Thoughts On Obama's Healthcare Reform Speech

Last evening Obama gave a speech on the need to unite for the cause of Healthcare Reform. Yet again he raised the benchmark on communication and anyone who watched or listened to our President speak on the need for Healthcare Reform should now be up to speed and possess the ability to ask the right questions. And of course his charisma combined with the optimism that things are actually changing for the best in our country was exhilarating.

His speech was compelling in that it pushed through crucial information and boldly challenged the work of fear mongers. The art of communication is of utmost importance during times of change whether discussing war time, changing fiscal matters, or–finally–21st Century Reformation.

Regardless of the duel between the two major political parties both play a role in shaping our future. To those of us who are progressive in thinking it is easy to associate the Republicans with stagnation and the status quo. However, we have also seen ways in which Democrats have remained in a business as usual way of political decision making. Both parties it can be said, struggle in some way or another with embracing the future with forward thinking. It is a lot to ask of anyone it is also necessary and this is why exceptional leadership is so crucial at this moment in time.

As I watched Obama’s speech to congress on cnn.com, I also payed close attention to the body language and reactions of his audience. As I am sure most of us notated, it was a lot like watching a sports arena. Were it differed from that perspective is the result of a carefully orated presentation that gave just as much attention to unifying ideas as it did opposing.

This gave the public a chance to see just how at odds congress is over this. I shall remain optimistic, however, not to a fault. That being said I am ever so excited to be a part of an awakening collective conscious. However, watching this program got me to contemplating about that 51% mark where things really start to change. When you think about what the Republican party stands for and when you see it emanating in the form of ‘stubbornly clinging to that oath’ you begin to realize what a challenge it will be to get to that last mile of the 51%.

The Republican party formed in large on an old bitter divide. Not wanting change, not wanting unity–fearing and not knowing what their individual worlds would look like even though their individual wealth and outlook on life was much better than the majority. They owned the land, raw materials, and all aspects of industrialized business–production, transportation, and the fuel to energize it all. And so they as a party have chosen to hold onto old ways of doing government and business, as a way to protect these gains. The Republican Oath emphasizes the importance of the individual being self-reliant with minimal government involvement. It is that sort of individuality that encourages fear and greed because the future appears daunting and speculative. It is a vision that puts the future of a person like me in great jeopardy. Try as I may, I simply cannot afford health insurance. Sure, in 1852 a person’s future relied heavily on their individual actions, however, in the 21st Century, we are a strong and solid nation that is heavily influenced by the global. Today, the economy of China has an impact on our daily life, just as much as America’s own economy. Sure, we can decide to begin producing widgets to earn our individual living, however, take a look at the labels of the goods in your home... “Made in China”? China has the ability to produce widgets much more affordably than I can out of my basement. The individual can’t compete in the same ways anymore.

"We did not come here to fear the future. We came to shape it."–President Obama

The essential services that provide quality of life cost comparatively more than what average income allows (credit cards don’t count as income). Our current system is ill-equipped to handle our new and arising challenges. We should equip ourselves with the latest shaping tools meant for today and tomorrow’s era.

And here we are again, America, at a tremendous crux much like the end of Feudalism. The transition that Traditionalists and Modernists endured, a grueling struggle highlighted by fierce devotion that manifested itself in War, Love, Hate, Music, Political Non-deference, and Spirituality. Having that history so near and dear to us is both a blessing and a curse. It is both encouragement to keep pushing forward, and, I believe, as expressed by Republicans–understanding things as one continuous battle of ideals, and a forced capitulation of these old ideals. Something like insisting on being allowed to continue using a rotary dial phone, in a digital age, simply as a matter of pride, because you invented the rotary phone.

