My Tribute to Phylicia - Part 1

I am not in a good mood today: Due to my self-imposed ban on watching “bad” news, I was unaware that the 16 year old North Carolina honor student, Phylicia Barnes, had gone missing in Baltimore back in December. Consequently, I experienced a sickening feeling when I noted that Donnie Simpson had posted a tribute on her behalf this morning on his Facebook page.

The lives of children are filled with “Goodbyes” from their parents—first day of school, first vacation without them, leaving for college, marriage, relocation, and too many times…death—and often those departures ignite emotions ranging from anxiety to dismay. I recall the anguish that I experienced when my son entered his first day of kindergarten—it was the first time that Linda and I had released him into the hands of total strangers. Thank God he returned unscathed, and is now an Advanced Placement sophomore in high school; however, life has not been so charitable to others.

I recall an episode of Oprah that Linda and I watched nearly 20 years ago. She interviewed the mother of a beautiful elementary school student, whose daughter had been lured into the automobile of the porter who worked at the apartment complex where they lived. He simply offered to take her to school, and little 11 years old Sophia had no concept of the notion of evil. Therefore, she hopped in the car, expecting to be dropped off a few miles from home, but to her horror he kept driving until he was 200 miles away. He dragged her into the woods; he raped her; he poured acid on her face; and then he left her for dead.

After we were told that she had gone through nearly a dozen surgeries to reconstruct her face, Oprah brought her onstage. I’ve always had trouble describing what I saw when she walked on stage, but never what I felt. What I saw was an innocent little girl whose concept of evil were animated characters who tried, but always failed to capture the good guys; but what I felt was the incipient rage that leads to murder. Sophia’s angelic face had been reduced to the sterile mold of a medical industry that had yet to acquire the skill to impersonate a human face.

To the dismay of Linda, I leaped from the sofa we were sharing and growled these words, “I could kill him!” It was the first time in my life that I had experienced the desire to murder. I do not recall what happened to Sophia’s assailant, but I have enough faith in God’s Word that guarantees that he reaped (or will reap) the calamity that he brought upon her and her family.

My son and I repeat this little ritual every night before I pray over him and bid him a great night’s sleep. We ask each other three questions: What is the most exciting thing that happened to you today; how much do you love me; and what are you going to do with God’s tremendous blessings?

I love my son enough to protect his life, even if it costs me mine or the individual who may be threatening his, and I am sure that most loving parents feel the same way. However, many of us who understand the responsibility of citizenship will also risk our lives to save people who we do not know. One of America’s unsung heroes is Arland D. Williams, Jr., the man who repeatedly gave up a rescue line for the other survivors of the Air Florida flight 90 that crashed immediately after takeoff from Washington National Airport in 1982. He drowned before the Coast Guard helicopter could return to pick him up.

Williams and many more men and women like him throw caution to the wind everyday in order to rescue those whose lives are in peril. It must be a human impulse to save the life of another, because I’ve heard heroic men and women, who have placed their own lives at risk to come to the rescue of others, say that they didn’t even think about it.

If it is an impulse for some to preserve life, what overtakes an individual to take a life?

Many people were dismayed, as I was, to hear of Phylicia’s apparent murder. However, notwithstanding that this beautiful young lady was an honors student who was due to graduate one year early to enter college and was probably as close to a perfect daughter as a parent could have, her death will go largely unnoticed in the cruel world that we live. In an age when too many children are spending 12 years in school and graduating not knowing how to respect their elders; or use the common courtesies of a civil society—please, excuse me, thank you; or work diligently for a sense of achievement, one of our promising leaders was cut down too soon.

America’s law enforcement capabilities are truly remarkable, and if a priority has been set to find Phylicia’s killer(s), it will not be long before the Maryland State’s Attorney will have a press conference announcing that the killer has been arrested. Beyond that statement, I hold out little hope that the perpetrator of this horrible murder will receive a proper sentence for his crime. Should it be a death sentence? That would be fair; however, the current climate in Maryland is to back-peddle away from capital punishment. And even if Phylicia’s executioner were to be tried in a capital case, all of the men now confined to Maryland’s Death Row were convicted of killing white citizens.

