There is no doubt that America is quickly moving towards a November presidential election that quite possibly could change the landscape of American politics forever. But could all the attention, support and excitement that Barack Obama's campaign has received highlight an ever growing shift between young black politicans and their elders?
The August 10, 2008 edition of The New York Times Magazine, ran an article entitled, "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?", exploring this issue and some of the major players who are dealing first-hand with this question. After reading the article I wondered if I had missed this new black political revolution, but upon further inspection there were signs of this shift coming.
The words of the Rev. Jesse Jackson caught during a break in a FOXNews program brought the shift out into the spotlight. In less than a minute, Americans were able to witness the ever-fading legacy of a historical black political figure. But as Rev. Jackson's actions seemingly put him on the bench, who is going to be willing and capable enough to be the star of black politics?
Cornell Belcher, a pollster for the Obama campaign, was quoted in The New York Times Magazine piece as saying, "I'm the new black politics. The people I work with are the new black politics. We don't carry around that history. We see the world through post-civil rights eyes. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but that's just the way it is. Barack Obama is the sum of their struggle. He's the sum of their tears, their fights, their marching, their pain. This opportunity is the sum of that." I disagree with Mr. Belcher that black Americans can't or don't carry around that history. That history must be carried around and together with modern day experiences bridge generational divides to provide for a brighter future; what good is a future that can't relate to the past and vice versa?
Even though Obama's proposed policies and plans regarding civil rights are ambitious and seem to hold water, will they be enough to rally older black leaders and other potential voters? In running for president, Obama isn't just running for blacks but everyone else that makes up America as well. It's because of that fact that he won't and can't be the sole voice or figurehead of the black community, because that falls short of his ultimate goal. So then if it's NOT Obama, then who?
In all honesty, does there need to be a black leader in America? Are black Americans still mobilizing under the old institutions of the civil rights era? There is no question that there are still systemic issues that need be challenged and changed in America. Those who lead the rallying cry for this change should not only come from the pulpits and political advocacy groups, but also the classrooms, lecture halls and playgrounds in America. Black America can only be furthered and strengthened by embracing it's history AND building towards a future.
What do YOU think? Do figures like the Rev. Jesse Jackson still hold some relevance in today's political landscape? Has black America reached a post-civil rights era? Should Barack Obama be the figurehead for black America?
Jonathan
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
And To Think He Could've Gone Faster...
Jamaican sprinter, Usain Bolt, has now added an Olympic gold medal to his title as, "The World's Fastest Man". Bolt incredibly recorded a time of 9.69 seconds in the men's 100m final in Beijing.
As I watched the final preparations before the race and listened to the NBC commentators, Ato Boldon and Tom Hammond, I couldn't help but get excited. The lights and grandeur of the Olympics catered to Bolt, who seemed relaxed and even playful with the crowd before getting into the starting blocks. Bolt's reactions were far different from his countryman, Asafa Powell, who looked like an already defeated man before he reached the blocks.
I wonder if anyone realized while watching the race that they were witnessing a new chapter in track & field. In an era that has seen numerous athletes cut down by steroid accusations and convictions, Bolt provided a much needed breath of fresh air. He hardly resembles the mold of a sprinter, standing 6 feet 4 inches. Due to his height he doesn't have to take as many steps as his smaller competitors, which matters greatly in a race like the 100 meters. And to think that some may dream to see him on an NFL roster. There is no doubt that Bolt has captured the attention of the world as well as made his country proud, but he could've done better.
Bolt raced down the middle of the track and upon noticing the absence of any competitors in close vicinity, began to showboat. With about 20 meters to go, Bolt stretched out his arms in celebration and thumped his chest as he reached the finish line. As for his abbreviated finish Bolt said, "I didn't come here to run the world record, because I was the world record-holder... I came here to win."