As Obama spoke, the reaction or the staleness from the Republicans reminded me that in our current two-party political system, we remain Republican Vs. Democrats–we remain in an antagonistic relationship, we remain in a dual existence; ideals vs. ideals. In that two-party system then, one could say that the Republicans are slowly loosing the battle (for every 8 years they gain in office, they seem to loose credibility in one or more sectors of good governance). Watching Obama address Congress you could see in the Republicans, now more than ever, have a tight-fisted grip-of-fear on these out-dated ideals. I got the sense that they more than any of us realize that this crux does not stand alone and is the latest of battles that connote the end of an era and the beginning of a new. Arms folded and eyes rolling like marbles, the Republicans seemed annoyed and disinterested whenever Obama pushed the boundaries of his Modernist existence. For the rest of us, when he pushes those boundaries we feel his charisma; that incredible optimism that has you sitting at the edge of your chair. That sense that real change is so close we can finally taste it. The opportunity to be unified and strong.

The subject of Healthcare Reform as an issue of concern has made tremendous progress in grabbing our Nation’s attention (politically and publicly) over the last 15 years. It is an issue that continuously engulfs more and more Americans in an adversarial relationship. It is encouraging to know that issues such as Healthcare Reform have finally reached a pinnacle point; that political leadership (more recently Edward Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Obama) has succeeded in making a long-time issue–since Roosevelt in 1912–the foremost of political concern.

We are in and becoming Global despite any of our political philosophies. The estrangement of outdated modes of operation will make the difference between collapsing in on ourselves destructively or collapsing forward and unified towards the future. Global constitutes Oneness, and in that singularity exists a greater dependence on the whole. This is not a matter of weakness or a show of power over the individual, quite the opposite, it is a matter of strength and global continuity.

Changing Gentrification January 2009

One of the dangerous tricks of gentrification is its ability to give you novelty lenses.  Where everything that is surrounding your pristine glass and stone palace is cute, neat, or old school; the Mittman’s Pharmacy on the corner looking very Maude like, or Jeffersonian - Welcome Back Cotter-esque.   Something about it novelized in a museum-like realness, that is until some time passes, and more new stuff comes, and the old begins to look decrepit, like the home of the eccentric neighbor in his post-partum existence.  The changing of the neighborhood cultural mix, the rise of real estate cost, and the opportunity to profit steam roll a conclave flat without the vocal opposition.  You see the novelty, it will eventually wear-off.

We’ve all heard the arguments before, yet our path goes on in reckless abandon; without real socio-economic knowledge of the unintended consequences, without ecological architectural accountability.  So how will this become, once again, a relevant cause - as progenitor of a review of ethics?  One way is to truly engender the rally cry of our newly elected president Barack Obama.  And a good thing too, because as it so goes in metropolis there is a good many of us who did vote democratic, or rather, for democracy.   What does it really mean to engender this idea of change and yes we can, and accountability; our very complicit-ness  is to see that big structures are only a part of our intended focus, that it is indeed individuals too who should act personally, looking inward on their day to day life.  We cannot change what is, because it has already happened, but we can change what will come tomorrow.  What will come tomorrow are more gentrifiers, and homeless individuals, out-priced individuals, and new perspectives will also come tomorrow. 

Making a change will challenge us, yes we can becomes a hard to swallow mantra when not accompanied by millions of others in unison.  Eight months from now, will you still have this refreshed perspective of America’s future, or will you again leave America’s future in the hands of a few men and women, or will you begin change with you, will you live by example, always have your conscious aware of your every action; will you begin to truly consider how every individual actions affects others before you buy, sell, create, and eat?  Will you remember that just because you work in the office or work or patronage the showroom, you wont forget or neglect your fellow human being who work in the factory?  We are all complicit and in numbers we can change things, we can do the unthinkable, we can elect a man of color whose father is of African descent to the presidency of the United States of America; together all things are possible, in numbers we can say enough is enough.  It will take a lot of hard work, not just signing petitions and voting, but also restructuring the system so that we don't collapse on all of our luxurious goods that even the poorest of us seem to scheme with the provider to get it into their possession. Whether we are the seller or buyer, designer or builder, the banker or the secretary we are all complicit. 

