Friday, August 16, 2013

The West/Smiley Criticism of President Obama Comes Down to Ego

By D. Price
RCJ News Op-Ed Contributor

Dr. Cornell West’s take on President Obama’s comments following the George Zimmerman verdict—“But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken”—have left me stunned. Here is one of West’s comments: "We know anybody who tries to rationalize the killing of innocent people is a criminal. George Zimmerman is a criminal. But President Obama is a global George Zimmerman because he tries to rationalize the killing of innocent children...”

Growing up in New Jersey and New York, West’s name was highly regarded in my home. Primarily because of my father, who like West, also studied theology and is a Princeton alum. I remember Dr. West’s name coming up in several of my father’s conversations on myriad topics ranging from politics, race and Christianity.   
Princeton University Professor Dr. Cornel West (Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

  
Now an adult with my own family, I’d like to think West’s name will be highly regarded in my home; synonymous with people like Cory Booker, Anthony Foxx and (yeah) Jay-Z. But, sadly, after West’s recent rants, I am not hopeful the latter may be true.

West is not the only black activist or media figure who feels President Obama’s post-verdict remarks were insufficient in addressing the dissatisfaction Trayon Martin supporters feel. Tavis Smiley took to Twitter stating: “Took POTUS almost a week to show up and express mild outrage. And still, it was as weak as pre-sweetened Kool-Aid.”

Honestly, I was a bit surprised President Obama commented at all. While I wanted him to, I understand the compromising position in which he is often placed because of his biracial status. Especially in this particular case, when black, white and brown faces were involved.

So forgive me, but that is why I assumed the “Dr. West’s” and “Tavis Smiley’s” of the world would be less caustic in their public judgment of the president’s comments. Yes, the Trayvon Martin verdict speaks to the serious level of racial injustice in the United States. But, in President Obama’s defense, what everyone must remember is that while he “could have been Trayvon Martin 35 years ago,” there is a significant difference between he and Trayvon Martin that many African Americans choose to ignore: President Obama’s mother.

The president has been careful about racializing issues during his presidency, which may attribute to blacks overlooking his biracial status. Regardless of whether he has chosen to identify more with his black roots than his white, President Obama cannot escape the fact that he shares a commonality with the racial majority in America. That is why he must be extremely careful of every single thing he says.

But West seems not to be so careful. To say that, “President Obama is a global George Zimmerman,” is offensive and blasphemous. The word rationalize means an: Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true. While West and others might not agree with President Obama’s comments that the “jury has spoken…” right or wrong, the verdict is final. The president’s statement doesn't mean he agreed with the jury’s decision. He was simply reiterating the facts, which cannot be changed, so now it is time for everyone to move forward.

West also said that the president is responsible for “criminalizing” the black poor and creating the “re-niggerizing of the black professional class.”  This I find quite interesting for two reasons: West is a member of the black professional class, and, while West does a superb job of pinpointing all that President Obama is not doing, I have yet to see any successful proposals or solutions of his own, such as voter registration drives, that aim to combat the plight of Americas’ poor.

A bit softer than West, regarding President Obama’s second public statement following the Trayvon Martin verdict, Tavis Smiley on NBC’s Meet the Press said, “a week of protests outside the White House, pressure building on him inside the White House, pushed him [the president] to that podium.” Maybe it did. Either way, Smiley later stated, “I disagree with the president, respectfully, that politicians, [and] elected officials, can’t occupy this space on race.”

If it is in fact public knowledge that the president would rather not use his position to discuss race and/or the events surrounding the Trayon Martin verdict, as one could easily see how that might become problematic, what more is there to say?

Maybe it’s just a case of different opinions. Maybe West, Smiley and Obama simply cannot agree to disagree. Whatever it is, there has to be more to West and Smiley’s blatant animosity toward the president than that.

Ironically, there is.

