Crispus

Blog Consolidation

2004-12-19T18:48:00.000-06:00

It's getting too burdensome to have my personal blog here, and also post at Booker Rising - our daily news site targeting black moderates and black conservatives. So we're consolidating the two blogs, and material here is being moved over there. Go check out Booker Rising!

Baseballs’ Welfare Kings

2004-10-28T15:30:00.000-05:00

Casey Lartigue, another black blogger who leans libertarian, has a piece up about the debate over Washington, D.C. should build a baseball stadium. I agree with Casey that city subsidies of baseball teams involves public risk and private profit, and are therefore problematic. I say: Build your stadium and get off the mama’s milk of taxpayer dollars!

Fear of Black Man With a Gun?

2004-10-20T15:09:00.000-05:00

Cincinnati Black Blog asks this question, while responding to a local case involving Gary Smith (pictured). The Cincinnati Post reports that Smith shot four men in 2001, killing one in a case where he initially faced the death penalty. He was instead sentenced to 47 years, but then it was overturned a year or so later because he wasn't allowed an opportunity to be his own attorney, and the new case just ended in a mistrial.

Why did he shoot?: Smith was accused of shooting Jimmie Gordon to death and convicted of wounding three other men in a shooting rampage Smith started when he tried to get crack dealers away from his home. They responded by robbing him, killing his cat, urinating on his home and slicing his tires.

Like Cincinnati Black Blog, I have mixed opinion. For one, no one shot at Smith. Robbing, urinating, tire slicing, and yes even cat killing are no justification to murder and almost murder folks. However, did Smith believe his life was in danger? Probably. And the larger question: why were the crackheads messing with his property in the first place?! Had they not be up to no good, Smith wouldn't have shot them in the first place.

Had Smith been some white suburbanite - like the suburban Chicago man who wounded a robber who broke into his home twice, and charges were later dropped against the suburbanite for illegal gun possession - he wouldn't have almost faced Death Row or 47 years in prison. Just the amount of time that he's already served, as it would've been viewed as self-defense. And I've previously argued (as has The Mulatto Advocate and our sister site Booker Rising) that gun control laws are racist anyway, hampering common black folks' right to defend our bodies and our property.

The Pink Elephant

2004-10-28T15:57:00.000-05:00

Sen. John Kerry's campaign discusses ad nauseum about skyrocketing health care costs. Of course, costs are high: Americans are fatter than ever! According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity costs USA $75 billion a year. So obesity makes up a significant — and preventable — percentage of the health care expenditures.

Yet in its quest to force socialist health care upon us, Kerry-Edwards refuse to discuss how lifestyle choices (along with the high cost of malpractice insurance, and the American Medical Association’s collusion with state legislatures) jack up health care costs.

IMF Policies Spread AIDS, Groups Charge

2004-09-29T16:32:00.000-05:00

The austerity policies imposed on developing countries by the International Monetary Fund undermine the global HIV/AIDS fight, says a new report by several prominent public-health and development groups. They charge the IMF conditions on its loans and debt relief makes it much harder for governments to finance the rapidly rising expenses of fighting the epidemic. I thought shared needles, infidelity and multiple sex partners without protection spread AIDS.

Pardon me, for I’m misinformed! This ridiculous report seeks to leech onto AIDS/HIV to promote its real goal: socialism.

Chirac: ‘Time for Global Tax’

2004-09-27T05:41:00.000-05:00

French President Jacques Chirac is the latest leader to call for a global tax on arm sales and financial transactions to help fight poverty. Both he and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hope the proposal will cut global poverty in half by 2015. 110 countries have signed a document urging governments to consider the proposal.

Leave it up to a de facto socialist to back such a proposal. Why should countries pay for the results of other countries’ jacked-up fiscal policies? What’s the incentive for a country to learn from its mistakes and try a different path? And why arm sales? Why not, oh say, wines, cheese, cigarettes, and clothes? Ah, that would affect the French too much.

The way to reduce poverty is how Ireland, Portugal, China, India, Singapore, and other countries have done: reduce trade barriers, reduce regulations that inhibit business creation, reduce corruption, and reduce taxes.

