The Daddy wants to thank you

Listen up: On December 8, 2008, The daddy was honored to be selected as a member of AfroSpear, a very influential blogging organization. And today, even in cold Minneapolis, Minnesota, he can look out of his window and see a bright morning sun pushing through dark clouds.

In case you don't know, AfroSpear is a serious organization. Why? Because it is an alliance of black bloggers who not only provide a black perspective on the blogosphere. It identifies, clarifies and advocates around issues, events, and individuals of particular interest to African Americans.

The daddy hopes to honor this membership by writing meaningful posts and participating in AfroSpear to the best of his abilities.

The daddy wants to thank Wayne, Francis and all the wonderful people who selected him. Most of all, he wants to thank you, the reader. You continue to come to daddyBstrong, leave insightful comments, even go to the sidebar and put yourself on the list as a follower. But it's your insightful, honest comments that distinguishes daddyBstrong from others in the blogosphere. Your support is humbling.

For those interested, here is the announcement that was made over at Electronic Village. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 8, 2008

New AfroSpear Member: daddyBstrong

We are pleased to let you know that Mac 'MacDaddy' Walton is a new member of The AfroSpear. His blog, daddyBstrong (BBR #1402), came online in April 2008. MacDaddy said, "I think I would contribute by bringing to the Black blogosphere a clear Black perspective and progressive viewpoint with respect politics and what we call race."

Walton continued, "I've been blogging, not only on current issues, but also issues that connect us to our history. I want to be a part of the AfroSpear because I don't just want to write on my own. I want to be a part of a network or alliance that welcomes my work ... I don't want to be a person who goes to other bloggers to argue or complain. I want to be supportive ... or just to say a few words just to let them know I'm reading them and they're not alone."

I encourage folks to check out daddyBstrong and welcome him to the AfroSpear!

Sean Taylor and Violence in America

"His heroic action on that tragic night saved both of their lives and is a testament to his humanity and courage. His spirit will live forever in our hearts and through the legacy of his achievements and the family he leaves behind."
--Andy Garcia
"It is one day at a time. "We're getting over a tragedy. . . . You never want to lose a child at a young age. By the same token, I know God don't make mistakes."
--Pedro Taylor, Sean Taylor's father, holding Jackie Taylor, Sean's daughter.

On October 30, 2008, before their game with the New York Giants, the Washington Redskins remembered Sean Taylor, their great safety who died on November 27, 2007, after being murdered in his home. They admitted him into the Ring of Fame, an honor bestowed upon Redskin players who distinguished themselves in their contributions to the game. But did the skins owners, coaches, or fans remember the lesson of his death?

Kansas sports writer Jason Whitlock, who unfairly suggested that Taylor lived a thug life,who even blamed hip hop for Sean Taylor's death, definitely did not learn the lesson. He seemed to have imagined some thuggish brothas, friends or former friends of Taylor, near drunk on 40-ounce beers, crack and self-hate, rollin through his neighborhood and deciding on a whim to break into Taylor's house.

The facts are these:

* Sean Taylor did not live a thug life. He grew up in a middle class neighborhood with his mother and father, who is in the law enforcement business.
* Sean Taylor was a great football player who was highly respected by fellow teammates and players around the league.
* Sean Taylor, according to his girlfriend, Jackie Garcia, the niece of famous Cuban American actor Andy Garcia, was a loving partner and nurturing father.
* Sean Taylor, who was only 24, gave back to his community. For example, he helped the coach of the University of Miami (the college he attended) work with troubled players. And he got fellow professional players help in community work, especially the two players on his team, who also attended what they call "The U!"
*Whitlock, a black man, speculated that, by having hung out with thugs in the past, Taylor invited his own death WITHOUT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
*Whitlock was wrong. Taylor was killed when people, one of whom used to work at his home, disconnected his security system and broke into his home.