He may not think that his actions in the latter stages of the race were a big deal, but most assuredly they were. Without a doubt Usain Bolt is a talented individual and may have numerous chances to lower the world record. But there's a way in which you should win. Victory should only be celebrated once the competition is over and not before. What would we have said if Bolt somehow stumbled over his shoelace, which became untied during the race (look at his left foot)? Maybe I'm a little old-school when it comes to issues like this, but I highly doubt that my track coach in high school would've allowed the antics that Bolt pulled. Then again, I've never run 100 meters in 9.69 seconds.
What do YOU think? Was Usain Bolt's early celebration warranted? If you were competing against him how would you feel? Can he lower his world record?
Jonathan
As I watched the final preparations before the race and listened to the NBC commentators, Ato Boldon and Tom Hammond, I couldn't help but get excited. The lights and grandeur of the Olympics catered to Bolt, who seemed relaxed and even playful with the crowd before getting into the starting blocks. Bolt's reactions were far different from his countryman, Asafa Powell, who looked like an already defeated man before he reached the blocks.
I wonder if anyone realized while watching the race that they were witnessing a new chapter in track & field. In an era that has seen numerous athletes cut down by steroid accusations and convictions, Bolt provided a much needed breath of fresh air. He hardly resembles the mold of a sprinter, standing 6 feet 4 inches. Due to his height he doesn't have to take as many steps as his smaller competitors, which matters greatly in a race like the 100 meters. And to think that some may dream to see him on an NFL roster. There is no doubt that Bolt has captured the attention of the world as well as made his country proud, but he could've done better.
Bolt raced down the middle of the track and upon noticing the absence of any competitors in close vicinity, began to showboat. With about 20 meters to go, Bolt stretched out his arms in celebration and thumped his chest as he reached the finish line. As for his abbreviated finish Bolt said, "I didn't come here to run the world record, because I was the world record-holder... I came here to win."
He may not think that his actions in the latter stages of the race were a big deal, but most assuredly they were. Without a doubt Usain Bolt is a talented individual and may have numerous chances to lower the world record. But there's a way in which you should win. Victory should only be celebrated once the competition is over and not before. What would we have said if Bolt somehow stumbled over his shoelace, which became untied during the race (look at his left foot)? Maybe I'm a little old-school when it comes to issues like this, but I highly doubt that my track coach in high school would've allowed the antics that Bolt pulled. Then again, I've never run 100 meters in 9.69 seconds.
What do YOU think? Was Usain Bolt's early celebration warranted? If you were competing against him how would you feel? Can he lower his world record?
Jonathan
Hello Everyone...
Greetings!!
I'm starting up The Jonathan Clause again.
The beginning started over five years ago. This was born as a email newsletter that was sent to friends and family and now I'm branching out to the Internet.
Most of the early content consisted of my thoughts and opinions relating to various articles and stories within the news. While this format will continue, it is my hope that I'll be able to use these posts, thoughts and ideas to refine my writing skills.
These posts are open for you to reflect and comment as well. Please feel free. Part of becoming a better writer is hearing/seeing the compliments, suggestions and criticisms you may have. So please, don't be shy.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
I'm starting up The Jonathan Clause again.
The beginning started over five years ago. This was born as a email newsletter that was sent to friends and family and now I'm branching out to the Internet.
Most of the early content consisted of my thoughts and opinions relating to various articles and stories within the news. While this format will continue, it is my hope that I'll be able to use these posts, thoughts and ideas to refine my writing skills.
These posts are open for you to reflect and comment as well. Please feel free. Part of becoming a better writer is hearing/seeing the compliments, suggestions and criticisms you may have. So please, don't be shy.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The Quest for Excellence
What are we as people striving for ultimately? The American dream? Will we find it through watching the lives of Lindsay and Britney or the homeless on the street? Once we obtain "success" what happens then? In succeeding we knock others down, lose ourselves and for a short period of time become bigger than life (or so we think).
As I watched Michael Irvin give his acceptance speech for his induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame I was struck. Here was a man who had everything. Achieved the highest of goals. A champion athlete, hero to some, and villain to others. But with all his excellence and success there were the demons. The drugs, women, etc. He stood at the podium in tears and apologized to his wife and kids. He prayed. It seemed like true humility.
