US and Musharraf Friends With Benefits

If reports about the ongoing discussions between President Musharraf and the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto are accurate, then Musharraf may soon cease to be a general and Bhutto may take up her old job: this is one step forward and two steps back for constitutional government in Pakistan.

No doubt there's a strong argument that the president of a country should not also be the commander in chief (though the framers of the US constitution disagreed). So the deal will fix that anomaly. But, in return, to allow Bhutto to have a third term as prime minister, the constitution will be amended and all corruption charges against her will be dropped.

It is difficult to see how this is a positive development for the rule of law in Pakistan. However, constitutional exception-making, frankly, is commonplace in Pakistan's history. And this is not the worst element of the deal. The practical consequences for democracy, economic growth, peace with India and the struggle against extremism will be much more serious.

It may seem odd to say that ending military leadership is bad for democracy. However, the advantage of having the general-as-president is that he is less dependent on traditional party politics. That model of politics is tribal and feudal, whereby power is transmitted from the people to political leaders through major landowners, industrialists and imams. The great hope that Musharraf manifested for a while, when he first came to power, was that he was going to wreck this structure. His move to create councils at a local level, guaranteeing representation for women and minorities, empowering a new generation of grassroots leaders, was a critical first step in doing so. His deal with Bhutto, if concluded, will signal that this new politics has failed and it is difficult to see Bhutto, whose base of major supporters is relishing the prospect of returning to power, having the political chutzpah to resurrect it.

Equally, Bhutto's return to power is a risk to the economy. As Musharraf documented in his recent book, In the Line of Fire, Pakistan's economy stagnated under Bhutto during the 1990s, levels of poverty rose and massive sums of money mysteriously disappeared from public accounts. Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan's current prime minister, a technocrat, who formerly was a high-ranking executive at Citibank, has overseen a remarkable turnaround in the economy that has delivered a double-digit growth rate and a large boost in Pakistan's foreign currency reserves.

Finally, there are the security issues. Throughout Pakistan's history, the relationship with India has been tense. But Musharraf has handled it with care, and has outlined a possible settlement over Kashmir. He has been able to do this because he is the army chief. A civilian leader like Bhutto will find it much more difficult to continue or accelerate the development of friendly relations with India. This is partly because the bellicose elements in the military and intelligence services will be released from the yoke of their commanding officer but also because hostility towards India is popular in Pakistani politics - this isn't Bhutto's fault but she may not be able to resist the temptation to play to the gallery.

She will face a similar political logic over combating extremism. Pakistan is not a militantly religious country - there are strong streams of heterodox religious practice and a powerful drift is underway towards western cultural values. But, even though most people do not agree with the extremists, they are intensely uncomfortable with seeing the police or armed forces attack religious schools or mosques, where extremists may be based. Musharraf has been able to pursue this cause, to a limited extent, because of the uniform; Bhutto will not be able to continue it with even the same vigour, let alone enhance it.

In the end, this deal is not only crooked, it is a setback for anyone who wants a liberal and democratic future for Pakistan.

By Kamran Nazeer

Will Turkey Be On the Table For The EU in Time for Thanksgiving?

In its 17 December 2004 decision, the European Council recognised Turkey’s “significant legislative progress in many areas” but added that “these need to be further consolidated and broadened”. Furthermore, the report also took note of the improvements in the country’s economic stability and predictability and the strengthened independence and efficiency of the judiciary. Regarding the respect for human rights and the exercise of fundamental freedoms, “Turkey has acceded to most relevant international and European conventions”.

Most importantly for Ankara, Turkey got a fixed date (3 October 2005) for starting membership negotiations. The Turkish side had originally hoped for an earlier date, in view of the Copenhagen summit commitment that the EU would open talks "without delay" once Turkey is deemed to have made sufficient progress in its reforms.

Under the Council’s decision, a framework for Turkey’s EU membership negotiations was established by the Commission. This document was released on 29 June. The negotiating framework, which has been described by Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn as "rigorous", rests on the following elements:

• The underlying and shared objective of the talks will be Turkey’s accession. However, the negotiations will be “open-ended”, which means that their outcome cannot be guaranteed beforehand.

• At the end of the talks, should Turkey fail to qualify in full for all obligations of EU membership as specified in the Copenhagen criteria, EU member states would still ensure that Ankara is “fully anchored in the European structures through the strongest possible bond”.

• The accession negotiations will be conducted in the framework of an Intergovernmental Conference with the participation of Turkey and all EU member states. The policy issues will be broken down into 35 policy areas (chapters) - more than ever before - and the decisions will require unanimity.

• The EU may consider the inclusion of long transition periods, derogations, specific arrangements or permanent safeguard clauses in its proposals for each framework.

• Membership talks with candidates “whose accession could have substantial financial consequences” (such as Turkey) can only be concluded after 2014, the scheduled date for the establishment of the EU’s new financial framework.

• Accession negotiations can be suspended in case of a “serious and persistent breach […] of the principles of democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law on which the Union is founded”. Suspension would require a Commission initiative or a request to that effect by one third of the member states. The final decision would be made by the Council by qualified majority, and the European Parliament would be informed.

• Under a compromise formula agreed at the December 2004 EU Council, before 3 October 2005 Turkey would have to sign a protocol that will adapt the 1963 Ankara Treaty to the ten new member states of the EU, including the Greek Cypriot government. For practical purposes this would amount to an implicit recognition of this government for the first time since the island’s division in 1974. “The adoption of this protocol is in no way recognition, and I’ve put this on the record,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said. The deal did not include a commitment from Ankara that the protocol would be ratified by the Turkish parliament before October 2005. As for the other key condition: Turkey on 1 June 2005 enacted the country's revised penal code.

Throughout Europe, the arguments that surround Turkey's projected accession revolve around a series of issues, ranging from demographic through geographic to political. One commonly raised point is that, if and when it were to join the EU, Turkey would become the EU's most populated member state. Turkey's current population is 71 million, and demographers project it to increase to 80-85 million in the next 20 years. This compares with the largest current EU member state Germany, which has 83 million people today, but whose population is projected to decrease to around 80 million by 2020.

Another argument is rooted in the age-old debate on whether it is possible to establish geographic borders for Europe, and whether Turkey 'fits' within these borders. This is seen by many as a dispute that rests on philosophical and intellectual prejudgements, especially since the Treaty of Rome is widely accepted to aim for the construction of a union of European states based on shared common values.

Perhaps the most sensitive of all arguments centre on the cultural and religious differences. Since the EU identifies itself as a cultural and religious mosaic that recognises and respects diversity, the supporters of Turkey's EU bid believe that, as long as both Turkey and the EU member states maintain this common vision, cultural and religious differences should be irrelevant.

The EU member states' concerns over Turkey's human rights record as well as global and regional security-related issues have also been key factors behind Turkey's prolonged application process.

The future of the divided island of Cyprus has also been a major sticking point. The Council's December 2004 decision entailed a compromise formula on the Cyprus issue, under which the affected sides were expected to work towards a solution to the conflict before the scheduled 3 October 2005 launch of membership talks with Ankara, however conflict still remains unresolved. Cyprus is a decisive factor in the negotiation process. Cyprus demands official recognition by Turkey and access to Turkish harbours and airports. Turkey demands putting and end to the isolation of Northern Cyprus and emphasises that it was the Greek side of the island that rejected the UN’s plan in 2004.

The results of the referenda on the EU Constitution during the first half of 2005 - especially the No votes in France and the Netherlands - have been detrimental to Turkey's EU bid. Although subsequent research and surveys have failed to prove that enlargement in general, and Turkey's candidancy in particular, were key factors behind the public's rejection of the Constitution, the summer of 2005 still witnessed an increase Europe-wide of scepticism towards Turkey's European prospects.