In a perfect world, Phylicia would be preparing to enter Towson State University this fall; however, unfortunately her parents are preparing for her memorial. I wrote earlier that life is filled with goodbyes, and Phylicia’s parents would have never believed that they would be saying their final farewells to her so soon; neither did I.

...to be continued

Lynching and the Star Spangled Banner

As a performer, a request to sing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl must rank up there with being nominated for a Grammy Award. To have a captive audience of more than 100 million people view your performance could cause record sales to go through the roof. The timing could not have been better for the year when Janet Jackson’s breast ended up on the menu of more than 100 million viewers during Super Bowl XXXVIII in 2004. Her Just a Little While CD had been released during the previous month, and within the next 60 days, The Velvet Rope Tour: Live in Concert and Damita Jo were being released. With a captive audience in the tens of millions, I suspect that a little promotional effort by her bosom buddy went a long way to aid record sales.

The halftime show at Super Bowl XXXVIII added the phrase “wardrobe malfunction” to the American lexicon, and the fine that was levied against CBS by the Federal Communication Commission still has not been legally resolved.

Certainly less controversial, but still a hot topic of discussion 24 hours after Super Bowl XLV, was the fact that Christina Aguilera botched a few lines during her rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. The National Anthem is hallowed to many citizens, and purposely botching it, like Roseanne Barr’s screaming version before a 1990 San Diego Padres baseball game, can tarnish one’s career. We all have our sacred cows, and when someone slaughters one of them; either intentionally as Barr did, or unintentionally as Aguilera apparently did, it forces us to examine the motives of the slayer. It is my educated guess that Aguilera simply took for granted that she could perform the most famous song in America without a rehearsal, and she simply fumbled the ball. However, there were still fans who were disappointed that she would approach the enormous stage of the Super Bowl with such patriotic indifference.

The outrage over Barr’s performance of the Star Spangled Banner graphically demonstrated how Americans often strain at the proverbial gnat and swallow a camel; the hump, the hoofs and all. Americans will display their irritation for butchering their National Anthem, but they will not raise one protest over the fact that the Star Spangled Banner embraces the discarded and discredited notion of slavery. What should be deeply troubling to all Americans of good will, but particularly to the sons and daughters of former slaves is not that Christina Aguilera butchered the National Anthem at Super Bowl XLV, but that the Star Spangled Banner condemned all runaway slaves to either torture or death:

…No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave…

Now this is deeply troubling! And in a proactive effort to rid the country of this stain, I have written a letter to my Federal Representatives – Representative Donna Edwards, Senator Ben Cardin, and Senator Barbara Mikulski – requesting that they adopt an amendment that would name another one of the nation’s patriotic songs as its National Anthem. I use the Jewish lobby as the model for national protest, because they are so effective in their opposition against anti-Semitism. Consequently, could you imagine the nation of Israel observing the lyrics of its national anthem that promoted the virtues of the Holocaust? It would be absurd! Therefore, I have asked my representatives to promote legislation that will discard this racist symbol of an ignorant past, and bring our national patriotism more in line with the multi-cultural face of America’s present.

For your information, I have enclosed a duplicate of the letter to Edwards, and I’d like to encourage you to feel free to begin your own campaign or follow-up my letters with your own support.

February 7, 2011

Dear Representative Edwards:

I am certain that your heart leaps with joy over the prospect of being an American citizen as you watch millions of people in the Middle East stand up and demand democracy; something that many Americans take for granted. It must warm your heart to see American values migrate abroad into countries that just a few years ago were opposed to the notion of self determination and democratic freedoms. I too am stunned at what will go down as one of history’s great surprises…that a spontaneous cry for freedom has erupted throughout the Middle East and Egypt. But in a cruel twist of irony, the cry for freedom by the people of the Middle East is the most perfect jump-off point for the purpose of this letter.

