Because I believe in treating everyone -- including those with whom I disagree -- fairly and humanely. I understand that you view the situation through a particular prism.

The doktor's intimate complicity in American foreign policy would be a sufficient prism in this case.

Mine differs; my family and my world has always been multi-ethnic, and I loathe conforming to anything for the sake of conformity.

Good. You'll fit in right nicely hereabouts Natalie, welcome to the porch. We not only have background in common, but you get my immediate respect for sharing the temerity to post in your own name

But how do you know she has abandoned the friends, family, and community in which she was raised? As Eugene Robinson wrote, Rice grew up apart from "average" people.

Because I'm familiar with more than one such appointee and have personally observed that alienation from the interpersonal communion of blackness is a prerequisite for admission. Not my rules, but the fact of the matter is that she cannot belong with us and belong to them.

Look, I'm no fan of Condi's policies.  But face it, although her policies are undeniably shortsighted & downright nefarious you have to give her SOME credit for being able to play the game  - even it is only for her benefit (does/should one play the game for someone else?).  Remember Condi the NSA?  "I believe the name of the document was 'bin Laden Determined to Attack America'." Think about it, isn't it a [twisted] measure of some progress that not even SHE was fired after Sept. 11????  At least she puts on a more accurate "face" on America.  I know this may not mean much to some of you, but to those of you who have lived abroad you KNOW that worldwide perception is as important as domestic reality. 

As to the comment about her not bringing anyone black w/ her to State, those wacky neo-con views are only completely followed by a alavish, but powerful minority.  There are black conservatives, but how many black neo-cons are there?  Condi would only help her own ideological progeny anyway.  That's how Washington works.

I smell the odor of "sell-out" in this article & don't really like it.  Hell, I'm a liberal/progressive & don't necessarily subscribe to our traditional views on identity politics. 

 Do you believe it possible P6 that one's background could doom one to being generic?

Truly attending to truly collective needs never does...it simply sets the platform from which you launch your individual endeavors.

Morally-well people don't abandon friends, family, and community based on politial disagreement.

Morally-well people don't describe political disagreement as rejection.

Morally-well people love and support one another despite political disagreement.

There are no morally well people in this country. 'Cept me. 

I concluded that there's something regarding pigmentation which seems to make some people feel entitled to that kind of thing.

That's so stupid, I get to write a whole post about it. I'll base it on a comment from the live discussion George linked.

If it was just us I'd ask what word you'd use for the commonly understood concept that is generally called "empathy."

guilt?

Okay. That seriously works. 

from the other live discussion

As a white person I can only offer my observation as an outsider, but it seems to me that leaders in the black community are hell-bent on rejecting Condoleeza Rice as a role mode becuase she isn't "black" enough to understand the problems of the black community.

Sometimes I think she understands these problems all too well. Black people sometimes seem to be so busy judging each other "blackness" that's there's no room left for the hopes and dreams that part and parcel of being human. Shouldn't dreams of achievement come first, and blackness second? Such tremendous pressure to be "black" enough, like being "feminine" used to be for women. I wonder what would happen if the black community would give this woman some well-deserved credit for trying to work within the system, rather than wholesale rejecting this approach.

the very possibility that there could exist an interpersonal communion of blackness sure does furrow outgroup brows, don't it? LOL!!! You'd think there was an historical record of some or another form of reverse jim crow, but that has never been the case among God's most exogamous people, we jes grew and some folks are simply incapable of comprehending that fact.

"Kspence, I have already noted that she is on the record as being in the GOP minority with her views on reproductive choice. But in answer to your question, mindless marching in lockstep, IMO, is always wrong. Any intelligent person would reach opinions and conclusions based on their own beliefs, values, experiences, and education. And that varies for each person, regardless of their background or physical appearance."

One of the problems we're dealing with in general is that the media is caught up in psycho-analysis and horse race handicapping rather than substantial political analysis.  This columnist travelled with Rice and got to see her up close and personal.  

"guilt?"

"Okay. That seriously works."

