Jackson Free Press

Just FYI, We've got an action packed Direct Line on tap for Tues. Ward 1 City Councilman Quentin Whitwell will join us. Along with Mississippi Link Editor Othor Cain, Nic Lott, and Former State Represenative Candidate Chris Bell. We'll be waxing poetic about the proposed Tax commission, JPS Superintendent hearings, Billy McCoy stepping down, Obama vs. Cornell West and much MORE. the show is LIVE so you can call in and grill our guests 601 914 0064. 7pm on comcast channel 14. TUNE IN!

Previous Commentsshow

Folks, we're working on getting Direct Line on the Direct TV tier as well. I know a lot of you have said you cant get the show because you dont have Comcast. If ya do...remember you can call in and talk to th guests or ask them some questions. 601 914 0064. the show airs live at 7pm on comcast 14

Kamikaze

May 30 2011

As to Dr. West and Obama, in my view Dr. West is correct and righteous for making the argument he's making. From my perspective it's the undisputed truth. However, I'm well aware of the situation President Obama is in as the first black president and his quest to get re-elected. I'm simply appalled that he would ask us to blindly or loyally vote for him again? Why would we do this? What do we owe him? What has he done for us? Hasn't he for the most part continued things as they were? Apparently, he thinks we should be proud to be used by him. He has my greatest sympathy for the predicament he's in as an African-American in a white-dominated and controlled society. Yet some of us believe he was squandered this great opportunity to do something righteous about the status quo. Righteous and moral is not racist or improperly preferential. Besides, Dr. West rightfully says he has shown a preference for the rich and powerful over the poor and disadvantaged by the bailout on Wall Street. Just one opinion. What are the others?

Walt

May 31 2011

I think Dr. West is correct in looking at the results of the Obama policies thus far. Obama has not governed from his base and has pandered too much to the status quo in areas of economics and foreign policy. But I think West has veered the debate into the sensationalist realm by casting Obama as a "Wall St. Puppet" and "more comfortable around powerful whites and Jews". It is one thing to be critical of what Obama did in the Bailout or his foreign policy, it is another thing to suggest he has a personal character weakness by questioning his courage and racial identity. I think that is unfair. Obama does deserve criticism and accountability, as does any president, but this kind of intraracial smear game I thought was beneath someone of the intellect, faith and convictions of West.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 8 2011

Obama does deserve criticism and accountability, as does any president, but this kind of intraracial smear game I thought was beneath someone of the intellect, faith and convictions of West. Really? It sounds pretty typical of his criticisms to me. And no surprise either. I predicted this during the campaign, that "President Obama" would end up disappointing and angering a lot of people who expected him to passionately embrace and implement a black empowerment agenda at the risk of offending his deep-pocketed corporate backers. And why should he, when he knows he still has the black vote locked up at the end of the day regardless.

Jeff Lucas

Jun 8 2011

@ Jeff, When have you ever heard West call another black leader “in awe of powerful Jewish elites”, especially one he publically supported so strongly? I would say that this is way out of character for West, and some have suggested that he is taking it to this realm because of a perceived personal snub by Obama at the inauguration. If people were expecting a “black empowerment” agenda out of Obama, then they should be disappointed. But governing from his base isn’t just about Black empowerment; it is about protecting the more vulnerable from the corporate elites he campaigned so hard against. Doing what is right by the working class is not just about Black empowerment; it is the stuff of smart, progressive, and effective governing and problem solving. Obama has just proven to be too much of a politician and not enough of a transformative change agent, in the eyes of many progressives. With all of that said, he has still done a good job with what he had to work with (i.e., the filibustering repubs in the Senate and the turncoat Southern and Midwestern dems in the house, etc.) .

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 8 2011

@Blackwatch, I didn't imply other black leaders, just Obama. West didn't just start being critical of Obama a month ago, there has been a steady progression and escalation of his criticism of the President since the night of the inauguration. I've not heard him use those exact words before, but he's been pretty clear for years now that he feels disappointed that Obama is beholden and caters to white monied interests while giving lip service to the black community. You mention that he's possibly sore about not being acknowledged at the inauguration, I don't know about that. If that's true that's pretty small-minded and pathetic, to hold a personal grudge this long as to lash out in public. He's genuinely angry at what he sees is a failure by the President to set an agenda that makes the advancement of poor people of color a visible priority. And again, Obama is a politician and has been from the day he announced his candidancy, and despite my support I've never been under the illusion that he was going to be some transitional figure who was going to change the status quo. There are economic powers that have run this country in one form or another since its inception and always will, and ALL Presidents have bowed to their influence to a great extent - don't be fooled by the "D" and "R" after their names.