How Regulation Fuels African Poverty

2004-09-20T14:52:00.000-05:00

A recent World Bank report, “Doing Business in 2005,” shows that poor countries impose three times the administrative costs and double the red tape as rich countries. The Economist illustrates:

Incorporating a business takes two days in Canada, but 153 in
Mozambique.…

In Haiti, for example, it takes 203 days to register a company, which
is 201 days longer than in Australia. In Sierra Leone it costs 1,268% of average
income, compared with nothing in Denmark. To register in Ethiopia, a would-be
entrepreneur must deposit the equivalent of 18 years’ average income in a bank
account, which is then frozen. In Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital, recording
a property sale involves 21 procedures and takes 274 days. Official fees amount
to 27% of the value of the transaction. In Norway the task takes less than a day
and costs only 2.5% of the price of the property.

Africa accounts for 2/3 of the world’s countries with the most onerous procedures, so no wonder that few companies wish to do business there. Says the Adam Smith Institute blog: “It is difficult to force people to be entrepreneurial, but they can be encouraged to be so if it is both easy and rewarding. The burdens and the fees should be lower, not higher, in the poorer countries because they need the growth more.”

Socialist procedures which undermine African entrepreneurship potential are a key barrier holding back the continent. Instead of the U.N. holding meaningless conferences, how about one focusing on reducing red tape and increasing growth so we can have some “African Lion” or “Caribbean Lion” countries?

2004-09-11T18:30:00.000-05:00

Three years ago, the "religion of peace" delivered this sermon. Let's not forget now or three years from now about the growing global dangers of Muslim jihadism to liberty.

Watching the Pigsty

2004-09-11T19:21:00.000-05:00

I love this graphic on Citizens Against Government Waste’s site! CAGW uses it for its pork advisory system to alert us about Capitol Hill’s spending atmosphere and pork projects. I guess the advisory is never low because Congress stays out of our wallets? Yeah, in my dreams.

Yeah, Where Is It?

2004-09-07T01:05:00.000-05:00

Last week on the “Hannity & Colmes” show, liberal Alan Colmes asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich why there was no commentary at the Republican National Convention about the Contract With America’s 10th anniversary. Especially since Gingrich was the Contract’s visionary? Gotta admit, that was a great question.

Back in 1994 (when I was a leftist), I hated the Contract With America. When I started my new job (at a national not-for-profit) in December, we regularly stated in the office that Newt was the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas. Having moved away from liberalism’s excesses and wondering why President Bush hasn‘t met a spending bill that he doesn't love, I now wish for the Contract's focus on government fiscal responsibility! Some months ago, I even drafted a “Republican Contract With Black America” to promote black economic empowerment

Badnarik: To Vote or Not Vote For?

2004-08-30T01:45:00.000-05:00

Through a Yahoo! usergroup, I received a 12-point “Reasons Why Not to Vote for Michael Badnarik” email from libertarian Eric Dondero. Some of the reasons why Dondero says libertarians should oppose the Libertarian Party presidential candidate (commentary edited down for space):

Michael Badnarik has NEVER held elective or appointed office. “Nominating Presidential candidates who have never held elective office for the Libertarian Party sends a strong signal to the American electorate that the LP is not at all serious about politics and is a fringe movement at best.”

He has made wacky statements to the media. “Badnarik speculated in the Economist Magazine that he doubted whether Al Qaeda was behind the September 11 attacks suggesting that it might even have been our own government.”

He has never served in the military. “September 11 proved that we need to elect Commander in Chiefs who have at least some sort of Military background.”

His views run to the extreme of the libertarian movement. “Badnarik is much closer to being an anarchist than a libertarian. He comes across as a militia type/tax protestor rather than one who is within the mainstream of libertarians.”

In 2000, I voted for Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party because I wasn’t satisfied with either Vice President Al Gore or George W. Bush. Browne also came closest to my own views. I won’t vote Libertarian again for the presidency, because the Libertarian position on the war on terrorism is problematic and naive to me. It would be great if the Libertarian Party got far more pragmatic about its political strategy.

Not Quite

2004-09-06T06:55:00.000-05:00

Libertarian Jackass wonders: “Hey, I heard a clip of Bush saying, ‘We will be attacked again,’ in reference to the War on Terror. Once that attack comes, will it be safe to say: ‘The War on Terror has failed’? That'll be the (sad) day.”