It sure does. In fact, I don't trust most people to spell or pronounce the word properly, much less be open to truly feeling empathy for anyone outside themselves. And that's a shame, because it is true that conscience is not possible without empathy. This nation -- hell, this world -- is sorely lacking in people of conscience, those who feel and act.

Cnulan: "welcome to the porch"

Thank you! I tend to be more of a lurker than a poster, and P6 and I go back a ways in cyberland.

"We not only have background in common"

Paisan!

"but you get my immediate respect for sharing the temerity to post in your own name"

For me, it is a means of making it clear that I stand behind what I say and take full responsibility for it. (I do recognize that being able to post under my own name is a luxury that plenty of equally principled and accountable people don't or can't have.)

P6 and I go back a ways in cyberland.

Member 38 of 376.

I considered complaining that you didn't join in more often, but you take it the way you get it, and you like it that way sometimes.

One of the problems we're dealing with in general is that the media is caught up in psycho-analysis and horse race handicapping rather than substantial political analysis.

Thank you. 

i've always considered you to be a duplicitous fiend - you know, the kind of guy who says he knows nothing about racism in America, but is well versed in the nuances of post-Holocaust Germany...but this is really interesting - even for a guy like you.

as you know, i seldom engage you - precisely since i think it's absurd (so, you do not need to respond)- however, this bit of nonsense has caught my attention. my question with respect to your linking pigment and entitlement would be this: "Do you get your crack from Pookie and Ray Ray or from Muffy and Biff?" You've proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOUR suppliers have the best shit this side of Afghanistan.

have a nice day.

Gatamala: "I smell the odor of "sell-out" in this article & don't really like it. Hell, I'm a liberal/progressive & don't necessarily subscribe to our traditional views on identity politics."

Same here.

Kspence, her exact phrase was "mildly pro-choice." That is not part of the party platform -- look at the brouhaha over Harriet Miers. God's Own Party isn't interested in and doesn't reward anything remotely connected to being anything but solidly anti-choice. The fact that she announced that publicly in those words earns her a few points for independent thinking, or it should. (Or perhaps she is merely playing the game so people will be less inclined to think she is a tool...)

And I suppose I am, well, freakish. My mom and my late dad are/were lifelong Roman Catholics and Democrats. I was a Republican and I fled the Papists. Not out of rebellion or to reject my folks, but because I had to be true to what I believed. The story continues: Became disillusioned with the GOPs when I realized that one can not separate social policy from fiscal policy. Voted for an Independent when I cast my first ballot for president. Became a Democrat. Became disillusioned when it became clear that the Dems were as fucked up as the GOPs and that the party's principles were nonexistent. I am a registered Independent who voted for Nader in 2000 and for Green David Cobb in 2004. The fam was not thrilled, but they know I must be true to what I believe. That is what my parents taught me to do. Despite our political and religious disagreements, we all love each other dearly (I suppose we are morally well). And they are proud of me for not being a sellout (which is how a few of my relatives label Rice).

Cnulan posted this excerpt from the live discussion: "Black people sometimes seem to be so busy judging each other 'blackness' that's there's no room left for the hopes and dreams that part and parcel of being human."

I would not have worded the statement in the way in which this poster did, but I do understand where he/she is coming from and I can't disagree with it in general. Many -- though not all -- people who identify as black do indeed judge the so-called "blackness" of others. For myself, I look at a person's humanity (how they behave, what they believe, how they treat other humans) and accept no definitions or categorizations but my own (while knowing full well that others are defining and categorizing me as they see fit).

what game is she playing? the last time i checked, this reference was used with respect to folks who had another primary objective - an ulterior motive - a mask that grins...if you're suggesting she may be the spook who sits inside the room, you may be right, but that would be the only basis for arguing that she is playing the game...otherwise, she is the game. maybe she's picking her spots and choosing the right moment to take a single action on behalf of those not invited to the game. suggesting that she is playing the game should be a provable sentiment - not just a statement that is intended to engender sympathy. she doesn't need it.

don't get it twisted...in most instances, the game has not been that no blacks can play...the game has been that blacks can't play on their own terms. whether you're talking about military power conflicts in africa from the 15th-19th centuries and divide and conquer or civil rights job and political appointments for brownbag black folk, the game has remained remarkably stable. during the height of slavery, there were black folks with money, with freedom, with influence...and some played the game in service to their collective - and some were the game acting against the interest of their collective. the same dynamic has existed since then. i don't think you're suggesting that condi is "playing the game" in a manner akin to adam clayton powell or reginald lewis or even oprah. what are you suggesting? just because you're black and in a position of influence does not mean you're playing the game...you may be playing a game, but it's not the game.