By now, I am sure that you are aware that Christina Aguilera “butchered” the Star Spangled Banner at Super Bowl XLV last night. I would suspect that she simply took for granted that she knew the words of the nation’s anthem and did not need to rehearse the song. Well, it can be debated on whether it was intentional or not, but that is not the reason of my letter. The incident motivated me to consider the lyrics of the National Anthem, and much to my dismay, I am stunned that our country is still clinging to vestiges of an ignorant past by naming a song our “National Anthem” which promotes the “virtues” (I use this word very loosely) of slavery and being a slave master. Verse three reads as follows:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion

A home and a country should leave us no more?

Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

When my ancestors were having their own struggle for freedom in the hostile past of the United States, there was no international support system cautioning the slave masters and our national leaders to tread very carefully in the light of the slaves' demands for freedom and justice, like there is today. Their fight was a lonely one; fraught with perils at every corner, and to think that our nation still celebrates the spirit of that opposition to freedom each time we stand at a ball park, remove our hats and place our right hands over our hearts is simply baffling to me and deeply troubling.

The best way I find to end this request is the same way I ended my previous letter to you regarding renaming the J. Edgar Hoover Building: It is time that we come to grips with the legacy of hate and indifference that continues to litter our country’s past; even if those legacies are painful to discuss. To be sure, many steps have been made in the right direction to correct America’s past injustices to its citizens of color. To find another National Anthem would be a noble objective and a fitting tribute to the spirit of dissent that birthed this nation.

In closing, I want to thank you in advance for your support, and as a citizen of this great nation, I am willing to participate in any way that you deem appropriate to have this amendment passed.

Sincerely,

David R. Tolson

p.s. Would you kindly advise me of the actions that you have taken in adopting an amendment to rename the J. Edgar Hoover Building the Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner Building?

Happy Birthday Muhammad Ali

One of the greatest athletes in American history, and arguably the greatest boxer of all time, Muhammad Ali celebrated his 69^th birthday yesterday. He mesmerized his opponents with skills never seen before in the heavy weight division. “Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee! Ahhhhhhhh! Rumble young man… Rumble… Ahhhhhhhh,” was the poetic expression that Ali and his assistant trainer, Drew Bundini Brown, would often shout at each other during times when the adrenaline charged emotions were running high; either during training or immediately preceding a fight.

In Ali’s November 1966 match against Cleveland Williams, he displayed a blend of swiftness, power and dazzling foot work, that caused some commentators to say that that was the greatest performance that he ever gave in the ring. However, some say that we will never know how good he could have been because of the almost four year’s moratorium on fighting that was imposed upon hm by the courts during his legal battle to stay out of the military.

The controversy will rage for years to come whether Ali was the greatest boxer ever. Some would argue Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Lewis, or Rocky Marciano, but one thing is without argument, Ali was more than a boxer or a poet. Muhammad Ali exhibited a quality in his life that appears to be extinct in the sport’s world: He stood-up for a principle that only those who are willing to give their life for a cause can understand. He refused induction into the United States Military at the height of his professional career. As a result of this courageous stand, the Courts denied him the right to practice his boxing trade and made him forfeit his heavyweight championship.

Ali’s refusal to enter the Army was based on his religious belief that the War in Vietnam was evil. In fact, he was vilified for ‘truth-mongering’ when he said the following:

Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality. If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years.

His stand cost him millions of dollars in boxing purses, the loss of the prime of his career and the threat of a five year prison term hung ghastly over his head. However, this did not alter Ali’s stance. In fact, he once said he would face machinegun fire before denouncing his beliefs.

While today’s top athletes can earn as much as the gross national product of third world nations, I’d be curious to know which one would risk it all for a cause. When Ali fought Joe Frazier during the first fight of their trilogy, both fighters were guaranteed $2.5 million. Based on the way promotional rights are negotiated today, that could easily be $40 million to $50 million per fight in 2008. Ali risked a lifestyle that most people only dream of, but in doing so, he ascended beyond the ring as a sport’s figure into the rare stratosphere as a world-changer. On June 28, 1971, the United States Supreme Court upheld his right to refuse to join the military based on his religious beliefs.