When it comes to gentrification we can build eco-wise, stable and balanced communities, we just have to want it instead of being fed it.  We have to want change instead of being told to change.  As important as the role of president is this was merely a small step for our natural desire for change, the president is off in the distance and you can turn off the news, close-out the web page, or toss aside the magazine, but you can not escape yourself.

LET IT BE KNOWN!
I WAS A PART OF CHANGE!
Here is to today and here is to tomorrow!

Today I Make History

Today I will vote for all that is just and right. Today I will vote, not only for myself, but also for my mother Fannie Belle (Mackey-Meredith) Turner and her mother Ethel Mackey Vedder-Green and her mother as well, and her husband - my grandfather who I never knew. I vote for my paternal Grandmother Mrs. Helen Adele Freeman Turner and Grandfather William Josia Turner I - he too was layed to rest before I was born, and their daughters Henrietta Adele Bradley and Helen Hoban. I vote for my mother's brother Leonard Meredith and my maternal Great Uncles Joseph and Zedebe Mackey.

I vote for all of my kin and all of those who lived a particular existence that denigrated theirs. I vote for every black man, woman, and child who lived and died in oppression. I vote for every one of my people who were enslaved or born into slavery. I vote for a new America which will struggle to learn a new kind of governance, I vote with a good concious for all Americans.

Most of all I vote for any peoples in the world who have known injustice, oppression, racism, genocide, or famine; the rode's end might be faraway; jarring, asperous, and unequal - and you may never know the calm that comes after a stormy sea, but someone of your kin, like me, will see that day finally ushered in. And although, there will be many more storms to endure, I vote today to become stronger for what may come. I vote today so that someone of my kin will know a better humanity, and better world.

On The Path to Lasting Change

Notes on the Populist Movement (circa. 1850-1900)

The Populist Movement grew out of the Farmer's Alliance and alliances between them and Railway Unions. For the Farmers the need to come together cooperatively grew from the unfair and unscrupulous practices of monopolized banks, monopolized transportation and equipment companies, and their ties with and cooperation of Government. In every business direction a farmer turned, he faced the squeeze of his limited money. It is worth noting that during this period greenbacks (printed paper monies) were in high demand as the U.S. population grew rapidly, yet no new money entered into the system.

Ways the farmer was squeezed for money: Typically, in a farming town in the Midwest or in the South one or two wealthy individuals who had a monopoly on the different aspects of the farming business such as owning the land, bank, farming supply; seed, jute bags, weighing, equipment, and the general store. Farmer's could get various necessities on credit, loaned out with exorbitantly high interests rates (25%). Farmers would have liens placed on their properties and eventually would see them repossessed. The Government regulated prices a farmer could get for his grain etc, however, monopolized railway companies could charge as much as they wished to transport those grains.  Farmers allied as many aspects of business as possible in order to buy and sell together to get the best prices on both ends.


As the Alliance grew, the Movement became political realizing that for true liberty they must change the way government favors wealthy Robber Barons. In the Midwest the Alliances fought to include Negroes, however, this was a harder battle in the South. Faced with just as much resistance for equality the South began to give way. One of the reasons was that Negroes generally did not own their land; conflicts arose within the Alliance when Black farm laborers would strike for higher wages – they were striking against farm owner members of the Alliance. In addition, in the Railways, they chose not to allow Black railroad employees into their Unions. When the Railway Union called for a strike and the boycott of Pullman cars, they did not have the support from the multitudes of Black laborers and therefore lost effectiveness.  Playing to a two party political system, the Democratic Party eventually absorbed the Populist Party. 


There is much learned from the Populist Movement that grew out of the Farmers Alliance. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to form a movement I would be weary of affiliating or having too many ideological roots with the Populists. Digging for the truth, in this case, involves discovering not only the purpose of such an association; understanding why it came to be in the first place, but also how it evolved. And especially if its existence is not noted in recent history; understanding why an organization created to defend the equal and fair treatment of the working class no longer exists. Reasons I give are simple on their surface; however, grow more complex when contemplating man's existence as being in constant flux; ever evolving towards that which is unclear for most of us.
 