Turkey needs to make further progress in the area of freedom of speech. More specifically the EU would like to see a reform of Turkey's penal code and the controversial article 301, which serves as a basis for the so-called "Turkishness-cases" against writers and journalists.

With Turkish parliamentary elections this August and domestic support for an EU membership in decline, the issues seem to be increasingly difficult to resolve. Turkey’s public is more and more tired of the negotiation process. A recent Eurobarometer showed that only 44% of Turks thought EU membership would be a good thing, compared to 66% in spring 2005. A survey by the German Marshall Fund of the US, published in June, confirmed this tendency. Turkish politicians are increasingly making use of this sentiment, especially with a view to the upcoming elections. An expression of this is the criticism expressed by Turkey's public concerning Pope Benedict's comments on Islam on 15 September 2006.

The Council of Europe (CoE) also welcomed the election of Abdullah Gül, with CoE Parliamentary Assembly President René van der Linden describing him as "a modern reformer". He also counts on the new president "to spread the European spirit in Turkey".

The What's What in (former) Secular Turkey

A former Islamist was voted in as the new president of Turkey on Tuesday, breaking an 84-year grip on power by the secular establishment, and ushering a new Islamic middle class from Turkey's heartland into the center of the staunchly secular state.

Lawmakers approved Abdullah Gul, a 56-year-old economist, with 339 votes, far above the simple majority required in the 550-member Parliament. Two other candidates garnered another 83 votes. The party of the secular establishment boycotted the voting.

The vote ended months of political standoff that began when Turkey's secular establishment and military, virulently opposed to his candidacy, blocked it in May, forcing a national election last month.

But Gul's party, Justice and Development, refused to back down, and his success Tuesday marked a rare occasion in Turkish history in which a party prevailed against the powerful military.

There was no immediate statement from the military, which has ousted four elected governments since 1960, but its unspoken reaction was frosty: None of Turkey's military commanders attended Gul's appointment ceremony, a highly unusual departure from protocol, considering that he is now their commander-in-chief.

"This is definitely a day when we are turning a page, an important page, in the political history of the country," said Soli Ozel, a professor of international relations at Bilgi University in Istanbul. "The boundaries have been expanded in favor of civilian democracy."

The appointment upsets the power hierarchy in Turkey, a secular democracy whose citizens are predominantly Muslims, by opening up the presidency - an elite secular post first occupied by this country's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - to a new class of leaders from Turkey's provinces, for decades considered backward by the elite.

A decade ago, Gul's nomination would have been unthinkable: The elite and the military had kept the merchant class he comes from away from the center of power on the grounds that they were the protectors of Ataturk's legacy.

Ali Murat Yel, chairman of the sociology department at Fatih University in Istanbul, said the selection of Gul was comparable in significance to an African-American being elected president in the United States.

"It's a very important turning point," said Yel. "Those people who are the peasants and farmers and petty bourgeoisie always had republican values imposed on them. Now they are rising against it. They are saying, 'Hey, we are here, and we want our own way.' "

Though Turkey's secular establishment has taken pains to portray Gul and his close ally, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, as inseparable from their Islamic pasts, their supporters argue they have changed dramatically since the early 1990s, when they were members of the overtly Islamic Welfare Party.

Yel said they had left radicalism and moved into the center. "They can sit on the same table as some people who drink alcohol and they drink their Coke, and they would be able to talk to them. They have come to terms with the reality of this country."

Most Turks strongly oppose the idea of a religiously oriented government, and the overwhelming portion of Gul's constituency voted for his party because it had done well running the country, not because its leaders were pious men. Their policies over the past four years in power have reflected a careful respect for secular principles, many say.

In his acceptance speech in Parliament on Tuesday, Gul emphasized his commitment to Turkish secular values. He renewed his pledge to push for Turkish membership in the European Union, an effort he has led in four years as foreign minister.

"Secularism - one of the basic principles of our republic," he said, wearing a dark suit and a red tie. "My door will be open to everyone."

His hometown, Kayseri, was decorated with Turkish flags, and a sound system was built in the city center to broadcast the ceremony and celebration, Turkish television said.

"Still, he will have to work to persuade skeptical Turks."

He has on his shoulders a very heavy burden - an Islamist past," said Baskin Oran, a political science professor. "He has to be twice as careful as a secular statesman."

The election of Gul reopens the debate over where Islam fits in the building of an equitable society, a question that is also of central interest to Western democracies now.

"We are in uncharted waters," said Ozel, the professor of international relations. "We don't know how they will run the country. This is not a party that has articulated its world view very clearly."


By Sebnem Arsu and Sabrina Tavernise

Turks Elect Fomer Islamist

Turkish former foreign minister Abdullah Gül was elected president on 28 August 2007 with 339 votes of the 550-member Turkish parliament.

The candidacy of Gül, a moderate-Islamist politician, plunged Turkey into a major political crisis in April, when the first round of votes was boycotted by the opposition and millions of protesters took to the streets in defence of the state's secular principles. The army, which sees itself as the defender of the country's secularism, also announced its opposition to the prospect of having a moderate-Islamist party ruling both the government and the presidency.

As Abdullah Gül swore in on 28 August as the first Turkish president with islamist roots since 1923, he emphasised his commitment to Turkish secular values. The Turkish military generals were absent from the ceremony.

Commission President José Manuel Barroso welcomed the overall Turkish electoral process as "a considerable achievement for Turkey and the Turkish people" as both the legislative and presidential elections took place with a high level of participation.

Barroso added he was confident that the future government will "give fresh, immediate and positive impetus to the accession process to the European Union through progress in a number of key areas".

Racial Injustice in Jena Six

Jena is a small town nestled deep in the heart of Central Louisiana. Until recently, you may well have never heard of it. But this rural town of less than 4,000 people has become a focal point in the debate around issues of race and justice in this country.

Last December, six black students at Jena High School were arrested after a school fight in which a white student was beaten and suffered a concussion and multiple bruises. The six black students were charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy. They face up to 100 years in prison without parole. The Jena Six, as they have come to be known, range in age from 15 to 17 years old.

Just over a week ago, an all-white jury took less than two days to convict 17 year-old Mychal Bell, the first of the Jena Six to go on trial. He was convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy charges and now faces up to 22 years in prison. Black residents say that race has always been an issue in Jena, which is 85 percent white, and that the charges against the Jena Six are no exception.

The origins of the story can be traced back to September 2006, a group of African American high school students in Jena, Louisiana, asked the school for permission to sit beneath a "whites only" shade tree. There was an unwritten rule that blacks couldn't sit beneath the tree. The school said they didn't care where students sat. The next day, students arrived at school to see three nooses (in school colors) hanging from the tree.The boys who hung the nooses were suspended from school for a few days. The school administration chalked it up as a harmless prank, but Jena's black population didn't take it so lightly. Fights and unrest started breaking out at school. The District Attorney, Reed Walters, was called in to directly address black students at the school and told them all he could "end their life with a stroke of the pen." Black students were assaulted at white parties. A white man drew a loaded rifle on three black teens at a local convenience store. (They wrestled it from him and ran away.) Someone tried to burn down the school, and on December 4th, a fight broke out that led to six black students being charged with attempted murder. To his word, the D.A. pushed for maximum charges, which carry sentences of eighty years. Four of the six are being tried as adults (ages 17 & 18) and two are juveniles.

Racism and racial injustice are still alive. We need to come together as communities, bridge across cultures and unite all ethnicities to demand equally. While, I am the last person to preach racial victimization (I think that’s bull), but clearly here there is an injustice that must be made right and everyone must share in that burden. Like Martin Luther King Jr., “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Best Ever Blueberry Pie

Crust Ingredients:
2 cups all-purpose flour
1/4 teaspoon salt
2/3 cup cold butter or margarine
4 to 5 tablespoons cold water

Filling Ingredients:
1/2 cup granulated sugar
2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1/4 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon
6 cups fresh blueberries

Directions

1. Heat oven to 400°F.
2. Combine 2 cups flour and salt in large bowl; cut in butter until mixture resembles coarse crumbs. Stir in enough water with fork just until flour is moistened.
   
