Dear Guy:

I understand exactly what you are saying.  But, at this point, Senator Obama is just the presumptive (and eventual) nominee of the Democratic Party.  He is not THE President of the United States—yet.  Let’s make sure that Obama makes it into the White House first.

Like you, I would love to see Obama begin to directly speak to issues such as our having the highest rate of infant mortality in the country, our having the highest rate of poverty in the country, our having twice the unemployment rate as whites, and the dramatic disparity between black and white incarceration rates.  But, let’s be real.  Taking these actions now would only ensure that he never enters the White House as President.  So for now, I am content in my belief that Obama will do his best to directly address these issues once in office.  At the very least, I trust that he (more than Clinton) will not avoid these important issues in order to pander to white racism (Heck, Clinton is arguing now for the Democratic party to pander to white racism with her comments about how Obama’s “inability” to attract white, working class voters makes her the essential choice as the Democratic nominee.).

Second, we need to recognize that Senator Obama is a politician, not the Messiah. You  (and I) are certainly right to expect him to address issues that affect the black community while in office, but we as a people have to be careful not to expect that he can resolve all of our problems in 4 years or even 8 years.  The work of forty-three Presidents and their predecessors over a period of nearly 400 years resulted in our current circumstances.  As wonderful as Obama is, he is not a miracle worker.  Furthermore, President Obama (I love the ring of that.) will not be able to create any real change without assistance from Congress—which brings me to my next point. . . .  

Yes, Senator Obama owes his success to us, but he is not the first (nor will he be the last) Democrat in areas with significant black populations (and nationally) to owe his success to us. Blacks are loyal Democrats.  Our loyalty is the reason why Democratic incumbents fight to have us drawn into their voting districts.  Blacks may not have come out in the same numbers to vote for and support other Democratic candidates, but many Democratic politicians (of all races) would not have won their seats and cannot win future seats without us.  We should expect from these politicians what we expect from Senator Obama.  True, the expectation may be greater because Senator Obama is, after all, one of us, but that does not mean that we should sell ourselves short and let other politicians get a free ride while we pounce on one of our own.

Yours in the struggle,

Angela

Dear Angela:

Now that black people have made Barack Obama the presumptive and (and soon to be eventual) nominee of the Democratic Party, what should we expect as our public policy benefits?  Though some might dare dispute this, the fact of the matter is that black voters are the primary voting bloc responsible for Senator Obama’s all-but-official nomination.

Blacks voted for him in 9-1 margins in most of the primaries with significant black populations.  While your present domicile, Iowa, gave him hope, black voters in South Carolina and North Carolina gave him life.So, now that we have delivered, what should we expect?  What does he have to say about the fact that Black people have the highest rate of infant mortality in the country?  What is he going to say about the fact that black people have the highest rate of poverty in the country?  What is he going say about the dramatic disparity between black and white incarceration rates, which some criminologists have calculated to be between 7 and 8 to 1?  When is he going to give a race speech to outline how he plans to tackle the fact that blacks have twice the unemployment rate as whites?  Now that we have delivered, when will he?

Guy

I spoke this weekend at an Entrepreneurship boot camp for The Urban Philly Professional Network. The head of the organization created something I consider to be profound and promising. He regularly gathers the black entrepreneurs of Philadelphia for networking events, training and motivation for their endeavors. I am proud of him because he has shown a consistent commitment to two issues of critical importance in the black community: black people working together and black people engaging in the ownership of capital.

Black entrepreneurship is not just about money. It’s about LIBERATION. The easiest way for me to control another man is for him to know that I am the reason his kids get to eat every day. That man will do exactly what I tell him to do, when I tell him to do it, and how I tell him to do it. Historically, African-Americans have been consumers of products and sources of labor. We have rarely been in a position to own or control capital. This country’s empire of wealth was built without black participation, as our ancestors were unable to transfer assets to their children. We all know that. Slaves were a form of human capital from which our country’s foundation was created. Theft from the black community is in the trillions.