Historians site a Populist backlash, one can say, brought on by the Populist. Early on leaders of the Alliance sought to include Blacks in its mission statement and member ranks. However, as the Alliance grew out of the more liberal Midwest, using the terms more and liberal loosely, and progressed into the South, they faced a population still struggling with their Civil War defeat, the end of Slavery, and Blacks as equals; the white male ego had a strong hold of its notion of superiority. The tenacious South refused black equality. The eviction of White tenants of the crop-lien system replaced with black tenants, caused racial tensions to ignite, and hence alliances between whites and blacks eventually withered. Recall most Blacks and poor Whites were laborers or tenant farmers (Sharecroppers) a legalized form of slavery. This modus operandi would never be a way to improve one's life; this system never meant to profit the tenant, it kept him in a circle of credit and debt; always owing to the Owner, "The Man".

White men like Tom Watson of the Georgian Populists sought racial equality, at first. ("You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings…" A People's History of the United States. H. Zinn, p291) But as Watson came against uncomfortable opposition he eventually became a supporter of racism. Now, as the Alliance became the Populist Party, this want of racism, the belief that all men are not created equal, became a playing card for the Democrats. The Democrats knowing that many of the Farmer's were good ole' boys of the South, still hanging on to the hatred of racism, used this to sway farmers away from the Populists Party. Eventually voting laws put into place kept Black citizens out of the voting process. However, these same devices – the requirement of land ownership, poll taxes, and literacy tests, also worked against the poorest of whites, and that was no oversight.

The Alliance and hence the Populist Party was a chance to align the desires of, in contemporary terms, Upper Middle, Middle, and Poor Classes – both black and white - against the monopoly of the rich elite who had the government's cooperation. Howard Zinn in his epic history book "A People's History of the United States", states that the Democratic Party played on the racism that they knew already existed amongst farmers of the Populist Party, winning them away from the Alliance. And if you consider the terms Modernity and Post Modernity (et.al.) to demarcate times of notable human evolving, you can see in the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration's influence American Constitution's Bill of Rights claims of equality both the growth and limitations of human's thoughts and feelings. "All men are created equal…" excluded women and people of color considered with no higher regard than a farm mule.

This documented contemplation of equality amongst humans is a point in the evolution of our thoughts and feelings, however, as an exclusionary device shows the limitations of this advance. But if these men had not been so forth right in their ignorance, spelling it out in the Declaration and later in the Constitution, instead of letting it exist as an unspoken doctrine – would we then have had something so specific to aim our desires of evolving further? Real history documents that before the ink was even dry critical voices from women, blacks, and the poor masses arose.


Divested by personal interests the Populist Movement eventually lacked strength in numbers. What could have been an inclusive tour de force representing every working class citizen was whittled down to a small voice in the cacophony of the Democratic Party. The chance to stand as one against the tyranny of aristocratic monopolies was lost to man's inability to see equality over personal gain. The mind obviously not evolved enough. They failed to see that the wealthy elite had created the room of the Golden Calf with floors bedazzled with emeralds, ceilings clustered with diamonds, and walls of mirrors. The promise of utopia was in that room. They couldn't understand that just as they were being tempted by all that glitters and promises, and wanted to pass through that door, that others too would want to come in.

The promise room of the Golden Calf isn't big enough to fit us all. Yet we'll keep pushing and pushing, because we're starving outside that door, because everything is devoted to making that room bigger for the ones inside. But there are not enough emeralds and diamonds in the world to grow that room, and those glass mirrors keep shattering from the crush of reality.

Had things gone differently, had the white farmers, tradesmen, and laborers seen the truth – the belief of inequalities bringing about a tiered system of oppression; that their worry was bound with the worry of all people regardless of sex or the color of skin – would this Yoke, that feels here but distant and shrouded, be with us today?