3. Divide dough in half; shape each half into ball. Flatten slightly. Wrap 1 ball of dough in plastic food wrap; refrigerate. Roll out remaining ball of dough on lightly floured surface into 12-inch circle. Fold into quarters. Place dough into 9-inch pie pan; unfold, pressing firmly against bottom and sides. Trim crust to 1/2 inch from edge of pan.
   
4. Combine sugar, 2 tablespoons flour, nutmeg and cinnamon; mix well. Stir in blueberries. Spoon blueberry mixture into prepared pie crust.
   
5. Roll out remaining ball of dough on lightly floured surface into 12-inch circle. Cut out decorative shapes in dough using small cookie cutter. Place dough over filling. Seal, trim and crimp or flute edge. Cover edge of crust with 2-inch strip of aluminum foil.
   
6. Bake for 35 minutes; remove aluminum foil. Continue baking for 10 to 20 minutes or until crust is lightly browned and juice begins to bubble through cut-outs in crust.
   
7. Cool pie 30 minutes; serve warm. Store refrigerated.
   

Did you know? Anytime you bake a pie for more than 30 minutes, you should cover the edges of the crust with foil until about 10 minutes before the pie is done to prevent the edges of the crust from getting too brown, or burning.

Tiger Woods might be great but is he really the greatest?

If Pope Benedict XVI was a golf fan, Tiger Woods would already be a saint. Yet deification for the world's best player cannot be too far away if the reaction to his victory in last Sunday's US PGA Championship at Medinah is anything to go by. Indeed, one excitable American sports columnist was driven to describe Woods as the greatest individual athlete of all time. As is the way of the provocative columnist, he then asked readers to send in their votes. The ballots are already being counted (on ESPN.com for anyone who is interested).

As futility goes, surely nothing beats such an exercise. Who is the greatest athlete of all time: Tiger Woods or Muhammad Ali? Babe Ruth or Stanley Matthews? Steve Redgrave or Shergar? Rod Laver or Franz Klammer? You might as well ask what is the most useful item on the shelves of a Tesco supermarket: McVitie's chocolate digestives or Daz washing power?

Yet an intrinsic part of being obsessed with sport is being enthused by pointless comparisons between athletes who share little in common other than their brilliance. Much as I would like to tell you I have spent the four days since Woods won the 12th major of his career pondering the civil liberty implications of profile screening passengers at international airports, the truth is I have spent them wondering if Woods really could be the greatest ever.

I was lucky enough to spend Sunday afternoon following the world No1 around Medinah and can report that he certainly looks the part. Great athletes all have stage presence and he is a Mount Rushmore of a man. Poor Luke Donald, his playing partner for the day, was dwarfed beside him on the tee. The Englishman is an exceptional golfer but looked like a 12-handicapper when measured against Woods.

For all its apparent omnipotence, television does not fully capture the experience of live golf. Its two dimensions magnify the mundane while diminishing the difficult. The most impressive thing about Woods is that he is at his best when required to perform a difficult task. His second shot to the first green was a perfect example. Facing a downhill lie, to a pin that was so inaccessible it might as well have been planted in the middle of the bunker guarding the front of the green, he feathered his ball to six feet, and then rolled in the putt for birdie. Tournament over.

In a purely athletic sense, Woods's effort in the final round was easily the greatest single sporting performance I have ever seen. I can fully understand why so many people agree, but I still cannot comprehend the urge to anoint him as the greatest athlete of all time. That's because I have always taken the view that great athletes become truly great when they use their status shape the society in which they live. When it comes to tennis, I would always take Arthur Ashe over Pete Sampras, even though Sampras was clearly the better player. Ashe was a brilliant as well but he was also a fearless campaigner on issues like racial intolerance and the treatment of Aids patients.

By this measure of social involvement Woods falls short. On the positive side, at least he is not as detached as his great friend Michael Jordan, who once declined to criticise a nasty, racist politician called Jesse Helms on the grounds that "Republicans buy sneakers too". And Woods recently built a learning centre for under-privileged kids in California - a step in the right direction, definitely, but still a long way short of the late Earl Woods's claim that his son would one day change the world.

Maybe he will one day, but until then I will stick by the man who I will always consider to be the greatest athlete of all time: the former world heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali. A great athlete and a man who really did change the world in which he lived.

By Lawrence Donegan

The Politics of God

The twilight of the idols has been postponed. For more than two centuries, from the American and French Revolutions to the collapse of Soviet Communism, world politics revolved around eminently political problems. War and revolution, class and social justice, race and national identity — these were the questions that divided us. Today, we have progressed to the point where our problems again resemble those of the 16th century, as we find ourselves entangled in conflicts over competing revelations, dogmatic purity and divine duty. We in the West are disturbed and confused. Though we have our own fundamentalists, we find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions, leaving societies in ruin. We had assumed this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, that fanaticism was dead. We were wrong.

An example: In May of last year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent an open letter to President George W. Bush that was translated and published in newspapers around the world. Its theme was contemporary politics and its language that of divine revelation. After rehearsing a litany of grievances against American foreign policies, real and imagined, Ahmadinejad wrote, “If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?” This was not a rhetorical question. “I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth,” Ahmadinejad continued, reminding his fellow believer that “according to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.” There follows a kind of altar call, in which the American president is invited to bring his actions into line with these verses. And then comes a threatening prophecy: “Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. . . . Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.”

This is the language of political theology, and for millennia it was the only tongue human beings had for expressing their thoughts about political life. It is primordial, but also contemporary: countless millions still pursue the age-old quest to bring the whole of human life under God’s authority, and they have their reasons. To understand them we need only interpret the language of political theology — yet that is what we find hardest to do. Reading a letter like Ahmadinejad’s, we fall mute, like explorers coming upon an ancient inscription written in hieroglyphics.

The problem is ours, not his. A little more than two centuries ago we began to believe that the West was on a one-way track toward modern secular democracy and that other societies, once placed on that track, would inevitably follow. Though this has not happened, we still maintain our implicit faith in a modernizing process and blame delays on extenuating circumstances like poverty or colonialism. This assumption shapes the way we see political theology, especially in its Islamic form — as an atavism requiring psychological or sociological analysis but not serious intellectual engagement. Islamists, even if they are learned professionals, appear to us primarily as frustrated, irrational representatives of frustrated, irrational societies, nothing more. We live, so to speak, on the other shore. When we observe those on the opposite bank, we are puzzled, since we have only a distant memory of what it was like to think as they do. We all face the same questions of political existence, yet their way of answering them has become alien to us. On one shore, political institutions are conceived in terms of divine authority and spiritual redemption; on the other they are not. And that, as Robert Frost might have put it, makes all the difference.

Understanding this difference is the most urgent intellectual and political task of the present time. But where to begin? The case of contemporary Islam is on everyone’s mind, yet is so suffused with anger and ignorance as to be paralyzing. All we hear are alien sounds, motivating unspeakable acts. If we ever hope to crack the grammar and syntax of political theology, it seems we will have to begin with ourselves. The history of political theology in the West is an instructive story, and it did not end with the birth of modern science, or the Enlightenment, or the American and French Revolutions, or any other definitive historical moment. Political theology was a presence in Western intellectual life well into the 20th century, by which time it had shed the mind-set of the Middle Ages and found modern reasons for seeking political inspiration in the Bible. At first, this modern political theology expressed a seemingly enlightened outlook and was welcomed by those who wished liberal democracy well. But in the aftermath of the First World War it took an apocalyptic turn, and “new men” eager to embrace the future began generating theological justifications for the most repugnant — and godless — ideologies of the age, Nazism and Communism.