As a result of this legacy, nearly every inch of the financial capital base of American institutions is controlled by someone else: The media, corporate America, academic institutions, you name it. Fox News freely spouts racism because Rupert Murdock and others like him control media infrastructure. Universities earn over 1 billion dollars per year from the families of black athletes because HBCUs don’t have the capital base to compete for these players. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama end up with distorted images because they’ve attempted to repair their reputations by appealing to the same institutions that destroyed their images in the first place. There are few black alternatives to media and corporate America, so our messages, leadership, outcomes and incentives are typically beyond our control. The controller of capital is the controller of destiny, so the social implications of capital ownership are vast.

The legacy of disproportionate capital acquisition also breeds a mentality in those who are controlled by capital. Some might call it the slave mentality. It affects all of us, from truck drivers to college professors. The slave mentality says your sole objective for obtaining education or skill is to work for someone else. We seek to find a job, rather than create one. Even most black doctors, lawyers and college professors fall victim to this mentality, as this is the tradition for many people of color. Risk aversion in the black community is strong enough to choke a horse, and any dreams of “going at it on your own” are squashed by relatives who encourage you to take the high paying, “prestigious” position at IBM or Stanford University.

The problem with the slave/laborer mentality is that there is a huge social price being paid when one spends his/her entire life drinking from someone else’s fountain: You are not free to pursue social justice and the platform on which you stand can be taken out from under you at a second’s notice. When injustice occurs around you, you are trained to sit silently and hope for the best. You don’t dare rely on ideas like “academic freedom”, because capitalism usually trumps idealistic concepts like democracy and freedom of speech. You can speak freely as long as it is financially convenient for the organization that controls you.

When I met with the black entrepreneurs and business owners of Philadelphia, I reminded them of the significance of their contribution to Black America. Owning a business is not about making a dollar, it’s about providing a critical supplement to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Black Entrepreneurs aren’t just finding a source of income, they are building black institutions. I reminded them that General Motors wasn’t built in a year, and that they should be proud of the trees they’ve planted, even if they are smaller than the strong, sturdy oaks around them. There was a time when a high ranking position in the British Empire paid a lot better than joining the American Revolution. Black Entrepreneurs are the financial Harriet Tubmans of the black community: liberating people in mind, spirit and resources.

Many of us are so “blinded by the bling” that we take our eyes off the prize. Even those with high incomes remain as vulnerable as Katrina victims, as one unfortunate event can lead you to financial ruin. High income without an understanding of wealth building, diversity of resources and long-term financial stability is a recipe for financial disaster.

Careful management of the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism is critical to any social movement in America. Socially responsible financial machinery can serve to empower and sustain movements toward justice and equality. Models of entrepreneurship should be taught to every black child in America. Children should understand the nature of revenue generation, cost minimization and how business models work. The path to liberation in a capitalist democracy goes straight through Financialville. Controlling capital means controlling lives, and it’s tough to be free without it.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and founder of YourBlackWorld.com. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.

Dear Angela:

I understand your frustration with bittergate.  However, I don’t think the criticism of Senator Obama is an attempted high-tech lynching for being uppity.  The ultimate in being uppity is a black man thinking that he can be President of these United States.  Senator Obama, a first-term Senator barely into that term, has deigned to aspire to that most exclusive club in the land—a club that has only admitted 43 white men in over 200 years. When he announced for the presidency no one but his most ardent supporters would have predicted that he would end up as the Democratic Party’s frontrunner.  He has won big states and small states, causes and elections, predominantly white states and plurality black states.  Contrary to popular wisdom, his campaign in one contest or another has attracted every demographic including white working class voters. He has been a media darling and the candidate of the elites.  For a while, he even made conservative pundits swoon.  Until l’affaire Wright, he was considered by many to be the inevitable Democratic nominee and he may still be depending upon what happens tomorrow.  Yes, Senator Obama has been subject to some withering criticism and yes some of that criticism has been unfair.  But is this a high-tech lynching?  Not even close my friend.

More specifically on bittergate: I have to say that having re-read the transcript and listened to the audio, I am of multiple minds.  As a point of departure, it is not plausible to believe that Senator Obama is any less empathetic than any other candidate running for the presidency.  So, in some sense, the criticism that he received was unfair.  Voters should be looking at his policies and asking how those policies are going to impact their well-being. Nevertheless, the comments are hard to explain. 

It is true that among those of us who are religious, some of us may rely more on religion in times of difficulty.  But that is not what the Senator said.  What he said is that after years of economic depression some voters (irrationally?) turned to religion, guns, anti-immigrant sentiments as a way to explain their frustrations.  That statement was singularly callous and out of character for Senator Obama. It is not surprising that bittergate has received a lot of attention—some fair and some beyond the pale.