The truth was never widely publicized, why the historians hired by the government educated the children of the 19^th and 20^th Centuries based on a selective history. To do otherwise would have unveiled those shrouded Yokes you are wearing, it would have implied that the country with Lady Liberty as her mascot was just as much an oppressor as any of the regimes we claimed as enemies of liberty, justice, and democracy.
To tell the truth to the people would have awakened them to the fact that working as one we could accomplish as much, but most likely more. Divided, as we were, blinded by hatred and misunderstanding - our weaknesses preyed upon, they knew that they could separate people, convincing them of their individual interests as being something separate from the interest of every American citizen.

Oration & Public Discourse on 'Race'

Part II. 'Race' Within the Political Sphere

The topic of Obama, his pastor and Obama’s speech on 'race', in the media had quieted. That is until Hillary took the opportunity at a Pittsburgh news conference - she had stayed silent on the touchy subject, however, when the question was posed she addressed it rather than saying it is unfortunate, and then move on. Later, she replied at a news conference reading from prepared notes.

I have already raised two questions here. First, why should Hillary Clinton avoid discussing the issue (especially when I just espoused, why we need to talk about it more.)? Secondly, what is at risk when a politician “takes sides” on a matter that reaches beyond the surface of a “what is right and what is wrong debate”?

The foremost reason why Hillary should stay off the subject is her motives. She suffers from “campaign convolution”. Her motive is to spell political disaster for Obama. "I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor…” says Hillary, her remarks almost sound childish, too impish to be dealing with a subject that bares the weight of the conscience of American people. She should have resisted the temptation to use this to her political advantage, instead she would forsake a serious matter in order to grab votes.

The politics of tactics should never be the tactics of politics,

it is morally and civilly wrong. Had she denied to comment on the situation - her silence acknowledging that further antagonistic commentary could prove to be unsound political tactics for an America that desperately needs to come together - Hillary may have garnered much more respect in that form. Her objective is not to understand the situation, but to scheme away to use it to her advantage. Once again Hillary Clinton has given us another shining example of her polarizing practices.

The votes she would gain in this particular situation are the votes of white people who are on the line about actually voting for a black man. She might just as well say, “Don’t vote for a black man, because deep down he doesn’t like you, just listen to what his Pastor preached.” Her comparison of Imus' remarks and the sermon clips of Wright only further helped to misinterpret the situation. The portrayal of Wright as this hate mongering black religious-militant harks back to the fear imbuing rhetoric of the Jim Crow Era.
Clinton's proselytistic design is to divide and conquer for her own personal success, rather than the success of society. She is jaded with desperation in her pursuit to win the democratic nomination - this is her campaign convolution. She is thick headed with lust for control.

Hillary is only addressing the outer layer of the subject. The matter, which lay beneath, is the issue of 'race' - not only the history or the Pastor Wright’s words, but the reality of how American’s feel about different 'races'. It is an issue that we stay away from because it is too hot to hold. Or we ice it for daily unity but the ice melts away and reveals the hotness. The debate; the reality that we have yet to put out the fire that heats the topic of “Race”. We haven’t dealt with the lasting influence, the enduring feelings, and as we stand under one flag and sit at the same counter, and pray with and marry at the same church, we are still divided. We are divided deep within. We are tolerant but not understanding. We are aware of the issue and entwined with avoidance. This is the American way; we are passive aggressive to a fault and this is what Hillary forsakes.

Obama has opened the door, America has the opportunity to begin anew in an open public discourse in which our politicians are actively involved, functioning as they should – as leaders of our foray into the realm of the public “mind”. One candidate is looking for the opportunity to partition, while the other is searching for a path to unity.