It is an unnerving tale, one that raises profound questions about the fragility of our modern outlook. Even the most stable and successful democracies, with the most high-minded and civilized believers, have proved vulnerable to political messianism and its theological justification. If we can understand how that was possible in the advanced West, if we can hear political theology speaking in a more recognizable tongue, represented by people in familiar dress with familiar names, perhaps then we can remind ourselves how the world looks from its perspective. This would be a small step toward measuring the challenge we face and deciding how to respond.

By Mark Lilla

Professor of the humanities at Columbia University.

Black American and Immigration: Pure Economic Cents

More immigrants are admitted under the "family-reunification" policy than for any other reason. Unfortunately, the impact of the family-reunification quota, especially the harm it's done to African-Americans, is shrouded by the American phobia about thinking honestly about race. This purportedly idealistic smokescreen is actually concocted by the clever in order to wage class war on the clueless. Maybe not intentionally, but isn't it funny how people tend to come up with ideals that are in their interests?

Serious discussions of immigration reform have been off the table for years in America precisely because the current immigration policies provide America's verbal elite with a new, improved servant class at no cost to themselves in terms of greater competition. Mexicans may be flooding into the U.S., but they are not taking jobs away from American lawyers, media people, politicians, business executives and the like. The Mexicans with the verbal skills to do these jobs stay home in Mexico speaking Spanish. Instead, small, brown, diligent, and submissive immigrants have displaced large, black, unmotivated, and surly native Americans as our auto mechanics, waiters, gardeners, cleaning ladies, child-minders, and the like. We consumers of these services get better workers for less money.

The African-American elites go along with this scheme. They sell out the black working class on immigration because more immigrants means more pressure for identity politics and multiculturalism (i.e., quotas, jobs as diversity sensitivity consultants, ethnic pride educators, etc.), which means more easy money for the black verbal elite.

There are two prominent intellectual positions on immigration: The extremely unpopular one is that ethnicity matters, and that immigration policy should not be used to change the current ethnic makeup of America. The much more popular view, which dominates both the liberal and conservative media establishments (e.g., the Wall Street Journal editorial page), argues that high immigration is good for the country, and we should be color-blind in our immigration policy, because America is a "proposition" nation (e.g., "All men are created equal", etc.) rather than a nation of blood and soil.

The first view appears to be a political nonstarter, because of the nonstop indoctrination of whites against them personally feeling any ethnocentrism.

The second view, colorblindness, hits all the right notes in today's American zeitgeist but, as we've seen, its effects are hardly colorblind: the current system hurts Americans on the left side of the bell curve in order to help those on the right side. It damages African-Americans and, at least economically, Mexican-American citizens. For example, Cesar Chavez volunteered his United Farm Worker staff to patrol the border to keep out the Mexican immigrants who were driving down the wages of the Mexican-American stoop laborers in his union. By cutting down the supply of farmworkers competing for jobs, Chavez managed to drive up their wages during the Seventies. But the Mexican economic crisis of the early Eighties and the lack of any real effort to keep new immigrants out overwhelmed his efforts under a flood of cheap immigrant workers. Stoop laborers' wages stopped growing in 1981.

On the other end of the bell curve, however, are highly intelligent whites with outstanding verbal skills, who face little immigrant competition (other than from the occasional immigrant English magazine editor), but who desperately want the government's help with their servant problem.

I'll propose an alternative to these two ideas, based on American patriotism. Let's set up America's immigration system to maximally benefit the people of whatever ethnic group who are American citizens as of today. Further, the bias in the system should be toward helping those Americans less able to compete intellectually with future immigrants.

To my mind, the fundamental goal of immigration policy is to maximize the benefit to existing citizens, just as the fundamental goal of a public corporation's management is to maximize the wealth of its current stockholders, not of people who might buy stock later. Think of the U.S. as an employee-owned corporation like United Airlines. Immigration policy is thus like United's hiring policy. The goal of United Airline's hiring policy is to optimize the benefits to the existing stockholder-employees by hiring the new stockholder-employees who have the most to contribute at the lowest cost. Similarly, the goal of America's immigration policy logically ought to be to brain drain the rest of the world of the people who can contribute the most to the welfare of current American citizens.

Thus, we should be actively recruiting the most intelligent and most entrepreneurial -- they'll produce the most new wealth and new jobs in America, and the Americans they'll be competing with can best afford the new competition. In contrast, we should be diligently keeping out run-of-the-mill would-be immigrants who would merely add to the competition faced by our less intelligent citizens, since lower IQ American citizens can least afford additional wage competition.

The most important part of our current immigration law, family reunification, is the equivalent of United Airlines letting its newest employees nepotistically determine its next hires. Obviously, UA would never even consider such an absurd policy, but that's what the USA does.

The second largest contributor of new immigrants under the current law, the need of American corporations for particular skills, has worked well in itself, but when combined with family reunification it just ends up lowering wages for African-Americans and others who can least afford it. Say, Intel imports the next Andy Grove, who soon begins creating new jobs for Americans through his brilliance. However, Mrs. Grove2 is allowed under the law to bring over her sister, who brings her husband, who brings his deadbeat brother, who brings his nothing-special daughter, who is married to Mr. Nobody, etcetera etcetera. Regression to the mean takes its terrible toll. Eventually, we've brought in a bunch of people of no particular talent other than they will no doubt work harder for less money than current blue-collar white and black Americans.

This will keep down wage inflation, which today seems to be automatically assumed to be a Good Thing. But shouldn't one of the goals of America be to see the wages of the bottom half of our bell curve rise over time?

World's Best Blueberry Pancakes

INGREDIENTS

3 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 tablespoon baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup sugar
3 eggs
1 stick butter or margarine, melted and cooled
Approximately 1 cup whole milk
1 cup fresh blueberries (about 8 per pancake)
Vegetable oil or butter, for cooking

Serving suggestion: maple syrup and additional butter

DIRECTIONS

1. In a large bowl, combine the flour, baking powder, salt, and sugar. In a medium bowl, lightly beat the eggs then whisk them into the flour mixture. Combine the butter and 1 cup of milk in the medium bowl then gradually whisk this mixture into the batter. The batter should be slightly thicker than heavy cream. It the batter is too thick, add a little more milk.
2. Heat a seasoned griddle or a large heavy-bottomed skillet over medium heat. If the pan is not well seasoned, add a little oil to prevent the pancakes from sticking. Spoon or pour about 3 tablespoons of batter onto the griddle to form a pancake. Repeat forming only as many pancakes as can fit on the griddle with 1-inch or so of space around each. Drop 7 or 8 blueberries on each pancake. Cook until bubbles form on the pancake surfaces then flip and continue cooking until the second sides are golden, about 3 minutes longer.

Why isn't Barack Obama black enough?

Over the past few months, one question has loomed over Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's head: "Is he black enough?" Any query attributing to Obama's blackness in many ways parallels to the proposition that Bill Clinton is America's closest thing to having a black president. Even if the public doesn't necessarily know what this question means, common sense still makes them aware of its implications. The persistence to which Obama's blackness has been questioned, so early in the 2008 presidential campaign, reflects the white media's relentless interest to define blackness, as much as it unveils an underlying political agenda.

Those who consider themselves spokespeople for the black community have maintained a dignified front by neglecting to provide the media with any type of answer. However, as people of color see through this question's racially divisive nature, media correspondents continue to breathe air into the topic. Nobody is supposed to answer the question, "Is Barack black enough?" with any definitive answer. This question is not really a question at all, but an accusation to which the public is expected to provide a counter question; "Why wouldn't he be black enough?" The counter question contains the meat of the red herring, playing right into the media's hands, and allowing them to present the black community with an already compiled list of insulting, though unsurprising responses.