But what most troubled me about the comments is not what has received the most attention.  You are right that his comments were not placed into context.  But I’m not sure if viewing the context puts the comments in a more sympathetic light.  Senator Obama offered up religion, guns, etc., as a way of explaining why working class white voters were having time connecting with his message. Some pundits were attributing this inability to connect to racism.  Senator Obama disagreed.  Race, from the Senator’s perspective, was not the primary reason that some voters were having a hard time connecting to his message; they were having a hard time connecting because they’re bitter.  Now you tell me, shouldn’t that explanation make you bitter?

Guy

As May 6 approaches, I am becoming more and more bitter about all the bitterness over Senator Obama’s comments in San Francisco.  First, the Senator’s words were completely taken out of context.  Clearly, he did not say that people turned to religion ONLY because of bitterness. Second, there is truth to much of what he said.  Heck, I live in a small town in the Midwest (less than 10,000 people), and, to quote one of my friends (a person who admits that she is bitter), many of us are, in fact, bitter.  On top of that, isn’t it true that we rely MORE on God—for those of us who believe in a higher power—when we are in a crisis?  After all, what is the first thing that many of us do when we find ourselves in a bad situation?  We pray.  What is the first thing that many of us say to a friend when they have experienced hardship? “I’ll pray for you.”  But, none of these points are the main source of my bitterness.

I am mainly bitter because, in many ways, the constant critique of Senator Obama (over these comments) feels like “a high-tech lynching” of an “uppity” Black.  Yes, I am quoting Justice Clarence Thomas.  I simply cannot get the media clips of supposed “midwestern” responses out of my head. Two white men in particular remain in my mind.  When asked about their reaction to the Senator’s comments, these men said with disdain, “He thinks he’s better than us.”  Do not get me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with these statements on their face.  In fact, I understand the feeling.  But, there was something about the way these two men said “He thinks he’s better than us” that did not sit right with me. The response of these two men made me think of Professor Cheryl Harris’s article “Whiteness as Property” and about the value that these two men’s whiteness must hold for them.  To me, it felt like they were more upset by the idea that a black man could even think that he was better than them (though it is clear, at least to me, that Senator Obama was not expressing his superiority over them or any other person). 

As time passes and the media continues to harp on the “bitter” comments, I begin to wonder:  “Did people really not understand what Senator Obama was saying in San Francisco, or is this just a high-tech lynching of a black man who, in the eyes of some folks, just got too “uppity”?  Your thoughts?

Angela                                                                                      

First they pander to working-class white voters by making them believe that their electoral judgments are beyond apprehension, particularly when a black candidate calls them into question. Now Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Senator Barack Obama’s rivals for the presidency, are proposing a gas tax holiday for the so-called summer driving season, which would temporarily relinquish the 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline. Obama has come out against the suspension of the gas tax–a bold position, but not bold enough.

Of course Obama’s rivals will use his position on the gas tax suspension as further evidence that he’s an “elitist.” What’s risible about the charge of elitism is that it comes from two wealthy white candidates and is made on behalf of a group of voters–white working-class voters–who themselves historically have practiced the ultimate elitism, racism. One need only look at polling data from the 1980s which showed that a majority of white Americans believed that Ronald Reagan’s policies were hurting blacks but nevertheless supported President Reagan, to understand white voter elitism. What is also incomprehensible about the charges of elitism is that these same white voters have begun to question their own electoral judgments, as evidenced by their abandonment of their support of President George Bush. Bush has historically low approval ratings. If white voters can have buyer’s remorse, surely a candidate–even a black candidate–can suggest to these voters that in the future they vote based upon more relevant criteria than guns, religion and cultural prejudices.

The anti-abortion conservative is seldom the economic populist. The hunters’ rights candidate is seldom a big enough lover of nature to lead the fight on global-warming. The Christian fundamentalist candidate is far more likely to condemn gay marriage than he is to talk about the laissez faire regulatory environment that has created a mortgage crisis that threatens to upend the American economy. And so on. Some may argue that values and guns are legitimate issues to base voting on. Indeed they are, but if one votes based on these issue sets, he should take the bitter with the sweet. Celebrate having your gun, but don’t complain about the factory job that was just off-shored. White Americans, of course, are accustomed to the privilege of voting one way and then seeking to escape the consequences of their poor decisions. Like the learning disabled, they are threatening to repeat their mistakes, goaded by Clinton and McCain and a fantastically ignorant news media. Obama’s opposition to the gas tax suspension is one more enticement for white voters to abandon rational thought.

