: I get my attitude from the self discovery I have done through Landmark Education (www.landmarkeducation.com). For those in the Philadelphia area, we are having a discovery of self - create what is possible session on Jan. 7 at 7pm in downtown Philly. It's free and it will be an incredible 3 hours to create what is possible in the new year. You also can sign up for the Landmark Forum, the doorway to doing whatever it is you want to do in your life. Contact me for details!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Why kids in school fight
From CNN a short video (apparently a series of reports) on violence as experienced by teens in High School. Violence is about surviving where you live as well as surviving the traditional jockeying for position on the high school totem pole. This view of their reality suggests that until that reality is adjusted, they will continue to fight, represent, and avoid being punked. In this Chicago school, leadership training seems to be having an effect on individual responses, but not on the reality of having to carry a weapon.
Airick Leonard West recently conducted a 3 day session on leadership to deter bullying at one of the local KCMSD schools. He worked with 6th, 7th, and 8th graders at one school to change the dynamics of the pecking order and improve communications and options when faced with an escalating situation.
But as the CNN piece suggests, when kids come from poor neighborhoods where there is no strong future of prosperity, where adults are not modeling supportive behavior, and where survival is a daily concern, we can expect that kids will do whatever they are inclined to believe they have to do. They may be making incorrect assumptions, based on a perspective from outside their environment. But from the inside, to them, it seems reasonable, plausible, and defensible. You play be the rules of the environment in which you live. If you do not go beyond the boundaries of that place, if you are challenged when you do go beyond those boundaries, if you are unwelcome outside those boundaries, then you will continue to live by the rules of your boundaries.
Then check out this other CNN story about a teacher that cuts off the braid of a 6 year old girl in front of the class because she kept twirling it. The teacher appologized later and said she was "frustrated." The school declined to take the teacher out of the classroom. Those are rules of an environment in which these kids are learning to engage.
Thoughts?
Airick Leonard West recently conducted a 3 day session on leadership to deter bullying at one of the local KCMSD schools. He worked with 6th, 7th, and 8th graders at one school to change the dynamics of the pecking order and improve communications and options when faced with an escalating situation.
But as the CNN piece suggests, when kids come from poor neighborhoods where there is no strong future of prosperity, where adults are not modeling supportive behavior, and where survival is a daily concern, we can expect that kids will do whatever they are inclined to believe they have to do. They may be making incorrect assumptions, based on a perspective from outside their environment. But from the inside, to them, it seems reasonable, plausible, and defensible. You play be the rules of the environment in which you live. If you do not go beyond the boundaries of that place, if you are challenged when you do go beyond those boundaries, if you are unwelcome outside those boundaries, then you will continue to live by the rules of your boundaries.
Then check out this other CNN story about a teacher that cuts off the braid of a 6 year old girl in front of the class because she kept twirling it. The teacher appologized later and said she was "frustrated." The school declined to take the teacher out of the classroom. Those are rules of an environment in which these kids are learning to engage.
Thoughts?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Self-Responsibility, Caring, and Responses
I haven't seen the movie Precious yet, but I have read reviews and media coverage. I feel I should go see it, but it seems so depressing. Do I really want to spend two hours watching in full color what I already know exists? Has anyone else seen it? I stumbled upon a discussion board at IMDB about the movie and the thread was a discussion of whether the protagonist, Precious, had properly acknowledged her obesity and many commenters questioned why she didn't add getting healthy and thin to her litany of improvements. Some stated they didn't feel sympathy for the character because she was so fat - that she was unworthy of their concern because she wasn't concerned for herself.
I have an acquaintance on FaceBook that posted an op-ed piece written by the President of Rockhurst University in Kansas City detailing his response to the tragic killing that took place just oustside the campus at 54th and Troost. A 17 year old kid got off a city bus and was shot to death. He was black and he had a college application in his pocket. The piece details that the head of Rockhurst now has a picture of this young man on his desk to remind him every day of the senseless tragedy. He goes on to state, "We will not rest on rhetoric around this tragedy but rather will choose to make a difference by calling our neighbors, faculty, staff, alumni and friends to work with us to find solutions to end these senseless tragedies."