Oration & Public Discourse on 'Race'

Part I. Talking 'Race' in America

It was not my intention that my blog entries stay within the context of the upcoming election. However, as I easily predicted in my last entry, 'race' was going to inevitably become a bigger issue in the current political sphere. Just the same, to have the opportunity to ground my discourse on 'race' within the context of current events as they unfold is too irresistible, and academically unwise. In addition, I feel that more discussions need to be taking place in academia and in public discourse on how destructive political tactics can be and all for the sake of grabbing votes. Scheming marketing tactics forsake the lived reality of Americans; party unity is put at risk in the process, more importantly the unity of American people is at risk.

Predictably Senator Obama would have had to address some issue revolving around 'race'. 'Race' is still a touchy subject in America and that is precisely why direct discussions up until now have been at a minimum. It would have been nice if straight talk about 'race' arose out of something more positive. But when something sits unresolved and within the civic sphere is tacitly perceived as a touchy subject, and avoided for that reason, it becomes more likely because of its passive nature that a negative pressure will cause the subject to come to surface. That negative pressure was the controversy surrounding Obama’s Pastor. I don’t know if my reactions to Wright’s sermons would help the argument here, I would save that for its own addressing.

In a recent speech Obama has publicly denounced his Pastor’s harshest words, however, not his ties to the Pastor or the church. Despite the negative pressure that has forced this American burden to the forefront of public discourse, it has not fully succeeded, rather Obama seized the opportunity to address the issue of 'race' in America in a positive framework. He took the wise opportunity to open discussions as to why the “Pastor Wrights” of America preach such fiery sermons condemning “America”, and how many white Americans preach their own fiery sermons.

Barack Obama's speech will be seen as historically significant. Not since Eisenhower, and the days of the Kennedys has 'race' in America been directly addressed.

America’s political sphere has been under the influence of Ronald Reagan’s dastardly tactics of blaming black people for the downfall of American values and fiscally overburdened local and federal governments.

In order to grab democratic voters Reagan knew he couldn’t use the tactics of men like Governor George Wallace. His new ultra conservative politics gave Americans something and as it turns out someone to blame for their economic woes. It didn’t take a fool (or did it?) to realize hidden in Reagan’s speeches was the persons to blame. A smart man, Reagan stopped just short of leading the rabbit to the carrot – two words were omitted from his dialogue: Black People. Demographic factors like teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, AIDS, and prison statistics have always been a focus of democrats, not all but enough. And black people have continually, since the end of segregation, been at the top of those lists, but racial inequalities as the direct cause has been avoided in national debate. We all know that 'race' relations are a problem in this country and while we address the issues that have tumbled head long out of an era racist genocide, and I deliberately use heavy terminology, we fail to discuss how you and I and our thoughts exacerbate the problems.

As the black population in America continues to dominate the high side of disparaging national statistics and the low side of statistics that demonstrate growth, you can simply ask why?, or, digging deeper, you can ask a second question: What is the one thing we haven’t done enough of? We haven’t talked about it, directly, squarely in the eyes, and the it is how “race” dominates public space, employment space, and most importantly the space within our minds. This is a proposition to all people not just white people. Black people too have to ask themselves: Why do some of us succeed and many more languish? Why were some of us able to beat the odds and lift ourselves up and far away from an era of hate and injury?, and why do some of us live in the “backwoods” of New Orleans poor as poor can be with a 5^th grade education or even with a high school diploma? We can start by understanding how ethnicities today perceive the other - 'Race' Relations.

While it is true Obama’s speech was a political move nevertheless with the intention of “band-aiding” something forced upon him. Whereas Hillary’s motives were purely selfish (And, how would she tackle the issue?) what would be the perceived level of the orator’s sincerity? Furthermore, who better to address such issues? Perhaps Obama has the advantage, considered a black man even with a white mother, however, the advantage is not unfair it just is. What Obama’s mother and father created was a human being, society and science created his racial identity. So perhaps his speech was motivated by politics, but I have no doubt that at the heart of the subject matter Mr. Obama’s heartfelt sincerity lay entangled with it.