For his part, Obama’s time is better spent proposing bold solutions to the price hikes in gasoline rather than allowing the media to goad him into responding to everything the Reverend Jeremiah Wright says, as if all black people must give an accounting for the words and actions of all other black people. (But this is the problem with having too many smart-ass-white-boy type advisers.) Brace yourself voters–especially those voters who harbor a sense of entitlement–here’s a surefire solution to the gas price problem: Ban the use of credit cards to purchase gas. Since 2005, nearly 70% of daily gas purchases have been paid with credit cards. Indeed, oil companies themselves have begun to market “gas cards.” Allowing Americans to finance daily necessities like gas both keeps gas prices high and feeds a excess consumption mentality that has created a consumer credit bubble. On the latter score, personal consumption’s share of gross domestic product had traditionally been 66% to 67% . In 2007, however, it swung to 72%, not because Americans were making more money–wages are flat–but rather because of our ever-expanding appetite for credit. Credit-card purchases of gasoline is just one symptom of consumer credit freebasing, but when this practice is applied to gasoline purchases, it has a self-perpetuating effect: The more available gasoline becomes because of credit, the higher the price of gas goes–simple supply and demand–and then the more credit will used to purchase gas.

Banning credit cards in the purchase of gas is a far less punitive solution than taxing poor and middle-income drivers, which tax-and-spend-and-tax-again billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed to do with so-called congestion pricing, in which New Yorkers would pay hefty surcharges for driving their cars into Manhattan. The credit card ban simply requires that people pay as they go, without adding to the cost of going.

Which candidate will be courageous enough to propose the credit card ban? Probably none. But so far, Obama has been the better profile in courage, even under the threat of white flight.

I was concerned about the recent attacks on Jeremiah Wright, mainly because I understand what he went through. Last fall, Bill O’Reilly spent 5 days calling for me to be fired from Syracuse University. They claimed I was a racist because I criticized O’Reilly and his condescending views toward people of color. I also had the audacity to ask why my business school has existed for 120 years without granting tenure to an African-American. He, Hannity and others engaged in the same petty attacks that they used to undermine the credibility of one of Chicago’s most respected pastors, Jeremiah Wright. Oprah, Obama and many respected members of the Chicago community have been in regular attendance at Pastor Wright’s church, and it is non-sensical to allow the buffoons at Fox News to reduce this man’s distinguished 40 year career to that of a worthless hack.

But truth is be told, this is to be expected: They did the same thing to Dr. Martin Luther King and other strong black pastors in the past. Even black people and scholars felt compelled to attack Dr. King and Dr. Wright, since that was the safe and “academicky” thing to do. Jeremiah Wright and most strong black intellectuals who’ve changed the world truly understand that white supremacy breeds a steady, bumper crop of “haterologists” who will attack your every move, every word, and every action. But I am a believer that the more empowered black men and women are, the more haters you will have, so black scholars should speak truth to power, engage in true intellectual leadership and be strong enough to withstand the backlash. That is what our forefathers expect from us, and I’m not talking about George Washington.

What is most interesting is that Jeremiah was a Marine and served his country with honor, while those who attack him hide behind their privilege to avoid fighting in the very war in which they so readily send others to die. Before you judge him, hear him speak. He is a scholar and an empowered leader of faith. I respect him. He is definitely smarter than Bill O’Reilly, but then again, most chimps can make the same claim.

I woke up today thinking about the movie “Roots”. The first scene that jumps out at me is the image of Kunta Kinte being beaten because he wants to keep his real name. With each welt of the whip, he got a little weaker, until he finally changed his name to Toby.

Most of us were hit hard by this scene and hurt by it. I am equally hurt when I see Barack Obama, the political Kunta Kinte of 2008.