So a few failures (even sizeable ones) means we’ve lost? Only perfection equals success? Of course, President Bush could do certain things to help decrease such attacks - racial profiling of Arab and Muslim males, batten down the borders, really jail folks at will, make sure the war is instead fought overseas. But these things are odious to most libertarians (and some are odious even to me). So make a choice - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

School Vouchers Are Socialism?

2004-09-05T21:06:00.000-05:00

Yes, argues Paul Blair. Using national health insurance as a parallel example, he argues that teachers’ unions would dominate private schools under a voucher system. “Education vouchers mean a shift from having most schools operate under socialism, to having all schools do so. This is not progress.” He is also concerned about religious freedom, arguing that people can then spend their money on supporting views they agree with and vouchers amount to state subsidies for religious education.

Ain’t convinced. What Blair fails to mention is that private and parochial schools have the option to take or not take voucher students, and students have the option to attend a public, private, or parochial school. What about the individual right of a parent to send his or her child to a school of his or her (not the government’s) choice?

Also, the First Amendment actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It says nothing about state or local government. The 10th Amendment (federalism clause) says any power not specifically given to the feds flows to the states and to the people. We say: let the market decide. Looking at black support for school prayer (79%), the vast majority of black parents would send their child to parochial schools if given the choice. Not the godless government schools that undermine black culture, that Darrius and Shaniqua are now forced to attend.

If folks of any race don’t want to send their child to a parochial school, they can send them to a public or secular private school. That's what free exercise of religion looks like.

Moving to Create a Truly Free State

2004-08-22T14:10:00.000-05:00

Thousands of libertarians - mostly former D.C. residents - are moving to New Hampshire with the dream of starting a new movement, known as the Free State Project, that will become a national force. Why that state? Because it’s known for its maverick politics.

Says Philip Boncer, 41, a biomedical engineer from San Diego: "You have choices, but they're all bad for you. Democrats are increasing regulations and the strain on business, and Republicans are increasing moral laws."

Organizers say their primary goals are to limit government, reduce taxes and increase personal liberties. If the plan works, they say, other states will have to follow or lose residents and their tax dollars. Two members are already New Hampshire state representatives.

Sounds interesting, but I ain’t moving to New Hampshire: too cold, little culture, and few black folks. Best wishes to the group though.

A Libertarian Task, Indeed

2004-08-22T14:20:00.000-05:00

From the website of Michael Bowen, our fellow Conservative Brotherhood member: “Here is how Libertarians can earn my unending respect and admiration: work out the microeconomies and advocate for open pricing in every aspect of life. Where should they start? Health Care.”

He notes that - unlike health care for dogs and cats - it’s difficult to find out online how much it costs to fix a broken leg. This is because of powerful major party interests, both Republican and Democratic. “If Ralph Nader wasn't such a pompous ass, he'd focus the media on this issue. If Libertarians weren't such impractical dweebs, they'd quit showing off their ideological purity and get down to this business.”

As a small-l libertarian — as opposed to a Libertarian Party member - I agree. I’ve never understood why Libertarians value ideological purity over actually increasing libertarianism’s viability in society.

As I’ve argued here before, it’s not coincidental that the two areas of the U.S. economy that outpace inflation are those with the most government intervention: health care and education. The American Medical Association stops colluding with state legislatures to limit the number of licensed doctors - which jacks up health care costs, and keeps the number of doctors artificially much lower than it should be given our country’s population. It should reform requiring similar training regardless of actual specialty. And USA must privatize its health care system even more, which would improve efficiency and enable consumers to shop around for health care deals.

Taxpayers Foot Bill for Political Partying

2004-08-12T07:00:00.000-05:00

and Radley Balko says it's not right. And he's right! U.S. taxpayers give $15 million apiece to Democrats and Republicans for their conventions. Taxpayers in host cities and host states pay even more. This doesn't include the $50 million that each party gets for convention security in a post-9/11 world.

"After four years of spending taxpayer dollars at rates unseen in U.S. history, after failing to carry out the single most important responsibility of government — to protect American citizens from those who want to harm us — America's two major political organizations now get to throw themselves grand galas, where party leaders bloviate on national television about the earnest, hard-working taxpayer, then party in corporate suites where they nosh on the likes of 'maple bourbon glazed turkey and roasted duck, and Forest Glen chardonnay.' And you and I pay for it."

