The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

I grew up in Detroit…. A young & ambitious Kwame spoke @ my graduation, & soon after, everyone dubbed him our “savior.” Detroit has been the political system’s “bitch” too long to remember. The mention of its name immediately warrants grim & fearful remarks…. there’s no hope there, & there’s no sense of security. I hope that it gets better one day, but I don’t see how b/c no one even appreciates or really cares about the city…. it’s the northern New Orleans.

What do democrats have to do with it? Would it make you feel better if it were black republicans screwing up inner cities? Name me a black republican that has done any better correcting the problems of any inner city.

What do democrats have to do with it?

You are asking questions where you already know the answer. If you can’t address this fact head on instead of taking the “yeah, but…” route, it would be best if you left this one alone.

What are you talking about?.. I asked two very simple questions. There is nothing cryptic about them and neither containd “yeah, but…”. I would have to live inside your head to know the answer to them. Only you know why wish to associate power hungry, dumb, idiotic politicians only with democrats. The issue is obviously that the problems in the inner cities are HUGE problems that are going to take some thought, some problem solving skills, and some time. But we keep electing pimps, hustlers, and preachers that don’t know what the hell they are doing. And that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

What are you talking about?.. I asked two very simple questions.

Oookay! You have spent how many months on this site defending Democrats/Obama and blasting conservatives for their stances POINT-BY-POINT-BY-POINT. Yet when faced with the issue that the “pimps, hustlers, and preachers” you are referring to 99% of the time are Democrats, now all of a sudden you don’t have the slightest clue of what I’m talking about.

The issue is obviously that the problems in the inner cities are HUGE problems that are going to take some thought, some problem solving skills, and some time.

And again, what party has been touting that line for decades while in control of these areas with minimum results?

And again, what party has been touting that line for decades while in control of these areas with minimum results?

Sure as hell not Republicans because they don’t give a damn about the inner cities and offer no solutions at all. Offer some solutions and maybe republicans can recruit just as many pimps, hustlers, and preachers as the democrats… Maybe that will make you happy.

And I am just as critical of Democrats as Republicans (I know, I know, that’s your line)… But I REALLY can’t stand either one of them.. The majority of both of them are corporate slaves. Just because I push back against your rants does not mean I’m a big bad liberal… I’m liberal on some things.. Conservative on others and I’ll argue either position if I feel I’m right.

Just because I push back against your rants does not mean I’m a big bad liberal

Who is suggesting that? I’m just going by your stated voting record (For Wesley Clark last go-around, now for Obama–not exactly conservatives).

I’m liberal on some things.. Conservative on others and I’ll argue either position if I feel I’m right.

Or when it is expedient.

Wow!! Let me know when you really start arguing for “conservative” issues.

Why is it so hard for Democrats to acknowledge their faults unless they are comparing themselves to the faults of Republicans (this is a retorical question)? I would think that regardless of what side you are on, that side should be able to stand on its own–faults and all.

Everyone has their favorites in this race. To dodge from that fact when your ‘favorite’ is cornered is plain dishonest.

Neither Wesley Clark nor Obama are Ultra-liberal… In fact Clark used to be a Republican… Also the first president I ever voted for, my first year in college, was Ross Perot… So there you go… I took a lot of flak for that from my roommate too.

Wow!! Let me know when you really start arguing for “conservative” issues.

If I agree with something I usually just read it and move on… No need to comment.. And 99% of the time you are approaching issues from the right. The 50% of the time that I agree with you, you don’t hear from me much. The other 49.9% of the time I’m very vocal in my opposition… So there you have it. As usual the problem is you .

Neither Wesley Clark nor Obama are Ultra-liberal…

But they are liberal. Look, ‘liberal’ is not a bad word. Why is it so hard for you to accept where you are on the political spectrum I will never know. If that is the ideolgy you prefer, than stand with it. When they screw up, don’t defer the blame to someone else or try to negate it. Republicans and Conservatives regularly get applauded by the left when they rail on their own, but for some reason the reaction is not the same when it happens on the other side.

I never said liberal was a bad word… I mock the conservative slant on what liberal means for sure… Because it is absolutely ridiculous… But as I said, I’m liberal on some things.. Conservative on others… As a matter of fact, most people are, and these labels are just plain stupid (not the first time I’ve said that). I consider myself to be independent (I’m sure you would probably disagree)… I certainly lean more towards democrats but A good idea is a good idea. I don’t really give a **** what side came up with it. If republicans had more ideas that I agreed with then I would be one. Unlike you, I’m not out to demonize the whole party. And as you know, if you rant on a “liberal” issue that I happen to agree with, I have absolutely no problem “standing with it”.

Anyway… I quit.. We obviously won’t see eye to eye on this. My position is there are good and bad politicians on both sides and they all do the same things. Nothing in this post is specific to democrats only, except for the fact that they actually show up in these neighborhoods. Republicans could at least show up with some good ideas before they try to criticize what democrats are trying to do.

We obviously won’t see eye to eye on this.

This is not an “eye to eye” issue. I pointed out the fact that it is okay to point out these problems in mostly Black-operated local governments just as long as you do not use the word “Democrat”. And as you demonstrated, your knee jerked the moment I pointed out which party has been in control of these areas. Had I left out the word “Democrat”, you would have probably Amen’d me and this author out of the building. Tie Democrats to the same problems and all of a sudden “both sides are guilty”. While Republicans have screwed up royally in these past few years, for decades Democrats have been in control of mostly poor Black/Hispanic communities. Just as Republicans can be blamed for not aggressively going after this demographic, Democrats share a greater part of the load for under-performance after being DIRECTLY in control of these communities for decades. If you cannot face that fact without pointing out the faults of the other side, then perhaps your side of the fence isn’t worth its salt in the first place.