With each crack of the right wing whip and even some lashes by Hillary Clinton, Obama is being forced to slowly, but surely rip away everything that has helped him identify with being a black man in America. First he has to put a muzzle on his beautiful, intelligent wife, apologizing for the fact that she “misspeaks” in public. Next, he is distancing himself from Louis Farrakhan, a man with whom he had little prior association. Shortly thereafter, he goes into hiding like a broke baby’s daddy on the date of the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s Assassination, all because he didn’t want to appear “too black” for the American public.

Now we have Jeremiah Wright. After 20 years with the same pastor, Kunta Obama suddenly realizes that he made a mistake. It wasn’t sermon number 14, 122 or 1,107 that led him to that conclusion. It was Hillary Clinton and Sean Hannity who helped him see the light. They helped Barack Obama finally realize what should have been obvious from the very beginning: His radical wife needed to be put in her place, Martin Luther King is an embarrassment and his pastor can’t possibly be a true American. Thank God for Sean Hannity.

By the time Obama is done with this election, he will have fully apologized for being a strong black man in America. At that point, the transformation will be complete and Kunta will have no feet. I am only waiting for Hillary Clinton to force him to denounce Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey and Harriet Tubman. After all, they were radical too.

This election surely makes Barack wish that all of his friends were white, perhaps even his wife. Those black people are just too much damn trouble. I might start getting rid of my black friends right now. Can I divorce my mama?

As I see the gobs of email coming in from readers at YourBlackWorld, the division within the black community is in full view. Some are angry at Pastor Wright for “messing up the good thing Obama has going”, while others feel that Pastor Wright should “tell it like it is.” The emails remind me of two women fighting hard over the same lying, trifling man who has learned to play them against one another. Rather than focusing on the real target (the man), the women fall right into the man’s trap, as they both so desperately seek his validation.

The truth is that the women in my example are afraid of being alone. They need him to tell them that they are beautiful. They’ve allowed this vulnerability to be exploited by a socially parasitic individual who preys on the insecurities of others. Black people, and Obama, NEED to be validated by White America. We NEED to get into the White House so that we can feel that we have achieved something. It is this need for validation from whites that leads us to sell our souls and do any tap dance necessary to achieve public approval. The public humiliation, discomfort, and degradation are all worth it in order to achieve the ultimate goal. I would not compare it to pure prostitution, because even prostitutes have limits.

Call me crazy, but I personally believe in a good old fashioned commodity called “integrity”. Integrity says that you don’t go denouncing your relatives because they say things that are displeasing to your audience. A high school kid doesn’t drop his little brother because the “cool kids” don’t like him. I don’t fault Jeremiah Wright for being the man he has been for the past 40 years. I only question Barack Obama, who is not the same man he was 2 years ago. I question America, a country so drunk with its own arrogance that it cannot tolerate people of color (Michelle Obama, Louis Farrakhan, Martin Luther King and Pastor Wright) who speak their mind about our country’s inequities. Every country in the world sees America’s racism. The United Nations writes reports about America’s racism. But America cannot see its own racism and those who see it are afraid to talk about it. That’s just a damn shame.

Were Obama not running for president, Jeremiah Wright would not be a problem. Barack would be going to church and saying “amen” like the rest of us. But the continuous game of psychological twister being thrust upon him by the right wing has forced him to lie as much as any other politician. Perhaps a young Barack Obama thought, in some idealistic way, that just being a good American could get him elected. Like many black men in America, Obama thought that doing the right thing, working hard and being a good person would be enough. But like the rest of us, he gets slapped with the reality that being a black man in America is one of the most unpopular positions on the social totem pole. Only a complete apology and full extraction from where you came from will do the trick: NBA players go through it, black professors go through it and politicians REALLY go through it.  Many of us are familiar with the dance, and some of us even like it.

Barack Obama, in my opinion, is not going to win this election. But no matter the outcome, his soul will be weary, weak and depleted. Kunta Obama will have no feet, and he may not even get to be president.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is an Assistant Professor of Finance at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.

http://www.boycewatkins.com/

While I have  a slightly more mixed opinion on the Sean Bell Shooting, I received this interesting statement on behalf of the National Black Police Association.  I thought it was worth hearing, whether you agree with it or not.  It confirms my personal opinion that not all black police officers are disconnected from the challenges of the black community. 