Radko doesn't buy the major parties' claim that we're paying for the "privilege of democracy," since the primary election system — also paid for by taxpayers — basically selects nominees months earlier.

Yet Democrats claim to be for the "common people" and Republicans feign concern about our tax burdens - while both put the squeeze on us taxpayers. Not long ago I ranted about how this misuse of tax dollars was neither a constitutional duty or responsibility of the federal government. Ending this party freebie would force the donkeys and elephants to create conventions that actually appeal to Americans, and not bore us to death.

A Prime Example

2004-05-21T04:18:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago, I saw another prime example of the "a vote for Bush [or Republicans] is a vote against your people." Check out how Cobb had a major hater for his "Keep It Right" piece, which discusses joint promo among black non-liberal bloggers. Bernard writes:

The other regards a curiously out-of-date notion that although 'we' often must work twice as hard for half the rewards, we ought to be 'happy nigras singing in the fields,' taking pride in devotion to ole Massa's crumb droppings. How pathetic and sad that you've given up all notions of genuine equality (at leats [sic] in terms of rewards for work) and have genuflected to the ravings of the D'nesh D'souza's, Ann Coulters, and Rush Limbaughs of the world who thought your blackified negrosity has been and is being treated too well as it is. You [sic] messege [sic] is 'Be happy with the little you are often cheated out of while others take advantage of all the opportuntities [sic] afforded them." That's not victimology; it's cold hard fact. Your cowardly position is simply a sad commentary on the state of the so-called Black right.

Boy did Bernard miss the boat! He's so blinded by his rage at black non-liberals that he ignores the fact that Cobb didn't argue this point at all. Of course, in black liberals' minds no black person can disagree with them and be conservative out of, oh say, their own independent thought.

If black liberals were truly concerned about equality, they'd place a lot more emphasis on black kids buckling down with their schoolwork, lowering the illegitimacy rate which is dragging down our stats big time, encouraging black folks to spend less and save money to start small businesses and take back our communities, rooting thugs out, and speaking out against entertainers who pimp black culture with images which negatively affect our kids. They'd be more concerned about the growing gap within Black America, as they are with whites. As Larry Elder once put it: "ask folks whether the presence of white racism or the absence of black fathers is more damaging to black communities." In 1964, it was definitely the former. Unfortunately today, it's the latter.

The black Left is so obsessed with whiteness that they can't ever be obsessed with blackness: how do we fare compared to white folks (white folks as the norm, not just examine black folks in our own right), what white folks did yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Black folks as inferior, needing handouts to improve our lives because we have no power or control. We must follow some self-appointed leader -- since elitism is ingrained in liberalism -- and shuffle our feet to another white massa (the Democratic Party) instead of the masses being our own leaders.

And of course, the only time something is important is when white folks do it. We see this mess when they promote "racism in education" over black excellence. Their approach to crime -- why doesn't lowering our crime rate and attention on the many black crime victims deserve at least as much outrage as ex-cons? Their focus on Haiti (since USA & France were behind Aristide's exit) and Iraq vs. Sudan (2 million black Christians butchered since 1983 by Arabized Muslims). Let's chase white folks all about their communities instead of building up our own. Like the NAACP and Rev. Al Sharpton worrying far more about black images on TV instead of encouraging black parents to have their kids watch much less TV and hit the books...because of course we must worry about what white folks think of our image. Black liberals are unwittingly the biggest promoters of the myth of white superiority in our communities.

Hmmm...

2004-08-06T12:36:00.000-05:00

I saw this image on the website of Baldilocks, my Conservative Brotherhood mate. This graphic is so true. I've discussed how my family had to flee Mississippi in 1923 because the Ku Klux Klan assaulted a family member, said "niggers be out of town by sundown tomorrow," and burned down our small family farm (my great-grandparents were apparently "too uppity"). Physical assault and violated private property rights (and local government wouldn't enforce the law). This scenario might have played out very differently had my great-grandparents been allowed to own guns like whites could do.