Why isn't Barack Obama black enough? To the socially conscious, this sounds like an idiotic question because it is. In fact, the question is so absurd it's impossible to approach without considering who is asking it in the first place. As much as the press has feigned the topic's all-inclusive importance, it remains a discussion isolated to whites in the media. Most Caucasian news correspondents relate to Obama as a charismatic, charming and rousing speaker who pronounces his t's and d's with an effortless grace and panache they don't think they've witnessed since the heyday of Sidney Poitier.

Anybody wondering why Obama isn't black enough to quench the media's desire to define his blackness doesn't need to dig too deep before finding the serious insinuations of, say, a Joe Biden, who described Obama as being the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Biden's comment actually helped put the political double speak into perspective, as it shed a light on the message political pundits like Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly, regardless of their personal perspectives, have long been hinting towards: The National Interpretation of Blackness.

Statements such as these only justify racial stereotyping that keeps America's cultural tensions alive and well. While the topic of Obama's blackness is covered on every news channel from MSNBC to CNN, Americans still owe it to the assurance of their own integrity to ask what being black, or white, or any race for that matter, has to do with being the President of the United States? At some point, Americans are going to have to look beyond the myopia that allows racial generalizations to become fodder for political news stories. Is Barack black enough? Maybe? There's no right answer. When it comes to race, culture, and identity, everybody's got an opinion and we all think ours is more justified than the next. When posing the question of racial identity against a presidential candidacy, it reaches a point where distinguishing who is right from who is wrong is simply no longer relevant.

Perhaps Obama isn't black enough for CNN, and maybe he's too black for CBS Evening News. This may appear to be an inadequate conclusion to the politically correct, but focusing on the mitigating factors around an individual's ethnic identification misses the point. The question America should he asking has nothing to do with who is a black enough candidate to be the first black president of the United States of America. The real question for 2008 is this: Does Barack Obama have the chops to stand up as a competent Commander-in-Chief?

This will be the U.S.'s most important election in nearly two decades, and we American citizens owe it to ourselves to concentrate on finding an answer without any distractions.

By: Allison Harvey

www.vibe.com

Vote Smart: Comprehensive Immigration Only In Moderation

Securing our border is essential to securing the homeland. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, more than half a million illegal immigrants enter the country each year. For the most part, these illegal immigrants toil diligently at housekeeping, agricultural, janitorial and construction jobs. By undercutting market-distorting minimum wage and employment laws, they contribute to our economic growth and keep prices low. In fact, one could say that illegal immigrants epitomize the laissez-faire economy.

Just as opponents of illegal immigration must confess its economic benefits, its apologists must also acknowledge its costs. Illegal immigrants undermine the rule of law by cutting ahead of everyone patiently waiting in the immigration queue. Given that roughly half a million immigrants, according to the Pew Center, enter the country legally each year -- many of whom wait several years for the privilege -- it is fundamentally unfair that a slightly greater number openly flouts the law to get in.

Illegal immigration cannot continue unabated without undermining American law and order, burdening border-state property owners, and compromising the safety of the immigrants.
However, we cannot neglect to overlook what many anti-immigrant organizations in the west don't seem to realize is that there are huge number of legal intelligent immigrants entering the country everyday. And their home country’s loss is our gain. For every engineer, doctor, nurse or researcher that India loses to the States, America becomes that much more competitive in technology, medicine and science. Additionally, data released by the Census Bureau shows that immigrants who arrived over the past several years are better educated than those who arrived in the late nineties. Likewise, children of immigrants are more financially successful than their parents and they have higher professional skills.

The immigration system should be reformed and a comprehensive immigration policy must be reached. So, that all those who enter the United States are required to have a legitimate offer of employment from an American employer, and all those who have one should have entry expedited. Nevertheless, there is no question that we need to strengthen Homeland security and our borders must be secured. The government should expend massive resources guarding our borders against potential lurking terrorist.

Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research, Steven Camarota explains that:

“Because every part of our immigration system has been exploited by terrorists, we cannot reform just one area, but must address the problems that exist throughout. The solution is not to single out Middle Easterners for exclusion or selective enforcement. Instead we need to more carefully check the backgrounds of all visa applicants, better police the borders, strictly enforce the law within the country, and, most importantly, reduce the level of immigration to give government agencies the breathing space necessary to implement fundamental reforms.”

Our strategy for comprehensive immigration reforms begins by securing the border. Nevertheless, we also believe that Government must employ innovative solutions such as taxing employment of immigrants if they want to discourage new immigrants, or create tax incentives for employing them if they want more. Yet, we have listed below what we believe like President Bush a Comprehensive Immigration policy should include:

1. Putting Border Security and Enforcement First


2. Providing Tools For Employers To Verify The Eligibility Of The Workers They Hire


3. Creating A Temporary Worker Program


4. No Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants


5. Z Card Holders Will Have An Opportunity To Apply For A Green Card


6. Strengthening The Assimilation Of New Immigrants


7. Ending Chain Migration


8. Clearing The Family Backlog Within Eight Years

For More Details visit (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517-7.html)

Ashley Gay's: To Die For Blueberry Muffins

INGREDIENTS
1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
3/4 cup white sugar
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/3 cup vegetable oil
1 egg
1/3 cup milk
1 cup fresh blueberries
1/2 cup white sugar
1/3 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup butter, cubed
1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon

DIRECTIONS

1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C). Grease muffin cups or line with muffin liners.
   


2. Combine 1 1/2 cups flour, 3/4 cup sugar, salt and baking powder. Place vegetable oil into a 1 cup measuring cup; add the egg and enough milk to fill the cup. Mix this with flour mixture. Fold in blueberries. Fill muffin cups right to the top, and sprinkle with crumb topping mixture.
   


3. To Make Crumb Topping: Mix together 1/2 cup sugar, 1/3 cup flour, 1/4 cup butter, and 1 1/2 teaspoons cinnamon. Mix with fork, and sprinkle over muffins before baking.
   


4. Bake for 20 to 25 minutes in the preheated oven, or until done.

Don’t “Cut and Run,” but Please “Don’t Stay the Course” Either

Does the death of at least 250 Iraqi civilians, the deadliest single incident of the war, coming four years into the fighting and seven months after the surge was announced, actually signal progress for the U.S. strategy in Iraq?

It does.

Listen to the military commanders, spokesmen, and academics and you’ll learn that the attack is intended to distract Congress and the American public from the progress being made in Baghdad and elsewhere, and that it is a kind of "last gasp" for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

And they’re right!

Here’s the story, on Tuesday August 14, 2007 multiple car and truck bombs were detonated in two remote northwestern villages in Iraq, killing at least 250 civilians and obliterating blocks of houses. The attacks had all of the signatures of al-Qaeda and of the Sunni dominated al-Qaeda in Iraq affiliate, which evidently selected the isolated villages of Qataniyah and Jazeera near the Syrian border because they were the home to ethnic Kurd Yazidis, a pre-Islamic people who have lived in this region since ancient times.

Here’s the back story, Despite such isolation, tensions among the Yazidis, Muslim Kurds and Arab groups in northern Iraq have led to increasingly violent incidents. In April, a 17-year-old Yazidi girl was stoned to death after she eloped with a Sunni Muslim man and converted to Islam. Cellphone video footage of her death, called an "honor killing" by other Yazidis, was broadcast widely on the Internet, setting off a wave of attacks against the group. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)

While, the attacks Tuesday and Wednesday appear to be part of a larger pattern of increasing violence in regions with relatively little military protection; the U.S. military has cited major successes, such as increased cooperation with tribal sheiks in Anbar province and a drop in the number of sectarian killings in Baghdad, following the addition of 30,000 troops this year. But the number of civilian deaths from mass-casualty bombings was nearly three times higher in July than in June, mostly as a result of incidents in the north.

Could this instance be a microcosm of what would happen if the US had a successive troop withdraw? And what then about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals?