Jeff Lucas

Jun 8 2011

@Jeff. I agree that economic interests have been the true source of power in America from the times of the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the Constitution. Maybe was naïve to believe that any president could shun the influence of business elites if they had the heart to do so. I think Obama has that heart, but, for a couple of factors, (namely his misguided trust in the intentions of the repubs in the legislature, and , more apparent now, his inability to really reign in and regulate the financial markets) his policies seemed to have perpetuated the status quo in those areas (though I think health care reform is a progressive policy that he has pulled off, though not as effectively as he wanted). West (and Tavis Smiley) has been critical of Obama for a minute. But what I am calling out of his character is the insinuations he’s making about Obama’s courage and racial identity. I think those are cheap and West has more to lose than to gain with those critiques.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 8 2011

Dr. West went a little further than I would have gone in my criticisms of Obama too. However, I don't know that it's wrong to get pissed off for making scores of appearances for Obama then get treated like you're unappreciated or unworthy of tickets to social events when Obama was giving them out to hundreds of people doing so much less or nearly nothing. Personally, I wouldn't have mentioned the slight for fear of the argument being made it's just sour grapes and nothing of substance. I didn't expect much of anything from Obama with respect to aiding black folks but I didn't expect him to be afraid to acknowledge our existence or plight as a group except when asking for votes. I'm highly offended by this! Obama has lived around blacks much if not all of his life. He knows and understands our plight, needs and situations so he and his advisors or handlers can spare me this crap about blacks need to provide him with an agenda or list of black concerns. Did any other group of people have to do that? If this is required then tell us blacks why we should vote for you again as if you're one of us, knows us or care about us. Although I'm unpersuaded any such list is needed or required I'd probably provide one to see if Obama is serious, which I doubt he is. Dr. West is basically fatually correct in all of his criticisms of Obama. Dr. West also says Obama made a beeline to him at some event recently and cursed him out. This conduct on Obama's part angers me greatly because I have seen him refuse to show any balls when faced with criticisms by Fox News and every right-wing rascal and sarah jane walking the land. He doesn't seem to have the gall to fight his real enemies but he felf it alright to attack Dr. West for his truthful commentary regarding him. While we're proud of Obama for his accomplisments and performance under such trying circumstances, he is not beyond honest criticisms and protest. If not arguably a puppet or mascot then what? I would have been to nice to call him that at this point, but isn't he arguably that by his performance thus far with regard to Wall Street. As much as I love Dr. West for his brillance, honesty and faith I'm disappointed that he mentioned the slight by Obama publicly. However, I'm glad to learn he did the things Dr. West pointed out. This is a reflection of Obama's character as well. I will still support obama unless the Democrats can run someone better. I gave him lots of money the last time for a poor boy. I'm refusing to give a dime this time. I feel your pain Blackwatch and am not in total disagreement, but I think Barry owes us something too if he wants our vote. I'm not proud to see business as usual when I was promised, expected and thought I was acting upon something different. Mr. Obama needs to know we have expectations too, and when unmet somebody has to pay. The independents and majority aren't the only ones he should be worried about. We're not mere cannon fodder.

Walt

Jun 8 2011

I have lost all respect for Al Sharpton and other so called black leaders who claim we shouldn't criticize Obama for his performance, character or manhood. I still support Barry but I'm not looking the other way or denyying the truth of any matters concerning him.

Walt

Jun 8 2011

@ Walt, I agree that the President is not above criticism and accountability from the Black Community. I just want him to make plain where he stands, and not be so much of a candidate in the white house. It is one thing to campaign and be vague as to not lose too many unnecessary votes. It is another thing to be in the White House and still tout things that you know don’t work. For instance, yesterday, Obama was in North Carolina trying to encourage small business to hire people. A reporter asked him why was that necessary, given that corporations are making record profits, so shouldn’t they be hiring people? Obama replied that he felt the businesses were investing in “equipment “. The reality is that businesses are not in the “hiring” business, they are in the “profit” business. Business owners open up businesses not to employ people, but to make the business owners money. If they can make profit without hiring people (which is what happens when they get tax cuts and incentives, especially when they have products stock piled to sell), then why would they cut into their profits by hiring more workers, which they don’t need to sell their stock piled products, if they are even selling tangible goods in the first place? Obama knows that this whole “businesses provide jobs” spiel is nothing more than the trickle down farce that business elites tout as a reason to not give aid directly to the working class. What this economy needed was more infrastructure projects that employed more people directly, and relief from mortgages for the working class. Then they could have paid their bad mortgages and the banks and Wall St. could have collected their debts and saved their own hides. This is what is frustrating about Obama; he has the best ideas as a candidate and a spokesperson, but for some reason does not put them into play as the President. Many (like West) say that is because he is bought and paid for, and only gives lip service to these progressive ideas. I tend to believe that it is because he tries too hard to appeal to people who he will never appeal to. I also think he underestimates the numbers of people in his base. Just govern from his base, and let his base carry him to a second term. The way he is going now, it will probably be an uphill battle for re-election if the repubs can find a candidate who would try to actually govern, rather than just defeat Obama.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 14 2011