But even with all the acclaim he's received, he knows he didn't do "it" correctly. That he threw people under the bus. He told his boys not to do the things that dad did. The road to excellence may seem easy at times, but it's often marked with potholes, repaving, roadblocks and bridge collapses.
It's funny how celebrities lead their lives. Their triumphs and tragedies are very public; even the mundane is reported. But what I've been drawn to is how some of them manage to come through the tragedies they face. Is there true humility? True brokenness? A realization that there is true redemption? It looked as though Michael Irvin understood. That despite his troubles God granted him grace and mercy. That he didn't just rest on his triumphs or self will to succeed.
"...let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." - Hebrews 12:1-2
God knows our struggles, and in order to complete this race we must give our sins to Him. Otherwise, we're going to fall at every step. The lifelong struggle...
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Are you ready for this? Will you go watch?
During our past couple of trips to the movie theater my younger brother and I have seen the trailer for World Trade Center starring Nicolas Cage. I bowed my head during both times the trailer was played. I have no desire to see this film, to see the trailer or anything like it.
In just over a month's time five years will have elapsed since September 11th, 2001. I just don't think enough time has passed to begin doing movies in the theater. Maybe this is just me. But it's hard to look at movie images when I still have the real images ingrained in my brain.
I'm not trying to take anything away from the story that is being told in the movie, but why are we going through this again? The pain, the feelings of loss, anger, and shock?
Maybe I'm just angry. Well a little. I had class that morning. Christian Thought. We started class and then someone came in and turned on the TV. By that time the first plane had already crashed. Then came the second plane. We went on with class. We f***ing went on with class. We were let out a bit early, but then in Philosophy it happened again. We didn't even MENTION what happened. I never did agree with how the college chose to handle this situation. We shouldn't have had class.
So to conclude I'm not going to see the movie (reality was bad enough). Is the rest of America?
In just over a month's time five years will have elapsed since September 11th, 2001. I just don't think enough time has passed to begin doing movies in the theater. Maybe this is just me. But it's hard to look at movie images when I still have the real images ingrained in my brain.
I'm not trying to take anything away from the story that is being told in the movie, but why are we going through this again? The pain, the feelings of loss, anger, and shock?
Maybe I'm just angry. Well a little. I had class that morning. Christian Thought. We started class and then someone came in and turned on the TV. By that time the first plane had already crashed. Then came the second plane. We went on with class. We f***ing went on with class. We were let out a bit early, but then in Philosophy it happened again. We didn't even MENTION what happened. I never did agree with how the college chose to handle this situation. We shouldn't have had class.
So to conclude I'm not going to see the movie (reality was bad enough). Is the rest of America?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
So the FCC won't let me be...
I'm a little upset. The government is trying to crack down on us again. How? Sports. Specifically broadcasts where dirty language slips by the sensors. Frankly I don't know how they are going to stop this. The FCC could press the silence button on bad language, or use a delay to weed out those naughty words during sports broadcasts but doing so would ruin sports. Live sports broadcasts are the last "live" phenomenon on TV and ever since Justin Timberbreast and Janet Jacko Jackson ruined things for everyone we now have to watch sports through the wonderful view of a five-second or longer delay (this is really trippy if you watch the game, but turn down the sound and listen to the radio broadcast; it's like being in a short time warp).
The FCC might be able to silence those athletes or fans that use very colorful language, but if said athletes or fans are caught on camera you'll still be able to figure out what they said by lip reading. What does the FCC take us for a bunch of idiots? In the heat of athletic competition words are going to slip. A swear word here and there isn't going to kill anyone who is watching the broadcast. I mean who wouldn't mutter a little nasty under their breath after striking out with the bases loaded, or throwing an interception during a fourth quarter drive to the goal line. Haven't there been times when you (*gasp* yes you) have used a bad word. I admit I have. I'm trying to stop; especially when I play pick-up hockey on Saturdays (I'm not advocating that you should, I'm just admitting that it does happen).