I juxtapose these two stories of young people of color in the inner city to try to wrestle with my own reactions to the events and to others' comments. The last time I criticized white do-gooders I got an earful from Dan Ryan at Gone Mild. Today I commented on the FaceBook posting about Rockhurst and was basically told I was a cynic.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the young man gunned down in KC. He was doing everything he could to bring himself up - applying to college, etc. Apparently he was just a victim of circumstance. The good Rev. Curran of Rockhurst is displaying his sympathy openly and unequivocally. To be sure, Rockhurst U. is community minded, a good neighbor on Troost for the most part, and does not have its institutional head in the sand. So bravo for getting involved. But it is a fairly low risk strategy for a low risk victim - nice kid who wanted to go to college, not a 'hood rat.
It is hard to be sympathetic to a young woman of color in a movie who was a victim of circumstance in her own home and was an illiterate, obese, mother of 2 at 16. Apparently the movie is about her struggle to get beyond her circumstances, with the exception of getting beyond her obesity as the commenters note. One of those posts was honest and said, would I have felt more sorry for her if she were thinner and lighter? Apparently for some of the viewers it was too risky to be all in for this character and they hedged their sympathy for one reason or another.
Young people in urban places are victims every day of violence that finds them or lives with them. Every day. Not just the ones in movies and not just the college-bound bootstrappers. Kids of every kind in urban places are victims every day. Some of those kids are perpetrators and it goes down badly for them. Some of those kids are victims of circumstance at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of those kids are held in a spider web of violence from which they can't escape and some see the exit door but have no clue as to how to walk through it. There are more than enough kids in trouble to rally our attention. We don't need to wait for a movie to create a cause celebre. We don't need to wait for a "good kid" to get gunned down to move us to action.
For the Precious's out there, they are to pull themselves up and take advantage of the help that's waiting for them. For the Nelson's out there who have taken that help and want to go to college, they will get the President of a University to carry their torch.
If these kids are the bookends of the spectrum, then what about all the kids inbetween? What do we do as institutions, as people, as neighbors, as teachers to answer the needs of these kids? What are we doing to help them put the guns down, get an education, and get a job? What are we doing to overcome the unlevel playing field that Rev. Curran identifies as an obstacle? Calling a meeting to find solutions is a start, but not an end.
I honestly believe that action is necessary and that most of us are free riders. We wait for someone else to "do something" or we do something that is essentially low risk to demonstrate our commitment. KC has 480,000 people. The majority of them have never set foot anywhere near the locus of urban problems because that would be risky. You can't be empathetic, raise money, and volunteer, while keeping everything at arms length. But neither does sitting foursquare in the midst of the inner city entitle you to say you are doing something except being there. I look at this situation and feel absolutely impotent. I don't know how not to be a free rider and I don't know what to do to prevent the next Precious or to make it safe for the next Nelson. I volunteer, I advocate, I am engaged, and yet it makes so little difference in the grand scheme of things. I can help 10 kids or a 100 kids, but there are millions that are at risk.
I have helped to shape this country by being a citizen. And I have helped to shape a system that is way out of balance and allows conditions to exist that create a Precious or a Nelson and all the kids in between. I, as one person, cannot put it right because I, as one person, did not put it out of balance. We each contributed in our own way to tilting the playing field. We each have to contribute to leveling it. There is no risk in doing the tilting because it often serves our own interest. There is great risk in leveling it and it will take more than a meeting to call people to do so. Here's hoping that Rev. Curran can find the courage he needs at that meeting.
Meanwhile, do you have suggestions for solutions? Or is this so overwhelming that you will leave this and click on something else whilst shaking your head?
I have an acquaintance on FaceBook that posted an op-ed piece written by the President of Rockhurst University in Kansas City detailing his response to the tragic killing that took place just oustside the campus at 54th and Troost. A 17 year old kid got off a city bus and was shot to death. He was black and he had a college application in his pocket. The piece details that the head of Rockhurst now has a picture of this young man on his desk to remind him every day of the senseless tragedy. He goes on to state, "We will not rest on rhetoric around this tragedy but rather will choose to make a difference by calling our neighbors, faculty, staff, alumni and friends to work with us to find solutions to end these senseless tragedies."