Even today, Booker Rising notes: "What's ironic is that gun ownership is the lowest in black neighborhoods, where crime disproportionately takes place. So law-abiding black masses are defenseless while a tiny thug minority (who will always acquire guns) rips and roars in many communities. Meanwhile, liberal elites expect us to wait for the police (i.e., government) to arrive to help us. Tyrone and Imani, do the police arrive in three minutes flat in your neighborhood?"

Open the Presidential Debates, End the Party Convention Freebie

2004-08-02T16:58:00.000-05:00

Look at this recent poll, by Rasmussen Reports. 68% of American adults believe that Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee, should be invited to participate in the presidential debates. 20% say he shouldn't be invited, and 12% aren't sure.

The Libertarian Party has been on all 50 state ballots for the past three presidential elections, and is on target to do so this year. If you get on the ballot in all 50 states - no small feat - then you should be in the debates. Of course, the Republicans and Democrats will never go for it so they can protect their political oligarchy. I'm not sure if I'll vote Libertarian again for president this year -- I'm staunchly opposed to Badnarik's anti-war stance on Iraq and too many Libertarian party members are in denial about the rising Islamist threat we face -- but I'd at least like to hear how Badnarik stacks up with Bush and Kerry.

The poll also shows that 62% of Americans agree with the Libertarian Party that tax dollars shouldn't be spent to support the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. I heard that the Democratic National Convention cost $95 million. I don't know how much of it is taxpayers' dollars, but insane nonetheless. Where in the U.S. Constitution is this a duty or responsibility of the federal government? Other than Kerry's speech (watched by a total of about 22 million, network and cable TV combined), hardly anyone watched the DNC. Most of it is a snoozer, and the taxpayer dollars help fuel it.

If these conventions had to pay their own way, they would (1) probably move from four days down to two; and (2) be far more interesting to watch because less money could be sent on script / image consultants and the parties would be forced to limit themselves to just their most captivating speakers. No more of those dreary nobody-who-think-they're-somebody politicians, with awful speaking skills. Far fewer of those "regular people" speakers plucked from battleground states to appeal to battleground voters' issues. The conventions would get more to the point and give us info.

The survey also finds that 10% of Americans identify themselves as libertarian (small-l, which is how I define myself), rather than liberal or conservative. This would be significantly higher if the Libertarian Party could access a larger audience and not regularly face a Catch-22 situation.

Debunking Black Socialism

2004-07-26T12:20:00.000-05:00

Good piece over at Cobb, a blog done by a black Republican and my fellow Conservative Brotherhood member. It's in response to a representative of the Black Telephone Workers for Justice, who argues that Bill Cosby's controversial comments and his supporters - who he calls "the arrogant black bourgeoisie" - are off base and that only socialism can save black youth.

It's crap to read that racism and capitalism go hand in hand, when many of the world's most racist societies are socialist. The Arab world's silence on genocide in Sudan comes to mind. Nor are the Eurosocialist countries - with their tight immigration controls - nearly as racially diverse as America (which rankles them even more - we "inferior" mutt Americans outdo their "superior" stock on economics and power). Let's not forget that Nazism, genocidal racism, was the German National Socialist Party.

Or how, in America, Jim Crow was a statist structure designed to undercut black enterprise and those of whites who wanted to treat their black and white customers equally. It was only after the South shed its segregationist socialist ways that it stopped badly trailing the North in economic development, became prosperous, and now leads America in job and demographic growth.

It's also laughable that Ron Slim Washington argues that we should "uphold the leading role of the working class" - bemoaning that black youth aren't more rebellious against the capitalist system - when a plural majority (44%) of black Americans are now middle class! 5% are rich, only 27% are working class, and 24% of us are poor. Dude, you're about three decades behind the times! On most social and economic indicators - which Booker Rising touts on a regular basis - we're doing better than ever! By next year - for the first time ever - a majority of a black population on the planet will be majority middle-class and own our homes. This should be shouted from rooftops so loudly that even people in Uganda can hear it, but instead we've got people like Washington bemoaning that it's undermining working-classhood. They refuse to see the progress forest for the trees, because it severely undermines their argument.

And that's by U.S. standards. By world's standards, it's out of the ballpark. We even have two black billionaires, with almost 10 people - including Bill Cosby - on their way. Show me another country on the planet where blacks can toe up with our stats. And no, even Canadian blacks' stats aren't on par. Black America's GDP ($645.9 billion, with 38 million folks) is almost as large as all of Canada (with 30 million folks).