I may as well make a full disclosure now that Ali is my favorite sport’s personality of all time; even greater than Michael Jordan, who I loved as an athlete and greatly admired his prowess on the court as well. However, Michael refused to speak out against Nike for its exploitation of low wage earners in its manufacturing facilities in China and other Asian countries, while being the sports apparel giant’s biggest endorsement. This certainly does not make Michael evil. It simply suggests that he is willing to profit from the exploitation of others, while I believe Ali would have been a forceful opponent of sweatshops before he allowed his name to be associated with one.

Here is another disclosure – I love history for a number of reasons; not the least of which is because it is so refreshing to read about the Ali’s of the world who faced a Goliath with nothing but a slingshot and one smooth stone, because we are certainly not witnessing that type of advocacy today. Would Ali have sacrificed the 2008 equivalent of his first purse against Joe Frazier? Absolutely yes! Because men and women of conscience see beyond money and know that they were born with something that is more valuable than silver, gold or a piece of paper that we call a dollar – it’s called integrity.

Two of the great social revolutionaries in our country, Martin King and Muhammad Ali, celebrated their birthdays two days apart. There’s nothing mystical about that, but what is pretty astonishing is that both men, taking separate paths, slew the dragon they confronted, making this world a better place for us all.

Happy Birthday Muhammad Ali!

The Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner Building

History has few surprises, but when they turn up, they are normally shocking: Who would have thought that the former Soviet Union would disappear in the middle of the night without firing one bullet in self defense? Or who would have predicted just 10 years ago that America would elect a black president? Or who would have thought that Mark Zuckerberg and a couple of college friends would have created a social networking company, Facebook, which in five years would have made him a billionaire? Who could have predicted that history would unfold this way? Another historical surprise that has been troubling me for years and should trouble you is that the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation still has the name of J. Edgar Hoover tattooed on its front door.

In an effort to rid the country of this stain, I have written a letter to my Federal Representatives – Representative Donna Edwards, Senator Ben Cardin, and Senator Barbara Mikulski – requesting that they adopt an amendment that would rename the building. Senator Harry Reid attempted to fix this in 2001, but he couldn’t get the support of the Congress to pass the amendment. Could you imagine Jews acquiescing to the notion that the headquarters of the highest law enforcement organization in Germany was named the “Joseph Goebbels Building” or the “Joseph Mengele Building” or, God forbid, the “Adolf Hitler Building”? I couldn’t.

For your information, I have enclosed a duplicate of the letter to Edwards, and I’d like to encourage you to feel free to begin your own campaign or follow-up my letters with your own support.

January 12, 2011

Dear Representative Edwards:

As the country is clinging to hope for a full recovery for your colleague, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I am reminded of another dark era of America’s past when random acts of hate were commonplace on the black citizens of our country. In hindsight, descendants of the men who perpetrated these acts of violence struggle to comprehend their parents’ and grandparents’ motives for the evil that was thrust upon the black citizens of the South. And collectively as a nation, it is difficult to understand the pathology of those who would take the life of another human being for no apparent reason.

I hesitate using the national tragedy as the starting point of my letter to you, but please be aware that my prayers are with Representative Giffords, her family and all of those who she has touched during her tenure as a public servant. The outpouring of condolences for those who were killed and expressions of support from the entire country for those who were injured helps to preserve my faith in America; the home of the brave and the land of the free. Americans from all walks of life are expressing their outrage for the senseless shootings in Arizona. However, I recall with a fair amount of disappointment the lack of such outpouring of sentiment during the height of the Civil Rights Struggle during the 1960s when men, women and children suffered inhumanely while many, including those in law enforcement watched with indifference.