Whitlock should feel ashamed. But what's the real lesson? Shortly after Taylor's death, the daddy, responding to Whitlock's foolish speculations, wrote:

"You see, no matter how this homicide turns out, it is Taylor, the rich black guy, who has been convicted. And of what? Being a rich black man in America? No. A scapegoat? No. If we’re going to get into the conviction business, we need to get real, lay it down in the field and run it straight up: We’re all guilty of being afraid of what Taylor’s homicide represents: That America, the wealthiest country in the world, is also the most violent country in the western world; that this once-great country is in decline, with its middle class sinking into the lower classes and its lower classes becoming so desperate that it’s just about to go out of its mind; and a desperate people will kill not only a strong black athlete in his walled-off home with security—a desperate people will kill us. What we don’t want to come to terms with-- or do anything seriously about-- is the fact that, in this new violent America, we’re all Sean Taylors now. So let’s keep from addressing the larger issue of out-of-control violence in America. Let's focus on Taylor, especially his few “run-ins” with the law. Yeah. Rich black male athlete gets in trouble with the law. That'll sell. Yeah. And let’s not cut a brotha some slack, even in death."

Sean Taylor, the daddy remembers you. And he remembers the lesson of your death: that what happened to you could happen to him, to any of us in America.

The river and Langston Hughes on a cold winter's day?

It's very cold and windy in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Snow is on the ground. But, in the daddy's mind, it's the middle of June, and he is, once again, down at St. Anthony Main, a riverfront offering visitors acres of parks, trails, picnic areas, landmarks, a
Movie Theater, restaurants, shops, family-oriented events, entertainment and and numerous walk or bike trails to explore.

In the daddy's mind, he is still walking by the river but always ending in the middle of the St. Anthony bridge, staring into moving waters, listening to the sound of the waves, reciting his favorite poem by Langston Hughes:

The Negro Speaks of Rivers
by Langston Hughes

I've known rivers
I've known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human veins.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunset.

I've known rivers.
Ancient, dusky rivers

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

Where do you go to soothe your soul on a cold winter's day-- if only in
your mind?

The 13th Amendment-- Happy Freedom, People!

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." --Article 1 of the 13th amendment

Today, the daddy is feeling the 13th amendment. It was ratified on this day, December 6, 1865. It legally abolished slavery. Here is an article with a brief background on the 13th amendment. Happy Freedom, people!

The Thirteenth Amendment
by Gordon Leidner

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery as a legal institution.

The Constitution, although never mentioning slavery by name, refers to slaves as "such persons" in Article I, Section 9 and “a person held to service or labor” in Article IV, Section 2. The Thirteenth Amendment, in direct terminology, put an end to this. The amendment states:

Section 1:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

---

Background

The history behind this amendments adoption is an interesting one. Prior to the Civil War, in February 1861, Congress had passed a Thirteenth Amendment for an entirely different purpose--to guarantee the legality and perpetuity of slavery in the slave states, rather than to end it. This amendment guaranteeing slavery was a result of the complicated sectional politics of the antebellum period, and a futile effort to preclude Civil War. Although the Thirteenth Amendment that guaranteed slavery was narrowly passed by both houses, the Civil War started before it could be sent to the states for ratification.

But the final version of the Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery--has an interesting story of its own. Passed during the Civil War years, when southern congressional representatives were not present for debate, one would think today that it must have easily passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Not true. As a matter of fact, although passed in April 1864 by the Senate, with a vote of 38 to 6, the required two-thirds majority was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 93 to 65. Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it.

It was then that President Abraham Lincoln took an active role in pushing it through congress. He insisted that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment be added to the Republican party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. He used all of his political skill and influence to convince additional democrats to support the amendments' passage. His efforts finally met with success, when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119-56. Finally, Lincoln supported those congressmen that insisted southern state legislatures must adopt the Thirteenth Amendment before their states would be allowed to return with full rights to Congress.

The fact that Lincoln had difficulty in gaining passage of the amendment towards the closing months of the war and after his Emancipation Proclamation had been in effect 12 full months, is illustrative. There was still a reasonably large body of the northern people, or at least their elected representatives, that were either indifferent towards, or directly opposed to, freeing the slaves.

The Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation

Modern historians occasionally criticize Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, declaring it a hollow document that "freed no slaves." Signed by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863, it proclaimed that "all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."

Lincoln correctly realized that as President, he had no legal grounds to single-handedly terminate the institution of slavery--but that this had to be done by a constitutional amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was simply a war powers action by he, the commander in chief of the armies, in which he attempted to remove all the slaves from the southern peoples "in rebellion against the United States." Even in this, Lincoln was very anxious about the legality of his actions. He worded the document very carefully, in legal terms, in his attempt to make it legally binding in future courts of law.

He recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed quickly by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation had no theoretical effect on the legal status of slaves in the border states, or slaves in regions of the country not currently under the control of southern armies, it had, in fact, a great deal of practical impact on the legality of slavery everywhere--North and South. As northern armies marched through the south, which General Sherman and his army soon began doing, thousands of slaves followed in their wake--and were never again under the legal authority of their former masters. So the argument that the Emancipation "freed no slaves" is a specious one. Until the Thirteenth Amendment was was fully ratified by the necessary majority of the states in December of 1865, the Emancipation Proclamation was the document used to justify separating slaves from their masters, and by late 1865 there were no slaves remaining in the United States. Consequently, the Emancipation Proclamation was truly the beginning of the end of slavery.

---

For further reading, check "Lincoln and Freedom: Slavery, Emancipation, and the Thirteenth Amendment" by Herman Belz, et. al.

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State-- good idea?

"I believe that there's no more effective advocate than Hillary Clinton for that well-rounded view of how we advance American interests."
--President-Elect Barack Obama
"There are some things more painful than the truth. But I can't think of any."
--author unknown

Listen up. The daddy wants to ask you a question you may not want to asnwer: Was President-Elect Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State a good idea?

Here's what the daddy thinks:

1. No. In the daddy's opinion, this position should have gone to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson or Sen. John Kerry, two people with greater experience, two people who worked hard to get him elected. Both have great minds and great love for their country.

2. Obama says he wants people around him with competing ideas and with the ability to challenge him in vigorous debate. Fine. But surely Obama, could have found people with less hawkish and with less baggage than Sen. Clinton with whom to debate. They're everywhere in Washington and outside of Washington too. The daddy feels like bypassing Obama's security, shaking him and saying, "Get real, bro! The Secretary of State position is not about collegial debate over ideology or strategy. You're out of law school! It's about carrying out the U.S. strategic interests and the president's message on a world stage. Your appointment of a junior senator with a thin resume (First Lady, senator for a relative short period of time) does not add up, especially with so many other more qualified candidates, female and male, black, white and everything in between!"

3. Another reason is Sen. Clinton's husband. He has been spanning the globe in support of worth causes including his own (his income, his library) for years. But the way he has interlocked worldly causes with consulting on behalf of himself is troubling. Some of this consulting involves helping nasty dictatorial leaders of governments secure favorable trade agreements (for the the respective third world country) with questionable advantage to U.S. workers to the U.S. as a whole.

The notion of Secretary of State Clinton free-floating on her own and occasionally "hooking up" with globe-trotting, super-egoistic Bill Clinton should give everyone pause.

4. There are other cabinet-level positions where Sen. Clinton is more qualified and would probably do our country more good. First and foremost is head of Health, Education, and Welfare. This country needs universal healthcare like yesterday. But the healthcare industry is bloated, bureaucratic, and chaotic. Such a mess needs a tough-as-nails, hands-on administrator like Sen. Clinton. Let's be honest: her universal healthcare plan was better than Obama's; and the implementation of her plan would be a great service to all. The fact that she could use the success of such a program in her bid for president in 2012 is secondary. Okay, she may not be the most qualified to be Secretary of State, but there is no one better qualified to be Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. She possesses the knowledge, skill, and personality to get the job done.