But to try and cleanse sports broadcasts from these occurences is to rob the general public of the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat. Watching an athlete use a swear word may give us a chance to explain to little Billy (or Jorge, or Kadeem, or Tico) why the athlete said what he said, and when (if ever) is the right time to use such language. I don't know. I guess I'm a little tired of having things censored all the time. I do believe in the censoring of some broadcasts (that's a whole other set of blog posts I could get into), but not when it comes to sport.
I know that .2 of you watched the Stanley Cup Finals but when the Hurricanes were celebrating after their game 7 victory over the Oilers, Ray Whitney exclaimed to his teammates, "F*** yeah boys!!" All this while hoisting the Stanley Cup over his shoulders. It was refreshing. It wasn't a watered down victory speech, or an, "I'm going to Disneyworld" expression, but rather another expression we may not see if the FCC had it's way. I don't know. I'm off my soapbox now. I just think it's interesting to see how people react to great accomplishments or trials especially in sports. If the FCC had it's way, sports watchers would be robbed of the genuine thought (or sometimes lack thereof) of athletes and fans. Okay, NOW I'm done.
Below Story From Reuters.com By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - In its continuing crackdown on on-air profanity, the FCC has requested numerous tapes from broadcasters that might include vulgar remarks from unruly spectators, coaches and athletes at live sporting events, industry sources said.
Tapes requested by the commission include live broadcasts of football games and NASCAR races where the participants or the crowds let loose with an expletive. While commission officials refused to talk about its requests, one broadcast company executive said the commission had asked for 30 tapes of live sports and news programs.
"It looks like they want to end live broadcast TV," said one executive, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "We already know that they aren't afraid to go after news."
NO SLIPS ALLOWED
While live programming always has been problematic for broadcasters, it has become even more difficult under tougher commission rules approved in 2004. The new rules found that virtually any use of certain expletives will be considered profane and indecent, even if it is a slip of the tongue. In a March decision, the FCC found that the CBS news program "The Early Show" violated its indecency rules because of a profane slip-up but did not issue a fine because the incident occurred before the new rules were instituted.
Live sports -- amateur, college and professional -- have long been a broadcast programming staple. Broadcasters have spent enormous amounts of money and energy to come up with ways to give audiences a better feel for the action. As broadcasters vie for viewers, technical advances that include such things as on-field microphones and in-car cameras have become as important as the announcers.
"I don't know how they are going to rule, but they asked us for tapes with a specific emphasis on crowd noise," said another TV executive, who also requested anonymity. "If some bozo in the crowd calls the ref an asshole, the commission is asking for a copy of the tape."
A live, on-field event -- albeit when no athletes were on the field -- during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, when Janet Jackson's breast was accidentally bared, helped reignite Washington's interest in the indecency issue. Since then there has been a highly charged fight at the commission about just how far the commission can go in restricting broadcasts.
OPINION DIVIDED
Broadcasters last week split over whether the commission should be allowed to get one of the premier indecency cases back from the federal court in New York.
In a series of motions filed Friday in federal court in New York, Fox and its affiliate group, CBS and NBC opposed an attempt this week by the FCC to get a key indecency case back from the court.
The commission this month asked the same federal court for more time to consider affiliates' arguments that the agency erred in March when it decided variations of the words "fuck" and "shit" likely are to be indecent whenever broadcast, even if the words are uttered accidentally.
A delay would let affiliates contest the decisions before the commission. The FCC contends that this is a necessary step before arguing in court. The agency said ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates backed its request.
Under federal court rulings and commission rules, material is indecent if it "in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Indecent speech can be aired safely between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Under a new law approved by Congress and signed by President Bush, broadcasters face fines of as much as $325,000 per violation, up from a previous maximum of $32,500.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
The FCC might be able to silence those athletes or fans that use very colorful language, but if said athletes or fans are caught on camera you'll still be able to figure out what they said by lip reading. What does the FCC take us for a bunch of idiots? In the heat of athletic competition words are going to slip. A swear word here and there isn't going to kill anyone who is watching the broadcast. I mean who wouldn't mutter a little nasty under their breath after striking out with the bases loaded, or throwing an interception during a fourth quarter drive to the goal line. Haven't there been times when you (*gasp* yes you) have used a bad word. I admit I have. I'm trying to stop; especially when I play pick-up hockey on Saturdays (I'm not advocating that you should, I'm just admitting that it does happen).
