Sunday, July 01, 2007
Video of Democratic Forum on PBS
View Video of the Democratic Debate hosted by PBS and moderated by Tavis Smiley.
The video is broken into sections that you can find on the right of the video page.
View Here
There is not much that I can add to what has already been mentioned by the AAPP and others.
But a few things that stood out for me:
1. Richardson actually came up with an excellent proposal...something that I have thought about- and that is a minimum wage for teachers in this country. Raising the pay standard across the board could bring more of the best and the brightest into the profession, and could be a benefit to children- especially those in the inner-cities.
2. None of the questions from the moderators centered on the issue of U.S. foreign policy. The Darfur question only slightly focused on the wider foreign policy problem. How could Smiley and his colleagues not understand the connection between foreign policy and domestic policy? MLK understood this connection very well, and spent considerable time speaking on it particularly in 1967 and 1968. Unfortunately not enough Black journalists and commentators or "leaders" today seem to understand the connection.
But luckily Kucinich and Gravel didn't fail to cover this point, even when the question was not directly asked. They made sure to highlight the need to fundamentally change foreign policy in order to free up the resources to deal with domestic policy. The other candidates were mostly giving lip service. On one hand they have hinted/ talked about maintaining, or in some cases expanding, the American Empire if elected, yet they are making all of these domestic promises. DON'T BUY IT! They will have a hard time doing both.
Kucinich was right to change the focus towards domestic issues, especially healthcare and education. Kucinich basically explained how he would pay for what he talked about, while the other candidates made no such committment. Now I probably would not make drastic cuts to the military.... (we need to maintain a strong defense).... but even stopping the military adventures would be huge...without the 15% cut in the military. JUST STOP THE WAR...and don't make any new ones that we don't need. This war in Iraq has costed the U.S. nearly half a trillion dollars. Most experts believe that the final tally will be more than $1 trillion. And it has already lasted longer than WWII. Not to mention the loss of life among American soldiers, American contractors, and Iraqi civilians (who have suffered the most), and the shattered lives of friends, relatives...and particularly families here at home.
But Black America MUST come to understand the link between foreign policy and domestic policy. This forum could have and probably should have spent one third to a half of the allotted time on foreign policy issues. That half a trillion dollars represents money that could have gone towards funding domestic needs such as Universal Healthcare, Education, job creation for urban communities, job training centers all across the country, improving social security, making the U.S. more competitive in a more global economy, and so forth.
So I was disappointed about the lack of focus on foreign policy and how foreign and domestic policy are linked.
3. There was not enough time spent on outsourcing. Globalization and the outsourcing of jobs will probably impact African Americans the most. In the future....many of the entry level jobs that African Americans could use to enter the workforce will be less available... outsourced overseas for the cheaper labor. African Americans will also be impacted by the importation of cheap labor in the future, while good entry level employment will be shipped away at the same time. Black folks will catch hell coming and going.
I noticed that Tavis & Co. steered clear of tackling the immigration issue.
I was also concerned about the Supreme Court decision.... but I didn't panic. Justice Kennedy's decision was based on a few narrow issues. The Court didn't completely gut Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka. Perhaps we have reached a period where putting more weight on economics may be an even better factor to look at when determining how & where to teach children. In the 40's and 50's, when we first began chipping away at school segregation and unequal treatment... we were living in a world where race was the overriding factor for excluding us... The economic argument would not have worked then. But now.... I think economics may be the variable that is hurting schools and students most. African American "leaders" must also express the importance of education to African American families... and show it as an important ingredient for improving lives and achieving dreams. But we will surely be better off if the next President can nominate more moderate justices for the Supreme Court. Whether this decision is eventually reversed or not... the focus should probably shift towards economic background as a bigger and better determining factor for deciding how to educate children, especially those from poor communities.
And lastly, candidates actually got it right when they mentioned making education a Constitutional right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Angry Independent:
If "THE WAR" is what is draining the resources to provide quality education for our children............what was life like BEFORE THE WAR? Was there an overabundance of funding for Education?
Historic Federal Education Funding
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/images/kafer2.gif
Where as the commentators on NPR viewed the AIDS related comments from Senator Biden as "most offensive" I personally believe that Hillary Clinton's patronizing comments deserve this classification DESPITE the standing ovation that she received from the audience.
Where as Biden stopped short of saying that he went into the Black ghettos, pulled down the pants of Black men and installed a condom on their tool personally in an effort to show that "he cared" about their health and would do anything that is necessary to counter their seeming irresponsibility in the matter........Hillary Clinton continued in her unskilled pandering to Black folks that she started in Selma AL several months ago.
In sounding very much like the operatives from the Civil Rights Industrial Complex she noted that "if the HIV infection rate for WHITE WOMEN which was the leading cause of their deaths were the case as it is with Black women there would be more of a national outrage". Of course - those who's script she was using stoop up with fervent applause.
But wait a minute - Mrs. Clinton are you saying that there has NOT been the funding that was the case when "AIDS was a Gay White Man's Disease"?
HISTORIC FEDERAL AIDS FUNDING
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/Images/PWA+PDAP.gif
So, inspecting deeper.....if the MONEY SPENT between the time where AIDS mostly effect G.W.M. and now where Black Females are disproportionately impacted how does Hillary Clinton PROVE her contention other than it not being her intent to have to prove it? That she, being aware of the construct of the audience which stood before her, knew what they wanted to hear spouted off a "Yeah Girl, I know thats right!" type of a comment to pander to those she knows how to draw upon.
How might there be a difference expressed between back then and now IF Hillary's charges were correct, the "More Money" charge having been taken off of the table.
Worst yet - What is the BLACK COMMUNITY'S response knowing that Black women are MORE impacted by HIV infections? Thus far "Wrap It Up" has been promoted where we are not going to JUDGE the context in which you have sex....the permanency of the relationship that you have with this person, the frequency of different partners, the introduction of RISK ANALYSIS prior to you engaging in an act with a person who's status you do not know.....we only need to provide you with a prophylactic device to insure that the infected body fluids from another being is not intermixed with yours. No judgment allowed.
Someone please tell me how Hillary's charges are carried out in POLICY?
[quote]And lastly, candidates actually got it right when they mentioned making education a Constitutional right.[/quote]
Please detail this RIGHT.
I am not talking about if it IS or IS NOT.
I am talking about how this RIGHT is expressed. I assume that you are speaking of QUALITY of the expression of this right and thus the bulk of the fight among Black folks if such a Constitutional Amendment would be focused on looking at WHITE schools and noting what they have and thus demanding your RIGHTS to them..............instead of looking within Black schools and MANAGING the environment that is within so that an ACADEMIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENT is crafted within the school.
I am opposed to the notions of a Constitutional Educational RIGHT because of the general tendencies of those who are prone to operate under the CLAIM of "Working in the Best interests of Black schools" but would actually spend more time inspecting WHITE schools. All of this assumes that a RESOURCE GAP is the essence of the problem while at the same time they would not be able to tell us what "Black schools need to do" to bring about academic excellence.
For some reason the past history lesson that a law is just something on a piece of paper and that White folks would not en masse depart from a government operated school system if and when that same government begins to use their kids as social engineering projects. Do you really believe that this law, which will no doubt show up with less signs of Black school receiving dramatically MORE but instead will be shown as White schools receiving caps upon what their communities are able to invest in their own children's education would NOT lead to the destruction of the Public school system and bring upon more granular government control of the spending of one's money?
Where as most of the other constitutional amendments were focused upon the God given rights that government is not allowed to abridge this, along with the list of other Jesse Jackson Jr proposed amendments work to make this nation's constitution a list of entitlements.
Post a Comment