The Statement below is by Christopher C. Cooper, JD on behalf of The National Black Police Association, Chicago, IL, cooper@sxu.edu

The acquittals of the three New York City Policeman who killed unarmed Sean Bell further damages the psyche and perception of the justice system by people of color.  There was blatant disregard by Judge Cooperman, the Bell trial’s presiding judge, of the compelling evidence of recklessness.  His verdict represents the highest level of judicial abuse. Sadly, his verdict is consistent with outrageous, decision-making by judges throughout America when people-of-color are victims. On the Civil side, it is the power of judges to prevent people of-color, victimized by the police, from ever getting their civil lawsuits against police before a jury.  Judges nix a jury by routinely dismissing cases via what is called Summary Judgment.  It is a judge deciding that allegations of a black man or woman are Not credible enough to go to a jury.

On the criminal side, police officers can opt out of having a jury, they choose a judge instead. These bench trials as they are called, have long represented the way in which police officers who have killed and maimed without legal justification have avoided criminal convictions and prison. The shooting death of an elderly, wheel chair bound grandmother, Eleanor Bumpers, by a New York City Policeman and the officer’s acquittal before a New York judge is among the most shocking examples of judicial abuse. The verdict in the Bell case joins a litany of cases from all over the United States that shows one set of judicial decision making for whites and another for people-of –color.  One only consider the past and ongoing abuse by the many members of the judiciary in Chicago by their not addressing torture of black men by the infamous Chicago Police Officer John Burge and his criminal gang.

It does not matter that two of the officers who killed Sean Bell are black. The larger issue is that police officers of any color, in jurisdictions throughout the United States are given a blank check to abuse people of color. Prosecutors routinely look the other way and if they prosecute, they throw the fight (a real possibility of what happened in the Bell case).  Most judges shirk their duty to be fair and impartial, especially when they dismiss cases by people of color against the police via Summary Judgment; having, inappropriately used their (judges) personal perceptions to decide that there is not an issue of genuine, material fact.

The National Black Police Association (NBPA), comprised of police officers, has every right to Monday morning quarterback any police situation. It is the knowledge of police practices of the association’s members that enables The National Black Police Association to speak credibly and directly about the verdict in the Bell case. Any seasoned big city police officer is able to see the recklessness of the officers who killed Bell.  We (members of the NBPA) know that the firing of more than fifty bullets on a crowded New York City Street at Sean Bell  endangered bystanders and a whole host of people who live in the densely populated section of Jamaica, Queens.

Big City cops (many of whom are NBPA members) need to know a whole lot about fire discipline. This is a phenomenon of knowing your target and sight alignment of target to the weapon.  As important, when justified to shoot, our sound judgment enables us to dispense with shooting our guns because to do so would be Recklessness (a crime) because of a large volume of people and structures.  Unfortunately, the New York City Police Department, like most of the country’s big city police departments is plagued by ranks of men lacking in adequate weapon’s use training. Training that they could have obtained in the military. The end result, Big City Police Departments are depositories for men whose cowardice causes them to avoid military service and in the place of military service they become paid bullies in many of the nation’s police departments.  No wonder we see these men inappropriately wearing dark sunglasses and dressed like commandos in front of our local church or cruising our neighborhoods.  Problematic is that America’s black neighborhoods to many young men in police ranks are places of adventure for playing out their action fantasies.  One would think that pre-employment psychological examinations would weed out the battery of cowardice men who flock to police departments seeking employment.

The lack of knowledge of police work by Judge Cooperman coupled with prosecutors who knew nothing about police work enabled the acquittal verdict of the officers who killed Sean Bell.

There cannot be a successful prosecution of police officers for use of deadly force incidents as long as there is continuance of the pervasive ignorance in judicial and prosecutorial ranks of the dynamics of police culture and police practices. We live in a society in which there is a nonsensical and inaccurate perception of police work by most laypeople. By example, the non-scientific, baseless notion that all (verses some) police officers live a life of danger and have a job that no one else wants, perpetuates and encourages police violence against civilians.  Strangely many laypeople fail to realize that many police officers do payrol1, shuttle politicians and inventory property, etc.

Provided that lay people possess a false perception of police officers constantly dodging bullets, then people in Chicago, by example, will say little to nothing about the recent, in progress, inappropriate militarization attempts of the Chicago Police Department.  Nor will most lay people, including Judge Cooperman and prosecutors ever have the courage or knowledge to criticize wrongful police behavior.