This brings me to the purpose of my letter: I am stunned that in 2011 J. Edgar Hoover’s name is still affixed to the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Despite the fact that he served as its director for nearly 50 years, his legacy as an opponent of the reasonable Civil Rights’ demands for equality should disqualify his name from donning any building in our Nation’s Capital. As Senator Harry Reid said in 2001 while sponsoring an amendment to strip Hoover’s name from the building, “J. Edgar Hoover’s name on the FBI Building is a stain on the building,” and I agree with that sentiment, as I suspect that you do as well. Therefore, I am requesting that you adopt an amendment with the Congressional Senators of Maryland to rename the FBI Building, the “Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner Building.”

It is time that we come to grips with the legacy of hate and indifference that continues to litter our country’s past; even if those legacies are painful to discuss. To be sure, many steps have been made in the right direction to correct America’s past injustices to its citizens of color. To rename the top law enforcement complex after three men who lost their lives engaging in the battle that J. Edgar Hoover failed to fight, would be a noble objective and a fitting tribute to the spirit of dissent that birthed this nation.

In closing, I want to thank you in advance for your support, and as a citizen of this great nation, I am willing to participate in any way that you deem appropriate to have this amendment passed.

Sincerely,

David R. Tolson

Parental Failure

Columnist Jay Matthews of The Washington Post wrote a recent article about the challenges of leadership at Dunbar High School in Northwest Washington, D.C. He applauds the move by interim D.C. Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson to return former Dunbar principal, Stephen Jackson, back on the job. He was terminated at the end of the last school year by the management firm in charge of the school, Friends of Bedford, for not pushing improvements in teaching.

Friends of Bedford produced a higher rate of reading proficiency at Dunbar than was achieved at any other high school in the District. However, notwithstanding the improvement in reading skills, Friends of Bedford was unable to get a grip on the high level of student disruptions at the D.C. school. Consequently, Henderson, with backing of Mayor-elect Vincent Gray, decided to terminate its Dunbar contract with the School System.

Matthews believes that the odds are stacked against Jackson, who had plenty of community support. However, the one ingredient missing in the School System’s effort to reform Dunbar and to create a fertile learning environment for the students is the involvement of the parent(s) of these unruly kids? While it is reasonable to expect our public school systems to produce a quality education, it must be understood that we cannot hold institutions of learning solely responsible for poor results when some parents have so woefully FAILED in their responsibility as the custodian of their child’s upbringing. And then those uncontrollable children are unleashed on society through the school system.

There are adverse consequences in a civilized society for failure: failing to pay taxes; failing to perform adequately on the job; failing to preserve fidelity in a marriage; yet those parents who have so utterly fallen short in what could be argued is the most important duty as a responsible citizen, are exonerated and often defended as assiduous members of society. We hypocritically use catch-phrases like, “It takes a village,” when in reality, the surrogate parents of today are too often entertainers who reinforce insubordinate behavior.

I was raised in a village, where if one of the neighbors disapproved of my actions in public, they had the unspoken obligation to grab me by the ear or arm and drag me to my parents. Once they explained my irresponsible behavior, either my father or mother would finish the task of disciplining. Today, if one of our neighbors snatched our child and dragged him/her home, many parents would be ready to file an assault charge, or worse yet, it would be the prelude to a fistfight.

I have argued that childhood delinquency is less a student problem than it is a leadership problem: leadership in the home and in the school system. Why don’t our school administrators have the courage to remove disruptive students from the class room and place them in alternative learning environments and then hold the parent responsible for aiding in rehabilitating that student for re-admittance back into the classroom? This type of remedy has a two-pronged benefit: it requires the attention of the parent(s); and it preserves a positive academic environment for our children who want to learn.

Do we really expect a fertile learning atmosphere when our educators are doubling, tripling, quadrupling, and quintupling as teachers, judges, wardens, police, and sadly…parents?