I juxtapose these two stories of young people of color in the inner city to try to wrestle with my own reactions to the events and to others' comments. The last time I criticized white do-gooders I got an earful from Dan Ryan at Gone Mild. Today I commented on the FaceBook posting about Rockhurst and was basically told I was a cynic.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the young man gunned down in KC. He was doing everything he could to bring himself up - applying to college, etc. Apparently he was just a victim of circumstance. The good Rev. Curran of Rockhurst is displaying his sympathy openly and unequivocally. To be sure, Rockhurst U. is community minded, a good neighbor on Troost for the most part, and does not have its institutional head in the sand. So bravo for getting involved. But it is a fairly low risk strategy for a low risk victim - nice kid who wanted to go to college, not a 'hood rat.
It is hard to be sympathetic to a young woman of color in a movie who was a victim of circumstance in her own home and was an illiterate, obese, mother of 2 at 16. Apparently the movie is about her struggle to get beyond her circumstances, with the exception of getting beyond her obesity as the commenters note. One of those posts was honest and said, would I have felt more sorry for her if she were thinner and lighter? Apparently for some of the viewers it was too risky to be all in for this character and they hedged their sympathy for one reason or another.
Young people in urban places are victims every day of violence that finds them or lives with them. Every day. Not just the ones in movies and not just the college-bound bootstrappers. Kids of every kind in urban places are victims every day. Some of those kids are perpetrators and it goes down badly for them. Some of those kids are victims of circumstance at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of those kids are held in a spider web of violence from which they can't escape and some see the exit door but have no clue as to how to walk through it. There are more than enough kids in trouble to rally our attention. We don't need to wait for a movie to create a cause celebre. We don't need to wait for a "good kid" to get gunned down to move us to action.
For the Precious's out there, they are to pull themselves up and take advantage of the help that's waiting for them. For the Nelson's out there who have taken that help and want to go to college, they will get the President of a University to carry their torch.
If these kids are the bookends of the spectrum, then what about all the kids inbetween? What do we do as institutions, as people, as neighbors, as teachers to answer the needs of these kids? What are we doing to help them put the guns down, get an education, and get a job? What are we doing to overcome the unlevel playing field that Rev. Curran identifies as an obstacle? Calling a meeting to find solutions is a start, but not an end.
I honestly believe that action is necessary and that most of us are free riders. We wait for someone else to "do something" or we do something that is essentially low risk to demonstrate our commitment. KC has 480,000 people. The majority of them have never set foot anywhere near the locus of urban problems because that would be risky. You can't be empathetic, raise money, and volunteer, while keeping everything at arms length. But neither does sitting foursquare in the midst of the inner city entitle you to say you are doing something except being there. I look at this situation and feel absolutely impotent. I don't know how not to be a free rider and I don't know what to do to prevent the next Precious or to make it safe for the next Nelson. I volunteer, I advocate, I am engaged, and yet it makes so little difference in the grand scheme of things. I can help 10 kids or a 100 kids, but there are millions that are at risk.
I have helped to shape this country by being a citizen. And I have helped to shape a system that is way out of balance and allows conditions to exist that create a Precious or a Nelson and all the kids in between. I, as one person, cannot put it right because I, as one person, did not put it out of balance. We each contributed in our own way to tilting the playing field. We each have to contribute to leveling it. There is no risk in doing the tilting because it often serves our own interest. There is great risk in leveling it and it will take more than a meeting to call people to do so. Here's hoping that Rev. Curran can find the courage he needs at that meeting.
Meanwhile, do you have suggestions for solutions? Or is this so overwhelming that you will leave this and click on something else whilst shaking your head?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
dress codes and missionaries
I haven't been posting lately. I've been busy and nothing has captured my attention. I read two different articles today that really got me thinking...and so I am sharing.