P6: "I considered complaining that you didn't join in more often, but you take it the way you get it, and you like it that way sometimes."

You sound like my mother. :)

Number 38, eh? Cool.

Seriously, you know (I hope) that you are one of the bloggers at the top of my (very short) most respected list. Our foci may differ at times (though only incrementally), but we both want the same things for the present and in the end. Anything we can do together in terms of addressing issues, dispelling myths, and building community and pride is, IMO, a privilege.

To that end, I no longer have the job that took up far too much of my time and patience, so I am in a better place to dive in a bit more.

"As a white person I can only offer my observation as an outsider, but it seems to me that leaders in the black community are hell-bent on rejecting Condoleeza Rice as a role mode becuase she isn't 'black' enough to understand the problems of the black community."

The real problem here as I see it is not what black leaders are allegedly doing or not doing with regard to Sr. Rice's black identity card, but why do so many whites believe that black people need to regard Sr. Rice as a role model to emulate. If black folks choose not to clasp Sr. Rice to their collective bosom and speak in high and low places of her in tones usually reserved for Rosa Parks or Coretta Scott King, I fail to see what harm this may do to black people or the Republic.

Sr. Rice's potential as a political foil to the ambitions of Mrs. Clinton may suffer as a result of her not convincing a sufficient number of black folks to cast off their objections to the policies of the Republican Party as a simple misunderstanding, but, perhaps, the emerging new model minorities that so many white Americans are increasingly enamored of can make up for this anticipated vote deficit. In any case, Sr. Rice's champions should take a deep breath and be assured that black folks will give Sr. Rice a fair hearing. On the merits alone, let's be honest here, what more does she deserve or has earned from them?

The real problem here as I see it is not what black leaders are allegedly doing or not doing with regard to Sr. Rice's black identity card.

Some folk even have the audacity to protest that the doktor is being de-blakked! LOL!!!

To your point PT, the $1,000,000 question is

why do so many whites believe that black people need to regard Sr. Rice as a role model to emulate?

I'm also sure you've noticed - even in text - how clearly their agitation and frustration radiates in complaints that so many of us are unmoved by the collective gesture embodied in their one little grain of Rice. Implicit in this agitation is the presumption that we're wrong for not embracing her as we might a true hero of the lumpenegrotariat...,

Ptcruiser: "If black folks choose not to clasp Sr. Rice to their collective bosom and speak in high and low places of her in tones usually reserved for Rosa Parks or Coretta Scott King, I fail to see what harm this may do to black people or the Republic."

Well said.

"the emerging new model minorities that so many white Americans are increasingly enamored"

The 21st-century version of "the good ones?"

===

Temple3: "i don't think you're suggesting that condi is "playing the game" in a manner akin to adam clayton powell or reginald lewis or even oprah."

Oh, gosh no. I wouldn't classify her alongside any of those people. I've met Oprah Winfrey and Condoleezza Rice is no Oprah Winfrey, much less a Rosa Parks or Coretta King. No, IF Rice is playing a game -- again, IF; I only posited the possibility of it, and I do mean "a game," NOT "the game"; good catch on your part -- she is trying to play a game of appeasement, a la "See, folks, I can veer from the party line if I want." Color me cynical, but I view her appearance to pay tribute to those four little girls in the same way. I am not convinced that she feels any true connection to the tragedy that befell those beautiful children. I suspect she is trying to appease people -- and to exploit her acquaintance with one of the girls -- for the purpose of boosting her cred. Most libs (regardless of hue) won't buy, and IF she is playing some sort of game, she likely knows that (unless she is . But you are correct: Rice is in no position to play the game; I never intended to suggest that. And I think you are right when you say that "black folks will give Sr. Rice a fair hearing" -- and that's about all she merits from where I sit.

natalie, i was actually talking to gatamala about the "game" thing. is that you also? and BTW, that was ptcruiser who said black folks will give her a fair hearing. thanks for the points of clarification...common ground feels like a good thing.