A Failed National Security Strategy

In response to Jeffrey Rosen’s editorial on the TSA recently published in the Washington Post, the full body scans and intrusive pat downs are beyond his descriptions of invasive, annoying, and unconstitutional. By using these tools to thwart another terrorist attack on our nation’s airlines, the TSA fails the final exam in The Art of War 101, by not giving a modicum of credit to terrorist organizations’ war-fighting capability. Every war-hardened general would warn against underestimating one’s enemies; give them credit for their strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses.

We are still at war with a terrorist enemy; aren’t we? If so, then at least give them credit for understanding that attempting another sabotage of the U.S. airline system is not a successful strategy. It certainly should not take Sun Tzu to realize that our bridges are more susceptible to terrorist attacks, as are our trains and subway systems, as are our tunnels, as are our shopping malls and restaurants, and God forbid, so are our schools and houses of worship.

What seems to be more chilling than the government’s willingness to violate our Constitutional right of protection from unreasonable searches or seizures is the fact that few citizens seem to have a problem with it. According to a Gallop Poll, conducted days after the failed 2009 Christmas Day attack on an airliner bound for Detroit, 75 percent of Americans approve of the full-body scans. My blood curdles to consider the possibility of a dozen synchronized attacks on bridges and tunnels while our security apparatus is preoccupied with toothpaste, shampoo, shoes and underwear at the nation's airline terminals.

When the Federal government can violate the Constitution – in this case the 4^th Amendment – with impunity, then I must ask, “How far are we away from waking up one morning to a police state.” I mean, for Pete sake, even the Southern landowners fought a war before they embraced the Emancipation Proclamation. Now, I’m not suggesting an armed uprising…but then, on second thought, perhaps that is what the founders of this country urged when the government becomes destructive:

…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (emphasis mine)…

Do you really think that the alter or abolish clause of the Declaration of Independence was referring to a well organized campaign to vote the perpetrators out of office; considering that the authors of that document were embroiled in an armed revolution of their own as a result of its succession from England? Anyway, I’ll leave that argument to the scholars. However, to be clear, in the day when the Federal government possessed little more than muskets in the national arsenal, an armed uprising from the citizens probably would have had a possibility of success. But in the day of the Cruz missile that can be targeted to hit the coordinates on one’s cell phone, an armed effort to unseat this intrusive government would be akin to suicide.

Unfortunately, and to our peril, unless the American citizen awakes from its deep sleep, this country will continue its somnambulist trek into a future with significantly limited rights.

Back to the indignity of full body scans and intrusive pat downs: here is a lesson from the third grade that I never forgot – lightening does not strike twice in the same place. And anyone who thinks that it does should be given a dunce cap and not control of our nation’s domestic security.

Predators Along Life's Highway - Part 1

What do Bernie Madoff and the sub-prime lenders have in common? They both perpetrated the largest securities fraud in their respective industries in U.S. history: Madoff swindled more investment capital than any fiduciary ever, and the mortgage companies nearly brought down the entire global economy with the sub-prime lending scheme. Though the two frauds were similar, the government’s response was vastly different: Madoff was sentenced to prison with a scheduled release date of November 14, 2139. If you’re keeping track of the math, that’s 130 years of a 150 year sentence. However, instead of prosecuting those in the banking industry who brought the world’s economy to a screeching halt as it teetered over the precipice of oblivion, the banking system received a massive injection of Federal funds. This bailout, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), was established under President George W. Bush, and was given in lieu of any jail terms.

TARP obligated the tax payers to purchase or insure $700 billion of “troubled assets,” mostly related to the sub-prime lending fraud. So in other words, unlike in the Madoff case, the perpetrators of the mortgage fraud got bailed out, while many of the homeowners who took advantage of these sub-prime loans were left drowning in a sea of debt. The term “underwater” directly relates to homeowners whose houses are now worth less than the amount that is owed on them.