In the Camden Courier Post today, I read a feature story about a group called Urban Promise. They are a christian-based organization who's mission is to help urban, poor kids in Camden and other cities around the world. They have two private schools, after school programs, summer camp, internships, and lots of ways to reach out to urban kids for education, guidance, and spirituality. I don't care that they have a religious agenda. If it works for some kids, great. What took me by surprise was the literal "missionary" approach they take to fundraising from suburban white people. For just $2500 a year, you can "sponsor" a child. Just like on the late night infomercials, your dollars will go to "your child" who will write to you at least 3 times a year. You can write back because children prefer hand written notes. Huh? You cannot see them, email them, or otherwise be in contact. You cannot give gifts (except to the entire school class of your child), money, or see them outside of the classroom. I understand that a charity has liability limitations and is not wanting well-intentioned white folks to be played for cash. But think about how this positions these kids in the minds of those "sponsors." That's the crux of my issue with their approach. We instill in the minds of white people that their dollars will "save" these kids and that to have any real contact is dangerous. I believe this does more harm than good because it keeps a fixed and probably incorrect image of these kids in the white donor's mind. But then the Urban Promise people need that image so the dollars will continue to roll in. It's a strategy, but one that I think hurts the kids in the long run by perpetuating the stereotype in the donor's mind.
The second article I read was about Kansas City's Power and Light District, the downtown entertainment district built by a corporate developer with public money. Cordish Company has been criticized everywhere they build (I posted on this months ago because Philly has been considering building with this company). They install a dress code that enables them to discriminate overtly and covertly against blacks. They outlaw "thug" wear - any sports jersey's, bandanas, low slung pants, long shorts, long white t-shirts. This is a male oriented dress code to keep out gang bangers, urban roughians, and anyone who wears a fashion that says urban. They would probably outlaw tats, but too many white guys have them too.
The city Human Relations office did a black/white test of the dress code, sending in identically dressed blacks and whites to see if discrimination existed. Surprise! Not. More blacks than whites were denied entrance. The black community in KC has been claiming this for some time, and now it is documented. Several prominent black ministers have spoken out and they led a picket line downtown yesterday to protest the "discretion" used in applying the dress code. I think they have every right to expend their political and social capital any way they choose and if this issue is important, then go for it.
What I am concerned about is the avalanche of white privildege that is on parade in the comment section of the article. The general tone consists of - if you don't like it, don't try to patronize the establishment (my country, love it or leave it comes to mind...).
The criticisms include -
When whites feel threatened, they play the race card by belittleing the protests and demands made by people of color who feel discrimination. Dress codes set up a white environment. Conform and we don't have a problem. Don't conform and we won't let you play with us. When the nonconformists, or rather those who have a different identity, protest that they pay taxes too and should be allowed into this publicly funded area, their identity is scoffed at, their demands are refused, and the white people play the superior victim role of safety. Do we not understand that the continual playing of the white race card serves only to deepen the wedge between races and encourage everyone to play their "role"?????
I was on a local train in south Jersey last night and it has an honor system for tickets. Now and again a security officer gets on the train and asks to see tickets. If you don't have a valid ticket you can be fined or usually, put off at the next station. So three young men (junior high age) were on the train as we sat at the station, got poached for having no tickets, and were told by the security guard to go buy tickets - they did, and got back on the train. All three had baggy pants and/or hoodies, 2 were black and one latino. The security cop was black. I've seen it go down in a much uglier fashion when the security cop is white. The kids tried to get away with something. They got caught and made a decision to pay and ride or not. As the train ride went along they bantered with each other, n***** this and that, cursing, and lots of other testosterone laden bravado. When their stop came, they got off. I'm thinking my observation and interpretation is quite different than most white people's - thug kids trying to get away without paying - typical hoodrats and their language is so threatening. I was afraid I would get mugged.
This is why the missionary approach of Urban Promise is so detrimental. It allows white people to maintain their stereotypes about poor urban kids while feeling good about how they are "helping." The problem is that it means that nothing changes in perception and as long as you look and act like me, we don't have a problem. People of color will continue to "rebel" because of this. We each get backed into our respective corners and harden our positions.