Since “911″ in particular, police officers have been placed on pedestals that they don’t deserve.  In this sort of environment, to convict a police officer of harming a civilian is said to be unpatriotic. The NBPA holds that realism should replace euphoria and fiction.  Hence, police officers should be required not only to use fire discipline and judgment on Park Avenue, but as well on the urban streets of Jamaica, Queens or Englewood in Chicago.

The crime of Recklessness is so easy to identify and prove. Judge Cooperman’s verdict emboldens the justification that black people have to distrust judges. Who can people-of-color  turn to–to stop abuse by prosecutors and judges? The Sean Bell verdict shows people-of-color that a stop to the misery of judicial abuse in the United States will not stop anytime soon.

By Christopher C. Cooper, National Black Police Association Member

People have asked me what I think about Juanita Bynum and her post, pre and intra-marital drama.  In case you haven’t heard, Juanita Bynum is a well-known black evangelist who was allegedly beaten by her husband Bishop Thomas Weeks.  The alleged incident took place in an Atlanta Hotel Parking lot, and received a great deal of media attention.

As one would expect from a woman who’s been recently beaten by her husband, Juanita Bynum held a press conference.  No trial, no hearings, no indictment, no conviction:  just a press conference.  Bynum then declared herself to be the new face of domestic violence in America. 

That was my introduction to the peculiar world of Juanita Bynum.

I am not sure what world Juanita Bynum lives in, but it can’t be my own.  When hearing that she held a press conference after the alleged attack (along with appearances on Divorce Court and Essence Magazine), I immediately wondered if any good could come from this.  I was hopeful that the goal was to truly fight domestic violence, thus empowering women around the world from her experience. I also wondered if this was Juanita Bynum’s version of Celebrity Pastors Gone Wild.  

It is no secret that Juanita Bynum wants to be the next Oprah.  Such lofty ambitions require you to sometimes sell your soul for success: Halle Berry shaves her head and signs a big movie deal.  Vivica Fox gives oral sex on camera and then gets a new show.  Rappers get shot on purpose.    That’s the celebrity fame game, and Juanita appears to be a part of it.

As a specialist in marketplace buying and selling, I quietly wonder if those responsible for saving souls should be so quick to sell their own.  At the same time, there are many in the ministry who’ve made money and power their primary objectives, and spend a lot of time praying to the false God of capitalism.  Anybody got a Dollar for the collection plate?  How about some Taffi? Praise the Lord, amen.

I don’t consider Juanita Bynum to be a bad person.  I just hope that she hasn’t allowed blind ambition to turn her into a spiritual Stevie Wonder.  Mixing the idea of celebrity with service to God is a slippery slope, and if Jesus were among us in the flesh, I am not sure he would be appearing on Divorce Court.  But spiritual leaders are the first to remind us that they can’t quite match up to Jesus.  At the same time, one expects a higher standard from Juanita Bynum, TD Jakes and others who expect to preach to us every week.

I am a finance professor and a hardcore capitalist.  I fully understand the drug of money.  In some ways, I feel like the drug pusher who looks at the church going mother of 3 and says “Ma’am, you don’t want to smoke that crack pipe.” I know that addiction to the drug will cause the mother to abandon her children and destroy everything she holds sacred in order to get another hit.  Hearing pastors (i.e. TD Jakes) referring to Jesus as a “product”, or seeing men and women of God speaking on money more than I do is beyond disturbing.  It’s just downright crazy. 

I don’t consider Juanita Bynum to be the face of domestic violence.  Domestic violence has millions of faces of women who never held a press conference.  But I certainly hope that she is working to use her newfound fame to support and protect those who are in abusive relationships.  But truth be told, I haven’t seen much out of Bynum other than publicity stunts designed to promote the name, fame and wealth of Juanita Bynum.

If the leaders of the flock have been blinded by their own ambition, what does that mean for the sheep?  I would hate to imagine that going to church might somehow jeopardize my salvation.  Perhaps it implies that we should cut out the middle man and find our own connection to God.  What would Jesus do?

Dr. Boyce Watkins is an Assistant Professor of Finance at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?”  He makes regular appearances in national media, including CNN, BET, ESPN and CBS.  For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.