Unfiltered Opinion

Is There Still A Need For Black History Month?

Carter Godwin Woodson is known as the father of black history.  In 1926, he began a week long celebration called Negro History Week.  Noted author, Lerone Bennett, Jr. wrote the following about Woodson, "It was for the young and for the future that he rummaged in the past. He believed that you look back in order to look forward".  Woodson selected February as the month to celebrate Negro History Week because it was the month that Frederick Douglas and President Abraham Lincoln celebrated their birthdays. In the 1960's, Negro History Week evolved into Black History Week.  In 1976, the celebration was renamed Black History Month.

One web site says the celebration, "provides an opportunity to acknowledge the historical, political, social, cultural and economic contributions of people of African origin throughout the world."

When I was growing up, I always wondered why the historical accomplishments of blacks were rarely mentioned in my classrooms except during the month of February. During Black History Month, I would be told that Jackie Robinson was the first black player to play major league baseball. I would also get to read about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and listen to his famous "I Have A Dream" speech.  Some times I felt like teachers used Black History Month as a pass.  It was almost as if they wrote in their lesson plans to only talk about black historical achievement in the month of February.  Thankfully, I had parents who made sure I was exposed to the historical accomplishments of all races of people by reading books.

School administrators and parents need to make sure that the history books that are being used in the classrooms have the appropriate historical information in them.  They need to make the publishers and authors of the history books accountable for what they write and what they omit.

I guess my answer to the question is that Black History Month and the attention it brings to the historical accomplishments of blacks is very important. It is so important that it deserves to be talked about for more than just the month of February. Black history needs to be included in history lessons every day of the year when applicable. I do not believe there needs to be a designated month of celebration, corporate sponsorships and taped recorded messages in grocery stores.

History should not be rewritten to make it more digestible for todays thin skinned, politically correct society; it should be written and depicted as it happened.  The history books should contain the contributions, achievements, and failures of all races of people in our society - Black, White, Native American, Asian, Hispanic, etc.  There is no complete and accurate record of history without it. This is the history that should be read and taught on a daily basis in our homes and schools, not just in February.

Why Is Al Capone In The News?

My wife is an aspiring law school professor.  One of her favorite blogs is the Tax Prof blog, which discusses various tax related issues.  Yesterday, she noticed on the site that there was a posting regarding the late mobster, Al Capone. She knows that I'm a big fan of history, so she sent me an email about it.  It seems that the IRS has released documents relating to their famous investigation of Capone which resulted in his conviction for tax evasion.  I thought the letters and documents were interesting to read. If you like history, you should check it out.

Is This A "Hillary" Problem Or A Woman Problem?

Hillary Clinton has been accused of a lot of things during this campaign season. From race baiting to hate mongering - you name it and she's been accused of it.  People are going to believe what they want to believe. The truth does not matter when it comes to the perception of Clinton - either you like her or you don't.  Every time Clinton is accused of faking her emotions, whether it's crying or being angry, I always wonder why people respond the way they do.

Why question her emotional reaction at all?  Is it because she is a woman or is it because she is supposed to be the cold, tough, soulless Hillary Clinton?  I think it's a little bit of both, but it's hard to tell because so many people strongly dislike Clinton. I do think a female candidate carries a heavier burden than their male counterparts when it comes to dealing with the subject of emotions, but there is also a double standard.

If Obama or McCain were to cry during a speech at a campaign stop, their campaigns would instantly be in trouble.  Their manhood and toughness would be questioned by the public, unless they could come with some good excuse, like "I was thinking about my mother and how proud she would of me, if she was still here."  Whereas, if a woman cries, some people, mostly women, would have sympathy for her. There would also be some people who would use that moment as evidence that the woman could not handle the rigors and stress of the position.

This is a perception battle that Hillary cannot win. 

Did Obama Waffle On The Farrakhan Question?

I don't think so, but some commentators think Obama could have been stronger with his denunciation of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan.  I am of the opinion that Farrakhan and the majority of blacks do not care what Obama says about Farrakhan.  They know Obama has to do what he has to do to get elected president.  Obama should take advantage of this free pass and keep using it to his advantage. He is going to have to keep denouncing Farrakhan to attract the white independent and Republican voters he will need to get elected president.