If whites were constantly told that their dress was inappropriate, that they were nothing but suburb-rats, that they were threatening because they are different, then white people would resent it, withdraw, be isolated, and be violent. If you were told you needed to be "saved" and you wanted to preserve some dignity, wouldn't you do what you have to, to make cash and be an outlaw? I guess the original white gangsters are just romantic anti-heroes...
In the Camden Courier Post today, I read a feature story about a group called Urban Promise. They are a christian-based organization who's mission is to help urban, poor kids in Camden and other cities around the world. They have two private schools, after school programs, summer camp, internships, and lots of ways to reach out to urban kids for education, guidance, and spirituality. I don't care that they have a religious agenda. If it works for some kids, great. What took me by surprise was the literal "missionary" approach they take to fundraising from suburban white people. For just $2500 a year, you can "sponsor" a child. Just like on the late night infomercials, your dollars will go to "your child" who will write to you at least 3 times a year. You can write back because children prefer hand written notes. Huh? You cannot see them, email them, or otherwise be in contact. You cannot give gifts (except to the entire school class of your child), money, or see them outside of the classroom. I understand that a charity has liability limitations and is not wanting well-intentioned white folks to be played for cash. But think about how this positions these kids in the minds of those "sponsors." That's the crux of my issue with their approach. We instill in the minds of white people that their dollars will "save" these kids and that to have any real contact is dangerous. I believe this does more harm than good because it keeps a fixed and probably incorrect image of these kids in the white donor's mind. But then the Urban Promise people need that image so the dollars will continue to roll in. It's a strategy, but one that I think hurts the kids in the long run by perpetuating the stereotype in the donor's mind.
The second article I read was about Kansas City's Power and Light District, the downtown entertainment district built by a corporate developer with public money. Cordish Company has been criticized everywhere they build (I posted on this months ago because Philly has been considering building with this company). They install a dress code that enables them to discriminate overtly and covertly against blacks. They outlaw "thug" wear - any sports jersey's, bandanas, low slung pants, long shorts, long white t-shirts. This is a male oriented dress code to keep out gang bangers, urban roughians, and anyone who wears a fashion that says urban. They would probably outlaw tats, but too many white guys have them too.
The city Human Relations office did a black/white test of the dress code, sending in identically dressed blacks and whites to see if discrimination existed. Surprise! Not. More blacks than whites were denied entrance. The black community in KC has been claiming this for some time, and now it is documented. Several prominent black ministers have spoken out and they led a picket line downtown yesterday to protest the "discretion" used in applying the dress code. I think they have every right to expend their political and social capital any way they choose and if this issue is important, then go for it.
What I am concerned about is the avalanche of white privildege that is on parade in the comment section of the article. The general tone consists of - if you don't like it, don't try to patronize the establishment (my country, love it or leave it comes to mind...).
The criticisms include -
- dress like a thug, get treated like a thug (which just oozes the priviledge of my dress is correct and yours is not)
- statistics prove that blacks shoot up nightclubs, so why would a bar owner let them in...just asking for trouble (statistics prove anything don't they? Let's look at the homicide rate at biker bars and redneck taverns...)
- I want to be able to keep my family safe and the minute I see potential trouble, I won't go back (the quinticential my dollars are more valuable than yours position, so don't piss me off)
- blacks always claim "racism" when something happens they don't like. This isn't racism, it's a dress code (that says white people's clothes are ok and black urban clothes are not).
- black preachers always "protest" - where are Rev. Jessie and Rev. Al - and then they will demand money! Where do the reparations end (considering there have never been any reparations paid...)
- why do blacks always feel "entitled" to something (because they are discriminated against?)
When whites feel threatened, they play the race card by belittleing the protests and demands made by people of color who feel discrimination. Dress codes set up a white environment. Conform and we don't have a problem. Don't conform and we won't let you play with us. When the nonconformists, or rather those who have a different identity, protest that they pay taxes too and should be allowed into this publicly funded area, their identity is scoffed at, their demands are refused, and the white people play the superior victim role of safety. Do we not understand that the continual playing of the white race card serves only to deepen the wedge between races and encourage everyone to play their "role"?????