Nevertheless, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

A permanent Gulf regional security dialogue could emerge that includes Syria and Iran, and the United States could undertake a role as regional security guarantor. Preliminary discussions should lead to a more intensive dialogue with Iran in which security assurances and nuclear programs are discussed.

In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.

Of course there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.

Reaching an understanding on Iraq need not be a lengthy process, but the dialogue must be broadened in scope and participation to be effective. The aim would be a consensual solution underwritten by outside guarantors, not an imposed solution. And finally, military power would have a subordinated and supporting role.

Simultaneously, the United States would set about transforming its applied military power in Iraq into the useful diplomatic influence essential to addressing broader security concerns.

Ultimately, security in the Gulf and winning against al-Qaeda will require that we work with regional powers, promote stability and gradual transformation, and regain "strategic consent" for long-term U.S. assistance in the region. We must use the situation in Iraq to propel us toward this larger goal, and in doing so, we will also find the right way to wind down our deployment there.

The outline of what needs to be done is clear. But does the administration have the courage and foresight to do it, or will it continue to march into profound failure?

This is a geopolitical development of the first importance. It is a clear statement that, the United States is firmly intends to maintain help stabilize control of Iraq. Now is the time for the United States to researt its authority in a new global age. The US needs to refocus is military might from a Cold War mentality to a geo-regional political defense. The US already has 890 military installations in foreign countries, ranging from major Air Force bases to smaller installations, say a radar facility. A base in Iraq would enable the Pentagon to close a few of those facilities and focus on new geographical spheres of influence. As part of a post-cold-war shift in its global posture, the Defense Department should close several (but not all) of it installations in Europe and reopen new military installations in the Asia, Southeast Asia (specifically India), Asia Minor, and the Middle East.

I believe that there is a bridge between us that can be built towards a better future, and we shouldn't think that this bridge will be built by violence. It must be built with dialogue and mutual respect. I have great respect for the Arab culture, and almost every Arab I know has great respect for the United States in many different forms. Sometimes it's not necessarily positive politically, but it's positive in other ways —in our educational system, for example. But this gap that exists between us-- if we are to defeat the people that will do things like Osama Bin Laden, crashing the airplanes into the World Trade Center, or Zarqawi, who would have killed thousands of Jordanians-- thousands of Jordanians, if his plan had been pulled off. We must move together. It can't be America versus the Arabs. It must be Americans and Arabs, Muslims and Christians working against the people that have no vision for the future other than hate. And if we can't do that, then we will suffer just like the people of Abu Ghreib and just like the poor American who was beheaded at the hands of the terrorists.

The New Black Nativism

To the surprise of many whites and dismay of his supporters, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among black Americans by a 40-point margin in a recent Washington Post-ABC poll. It is possible to read this as a positive development: black Americans have transcended racial politics and may now vote for the person they consider the better candidate, regardless of race. The sad truth, however, is that Obama is being rejected because many black Americans don't consider him one of their own and may even feel threatened by what he embodies.

So just what is the nature of black American identity today? Historically, the defining characteristic has been any person born in America who is of African ancestry, however remote. This is the infamous one-drop rule, invented and imposed by white racists until the middle of the 20th century. As with so many other areas of ethno-racial relations, African Americans turned this racist doctrine to their own ends. What to racist whites was a stain of impurity became a badge of pride. More significantly, what for whites was a means of exclusion was transformed by blacks into a glorious principle of inclusion. The absurdity of defining someone as black who to all appearances was white was turned on its head by blacks who used the one-drop rule to enlarge both the black group and its leadership with light-skinned persons who, elsewhere in the Americas, would never dream of identifying with blacks.

Black identity was historically progressive in another important respect: from very early in the 19th century through the civil rights movement, it was strikingly cosmopolitan. Black leaders took a deep interest in oppressed peoples throughout the world. The Pan-African movement and early black nationalism were part of emerging notions of black solidarity. Blacks took deep pride in the Haitian revolution, and black American missionaries played an important role in the Christianization of Jamaican and other West Indian blacks. Black Americans were also open to the inspiration of black immigrants: W.E.B. DuBois's father was Haitian; James Weldon Johnson's mother, Bahamian. One of the first mass movements of African Americans was led by a Jamaican, Marcus Garvey, in the '20s. An impressive number of black leaders and civil rights icons--Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Shirley Chisholm, Louis Farrakhan, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, to list a few--were all first- or second-generation immigrants. Before them, West Indian leaders paved the way toward involvement with city politics, especially in New York. And this cosmopolitanism extended also to non-African peoples; Martin Luther King's engagement with Mahatma Gandhi is the most famous example. Like so many other West Indians, I have personally experienced this remarkable inclusiveness in the traditional practice of black identity. Becoming a black American meant simply declaring oneself to be one and engaging in their public and private life, into which I was always welcomed.

In recent years, however, this tradition has been eroded by a thickened form of black identity that, sadly, mirrors some of the worst aspects of American white identity and racism. A streak of nativism rears its ugly head. To be black American, in this view, one's ancestors must have been not simply slaves but American slaves. Furthermore, directly mirroring the traditional definition of whiteness as not being black is the growing tendency to define blackness in negative terms--it is to be not white in upbringing, kinship or manner, to be too not at ease in the intimate ways of white Americans.

Barack is married to a black woman, has spent years doing community work in the ghettos and is by lineage certainly more African than most African Americans. But black America's view of him is clouded by the facts that he is the son of an immigrant and that he was brought up mainly by middle-class whites whose culture is second nature to him. Although the Congressional Black Caucus, still strongly influenced by the civil rights generation, remains surprisingly liberal on immigration issues, the black middle class appears to harbor a hardening anti-immigrant sentiment--a Pew poll last year found that 54% of blacks see immigrants as a burden. More disturbing, however, is what that sentiment reveals about a growing pattern of self-segregation among the black middle class, many of whom, like the residents of Prince George's County, Md., seem to have largely given up on school and social integration.

This is tragic, for like all other once excluded groups before them, black Americans are in need of the social and cultural capital that comes from living with and in the white majority, the value of which is nowhere more powerfully demonstrated than in the enormous achievement and potential of Barack Obama.

By Orlando Patterson
www.times.com

Is Obama Black Enough?

Ever since Barack Obama first ascended the national stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, pundits have been tripping over themselves to point out the difference between him and the average Joe from the South Side. Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa. He is articulate, young and handsome. He does not feel the need to yell "Reparations now!" into any available microphone.

But this is a double-edged sword. As much as his biracial identity has helped Obama build a sizable following in middle America, it's also opened a gap for others to question his authenticity as a black man. In calling Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," the implication was that the black people who are regularly seen by whites — or at least those who aspire to the highest office in the land — are none of these things. But give Biden credit — at least he acknowledged Obama's identity.

The same can't be said for others. "Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan," Stanley Crouch recently sniffed in a New York Daily News column entitled "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me." "Black, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves," wrote Debra Dickerson on the liberal website Salon. Writers like TIME and New Republic columnist Peter Beinart have argued that Obama is seen as a "good black," and thus has less of following among black people.

(Read Dickerson’s article at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/)

Meanwhile, agitators like Al Sharpton are seen as the authentic "bad blacks." Obama's trouble, asserted Beinart, is that he will have to prove his loyalty to The People in a way that "bad blacks" never have to. Obama, for his part, settled this debate some time ago. "If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," he told Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed race guy.'" Obama understands what all blacks, including myself, know all too well — that Amadou Diallo's foreign ancestry could not prevent his wallet from morphing into a gun in the eyes of the police.

