Comments on: Amiri Baraka Supports Obama, Mau Maus in so doing….

By: Minister Faust

Minister Faust — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:41:42 +0000

Br. LKS, I will check out the radio show. I suggest you check out the growing “Obama” section on the Bro-Log. And not vote? Come ON! If only enough people voted for Nader in 2000, your country would be on a different path right now. He didn’t need to win to make a positive impact of growing an opposition party. If I were an American, I’d vote Nader, and if not Nader, McKinney.

By: Lester Spence

Lester Spence — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:54:48 +0000

Of course you can talk about responsibility in a variety of different ways. But your discussion occurs within a political context in which ‘responsibility’ has a very distinct set of political meanings. And any time you mention something remotely LIKE the term “responsibility” in a political context you have to contend with those preexisting meanings. You either acknowledge those pre-existing meanings or you don’t. But your refusal to acknowledge those preexisting meanings does NOT have the effect of erasing those meanings, anymore than my refusal to acknowledge that “race” exists ends up erasing race.

Lakoff and others have argued that a central part of the mission of progressives is to reframe political issues in a way that is more palatable and acceptable to moderates. Part of this mission is reframing what “reponsibility” means.

By: Ward Bell

Ward Bell — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:27:58 +0000

Again, I like talking with you Lester, because you help me to see different dimensions. For example, probably because of your profession, you tend to see constructs through a political lens. And deny the existence of other lens. So, if I accept your ideological construct and the lens you are using, I cannot help but come to the same conclusion you come to.

Problem is, I’m not confined to anyone’s trick bag! I’ve the power to define and to recognize that there are other meanings outside of the diad you would attempt to force on the discussion.

So I can talk about responsibility without claiming or suggesting that unresponsible black fathers are to be blamed for economic hardship — as you did in the other forum. And I can talk about it adjunctively with Government policies directed towards mitigating poverty of economic hardship. They are not mutually exclusive or the zero-sum game you also claimed.

I don’t have citations for you, but I think any reasonable person would agree that two incomes are better than either one seperately and that kids in a two-parent family stand with better odds against a whole host of possibilities — regardless of class, race, or income levels.

Some other time we should talk about what you see as the “negative role of government.”

By: The Good Doctor

The Good Doctor — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:51:25 +0000

ward, you’ve adopted the common sense conception of responsiblity.
the common sense conception of responsibility is an ideological construct that serves a very clear political purpose–to truncate the positive role of government and expand the negative role of government. it has been attached to a wide variety of punitive policies ranging from welfare repeal to three-strikes legislation to no child left behind.

to the extent that this conception of responsibility is NOT your own, then you’re confined in someone else’s trick bag. because you may very well think that you can talk about responsibility and believe that folks should be responsible and at the same time call for government intervention. but this isn’t how it’s worked politically.

give me a citation for the odds ratios. i don’t buy them. i do not believe that two incomes–for the population we’re talking about–can do anything more than stabilize and prevent slippage.

By: Ward Bell

Ward Bell — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:41:14 +0000

It’s a strawman, in my view, because it is constructed to fit your argument and not very nuanced, at that. “Responsibility” is not negated or trumped because of economic adversity and combining the resources of the now-responsible father with the unsupported mother may just address those education needs — public or private. Odds suggest that; your strawman case doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility.

Looks like I’ll be devoting at least a chapter to our conversations over the years! On the positive tip, you make me think — I just rarely end up thinking like you!

By: The Good Doctor

The Good Doctor — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:07:59 +0000

there is no strawman. if there are gaps tell me where they are.

and when that book is published.

By: Ward Bell

Ward Bell — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:12:43 +0000

“The last place we should expect balance is from a government official. Anytime you hear a government official talking about ‘responsibility’ what they are really saying is ‘we don’t want to be responsible ourselves.’”

This thinking (and the strawman case you build for brotherbrown) explain where you are coming from on the other site.

As you might expect, I agree with Keith and ultimately agree with Baraka regarding making sure Obama is elected. Abstaining from this election is a crime, in my book.

By: The Good Doctor

The Good Doctor — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:07:43 +0000

yes this is right. but i think we’re better off assuming that what we see is really what we get as opposed to believing that once he gets elected he’ll reveal who he “really is.”

By: brotherbrown

brotherbrown — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:57:08 +0000

Are you suggesting that politicians need to leave sociological issues to other institutions? I can agree with that. We arrived at this point in the 1980 presidential election when a candidate’s “morality” became a political issue, and we still haven’t quite emerged from that era.

You have to admit that Obama has to walk the finest line of all time in terms of a presidential candidate. I cannot recall guilt-by-association ever being as large a factor in an election as it has been for Obama. Religious affiliation is not a factor for McCain, (did Bill Clinton even go to church?) but Obama has to periodically reiterate that he is not a Muslim, meanwhile his church has “a problem” that gets scrutinized.

Fortunately, the process of getting elected is different than governing.

By: Lester Spence

Lester Spence — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:38:14 +0000

Here’s the issue brotherbrown.

The most important and pressing problems we face as Americans are related to energy, education, health, and economic hardship.

None of those problems are caused directly or indirectly by single parenthood.

You take one of those brothers you mention. I’m going to ignore for a second the fact that none of them were particularly attached to the women they had children with. Before birth control became widely available, this was the NORM. There’s nothing new about having a child with someone you don’t particularly care for.

I’m willing to bet that if the brother all of a sudden had an epiphany and married the woman he had the child by, he would STILL be unable to get his child a decent public education, because that requires more house than he has money for. he would still be unable to get his child a decent private education, again because he doesn’t really have the money. and of course he won’t be able to send his child to a decent college. in fact, given the energy issue–which will raise house prices, fuel prices, utilities, and food (because it has to be transported from somewhere), i’m not sure how he’s going to have a roof over his family’s head.

now where in all of this is black parental responsibility?

do you see what I’m talking about? this isn’t some nightmare, this is the new reality. and we need a president who will speak TRUTHFULLY about what this new reality is.