No, I am not I had mentioned Rice perhaps playing a game, and therefore assumed you were addressing my comment. My bad, but yes, common ground rocks.

Temple,

The game I referred to was merely the game of attaining personal power in Washington policy circles, NOT the game of playing a role with another ends in mind.  :)

Besides, I think Condi is acting in her own self-interest.  Maybe, in her minds she thinks she's helping the "collective".  We may not like it, but THEN what?  What are we going to do individually when our pleas for someone to act on our behalf fall on deaf ears?

What to do?  What to do? 

First, petitions based on moral suasion are, generally speaking, obsolete.  Appeals based on objective reason are similarly ineffective.  The question, then, is what type of lever shall be applied.  The lever, like so many web sites, is under construction.  The elements are cultural, economic, political,  social and physical.  The lever will be built by individuals IN organizations committed to a combined practice of these five principles.   Organizations that build power in these five areas will be able to advance platforms, personnel, policies and more to fulfill their agenda.  I would suggest that there are as many ways to achieve this end as there are creative individuals in any one space.  Find or create that practice in your life, share the practice, build a future.

Second, I would say there are a number of issues here with respect to Condi that are substantive, but not likely to generate much discussion/action within traditional liberal political circles.

1. The Foreign Policy Platform of Blacks in the US - Black leadership in the Democratic party still do not use foreign policy as a litmus test in evaluating or anticipating the policy and practice of candidates.  Support is seldom, if ever, withheld on the basis of foreign policy positions.  At present, the US policies on agricultural subsidies (supported by the current administration) have a great economic impact on Africa, the Caribbean and Brazil than do these aid packages.  Moreover, the aid packages are saddled with excessive administrative costs.
2. The Development of a Cadre of Policy Leaders - The difficult work of policy analysis requires a comprehensive skill set that is both qualitative and quantitative - unless you are closely allied with the demagogue of the month (in which case, you needn't be qualified (See FEMA).  A cadre of analysts working day and night, night and day in some coordinated fashion to resolve the issues of African people is nonexistent.  It would be logical for this or a former Secretary of State with some tie to African people to consider operationalizing such an activity.  It is not clear (and certainly not obvious) that this consideration has entered the mind of either Rice or Powell.  Nations and collectives do not sustain success without some committed action to predict and shape the material world. 
3. If Ms. Rice's position results from the nurturing support of ideologues and such, I am called to question what is being done on the other side of the aisle to cultivate similar leadership in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government.  Charismatic legislators are conducive to sexy sound bites - and seldom much more.  I raised the name of Adam Clayton Powell earlier because he is the exception that proves the rule. 
4. If Ms. Rice's social and political perspective actually results from the manner in which her parents raised her - and she became Secretary of State, what is it that other parents need to teach their children?  If these lessons are transferable, can a measure of cultural education and political affinity also be inculcated, and if so, how?
5. And more pointedly, why have Democrats, since 1877, pursued a policy of conciliation with the South to the extreme detriment of black folks?  Certainly, there have been episodes of fluctuation (Executive Order 8802, Kennedy's communique to MLK, LBJ's Title I and Headstart programs), but the definitive - essential - paradigmatic actions of the Democrats have been to restrict...localize...diffuse black political power while garnering black votes.

Ms. Rice's work with the Republicans cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  It exists in a socio-political continuum.  I believe that cnulan is absolutely correct in discussing monastic isolation as a seminal element of her identity.  It may be presumptuous of us to have this conversation, but for public figures, such scrutiny constitutes the fine print of the job description.  Personalities aside, her presence, practice and personality provide a great focal point for pressing some serious questions to her most vocal opponents.  Finally, if responses to these inquiries were to come, I would be listening for expressions of "interpersonal communion" around principles of understanding, commitment, integrity and justice.   Answers beyond that scope are of little utility. 