For years pundits excoriated young black kids for attacking other smart successful black kids by questioning their blackness. But this is suddenly permissible for presidential candidates. Beinart's good black/bad black dynamic is the sort of armchair logic that comes from not spending much time around actual black people. As the New Republic points out, Sharpton has an overstated following among black people. In 2004, when Sharpton ran for President, his traction among his alleged base was underwhelming. In South Carolina, where almost half of all registered Dems were black, both John Kerry and John Edwards received twice as many black votes as Sharpton. But this hasn't stopped media outlets from phoning Sharpton whenever something even remotely racial goes down. And it hasn't stopped writers from touting Sharpton's presumed popularity among black people, as opposed to "palatable" black people like Obama.

The black-on-black argument seemed to be bolstered by recent polls showing Obama significantly trailing Hillary Clinton among black voters. But reading into poll numbers that way is a clever device, hatched by mainstream (primarily white) journalists who are shocked — shocked! — to discover that black people aren't as dumbstruck by Obama as they are.

What they fail to understand is that African-Americans meet other intelligent, articulate African-Americans all the time. In almost every cycle since 1984, at least one of these brave chaps has run for President. Forgive us if we don't automatically pledge our votes to Obama and instead make judgments based on things besides skin color — like, heaven forbid, issues. Joe Biden may have misspoken — and in the process probably destroyed any remote hopes of winning the nomination — but he spoke truthfully for a lot of his ilk; Obamania is rooted in the belief that 50 Cent, not Barack Obama, represents the real black America.

Back in the real world, Obama is married to a black woman. He goes to a black church. He's worked with poor people on the South Side of Chicago, and still lives there. That someone given the escape valve of biraciality would choose to be black, would see some beauty in his darker self and still care more about health care and public education than reparations and Confederate flags is just too much for many small-minded racists, both black and white, to comprehend.

Barack Obama's real problem isn't that he's too white — it's that he's too black.

By Tanehisi Paul Coates
http://www.time.com

Michael Vick: A Dog Gone Shame

Updated Aug. 23, 2007 (CNN) -- Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is waiting to hear if he'll ever play professional football again after agreeing to plead guilty and face prison in his federal dogfighting case.

On Wednesday, July 18, a federal grand jury in Richmond indicted Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three other men yesterday on charges related to their alleged operation of a dog fighting ring based at a property Vick owns in southeastern Virginia.

This indictment comes as a result of the April 25 raid on Vick’s house in Surry County, Va. Authorities reportedly found, 66 dogs (most of which were pit bulls), a dog-fighting pit, bloodstained carpets and equipment commonly associated with dog fighting. Vick, who was not at the scene and has repeatedly denied knowledge of dog fighting at the property; has increasingly come under fire from animal rights groups.

Vick, one of the NFL's most exciting players, was charged with competitive dog fighting and conducting the venture across state lines. The 19-page indictment alleged Vick was highly involved in the operation, alleging that he attended fights and paid off bets when his dogs lost. It said he also was involved in the executions of dogs that did not perform well. If convicted, Vick could face a total of up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines. He could face additional discipline by the NFL, even if he is not convicted.

According to the indictment, Vick decided in his rookie season of 2001, with Phillips and Taylor, to start a dog fighting operation. Vick, who grew up in Newport News, paid $34,000 in June 2001 for a property at 1915 Moonlight Rd. and, according to the indictment, "used this property as the main staging area for housing and training the pit bulls involved in the dog fighting venture and hosting dog fights."

The NFL said the matter would be reviewed under the league’s toughened personal conduct policy. “We are disappointed that Michael Vick has put himself in a position where a federal grand jury has returned an indictment against him,” the NFL said in a written statement. “We will continue to closely monitor developments in this case, and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities. The activities alleged are cruel, degrading and illegal. Michael Vick’s guilt has not yet been proven, and we believe that all concerned should allow the legal process to determine the facts."

However, sources close to Vick say, “He's a pit bull fighter.” An ESPN source said that Vick is“one of the ones that they call 'the big boys': that's who bets a large dollar. And they have the money to bet large money. As I'm talking about large money -- $30,000 to $40,000 -- even higher. He's one of the heavyweights."

Vick's associates, Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor, were indicted on the same charges. The men, who named their enterprise the “Bad Newz Kennels,” developed the property for their dog fighting operation, building a house, "a fence to shield the rear portion of the compound from public view [and] multiple sheds used at various times to house training equipment, injured dogs and organized fights," the indictment said.

The indictment said that in April 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions by various methods, including hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." Vick also is alleged to have consulted with Peace before Peace killed a losing dog by electrocution in 2003.

In the U.S., dog fighting is considered a felony in every state except Wyoming and Idaho. Additionally, transporting dogs over state lines for dog fighting is a federal crime.

Despite that fact, according to The Humane Society, it's estimated that somewhere between 20,000-40,000 people in this country take part in this multibillion-dollar industry.

American pit bull terriers account for 99 percent of the species involved in dogfighting, and a pit bull puppy can cost as much as $5,000. An average dog fight carries a $10,000 purse.

Obviously dog fighting is wrong. Dog fighting’s violent nature and appeal to gamblers has made the blood sport a brutal, malicious exploitation of “man’s best friend.” Dog fighting is severely cruel. Most fighting dog breeds, especially pit bulls are intensely loyal dogs and dogfighters exploit their positive characteristics to create violent animals.

The dogs aren't the only ones who suffer. It's impossible to estimate how many other animals and humans have been harmed by violent people who are desensitized to brutality, in part as a result of watching or participating in dog fighting and other forms of animal cruelty. Everyone is familiar with the cliché “Violence begets violence.” Laura Maloney, executive director of the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says, “Research proves that people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people. In addition, fighting enthusiasts often bring young children to the fights, desensitizing them to violence and teaching them that violence is accepted by society.”

References:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
2. http://www.espn.com/
3. http://www.la-spca.org/
4. http://www.hsus.org/

Congress Accepts Paternity Results

Three cheers for congress. Hip-Hip Hooray! Hip-Hip Hooray! Hip-Hip Hooray! Finally, we have a Congress by the people for the people, or at least… for the little people. The Democratic Party in all its glory and might was able to pass health care aid to millions of uninsured children. Now Congress like Sexual Chocolate in “Coming to America” can sing about how children are the future.

Congress, not only following Sexual Chocolate’s mandate but the majority of the American public took a step towards fixing the gaping hole that is healthcare. A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The Senate passed CHIP reauthorization by a veto-proof 68-31 vote, and the House passed an even better bill by 225-204.

Ponder this, when it comes to health insurance, what happens to a family that makes too much money to qualify for Medical Assistance, but doesn’t make enough to afford health insurance? Step in State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted Title XXI of the Social Security Act and allocated about $20 billion over five years to help states insure more children. SCHIP continues to receive considerable attention as states implement or continue to expand and refine their initial SCHIP plans. SCHIP plans have been approved in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 5 territories.

How Does SCHIP Work?

The program covers kids in families with incomes too high for Medicaid but too low to afford private or employer-sponsored insurance. With funding both from the federal government and from their own treasuries, states can decide whether to create a separate SCHIP program, expand Medicaid, or both. States have the flexibility to set income eligibility limits, and most states cover children in families with incomes of up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Any money that states don’t use can be redistributed to other states that face shortfalls.

How Is SCHIP Helping Children?

A look at the numbers shows just how successful SCHIP has been in the past 10 years...

• 6 million children enrolled over the course of a year.

• 4.1 million children enrolled in June 2007.

...but also how far we still must go to achieve affordable coverage for all:

• 9 million children are still uninsured.

• The White House estimates that 1.1 million currently uninsured children are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid

• ...But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 5 million to 6 million currently uninsured children are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid.

Well the House bill which is more generous would set aside nearly $11 billion for incentive payments to states that do a good job boosting these enrollments; it focuses on getting states to sign up the poorest, Medicaid-eligible kids. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, under the House bill, in 2012, about 5 million children who would not otherwise have insurance would be covered; of those, 3 million would be on Medicaid. This would represent an impressive reduction in the more than 4 million children currently eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.