While housing prices were rising precipitously during the early 2000s, homeowners came to expect 10-20 percent annual gains on the value of their homes. And as home values continued their steep appreciation, with no signs of a correction, the lending institutions used this fool’s gold to entice borrowers whose credit worthiness would have never qualified them for a mortgage under any reasonable lending guidelines. Although many pundits have blamed the homeowner for borrowing money they could not afford to repay, I would argue that the fault doesn’t lie with the homeowner, but the lending institutions.

It is no stretch to compare the recipients of these sub-prime loans with a 15 year old girl who is being pursued romantically by a 40-something year old man, who has all the trappings of wealth – expensive cars, large home, vacation villa, custom threads, international travel, an investment portfolio, and rubbing shoulders with world famous celebrities. Not many girls can resist being captured by one of the traps that have been set. In most states, if this man snares the 15 year-old girl and engages in sexual relations with her, it is considered rape; notwithstanding if the relationship was consensual or not, because society has determined that a 15 year old girl is not expected to be emotionally mature enough to resist such an allure.

Home ownership is the American dream; however, it was unattainable for many until that 40-something year old man came by flashing his no-interest, no paperwork mortgages during a time when home values were on a steady increase. Although we now see the consequences of what happened to those who received sub-prime loans, every bad risk borrower didn’t end up underwater. Some were astute enough and others were lucky enough to buy a home at the beginning of the real estate boom; sell it a few years later and realized a couple hundred thousand dollars windfall, and then they put that money down on a more reasonable home purchase. God Bless them; however, not everyone was so fortunate.

Who is to blame for the mess? I hear back-alley pundits throwing around words like, “stupid,” “dumb,” “foolish,” and “ridiculous,” referring to borrowers for purchasing homes that they could not afford. Sure, in a perfect financial world, where the lending guidelines are being strictly adhered to, most of those sub-prime loans would not have been made, and the economy would not have collapsed as a result of “predatory” lending practices. However, with the prospect of home ownership during an era of unprecedented rise in home values, was that 15 year old girl mature enough to remain in that low-rent, crime ridden apartment complex when that 40-something year old man was literally giving mortgages away?

In hindsight, we now see that this young girl was swept off her feet by her gluttonous pursuer; yet, instead of rescuing her from her assailant, the U.S. government defended the attacker and insulated him from his own destruction…to the tune of $700 billion. This, we were told by the Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Henry Paulson, was necessary to prevent a global economic collapse.

A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE?!

To state the obvious; “This was very serious.” It was infinitely more serious than Madoff’s ponzi scheme; and I am certainly not mitigating the gravity of his crimes. However, if we are to believe Paulson’s justification for a tax payer bailout of the banking system, then where are the Federal prosecutors who should be investigating the illicit, and possibly illegal, sub-prime lending practices? Oh, that’s right! They were busy chasing Wesley Snipes.

to be continued…

Slaying a Herd of Sacred Cows

Here we go again! The chairmen of the presidential, bipartisan deficit commission recently offered President Obama a slew of sacred cows to be sacrificed on the altar of fiscal responsibility. What makes this abomination of desolation so hypocritical is that former Clinton White House Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, and former senator, Alan Simpson (R-Wyo), have hatched a plan to send tax payers to the rescue…again, to save the country from the consequences of nearly 25 years of Conservative rule since 1980. And by the way, I am soliciting suggests for a new label to replace “Conservative.” It has become increasingly difficult to define conservatism. One of the bedrock principles of conservatism has been fiscal restraint; however, this pragmatic approach was killed long ago by President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, the consummate performer, convinced his goose-stepping followers that trickle-down would benefit the entire country. But what trickle down did was place the nation on a spending binge that nearly caused a global, economic meltdown. To be sure, Reagan’s fiscal policies did not cause the mortgage crisis, the gas crisis, the near insolvency of the U.S, automobile industry, and the banking crisis, but it was the trigger that set the entire nation on a pork-feast at the trough of hyper-deficit spending. If we consider what happened to America economically during the eight years of the Reagan Revolution, it amazes me that anyone who calls themselves a Conservative (there I go with that word again) can still pay homage to his legacy.