All, after a minor hiccup last week. Quentin Whitwell WILL be on Direct Line Tonight at 7pm on comcast 14. you can call in LIVE and ask him some questions 601 914 0064

Kamikaze

Jun 14 2011

Blackwatch, Good post. I agree with you that Businesses are not in the "hiring" business. They are set up and run to make profits. Without profits the businesses are in business no more. If more workers equate to more profits for a business they will hire people if there is no more profit to be made by adding additional personnel they simply won't. Businesses simply aren't sure what those extra workers will end up costing through more regulation and taxes and are not ready to take a chance with the slim profit margins they are facing. Sure, some corporate giants are making record profits but small businesses are the one's who will put our people back to work and they are having an extremely difficult time right now. I do, however, find it laughable that you would call the idea that "businesses provide jobs" a "trickle down farce". When it's clearly demonstrable. Businesses obviously do provide jobs. Sure the government does provide some jobs. But to imagine that government contracts which do employ some people for a short time are the same or better than long term sustainable private sector jobs is silly.

WMartin

Jun 14 2011

@WMartin, The trickledown theory is a farce in terms of collective empowerment of working class people. It requires too much largesse for the capitalist class to make it more sensible than direct aid to workers. Since the Reagan era, real wages have gone down for labor while CEO pay has grown exponentially. This is the aim and end of the “trickledown”. You even note that small businesses have tight profit margins and so things like taxes and regulations hinder them from hiring. If small businesses are on tight profit margins, then I guess they would indeed need to hire more labor to produce more products to sell and generate more profits. Why is hiring more people a problem for them , except that they are seeking ways to increase profit margins without necessarily increasing production, thus the push for less taxes and regulation? Hiring a worker is more expensive than just hoping the government would tax you less and have less environmental and safety regulations. Also, the Bush tax cuts are still in effect, yet these businesses, small and large, are not hiring any more people. If the trickledown is so effective, years of Bush and Reagan tax cuts and deregulation would have us in a more stable economic environment. The reality is that these top down economic theories only benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the masses. Businesses don’t “provide jobs”. They exploit workers for profit, who have no choice but to enter into these types of relationships in order to make a living. You even point this out when you note that they will hire “if there is money to be made”. How can such a situation be what a democratic government chooses to best distribute resources, rather than direct aid and employment? I can understand why business elites will tout the trickledown as a solution, but it makes no economic sense for the working class and the government that is sworn to protect all people.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 14 2011

@Blackwatch - Very good posts. I would say that while businesses do provide jobs, that they don't create jobs. Jobs are only created when customers utilize or purchase the business' product or service at a rate high enough to DEMAND an increase in production or service personnel. This only happens when the product or service has sufficient quality and merit for consumers and consumers have enough disposable income to want and be able to purchase that product or service. The Pay Gap between the average CEO and average worker is the reason Consumers (who are also the workers for the most part) do not have the free flow of funds sufficient to drive job creation. No Business is going to hire someone and hope that business picks up to match or exceed the increased production. They have to have sufficient demand for their product before they hire. Tax Cuts only encourage higher profit margins, lower pay rates and less investment in the business - because, hey! Not much taxes on Profit. Tax Increases encourage higher pay rates and more reinvestment into the business - because, hey! Need to lower profits to pay less taxes.

BobbyKearan

Jun 14 2011

@Bobbykearen You hit the nail on the head. Products won’t sell unless there are people willing AND able to buy them. If giving businesses tax breaks and other incentives doesn’t spur them on to hire more people, then why doesn’t the government just hire workers directly and use that as the chief way to increase demand and grow the economy? Businesses may not hire people in hopes of demand for products increasing, but more people with more disposable income will definitely drive up demand for products. You would think that business owners would understand this and welcome things like minimum/ living wages and such, but I guess greed and short sighted thinking gets in the way. This is why Obama should just govern from his base and let the chips fall where they may, because these trickledown TEA party folks have no clue as to what really characterizes their condition and what would actually help them, if they are advocating to cut taxes to the rich and eliminate social programs.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 14 2011