"The Development of a Cadre of Policy Leaders - The difficult work of policy analysis requires a comprehensive skill set that is both qualitative and quantitative..."

Excellent post!!!

Everything that you wrote below requires and deserves a response. Not for the sake of argument, however, but for the purpose of initiating and continuing a discussion on a matter of critical importance. I want to wash some dirty laundry here and I am announcing my intention so that folks don't feel compelled to argue that point but to focus on the issue I am raising. And it is this: The lack of focus and interest on qualitative and quantitative policy analyses within the political leadership including staff of the black polity at local, state and national levels is, to be blunt, nothing short of disgraceful and embarrassing.

This is not to say that there are not large numbers of black people who are interested in and quite capable of performing the required analyses on public policy issues. It is my opinion, however, based on long first hand experience and careful observation that blacks possessing these skills sets are generally ignored by black political leadership and by white liberals and progressives who often claim to be acting for the best interests of the black community. (Republicans and conservatives represent an entire different set of problems in this same area. They will not ignore blacks who want to address policy issues as long as the blacks accept the their premises about the causes of certain problems in the black community. )

Gentlemen,

Having made the observations I've previously made concerning the local black political machinery in KC - i.e., money grubbers keeping a tight grip and bottlenecking the political process - would either(both) of you care to comment why in your experience you have found this to be the case? What appears to you each to be systemically broken?

I'm looking for causal commentary. Is it a systemic personality type conflict? Is it the result of ill-telligent manipulation by folks operating the political machinery? Are black leadership egos too big to cohabit organizational space with black mentats? The natural capacity for getting people to follow does not necessarily or even often coincide with being the smartest person in the room.

My learning center elders know and comment on this all the time. They've worked diligently to bring together a variety of folks to collaborate on a defined project basis. This seems to have worked, but by no means has it caught on - either in the nationalist peer circles in which these brothers operate, or, in the local political sphere.

Take this instance for example. There is currently a groundswell of NAACP led support for the current KC public school superintendant Dr. Bernard Taylor. To say that Dr. Taylor's tenure has been underwhelming in terms of achieved results or articulated vision would be paying him high praise indeed. Nevertheless, the NAACP has turned out over 150 preachers who are now actively lobbying the school board to renew Dr. Taylor's contract. The overarching concern is that the superintendent stays a known black quantity irrespective of his demonstrated leadership and strategic value to the children in our district. e.g., he just about jacked up the best and highest performing school in the district, Chick Elementary - and he and one of the former old guard school board members conspired to take out the principle of that school She sued them and won and the school board member got sacked and the superintendent had to back the phug up. But that type of chicanery is par for the course with this administrative junta.

Having made the observations I've previously made concerning the local black political machinery in KC - i.e., money grubbers keeping a tight grip and bottlenecking the political process - would either(both) of you care to comment why in your experience you have found this to be the case? What appears to you each to be systemically broken?

I'm looking for causal commentary. Is it a systemic personality type conflict? Is it the result of ill-telligent manipulation by folks operating the political machinery? Are black leadership egos too big to cohabit organizational space with black mentats? The natural capacity for getting people to follow does not necessarily or even often coincide with being the smartest person in the room.

I take it straight to the flicks...Braveheart.  When Robert the Bruce is advised by his father to betray William Wallace it is not because he doesn't believe in the rightness of their cause, the inhumanity of the British, the need to shank Longshanks, or that Wallace is a capable leader.  It's because he did not believe the time was right to strike the death blow.  The father was clear that the English empire would live far beyond that moment and that the immediate loss of power, influence and resources to his family would be irrevocable.  In addition, he stood to gain considerably by authoring the betrayal of Wallace and organizing the nobles against him. 