Are there Democrats out there who do not fully drink the kool-aide of their party and try to address these issues from a holistic perspective? Yes, plenty of them. However, if these issues matter to you, I cannot see why there aren’t more Democrats taking their party to task on these issues instead of hiding behind the “independent’ label. The funny thing about the “independent” craze is that those under that label tend to get real excited when a conservative is being taken to task. Other way around, not as much enthusiasm from the fold (I’m speaking more from the Black political arena). If you regularly take conservatives and/or Republicans to the woodshed while at the same time will not do the same for the party you favor the most, you are a surrogate of that party–the political avatar doesn’t matter. This applies across the board.

Unlike you, I’m not out to demonize the whole party.

I point out their deeds over decades in inner-cities across America and that is ‘demonizing’? Or should I give them credit for just showing up?

Nothing in this post is specific to democrats only

Who runs much of the political machine in Detroit (since we are getting back to the post itself)?

hmmm.. I could have sworn I have said several times, in this post and several others, that Democrats suck… I’ll say it again. Democrats suck. I hope you feel better now. I don’t know how more clear I can be on that.

And I do “Amen” the original author. He is absolutely right. His article is all about BLACK PEOPLE electing other BLACK PEOPLE who are not ready to govern. I’ve seen it first hand so I KNOW it’s true. If you can tell me how the political party of either makes that equation any better then I will “Amen” your addendum to the article as well. Otherwise I don’t understand your point… Other than to say Democrats suck…. Which I concede…

p.s.
Democrats suck… (In case you didn’t read the previous two paragraphs).

I find it odd that many who say Blacks shouldn’t depend on government, point out that Democrats control the areas that they said individual Blacks should take control of. Either Blacks shouldn’t rely on government or they should. If Black dependence on government is bad, then it doesn’t matter what label is beside the name.

One problem: This isn’t an “either/or” or government dependence issue. Depending on the government to insure that tax monies are being properly spent on things like schools, public housing, safety, and other general administration task is what every American should expect. Depending on the government to make sure that your kids get up on time to go to school, to make sure folks are in their homes at a certain time, to provide services that in essence play the roll of ‘daddy’ is in my estimation a bad thing. The problem I am talking about here falls into the first camp.

…then it doesn’t matter what label is besides the name

When it becomes the norm that poor performance public schools constantly get funded regardless (and this was happening way before NCLB)…

When an organization (teacher unions) plays a key role in shuffling good teachers to the suburbs leaving poor performing schools to fight for the bottom of the pool–and that organization is regularly supported by a certain political party..

When a certain political party helps establish and enforce the 3-strikes law–a law that has disproportionally affected Black men…

When it is policy to continue to fund a system (welfare) that has a long history of helping to dismantle the Black family by making it more profitable for a family to have the father MIA…

When piss poor hospitals are kept in operation, not because a lack of funding, but because local politicians will often use poorly trained Black/Hispanic medical personnel as human shields to keep the money train rolling (I’ve talked about a least a couple of them on this site) …

When local politicians continue to enforce a ‘sanctuary city’ status despite the negative impact it has on Black residents….

All these things and others I could mention—it DOES matter which label is beside the name–especially if much of this stems from one particular party.

Again, I’m not suggesting that going Republican will miraculously solve any of this. But constantly rolling the same crooked dice every election period and expecting a legit result is ridiculous. And we have the decades of history and jacked-up local administrations to prove it.

One problem: This isn’t an “either/or” or government dependence issue.

Agreed.

When it becomes the norm that poor performance public schools constantly get funded regardless (and this was happening way before NCLB)…

Before the government is blamed, a real break down of costs involved, parental and student commitment must be assessed. Then you can go there. However, people seem to not make the same argument you are making about rural schools although their performance is suspect.

When an organization (teacher unions) plays a key role in shuffling good teachers to the suburbs leaving poor performing schools to fight for the bottom of the pool–and that organization is regularly supported by a certain political party..

Agreed but “pay for performance pay” doesn’t seem to get much traction in Republican controlled areas.

When a certain political party helps establish and enforce the 3-strikes law–a law that has disproportionally affected Black men…

OK, now doesn’t that hold for both parties? And aren’t federal judges appointed by Reagan and Bush still complaining about mandatory minimums? And, in the end, as I always say, it wouldn’t matter if those Black men doing crime, didn’t do it.

When piss poor hospitals are kept in operation, not because a lack of funding, but because local politicians will often use poorly trained Black/Hispanic medical personnel as human shields to keep the money train rolling (I’ve talked about a least a couple of them on this site) …

Now, I’m seeing issues involved that include lack of funding, indigent care expenses, and illegal immigrant care expenses. I really want to agree with you on that point, but I’m still sorting that issue out though it’s not really high on my radar.

When local politicians continue to enforce a ’sanctuary city’ status despite the negative impact it has on Black residents….

Agreed.

All these things and others I could mention—it DOES matter which label is beside the name–especially if much of this stems from one particular party.

It doesn’t when much of it is really in control of the people, not the party. Education? The people. Crime? The people. “Dependence”? The people.

The following is a pet peeve of mine:

When it is policy to continue to fund a system (welfare) that has a long history of helping to dismantle the Black family by making it more profitable for a family to have the father MIA…

This is always said but what is not said is that it was the Reagan administration who pushed lowering the amount of money that families on welfare were allowed to have in the bank without affecting payouts, thus encouraging poor savings habits. It was the Reagan administration who pushed DISALLOWING men in the homes of women who were getting welfare.

All that to say I agree with your general point but I don’t think politics is the solution to many things.