As for the Secretary of State position, Craig Hickman at Fumbling Toward Divinity posted a quote from the Financial Times that more "diplomatically" conveys my feeling about Sen. Clinton's appointment:

"... the main question is whether Mrs Clinton can subordinate not just her opinions but also her political ambitions to making the Obama administration a success. That must be in doubt. Her husband's financial entanglements and irrepressible flair for scandal are further potential pitfalls. In weighing all this and choosing her regardless, Mr. Obama has taken quite a risk -- one that, in our view, is difficult to justify."

What say you? Do you think the selection of Hillary for Secretary of State was a good idea?

Aids, black women, and down-low men

A while back, the daddy wrote an article commenting on the book, "On the Down Low," the down-low mentality and its dangerous affect on the black community.

On the down low
or just low down?
by Mac Walton, aka, the daddy

"In these bloody days and frightful nights
When an urban warrior can find no face
more despicable than his own, no ammunition
more deadly than self-hate and no target more
deserving of his true aim than his brother,
we must wonder how we came so late and lonely to this place.
--Maya Angelou, “I Dare to Hope”

J. L. King, author of On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of “Straight” Black Men Who Sleep with Men(Broadway Books, New York, 2004), allows us to borrow his eyes and peer into the minds of Down Low (DL) men: Black men who sleep with other men at the same time they are sleeping with women. And here’s what we see:

* Men (some, not all) who often have unprotected sex with men and then engaged in unprotected sex with women, thinking it will be okay because their male lovers are “clean.”

* Men who keep their sexual activity with other men hidden no matter how much and how often they have to lie to their female partners

* Men that seek to distinguish themselves from gay or bisexual men. Gay men, says King, know what they want in another man and can talk about it like women.“Look, baby, I like a little spice in my life,” or “I am open. I don’t have any hang-ups with sex." But DL men want it all too, but they want other men in secrecy.
DL men, says King, are so secretive, “so undercover, so in denial, so ‘on the low,’ that they are the closet.”

* Men that are nothing if not deceptive. They “front” with women at the clubs while secretly making plans to “hook up” with men later in the evening. But they will not be associated with any activity that may call into question their secretive sexual activity. No gay parades for them.

* Men that, in fact, resist the concept of being gay like a crackhead resists advice. Though they sleep with men, they adamantly resist the notion of being gay and say they want nothing to do with gay people, stereotyping gays as men that dress up like Ru Paul, go to gay bars and march in gay parades. Mr. King himself refuses to consider that he may be gay or bisexual.

* Men that feel they would not have to be so secretive if they had more support from the Black church. While providing important information about the DL men and courageously confessing his own risky behavior, Mr. King fails to go farther and speak directly to DL men, imploring them to get tested, to immediately stop having unprotected sex with men or women and to get help. For example, he could have provided a listing of clinics in each state where men can go to get tested. He also failed to identify the implications of individual DL men’s risky sexual and deceptive behavior to the fragile Black communities. Since truth appears to be the first casualty of DL relationships, here are just a few truths for them and their potential partners to consider:

1. DL men stereotype gays, including gays in the Black community who act responsibly in the community and do not dress Ru Paul. king gives the impression that all DL men’s behavior, though dishonest, is somehow superior to gay people when, as King admits, gay and bisexual men are more honest than DL men. So who are DL men to criticize gay people?

2. DL men stereotype the Black church. Yes, the Black church could be more welcoming to the gay people. In fact, Blacks, as individuals, could be more welcoming. But this notion hardly justifies King placing the blame for his and other DL “lifestyle” at the doorstep of Black church. First, there is a thing called individual responsibility. Second, some Black churches, predominantly Black colleges (e.g., Morehouse), community centers, drug counseling agencies and others do provide services to gay people (despite cuts in such services by federal and state agencies). So stereotyping and blaming Black churches and other Black institutions to rationalize irresponsible individual behavior just doesn’t cut it.