In such a scenario, the "smartest person in the room" has a large, luminescent target on their back.  The forces stacked against the smartest person in the room are organized by the most powerful person in the room and supported by the most ruthless person in the room.  If the smartest person in the room has the advantage of being either one of the others, there is hope.  In the absence of an additional quality, that intelligence will go the way of William Wallace - and will be surprised when the moment of betrayal is revealed.  After all, the moment of betrayal is often light years before the moment of fulfillment. 

Risking one's neck and the nest egg established for one's progeny is not to be expected.  Negotiated settlements reflect a conscious decision to forego excellence, paradigm shifts, rigor and justice for the pursuit of sustainability and security.  It is worth noting, however, that this practice invariably results from sustained, long-term exposure to extreme terror tactics.  American Blacks have certainly been exposed to such tactics.  Similarly, the Vichy French were aware of what might happen without capitulation.  I believe the extensive writings of the ROMANS are particularly instructive in understanding what behaviors may be expected of populations facing the prospect of total war.  The case of Carthage as a template for annhilation may be useful here.  It was the practice of William of Orange, of LongShanks and it was the european and arab policy of transport during the trade in african humanity.  The American domestic policy (north and south), similarly, was one of imposing terror.  Public lynchings, whippings, rape, etc - were practiced for centuries with legal sanction.  I'm not so sure a social sanction has or will ever be imposed.  The American Black practice of conciliation, then, to be fair has been replicated in Korea, Europe and elsewhere - and is a logical consequence is living in a room with far more powerful/ruthless folks.

What propels groups away from a practice of conciliation (invariably led by a materially prosperous "middle class") is an organizing cultural principal that asserts an authentic identity principle organized around the contradictions of personal-collective identity and imposed material scarcity. 

I think that Temple3's example is quite apt and serves to explain some aspects of the behavior of the black leadership contingency at least when that leadership or segments of it are facing an issue with long term consequences and there is a decided lack of clarity about the possible risk entailed. I think, however, that these life and death situations do not occur that frequently even in the rough and tumble world of black politics.

I think that black leadership is extremely risk adverse but all political leaders and groupings share this trait. It goes with the territory. What I find deeply troubling is not the fear of avoiding adverse consequences but the noticeable lack of interest in simply exploring and sifting through the range of possible outcomes of a policy decision and its effect on the black community.

I am not arguing against the role of politics in making policy decisions. I am arguing against a refusal to think through the consequences of whatever decisions are being contemplated and to think about them at times and in ways that are separate from one's own narrow self-interest.

The behavioral and attitudinal factors that contribute to this problem are as follows:

1. Overemphasis on charistmatic styles of leadership

2. A deep seated fear and suspicion of being intellectually inferior

3. A lack of experience with and knowledge of the public policy process

4. Intra-group distrust

5. A tendency to view all dissent or differences of opinion as disloyalty

6. Work avoidance

7. Poor staff recruitment practices and training

8. Provincialism and xenophobia

i haven't met a black elected official with an economic development agenda. i certainly have never met one with a cultural agenda. i see their role as "stewardship" over the resources of the community in service to their financiers. #1 is all you have when #2 and #3 are a certainty that results from #5. after all, to maximize the effect of #1, it is important to stimulate #4, build fawning incompetence through #7, and avoid scrutiny by leaning on #8. most of these folks could be characterized as ignant, selfish, greedy-ass big mouths who know how to turn a phrase and piss away millions/billions in order to ride in a fancy car and take pictures with ofays. i was gonna say don't get me started, but alas, the ball is rolling.

I beg to differ. You have met many black elected officials with an economic agenda but the economic and financial goodies they were seeking to create was not for the benefit of the constituency that elected them to office. As CN correctly points out too many of these officials fail to consider what is in the best interests of the people they swore to serve upon their election or appointment to office.

The eminently famous Willie L. Brown, Jr., for example, who is no slouch in the intellect department - I once watched him talk for 45 minutes about the pros and cons of a tax bill that was before his committee and not refer once to his notes - three years after he was first elected to office was routinely appearing before San Francisco's Redevelopment Agency Commission representing developers who were proposing projects that would displace the very same black people whose votes had made it possible for the then Assemblyman Brown to become the first elected black official in San Francisco.