I was on a local train in south Jersey last night and it has an honor system for tickets. Now and again a security officer gets on the train and asks to see tickets. If you don't have a valid ticket you can be fined or usually, put off at the next station. So three young men (junior high age) were on the train as we sat at the station, got poached for having no tickets, and were told by the security guard to go buy tickets - they did, and got back on the train. All three had baggy pants and/or hoodies, 2 were black and one latino. The security cop was black. I've seen it go down in a much uglier fashion when the security cop is white. The kids tried to get away with something. They got caught and made a decision to pay and ride or not. As the train ride went along they bantered with each other, n***** this and that, cursing, and lots of other testosterone laden bravado. When their stop came, they got off. I'm thinking my observation and interpretation is quite different than most white people's - thug kids trying to get away without paying - typical hoodrats and their language is so threatening. I was afraid I would get mugged.
This is why the missionary approach of Urban Promise is so detrimental. It allows white people to maintain their stereotypes about poor urban kids while feeling good about how they are "helping." The problem is that it means that nothing changes in perception and as long as you look and act like me, we don't have a problem. People of color will continue to "rebel" because of this. We each get backed into our respective corners and harden our positions.
If whites were constantly told that their dress was inappropriate, that they were nothing but suburb-rats, that they were threatening because they are different, then white people would resent it, withdraw, be isolated, and be violent. If you were told you needed to be "saved" and you wanted to preserve some dignity, wouldn't you do what you have to, to make cash and be an outlaw? I guess the original white gangsters are just romantic anti-heroes...
Friday, October 9, 2009
Teach, your parents well...
Great old song by CSNY. If you are too young to get the reference, sorry you missed some of the greatest music ever made. Actually, the title line is Teach, your children well. But the point of the song is otherwise.
The lesson of the song rings true today as the conservative world spins on a new axis of Obama hating and does contortions to not say what they must really want to say. I don't know what that is, but the tongue twisting of "what was the committee thinking" and "Obama should refuse the award" is double speak for we really don't like Obama. These people wouldn't know how to speak truth to power if they were given a script and coached with "line!"
I thought the Prez was gracious in his acceptance and unifying when he put the Prize into a "call to action." That's our community organizer! Just makes my heart sing. But I get it that others are not willing to heed that call. But let the rest of us have a chance to do so. That's what the right can't stand - is that for every step taken by Obama, they see their forward progress eroding. Despite our best efforts to play winners and losers with elections, politics is NOT a zero sum game. This notion that if I give in to you it hurts me (like the my marriage is threatened if gay couples are allowed to marry) is so closeminded that there will never be a solution. It is like a Jihad...I keep fighting you until I beat you or I die trying. This is not what politics is supposed to be and every day we take more steps down that slippery slope. Have you noticed the rhetoric is bolder in terms of calling out the President on things that aren't even real - he's a communist, he's a socialist. These are not just pejorative slanders. Many's the time I called Bush a moron. These comments are meant to incite fear and resistance to a mythical enemy. I guess if the cold war is over, we should turn on our President? How did we get here? Go read the NYTimes. There have been so many good columns about this topic, I can't even keep up with it here.
I want to call your attention to a writer that I read regularly. Her blog can be found here and it is called "My World." It is artistic, it is savy, it is plainly spoken - in the vernacular of a young urban person. What I like most is that it is HONEST. There is no attempt to bring fear or to threaten. There is no hiding behind a bunch of b.s. It speaks honestly of what the world is like as seen through her eyes. There are others that write better than this, but it doesn't matter, because this young woman is from Camden. She's not hiding out in some suburban bunker lashing out at a world that does not fit her wishes. She's writing about the real life she leads and how it affects her. Of all the people in this country, she has the right to call politics a zero-sum game, and she doesn't. That's truth to power.
Teach, your parents well....