When Reagan succeeded President Jimmy Carter in 1981, the public debt was $998 billion, or just south of $1 trillion; however, when Reagan passed the baton to George H.W. Bush, the debt had exploded to nearly $3 trillion. This is a staggering demonstration of financial mismanagement. To place this level of reckless disregard in its proper perspective, one must consider that in eight years, Reagan tripled what it took the country 204 years to accrue in deficit spending. This is astonishing! Yet, former President Ronald Reagan is still revered in nearly mythological proportions. In fact, I understand that there is a move by Conservatives (there I go with that word again) to nominate him for a posthumous Nobel Prize.

There are three certainties in life: Death, taxes, and the requirement that every GOP leader genuflect before the portrait of Ronald Reagan that hangs in the headquarters of the Republican National Committee. Why? Because Reagan was the first president to demonstrate that you can overspend beyond your wildest imagination if you could convince the country that an enemy was looming: Reagan, of course, had the former Soviet Union; H.W. Bush had Saddam; and Dubya had bin Laden. Now watch very carefully, because the hands are indeed quicker than the eyes – During the 20-year reign of the Republican presidents since 1980, the United States has spent nearly $8 trillion on defense…you still watching?

• · Russia disintegrated without firing one single bullet in self defense;

• · Saddam was held up in a hole the size of my walk-in closet; and

• · The last I heard, Osama bin Laden was last seen walking through the streets of Anacostia.

Did you see that?

This entire performance took place; not because of the trillions that were spent, but in spite of the trillions it cost the American tax payers. According to one analysis of global defense spending, the U.S. spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined. The United States spends nearly 57 percent of all military expenditures world-wide. The runner up to this dubious honor and the bronze medal winner go to China and Russia respectively with a combined military spending of $115 billion, or 10 percent of total global military expenditures. America’s closest NATO ally, France, spends about $45 billion per year, or four percent of the total global military expenditures.

Simple mathematics shows me that NATO is getting a free ride at the expense of the tax payers in this country. So let me make sure I have this right: The presidential deficit commission is recommending the elimination of the sacred mortgage deduction; increasing the age of retirement under Social Security; eliminating “all the expensive and popular deductions,” which almost certainly means cafeteria plans, charitable contributions and childcare deductions; programs to assist the poor would be drastically cut back; and an increase in the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. To be fair, the Commission is also recommending a $100 billion cut in defense spending, but if we assume that the Military Industrial Complex will just roll over and play dead while the surgeon cuts, this would simply reduce America’s percentage of global defense spending from 57 percent to 48 percent.

But as the old saying goes, “Talk is cheap.” Therefore, in addition to my criticism of the plundering of the American treasury, I offer this recommendation: Let’s go back to where the Conservatives (oops, there I go again) ran off the track during the Reagan administration, and reduce military spending to those 1981 levels. This would erase nearly $400 billion in spending overnight, but here is the good part: The $317 billion defense budget during Reagan’s first year is still three times more spending than China and Russia combined, but what it does additionally is require NATO to shoulder more of the burden for living in a relatively safe world.

Although I do not subscribe to Marxism; I must say that Marx’s case on the misunderstood power of the working class is profound. Now that I’ve made my point, here is the overriding issue: Will you sit back and permit your congressional leaders to take the crumbs that Reagan gave you in trickle down, or will you make your political leaders accountable for the decisions that they make? Perhaps demanding that this nation’s vaunted, overpriced military capture bin Laden would be a great first step. With this nation’s almost surreal intelligence apparatus, unless bin Laden is communicating with carrier pigeon, surely we should have captured him by now…if that was a national priority. However, what seems to be most important to our leaders today is to push back the gains, benefits and amenities afforded to the working class over the last 75 years and not the capture of Osama bin Laden.

And unless a chorus of opposition is heard, over the next few years, the citizenry will be scratching their collective heads, wondering how their politicians did it to them again. Well, here is the memo in case you missed it: It is called forgetting the past.