The House health-care bill unveiled this month has two noteworthy innovations. It would focus additional federal health-care spending on ensuring that poor children eligible for coverage actually receive it. And it would end expensive and unnecessary subsidies for managed-care programs for seniors while making new efforts to help the poorest seniors -- an approach that will be the subject of a separate editorial. The measure faces a daunting political path, both because of its high price tag and because of the financing mechanism, a combination of higher tobacco taxes and lower payments to managed-care plans. But the priorities it reflects are those that lawmakers -- and the Bush administration -- should keep in mind as the debate progresses.

What’s the Big Deal?

The controversy over renewing SCHIP has largely centered on authorizing or expanding coverage for children higher up the income scale, above 200 percent of the poverty level. The administration argues that providing coverage above this level -- $34,340 for a family of three -- would simply shift children from private coverage onto the government dole. Certainly, this is a risk, but so is the threat of children without insurance because of rising premiums and dropped coverage. The poverty level is set nationwide, so that a family at 200 percent of poverty in a high-cost state could easily be unable to afford insurance.

The launching point for the House effort is the need to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a joint federal-state program that provides coverage to children in low-income families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. The 10-year-old program expires in September. The House would spend an additional $50 billion over five years, while a bipartisan Senate measure mandates $35 billion. President Bush has threatened to veto even the smaller Senate measure. Instead, he has proposed just $4.8 billion in extra spending above the $25 billion that straight reauthorization would cost -- an amount that would fail even to retain the number of children already covered.

What Do We Think?

Chris Satullo a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer writes, "Health care is a classic public good that should be supported by a social compact: The healthy should pay into the system to underwrite care for those who need it now, both as a matter of civic morality and self-interest."

It is the opinion of this blog that good healthcare during childhood is extremely important. If a child is healthy he (or she) is much more likely to be healthy, happy, and productive throughout his (or her) life. So CHIP is an investment in today’s children that will pay dividends over the long term in the form of more productive citizens and lower health costs.

Empowering A Responsible America

The gun control dispute has long been a topic of debate. It divides the political platforms of Democrats and Republicans, questions constitutional limits and sets extreme stereotypes of those abiding by their respective stances.

A recent new article caught my eye, when it mentioned that college students are pushing for their schools to allow them to carry guns on campus, saying they should have the right to protect themselves in a situation like the one in which 32 Virginia Tech students and faculty were fatally shot.

The article specifically mentioned, Andrew Dysart, a George Mason University senior who organized a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, which hopes to persuade legislators to overturn a Virginia law that allows universities to prohibit students, faculty and staff members with gun permits from carrying their weapons onto campus.

Nationwide, 38 states ban weapons at schools, and 16 of those specifically ban guns on college campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states allow schools to adopt their own gun policies.

However, Virginia law lets schools decide whether to allow students with concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns on campus. More states should allow academic institutions to decide for themselves whether or not concealed weapons should be permitted on campus.

Nevertheless, many colleges generally oppose allowing guns on campus for safety reasons. Opponents such as, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, which represents campus public-safety officials, said the presence of students carrying concealed weapons “has the potential to dramatically increase violence on our college and university campuses.” There is no denying that allowing concealed weapons brings the potential for accidental gun discharge or misuse of firearms at parties, including those where alcohol or drugs are used.

But aren’t there beneficial potentials, as well?

According to the Office of Post Secondary Education (www.ope.ed.gov) on campus arrest for 4-Year Public Institutions rise every year. Additionally, illegal weapons possession crimes have risen almost a staggering 65%! The Center for Problem- Orienting Policing (www.popcenter.org) believes (and this blog agrees) that rape is the most common violent crime on American college campuses today. It goes on to say that:

“Researchers believe that college rape prevention programs, including the most widely used ones, are insufficient. Most rapes are unreported, perhaps giving campus administrators and police the false impression that current efforts are adequate. In addition, campus police may be influenced by college administrators who fear that too strong an emphasis on the problem may lead potential students and their parents to believe that rape occurs more often at their college than at others.”

The “Sexual Victimization of College Women,” a research report conducted by the National Institute of Justice wrote an estimated 25% of college women are raped.

In addition, it found that women ages 16 to 24 experience rape at rates four times higher than the assault rate of all women, making the college (and high school) years the most vulnerable for women. College women are more at risk for rape and other forms of sexual assault than women the same age but not in college.

Important to note, is that rape rates vary to some extent by school type of school and region, suggesting that certain schools and certain places within schools are more rape-prone than others. Some features of the college environment–frequent unsupervised parties, easy access to alcohol, single students living on their own, and the availability of private rooms– may contribute to high rape rates of women college students.

So, why allow students to carry guns?

Gun free school zones have proven to be a dangerous delusion that has resulted in people being forced to be victims.

The solution is to empower the most responsible people in America to be intermixed with potential victims so that they might have the opportunity to be the first responders to head off such attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech. Students who have gun permits should be allowed to have their guns on campus, but must register with their campus police, local authorities, state and federal officials.

We have seen that armed civilians, students and staff alike, have been able to get their guns and stop campus killers in the past -- such as in Pearl, Mississippi (1997) and Grundy, Virginia (2002). But in those cases, the heroes had to run to their cars and get their guns and run back to the scene of the crime to stop the killer, losing valuable time.

Bittersweet Broken Bonds

Ultimately, August 7, 2007 will go down in history as the day Barry Bond became the temporary home run king. While heads turned and the ball bid the park adieu, Barry Bonds will not reign on the home run throne for long. Nevertheless, congratulations are in order. We are talking about a man that became a lot more muscular, won seven National League Most Valuable Player awards, eight Gold Glove awards, one N.L. batting title, and he played in one World Series. Bonds also became the most polarizing player in baseball.

Nevertheless, baseball has more to do with hand-eye coordination than strength. And with a single, violent swing of his bat, Barry Bonds made baseball history Tuesday in San Francisco, climbing one home run closer to the immortal Hank Aaron.

If you’re a technocrat and want to get all technical, there’s no arguing that Bonds has forcefully redirected 756 pitches into home run territory over his 22 major-league seasons. Yet according to the ziggurat of evidence compiled in the book “Game of Shadows” (http://www.gameofshadows.com/), Bonds also ingested performance-enhancing drugs during his peak slugging period, making some of those home runs less authentic. Question is, how many? How many of Bonds’ home runs are honest? And how many came courtesy of his reported juicing?

If Bonds is proven guilty (which I believe he will be, but no time soon) then I think they should void his homeruns from the 98 season (the height of the scandal) to the 2005 season (which is when I presumed he stopped or moved on to a new steroid). Which means that 73 home run record in 2001 for most homeruns in a season, should be wiped away with due diligence. This seems to me the best and only way to solve the problem and would effectively return Hammer’n Hank Aaron to his rightful position as king.

Across the land, baseball fans, including me who played and watched the game, are unsure what to make of 756 because of the players who achieved success on their own natural abilities. Bonds’ alleged use steroids beginning in the late 1990s, only adds fuel to a late-career explosion in offensive production that is unparalleled in baseball history. Even as Bonds took aim at Aaron’s record this summer, a grand jury continues to investigate him for possible perjury and tax evasion charges stemming from his involvement with an alleged steroids ring.

So, let the debates about the authenticity of Bonds’ record begin. It will be here for a while. It took Bonds more than four years to reach 100 home runs, and almost three more years to get to 200, in July 1993. He hit No. 300 in April 1996, and then needed another two years and four months to reach 400. He hit his 500th on April 17, 2001, then reached 600 in August 2002. No. 700 came two years later.

Regardless, I will let those that choose mourn 755 elsewhere. I will let the authorities claim foul play was involved in its demise. But for today, I will grin and bare and say all hail Bary Bonds the new home run king!

References:

1. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080702301.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/sports/baseball/08bonds.html?ref=sports