The Glare Of The Media Is Beginning To Intensify On Obama

Dan Balz wrote a nice article about the different levels of scrutiny that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have faced during the past few months. In the article, Balz raises some questions that he would like to have Obama answer. 

I would like Obama and Clinton to answer these questions.  I just find it strange that Balz believes that now is the time for Obama to answer these questions. These are the questions the mainstream media should have been asking Obama for the past year when he was making all of these promises.

The Farrakhan Issue - This Is Just The Beginning

During the debate tonight, moderator Tim Russert, questioned Barack Obama about the issue of Louis Farrakhan supporting his candidacy.  Farrakhan is the leader of the controversial black separatist group, the Nation of Islam. To his credit, Obama deftly handled the line of questioning even though it was clear he was not comfortable doing so.

Obama said he rejected Farrakhan's anti-semitic views, but I wish he had gone further and said he rejected the rest of the views of the Nation of Islam leader.  Here is a clip of the exchange:

I also thought Obama did a good job talking about the role of Jewish people in the civil rights movement.  Obama scored points with me by bringing this issue up and talking about how strained the relationship has become.  The strained relationship has lot to do with the well documented remarks of Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and others.  Obama says he wants to repair the relationship between Black and Jewish people.  I sincerely hope he can accomplish this.

It's All About The Spoken Word

Alec MacGillis wrote a good article detailing how Barack Obama developed his oratory skills and how it separates him from the other candidates.  Obama has consistently shown that a person can succeed in their chosen field, if they have strong communication skills.  Obama has been able to combine his oratory skills with a special ability to relate to the masses.  McCain is going to fall by the wayside like Clinton if he cannot find way to disrupt the connection Obama has with the people.

This Is Misleading

When I initially read the following article title, "IRS Investigating Obama's Church", I was intrigued.  I immediately thought that the IRS was in the process of investigating Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama is a member.  Then when I read the article, it became clear that the IRS is investigating the United Church of Christ, which Obama's church is a member of.  The title of the article implies that the controversial Trinity is being investigated, when it is not.

Is This The Change Obama Is Talking About?

Obama and his supporters have been talking for months how their candidate is different than all of the other politicians, but the facts of this article do not support this claim.  If Obama was really different and his campaign was really about the people then his campaign would not be making contributions to the campaign funds of Superdelegates. 

Clinton's campaign has done this too, but Obama is the one that has made it his daily mantra that he is different than Clinton.  However, in reality, he's just like all of the other politicians who deal in back room politics. This policy of giving money to Superdelegates is tantamount to buying votes.  I thought that some Superdelegates were withholding their endorsement of Clinton or Obama because they wanted to hear more from the candidates. 

Well, I guess I was wrong.  It seems like the Superdelegates will endorse the candidate who gives them the most money.  This is the Washington D.C. that I know and love.  Where power is concentrated in the hands of a few people (President, Congress, Supreme Court) within a 2 mile radius of each other.

Now that's change I can vote for.

It's A Picture - So What!

I cannot believe the media and both campaigns is making such a big deal about the picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder.  Who cares!  The mainstream media is ridiculous for reporting such items. This picture is not news. 

Clinton's campaign people are crazy if they think that most people do not believe they are the ones who began circulating the photos.  However, Obama's campaign staff is overreacting to the picture by calling it "fear-mongering".

I ask again - what's wrong with it?  I think that his campaign is more mad about the picture tearing away at their carefully sculpted image of Obama. They want the American public to remember Obama in a professional suit behind the podium giving one of his great speeches.  They do not want America to have the image of Obama celebrating his ethnicity in a fashion that some people would not like. The fact is that the people who even get slightly upset over this picture are disconnected mentally and probably racist.

Obama and his staff should know by now that the people who see this picture and react in a negative way were not going to vote for him any way. These are the crazy people who will try to brand Obama as some secret, unpatriotic terrorist.  I do not trust Obama, but I have never felt that he deserved any of these negative portrayals.

However, I do believe that Obama's campaign is making such a big deal about this picture that they may have the unintended effect of galvanizing the fractured Republican party.  This picture will be a part of this election story until the general election is over.