But to try and cleanse sports broadcasts from these occurences is to rob the general public of the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat. Watching an athlete use a swear word may give us a chance to explain to little Billy (or Jorge, or Kadeem, or Tico) why the athlete said what he said, and when (if ever) is the right time to use such language. I don't know. I guess I'm a little tired of having things censored all the time. I do believe in the censoring of some broadcasts (that's a whole other set of blog posts I could get into), but not when it comes to sport.
I know that .2 of you watched the Stanley Cup Finals but when the Hurricanes were celebrating after their game 7 victory over the Oilers, Ray Whitney exclaimed to his teammates, "F*** yeah boys!!" All this while hoisting the Stanley Cup over his shoulders. It was refreshing. It wasn't a watered down victory speech, or an, "I'm going to Disneyworld" expression, but rather another expression we may not see if the FCC had it's way. I don't know. I'm off my soapbox now. I just think it's interesting to see how people react to great accomplishments or trials especially in sports. If the FCC had it's way, sports watchers would be robbed of the genuine thought (or sometimes lack thereof) of athletes and fans. Okay, NOW I'm done.
Below Story From Reuters.com By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - In its continuing crackdown on on-air profanity, the FCC has requested numerous tapes from broadcasters that might include vulgar remarks from unruly spectators, coaches and athletes at live sporting events, industry sources said.
Tapes requested by the commission include live broadcasts of football games and NASCAR races where the participants or the crowds let loose with an expletive. While commission officials refused to talk about its requests, one broadcast company executive said the commission had asked for 30 tapes of live sports and news programs.
"It looks like they want to end live broadcast TV," said one executive, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. "We already know that they aren't afraid to go after news."
NO SLIPS ALLOWED
While live programming always has been problematic for broadcasters, it has become even more difficult under tougher commission rules approved in 2004. The new rules found that virtually any use of certain expletives will be considered profane and indecent, even if it is a slip of the tongue. In a March decision, the FCC found that the CBS news program "The Early Show" violated its indecency rules because of a profane slip-up but did not issue a fine because the incident occurred before the new rules were instituted.
Live sports -- amateur, college and professional -- have long been a broadcast programming staple. Broadcasters have spent enormous amounts of money and energy to come up with ways to give audiences a better feel for the action. As broadcasters vie for viewers, technical advances that include such things as on-field microphones and in-car cameras have become as important as the announcers.
"I don't know how they are going to rule, but they asked us for tapes with a specific emphasis on crowd noise," said another TV executive, who also requested anonymity. "If some bozo in the crowd calls the ref an asshole, the commission is asking for a copy of the tape."
A live, on-field event -- albeit when no athletes were on the field -- during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, when Janet Jackson's breast was accidentally bared, helped reignite Washington's interest in the indecency issue. Since then there has been a highly charged fight at the commission about just how far the commission can go in restricting broadcasts.
OPINION DIVIDED
Broadcasters last week split over whether the commission should be allowed to get one of the premier indecency cases back from the federal court in New York.
In a series of motions filed Friday in federal court in New York, Fox and its affiliate group, CBS and NBC opposed an attempt this week by the FCC to get a key indecency case back from the court.
The commission this month asked the same federal court for more time to consider affiliates' arguments that the agency erred in March when it decided variations of the words "fuck" and "shit" likely are to be indecent whenever broadcast, even if the words are uttered accidentally.
A delay would let affiliates contest the decisions before the commission. The FCC contends that this is a necessary step before arguing in court. The agency said ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates backed its request.
Under federal court rulings and commission rules, material is indecent if it "in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Indecent speech can be aired safely between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Under a new law approved by Congress and signed by President Bush, broadcasters face fines of as much as $325,000 per violation, up from a previous maximum of $32,500.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)