Taking Another Rip

Charles Barron called this morning, wading in on the Al Vann/ David Yassky/ 11th Congressional brouhaha. He took the expected Baronesque position: that Yassky shouldn’t run, and that the seat should be in black hands. And just as Al van Winkle, Annette Robinson, Major Owens and company, Barron doesn’t get it. His biggest flaw is that he lets his obsession with 'race' trump his common-sense, near everytime downfield. 

If this situation was reversed, and Yassky was a black person running against 3 whites, with the demographics of the district also reversed, what do you think Barron would be doing right now, if white electeds were calling for the black to withdraw from the race?  You tell me (as if we all don't know).

Charles is as full of shit as the rest, relative to this issue. The same blinders that he accurately accuses white men of having (relative to racism ), is the same blinders he is wear ing now. Racism is racism, wheter it's coming from black or white. Blacks just try to justify theirs using history as a cover. This is so tragic, and I call upon all the black candidates in this race, to distance themselves from the racial antics of Al van Winkle and comapny.

So come this Saturday morning, all the elected officials of Brooklyn who are black, are expected to assemble at Concorde Baptist Church, to deal with the state of black-Brooklyn. It is said that Al Sharpton will be there, and he is expected to make an anti-Yassky statement for the camera crews. And when Sharptongue shows up, you could only imagine the race-based drivel that will follow. As we used to say in Trinidad, “Lord have mercy, please send down Percy”.

How many summits must we have before real action is taken, in an attempt to unmetastasize a pained black community? How many press conferences must be called before we stop these blow-hards from prognosticating and expostulating? How many million-this-or-that-or-the-other marches must be called before real action is taken at policy-level? How many more Travis-Smiley-styled events do we need to impact on governmental budgetary considerations? You tell me.

How many more years must we suffer through unimaginative representation from black electeds, before our communities are organized to fight back on a larger scale? Yes, there are individuals and small groups struggling silently in forlorn pockets, trying their best to address major concerns, but they need help. Big time help. How many more egoistic displays before network camera-crews must it take, before black legislators show some creativity and get it right? Pray tell. I am waiting.

On Saturday however, you can expect more of the anti-Yassky garbage that was spewed by Al Van–Winkle and his pathetic crew earlier this week. These folks will try to prevent a white-Jewish man, from exercising his constitutional right to run for office in an area where he legally qualifies to run. And they take this stance seemingly oblivious to the immorality of their position-take. If we were to carry their position to its logical conclusion, then blacks should never run for statewide office anywhere in the USA.

We (blacks) are less than 13% of the US population (officially), and given the specious and flawed logic of the  Al van  Winkle crew, someone like Ron Dellums for example, shouldn’t have even tried to run for Congress, far less get elected with the help of many white voters. Furthermore, if people were to only vote by race (as covertly suggested by these officials), then we blacks in New York City, would still be waiting for our first black mayor- we are less than 30% of the city’s population. David Dinkins won with the help of many Hispanic, white, Asian and other ethnic voters. Sure he captured the vast majority of the black votes, but those votes alone couldn’t put him over the top. The Dinkins scenario replicated ones in Chicago (Harold Washington) and Los Angeles (Tom Bradley). In most major cities where we have had black mayors, it was done with help from voters who were not black. Senator Obama didn’t get to Washington with only black votes.

Let’s take it farther; if a black man or woman lived in a district where blacks made up less than 25% of population, then it doesn’t matter if he was the most capable, qualified or experienced, he shouldn’t run for Congress. No matter how well he or she articulates the issues, no matter their expertise or acumen, no matter the credentials, no matter the vision, that seat belonged to the group with the largest raw population number. How absurd!

In my last post, I suggested that there are other ulterior motives to all these moves by the Vann crew. I even suggested one or two, despite their explanations. Some people are speculating that all this is being done, as a precursor to an all out push to deliver this seat to Carl Andrews. We shall see. But whatever the true motives let me state this: THE RIP VAN WINKLE CREW IS FULL OF SHIT. And here is more evidence why.

Remember in my last post, I took you through a litany of seats where the black population had anything from 40% to almost 90% and was represented by whites, while these “concerned” black-electeds stood idly by; well there are other seats with similar demographics and similar dispositions. For example; in the year 2000, Larry Seabrook ran against Elliot Engel, for a congressional seat (Bronx) where blacks made up the highest population group. Whites were roughly the same in numbers, as in the 11th Congressional district right now (twenty-something per cent). Did the Van Winkle crew ask Engel to give it up? Nope. Have they ever pressured Crowley (Bronx/Queens) to give up his Congressional seat to the Hispanics? No. And why not? Don’t the Hispanics count? Does Latino-empowerment matter? Or maybe not as much as black-empowerment?

Let’s look at Brooklyn again. Darryl Towns occupies a seat where the majority population group is Latino. So too does VITO LOPEZ. In Queens, there are seats occupied by whites, in districts where the majority happens to be Hispanic (see Lafayette and Sabini). Where are the voices for empowerment? In Manhattan, Eric Schniederman sits in a Senate seat with another Latino majority. And while there, can we forget the many years of Stanley Michaels? Look, there are other seats with similar situations that have evolved over time; this whole “empowerment” argument is nothing but a crock. It should be exposed for what it really is: reverse racism. Decent folks of every race should condemn this behavior.

All I know is as this: as I write this article, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is projecting that there are two and a quarter million people in prisons and jails, all across the USA. Of this figure, close to one million are black males. Add to this figure another one hundred thousand black women, and a stark picture is painted about a community in need-if only on this one plain alone (and there are other areas of concern, many other areas). Yet, I don’t see the fire-trucks, the ambulances, or the emergency vehicles, racing to the scene of need. I don’t hear the alarm bells ringing, nor see the panic-buttons being pushed, even here in black-New York, that represents a microcosm of this cataclysm.

Here in New York, where almost half of all black men are unemployed or unemployable, we have elected officials wasting time with this bullshit. Don't they have better things to do? Shouldn't they be advancing new ideas aimed towards solving the many problems facing us here in this city? But we have a bigger problem in the black community; you see as a collective, we  tend to let pastors, pimps, prostitutes, preachers and politicans off the hook. Maybe it's because we  really cannot discern the differences amongst them. We need to address this. NOW. We need to hold them all to higher standards. NOW.

 If you look at the comments section in any of my posts, you will see that whenever I hold the feet of black-electeds to the fire of responsibility, that their minions write in calling me names. They never attack the facts I raise, nor do they attack my ideas or  my analysis in specific detail, but they attempt to attack me personally, by hiding behind the 'anonymous' cover. They cannnot attack my historical records because I am meticulous. Plus, I was there for most of the events I write about. I have written almost three dozen articles here to date; I have a record that's visible to everyone (just click here,on this site, on my name /under "bloggers"), and yet yesterday, one of their "hachet-men" said something I must share with you (see Rip van Winkle post). This individual claims that all the Afro-American electeds in Brooklyn think that I am a "wacko cracko".He proffers that he knows them all. Well, if so,if true, then I offer my columns as evidence in the determination of who is wack, and who is cracked up. You be the judge.

TRUTH BY ITS VERY NATURE IS CONTROVERSIAL.

Stay tuned.