3. DL men’s risky sexual behavior of having unprotected sex with men and infecting female partners is literally killing Black people (see data at the end of this article).

4.Though a serious concern in Black neighborhoods across the country, HIV and STD infections are especially problematic in the South. In a recent report, The Southern States AIDS and STD Directors Work Group concluded, “AIDS is out of out of control in the South...In essence we’re declaring a state of emergency…Unless some crucial steps are taken, the epidemic will get worse.”

Why does this epidemic persist? Besides the usual suspects of poverty, ignorance and needle injections, the CDC offers two other major reasons: Denial and Partners at Risk. About denial the CDC states: “…a significant number of African-American men who have sex with men identify themselves as heterosexual. As a result, they may not relate to prevention messages crafted for openly gay men.” As for partners at risk, CDC says it suspects that some women are reluctant to negotiate condom usage with men “out of fear that the man will leave them or withdraw financial support.”

The problem with DL men is, in part, about homophobia and denial. But, ultimately, it’s about a high level of risky behavior that is putting not only Black women but the entire Black community at risk. It’s not about a new lifestyle. It's about dangerous behavior, behavior that represents a full-scale disconnect from a Black heritage based on a collective ethic borne of an ongoing struggle to survive and even thrive against oppression. True, it is not the only risky behavior in our community. High rates of crime, drug usage, homicides, suicide, death from AIDS due to unprotected sex by both male and females—it’s all there. But the difference today is the exceedingly high levels of HIV and STD infections engendered by the unnecessarily risky and deadly behavior by some DL men.

Given this disastrous behavior, the daddy has a right to ask: "Brother, are you keeping it on the down low or just being plain low down— low down as in betraying the trust of your female partner? Betraying struggle of countless numbers of black fathers and mother who worked two and sometimes three jobs so you wouldn’t have to work as hard as they did? Betraying the love of untold mothers who made up white families’ beds (and occasionally got raped in them) and scrubbed hospital floors so you could go to college? Betraying the untold number of activists and regular black folk who preached, shouted, lectured, marched and went to jail so you could have the civil and human rights of which they could only dream?

The daddy just has to ask you, "Black man, how did you come so late and lonely to this place?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: "Black America is currently facing what is perhaps one of the greatest threats to our existence since slavery, AIDS. The public opinion that the HIV/AIDS crisis is stabilizing is wrong; it is getting worse for people of color. African-Americans make up 13% of the U. S. population, but comprise nearly 60% of those infected with HIV/AID. African-American women are infected with HIV 16 times more than White women and nearly 70% of the children infected with HIV/AIDS in this country are Black. The stigma HIV/AIDS carries in black America has only increased since researchers became aware of the prominent role played by bisexual black men in transmitting the virus."
--The African American Registry

How much do you know about AIDS/HIV?

Today, December 1, is WORLD AIDS DAY, a call to action against HIV/AIDS. Many bloggers are talking about it; and that's good. And the daddythinks more should get involved on this issue.

Sjp over at Sojourner's Place talks about the virus and has put up sites where you can get more info. Sjp says:

"HIV/AIDS has been a global epidemic for more than 27 years. Most of today's youth have never known a world without it. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently published national HIV incidence (new infections) that showed much higher numbers that previous estimates." Check her out.

But CurvyGurl really lays it down. She said the main thing is to educate yourself:

"Here we are over 20 years since the "discovery" of HIV/AIDS and infections are still on the rise...a devastating yet preventable disease. The origin of which is still debated, but that’s not important. What’s important is that we take the time to educate
ourselves and not have an “it’s not my problem” attitude."

1. Go to Sojourner's Place site;
2. Read her post and check out the resources she has there.
3. For a good perspective, read the CurvyGurl's post.
4. Get updates from the Center for Disease Control. They have good statistics, including how this disease affects specific population: Women (specific groups within the category of women), men, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic, etc.

The daddy is asking, How much do you know about this disease? How can you share information about if, if you don't know much about yourself?