Sure, we have remaining challenges - some, big ones - but they pale in comparison with any socialist country with a sizeable number of black folks. Unlike, say, Liberia, black Americans already have capital. Our 21st challenge is to effectively channel it back into our communities.

Also, Washington fails to examine why a few of our stats have backslid, even though black communities (and America) are more socialist than in 1965? And how about how socialist societies exploit black (and other people) - by taxing them to the rafters and undermining creativity and innovation so people can get ahead in life? As others have often said, socialism instead wants everyone to share the misery.

Cosby's Libertarian Side

2004-07-07T11:09:00.000-05:00

Bill Cosby's second round of criticisms about the attitudes and behaviors of some young blacks - six weeks after he upset the apple cart at the NAACP dinner commemorating the 50th anniversary of the landmark 'Brown v. Board of Education' decision - continues to generate controversy. However, many people have his back. There are people of various races and ideologies now clamoring for the liberal Cosby (who has a doctorate in education) to expand his comments to talk about individual and parental responsibility in America, across race and class. Booker Rising reports that his comments are now part of an education debate about 'Caribonics' in Britain.

Because he supports medium (perhaps high) government intervention in society, Cosby isn't a libertarian. However, he does have libertarian elements. One, he discusses personal responsibility. Libertarians believe the individual is the smallest unit of society, and should reap the repercussions - good or bad - of their life choices. Dr. Cosby does downplay the good stats showing reduction in teen pregnancy and crime and overplays poverty (76% of blacks aren't poor and the vast vast majority are law-abiding citizens), but his overall point remains that some folks can do even better. Cosby believes that there are certain things that government can't or shouldn't do for people, but we must do for ourselves.

Two, he focuses on how young blacks must prepare for globalization. No longer are Americans competing against each other, but now the world. Hence, Dr. Cosby is putting his doctorate to use in talking about language skills and educational achievement as a critical tool to further black advancement. Libertarians valorize the free market in generating prosperity, and that people with better skills are better able to capitalize on free markets. The world is wide open, and there are opportunities for blacks to build upon our strengths like never before.

Most importantly, Cosby puts his money where his mouth is. Not other people's money, but his own. Nor is he sitting on the sidelines talking theory, but doing nothing. Cosby has donated more than $20 million in scholarships for promising but low-income black students to attend college. He regularly forgoes his usual $150,000+-per-speech fee to raise funds so low-income high schools can acquire better equipment and teachers. He has a TV show in Philly targeting youth. This links very well with libertarians' promotion of private charity as the most effective means for social change in America, as it increases responsibility of both the giver and givee and wastes less money on bureaucracy.

What is great is that strange bedfellows are occurring. Not only are the usual black conservatives praising Dr. Cosby, but many black liberals are coming to his defense. Libertarians of all races should praise Dr. Cosby.

Condi's Black Ops: Mission Accomplished

2004-07-22T12:20:00.000-05:00

Two months ago, I wrote about "Condi's Secret Agenda." The Senate confirmed her girl Jendayi Frazer as the new U.S. ambassador to South Africa (the previous one resigned last year). Ms. Frazer was previously the national security adviser on Africa and is a former Harvard professor.

Jendayi is talking my language too, saying that helping South Africa's free trade is priority #1 for her. "The critical pillars and tools to build the business relationship are to advance talks and finalize the U.S.-SACU [South African Customs Union] Free Trade Agreement in the next six months, and to continue to support AGOA [African Growth and Opportunity Act]." She will also work to help its civil society and regional security issues.

Constance Newman was confirmed as assistant secretary of state for Africa, recently meeting with Liberian officials about the trade sanctions still imposed for its previous regime's brutality. She previously worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Africa program and is a former board member of the International Republican Institute.

Condi is sneaking in more high-powered, well-qualified black folks for foreign service positions. President Bush is nominating them to the U.S. Senate, which the civil rights industry overlooks. Good to see our international relations team getting more diverse.