Shifting gears slightly - I find it interesting, but not at all puzzling that black Republicans have failed so miserably in seizing on the plainly evident failures of traditional black elected officials who are overwhelmingly members of the Democratic Party. The black community is in dire need of a countervailing political force and many, many black people - whatever their socio-economic status - recognize this fact. Black Republicans, however, have so foolishly tied their apron strings so tightly to the national agenda of the Republican Party that black people do not see them as being credible alternatives to what they already have no matter how much what they have falls short of what they need.

You don't have to beg to differ.  I didn't say they don't have economic agendas of a personal nature.  I said they don't have economic development agendas.  Diversified housing, infrastructure development, capital formation and job creation are not on the short list of things these folks know how to do.  But, every last one of them has a picture of Bill muhfuckin' Clinton on their wall.  I think that's my new litmus test - picture of Slick Willy = Kiss My Ass.

Those oaths, coincidentally, are the meaningless pronouncements of souls already sold.  Simply, these cats are not independently wealthy and therefore rely on external patronage.  In this respect, they are EXACTLY like many black conservatives (Connerly, Williams).  As such, neither group can fill the leadership void because both are by and large rejected by their so-called "natural constituency."  Black folks are not turning out in large numbers to vote for these folks.  Most of them run unopposed because the local Democratic party would never consider running a candidate with ideas.  There is too much at stake when it comes to committee memberships, housing subsidies, and the ability to dole out patronage through churches and senior centers.  The game is real simple.  If you do the math, you don't need more than 15% of the eligible voters to win one of these elections - but folks who eschew huxterism for the hard work of building sustainable communities don't have time for the glad-hand foolishness.  Who still does that other than pimps, preachers and other snake-oil salesman? 

In some respect, politicians are like schools - you don't get back more than you put in.  As such, neither is accorded much respect in this society - and the folksy traditions of America have invariably ridiculed both schools and politicians.  It's not like the fire department. 

I beg to differ.

The tongue was deep in cheek.  

So the school board revoked Bernard Taylor's ghetto pass last night. The ball in play is stability and control over the social network that is deeply tapped into the District's $270 Million annual budget. Straight up, simple and plain.

Quotes of note in the aftermath;

The NAACP was one of several local African-American organizations — along with Freedom Inc., the Black Agenda Group and the Baptist Ministers Union — that issued statements of support for Taylor, praising the job he has done as superintendent.

Understand, this is a very strange assortment of bedfellows - but the common element uniting them is constituent interest in patronage flowing from the district's annual budget.

Not everyone, though, agreed.“It saddens me that some black people have such low self-esteem and low expectations that they are willing to settle for ineffective black leadership,” said attorney Clinton Adams, who is active in the school district. He is African-American.

Clinton Adams and Linwood Tauheed are the two highest profile gadflies steadily on the District's case.

Taylor was thrust to the top, becoming Kansas City’s 20th superintendent in 30 years, running a district that then served more than 28,000 students on a $270 million budget.

When he went after Audrey Bullard, principle of afrocentric and district highest performing school, Chick Elementary, I wrote him off as a liability, insecure and incompetent to serve in the position to which he'd been appointed.

additional confirmation that Condoleeza Rice is exactly the type of bubble-girl Robinson thought she was, and then some;

IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.....But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.

The full extent of neocon structural and managerial incompetency noted at VC

"The ball in play is stability and control over the social network that is deeply tapped into the District's $270 Million annual budget."

This is a situation that has been repeated over and over again in urban school districts throughout the United States. Philadelphia, Washington, Detroit, Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles are some notable examples that come immediately to mind. These are situations in which calls for racial solidarity work to the detriment of the black community because the real aim of this appeal is to protect and preserve the perogatives and privileges of a group of people who feel they are entitled to feed at the public trough. It is in fact, their access to and control over budget and personnel decisions that gives them any sway at all in the community because they haven't demonstrated any degree of competency in any other areas.