In 2008, then, Senator Obama, declined Tavis Smiley’s invitation to the 2008 State of the Black Union forum in New Orleans. With campaign and traveling conflicts, he offered to send Michelle Obama instead, to which Mr. Smiley declined. Feel free to read the president’s apology letter to Tavis Smiley, here.
Smiley and West (Credit: DemocracyNow.org)

Four years later, a similar, yet, more personal blunder occurred with West. According to him, phone calls to President Obama were not returned, and he and his mother were slighted on tickets to the second inauguration. You can read more about that story, here.

Most Americans do not know what it is like to have a personal relationship with a United States president. And those who are privileged to be among the elite inner circles obviously feel entitled to certain luxuries such as: having Mr. Obama speak at their functions, return their phone calls or provide them with tickets to presidential events.  But if the goal is to do work that reduces or eliminates the ills that plague black America, how can that be done when leaders of the black community continue to tear theirs down in public every chance they get?


Based on the facts presented, I cannot be certain that Dr. Cornell West and Tavis Smiley would be harboring the same disgust for President Obama’s policies on race and economics, had the events in 2008 and 2012 not occurred. For that reason, Cory Booker, Anthony Foxx and yes, Jay-Z, will continue to be highly regarded names in my home.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Edward Snowden Can Keep A Secret

The recently sheltered, and alleged leaker, Edward Snowden is good at keeping secrets. Just not secrets about national security.

According to news sources (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341691/Edward-Snowdens-girlfriend-Lindsay-Mills-feels-betrayed-world-caved-in.html), Snowden never told his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, 28, that he planned to leak pages of classified documents, jeopardizing US national security and adding strain to US relations with other countries, notably Russia, where Snowden was granted a year of asylum.

Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters
NBC news has reported that Snowden's lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, said that his client misses Mills, and in an article by UK publication the Daily Mail online Snowden kept her in the dark in order to protect her. Snowden and Mills lived in Hawaii and were dating for four or five years before Snowden suddenly fled to Hong Kong to leak the secrets. Friends close to the couple, some who did not want to be named, said that they were set to get engaged. And recently when talking to the media, Mills' father, Jonathan Mills, said that his daughter was heartbroken and "barely holding on" after Snowden left her without warning.

Arguably, one of the biggest leaks in US history comes down to loyalty. Snowden loved his girlfriend and wanted to protect her, so he kept a secret from her: he did not place her in harms way (if there would be repercussion on her from his leakage). Snowden has the ability to be loyal to Mills. But arguably, not to the NSA or USA, at least not during his three months as a CIA contractor.

But by revealing the US surveillance strategies -- the leaks allegedly revealed the depth of the National Security Agency's (NSA) 'spying' on communications transmitted between countries through their emails and phone calls -- isn't Snowden in effect putting his girlfriend in jeopardy? She is an American. And the government, simply put, is monitoring communications to protect its citizens.

Jonathan Mills said that Snowden was a man who "has strong convictions about right and wrong" and that "he must have found something disturbing him enough that he would go this far." What Snowden leaked was information regarding NSA operations called PRISM: collections of data from U.S. phone call records to search for possible links to terrorists abroad and surveillance of online communications to and from foreign targets to detect suspicious behavior. What was shocking about what he leaked was perhaps how much personal information the government has access to about us.
Lindsay Mills and Edward Snowden (by\telegraph.co.uk/Inside Edition)

But, doesn't the average American citizen already know that the government is, in a sense, 'watching us.' Is there really such thing as privacy in any country and how should that right evaporate if we are being protected? Legally, once issues of national security are involved, the government has standing to take protective action to do anything and everything it can to keep the country safe. It's not the prettiest thing in the world but, why risk not keeping us safe just so that an NSA agent in Virginia will not know what kind of clothing you buy -- although, I agree that they really do not need to know everything that we do.

So, Snowden was more loyal to his convictions (aka himself) than he was to Mills. After all, Mills is in 'the news cycle'; naked from any real protection.

What do you think?