The lesson of the song rings true today as the conservative world spins on a new axis of Obama hating and does contortions to not say what they must really want to say. I don't know what that is, but the tongue twisting of "what was the committee thinking" and "Obama should refuse the award" is double speak for we really don't like Obama. These people wouldn't know how to speak truth to power if they were given a script and coached with "line!"
I thought the Prez was gracious in his acceptance and unifying when he put the Prize into a "call to action." That's our community organizer! Just makes my heart sing. But I get it that others are not willing to heed that call. But let the rest of us have a chance to do so. That's what the right can't stand - is that for every step taken by Obama, they see their forward progress eroding. Despite our best efforts to play winners and losers with elections, politics is NOT a zero sum game. This notion that if I give in to you it hurts me (like the my marriage is threatened if gay couples are allowed to marry) is so closeminded that there will never be a solution. It is like a Jihad...I keep fighting you until I beat you or I die trying. This is not what politics is supposed to be and every day we take more steps down that slippery slope. Have you noticed the rhetoric is bolder in terms of calling out the President on things that aren't even real - he's a communist, he's a socialist. These are not just pejorative slanders. Many's the time I called Bush a moron. These comments are meant to incite fear and resistance to a mythical enemy. I guess if the cold war is over, we should turn on our President? How did we get here? Go read the NYTimes. There have been so many good columns about this topic, I can't even keep up with it here.
I want to call your attention to a writer that I read regularly. Her blog can be found here and it is called "My World." It is artistic, it is savy, it is plainly spoken - in the vernacular of a young urban person. What I like most is that it is HONEST. There is no attempt to bring fear or to threaten. There is no hiding behind a bunch of b.s. It speaks honestly of what the world is like as seen through her eyes. There are others that write better than this, but it doesn't matter, because this young woman is from Camden. She's not hiding out in some suburban bunker lashing out at a world that does not fit her wishes. She's writing about the real life she leads and how it affects her. Of all the people in this country, she has the right to call politics a zero-sum game, and she doesn't. That's truth to power.
Teach, your parents well....
Friday, October 2, 2009
Obama haters
Don't be a hater.
Apparently the message has gone right past some people. That would be the people that are Obama haters. Check out this pic at Tony's Kansas City . Not since the 1960s when the South was littered with "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards, have we seen such political vitriol on the big boards. (If you don't know who Earl Warren is, google him).
I also read a good post at Stuff White People Do discussing why people call Obama "arrogant."
And by now you have heard about the "Should Obama Be Killed" quiz that made an appearance on Facebook.
The haters are merely a reflection of what is seen every day at the personal level all across the country. People who think electing Obama President is an indication of a post-racial society are mistaken. White America may be more tolerant and the willingness to vote for a black President would not have happened 50 or 60 years ago. But for some reason, the racism that often remains isolated at the local level has now moved to the national stage. Perhaps it is the incivility of Congress that is emboldening haters. Or maybe loud haters are emboldening Congressional bad behavior. Maybe FOX news is giving voice to the voiceless - haters that could only reach a local audience, now being celebrated on this broadcast network. I'm not so naive to think that racism and priviledge will ever be gone, but I am hoping we have made strides. One indication of progress would be that people stand up to this type of hatred.
Some readers will say that the billboard has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. They will insist that the billboard is merely use of free speech by those who disagree with the President's agenda. To that I say, really? Are you so resistant to acknowledging that racism exists that you refuse to see what is obvious? I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, because that would be ridiculous. I don't agree with Obama on everything. But when you resort to a billboard with a hammer and sycle and you proclaim "live free or die" you have to think about the racial implications.
I support healthy political debate and encourage viewpoints to be vigorously discussed, challenged, and argued. But I believe that hate, as expressed in this billboard, is connected to racism. I realize that the right also had it out for President Clinton. But you didn't see people bringing guns to Clinton speeches or calling him a commie or throwing around the "live free or die" rhetoric. There is a qualitative difference with the discord surrounding President Obama. Read Tom Friedman's column in the NYTimes. Here's the money quote: "We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable."
I can only hope that people take this on and challenge the wingnuts, haters, and extremists. Vigorous debate - don't just ignore it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