Haiti: Ain't Learned a Thang

2004-07-21T13:10:00.000-05:00

The global community has pledged $1 billion to help the country promote democracy and economic recovery. Donors and Haitian officials alike have vowed to learn from past mistakes. Donors blame past failures on themselves, while Haitian officials attribute it mostly to poor government under ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Two things jump out at me. Didn't Haiti already have a democracy before USA, France, and Canada got into the mix this year? Hardly a fantastic one (those 2000 parliamentary elections were suspect), but Haitians should've decided Jean-Bertrand Aristide's future, via elections.

Two, the real blame goes to several areas: no free-market reforms, virtually no civil society, and rampant corruption. Haiti is a basket case. Its troubles precede Aristide by about 200 years. Rule of law is minimal, incentives to innovate virtually nil. This $1 billion will be totally wasted or siphoned off into somebody's Swiss bank account.

Had donors really learned from the past, they would forgo government foreign aid. Instead, they would be pushing for lower trade barriers - both in Haiti and in their countries so there is a more equitable relationship. No more giver and givee, which reinforces dependency. Focus on Haiti's competitive advantages - which are agriculture, tourism potential, and cheap unskilled labor - and go from there. Haiti's workers get more work, Western consumers get lower prices. Win-win. This is how China and India have rip-roaring economic and income growth.

I do agree with one quote in the article, "The time has come for this one-way contribution to stop," says Leonce Thelusma, former minister of economy of Haiti now living in Florida."The time has come for Haiti to offer advantages to the diaspora." Yes, instead of waiting for USA's Congressional Black Caucus to lead the way to bail it out of its mess.

The Fall of the Black Messiah, The Rise of Personal Leadership

2004-05-17T02:09:00.000-05:00

On Saturday the New York Times had an article about black leadership. More specifically, the Old Guard is concerned that no dominant black leader is emerging. Perhaps if the Old Guard didn't stingily control its power, then more obvious choices would emerge. Let's not forget that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was only 25 years old when he led the Montgomery bus boycott back in 1955. Today's Young Turks, like Rep. Harold Ford, get reviled because of their more moderate ways.

The article also asks whether today's generation even needs a leader, one man (and it's always a man) who shepherds us like flock. Like the people over at Booker Rising, I must also respond no. Sure, there will always be people who lead various groups. However, black Americans now come from a variety of backgrounds. In fact, not enough attention is paid to the diversity within black American communities. Contrary to popular assumptions, we are not a monolith. Just last week, a friend of mine had to check a white Australian-born-and-raised teenager who expressed amazement about my views. "She's the first black person who I've met with such conservative (read: libertarianism vs. his socialism) views," he told my friend. My girl had to remind him that yes, we black people do come in different packages.

I believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was dropped from the heavens to help lead black folks to the Promised Land. Somebody had to give black people hope, remind people that they had the power to change their lives and deploy a very effective strategy to challenge America to live up to its ideals. King was the right man for the right time! However, different times call for different tactics. We should debunk the very notion of leadership. This is nothing new: both Carter G. Woodson (founder of what's now Black History Month) and Ella Baker both proposed building the leadership of the masses. The elitist days of the "Talented Twentieth" are numbered and it's high time to train folks to be leaders in their own communities, to take charge of their lives. The civil rights generation wanted a seat at the table, the post-civil-rights generation wants to own and command the table.

The Case Against Debt Relief

2004-07-16T14:06:00.000-05:00

Two days ago, I got an email from Africa Action asking people to contact the U.S. Treasury. Why? To call on the Bush administration to support 100% multilateral debt cancellation for poor nations. They claim that "this year alone, 3 million people in Africa will die due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Yet countries on the African continent will send an estimated $15 billion in debt service to the IMF, World Bank, and wealthy creditor nations this year."

What part of "loan" do people not understand? It seems like the more debt relief there is, the further the country gets into the red. Why should horrible economic management be rewarded? Why should U.S. taxpayers cover other people's bad debts? I'd also argue that it's not the debt that is harming regular folks, but kleptocratic Marxist dictators and their cronies. Let's talk about the massive millions (occasionally, even billions) that flow into Swiss bank accounts. Or used to pay off the military to keep kleptocratic elites in power.

What rich countries can and should do is lower their remaining trade barriers on agricultural goods. African farmers would thus have a fair shot at world markets, and there would be lower prices for Western consumers. Instead of subsidizing inefficient industries, Western countries can plug their money into what they do best and where they have a fair competitive advantage.