Glimmers of Optimism on AIDS at International Conference

By George E. Curry

Dr. Helene Gayle remembers how disappointed she and some other delegates to the ninth International Conference on AIDS in Berlin felt as they stuffed their luggage with clothes and bulky scientific handouts before taking the long flights home, some lasting 10 hours or longer.
Earlier in 1993, U.S. tennis star Arthur Ashe and Russian ballet star Rudolf Nureyev had died of AIDS. The highly publicized Concorde trial had failed. At the end of the clinical trial, researchers concluded that zidovudine, better known as AZT (azidothymidine), in asymptomatic patients did not prolong the onset of HIV or lengthen the infected patient’s life.
“That was the lowest I felt leaving an AIDS conference,” said Gayle, president and chief executive officer of CARE, the international poverty-fighting organization, and former president of the International AIDS Society. She was not the only one despondent. Dr. James W. Curran, then-director of AIDS programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, told reporters that he had left Berlin “dispirited by the restless assault of the virus.”
Today, with 2.7 million new infections every year, including 56,300 - or one every 91/2 minutes - in the United States, HIV remains as restless as ever. However, delegates leaving the 18th International Conference on AIDS in Vienna this summer departed optimistic about the possibility of finding a cure for AIDS. They know that a cure may still be years away; the long journey to progress against this three-decades-long “restless assault” is measured in baby steps, not leaps and bounds.
“This is a scientific conference and there is a lot of great science being presented with fantastic results, which are giving us new hope for prevention, treatment and control of HIV,” said Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention.
By far, the most significant finding was announced by the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) and involved a microbicide, which is anything that kills microbes such as bacteria and viruses.
Researchers released a study showing that a microbicide gel containing tenofovir lowered the risk of HIV infection among women by 39 percent in one group and by 54 percent among women who used the gel more frequently. Tenofovir is an antiretroviral drug that blocks a key viral protein called reverse transcriptase; HIV needs the protein to reproduce once it has entered the cell.
Nearly 900 women in the study, known as CAPRISA 004, were instructed to use the gel 12 hours preceding intercourse and again 12 hours after having sex. It was the first trial to unequivocally show that a vaginal gel blocked the transmission of HIV.
“This is breaking ground into a new area of prevention technology, which is female control methods where the woman can empower themselves and use these methodologies to protect themselves against HIV,” said Fenton of the CDC.
Even with other medical advancements in the pipeline, HIV will continue to present an enormous challenge around the world. According to UNAIDS, the United Nations’ joint program on HIV/AIDS, for every person placed in treatment in a given year, 2.5 people become infected, thus expanding the pool of people in need of treatment.
At a time when the United States and other countries have insufficient treatment slots, some nations - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, and the Netherlands, among them - are reducing their contributions to fighting global AIDS.
“Reductions in investment on AIDS programs are hurting the AIDS response,” said Michel Sidibé, executive director of UNAIDS. “At a time when we are seeing results in HIV prevention and treatment, we must scale up, not scale down.”
The United States is the largest donor nation to global AIDS relief with 58 percent of the contributions. The United States increased its donations from $3.9 billion in 2008 to $4.4 billion in 2009. But it was the exception.
“Donor nations essentially were treading water last year on AIDS relief, but did not cut back overall as they dealt with the economic tsunami that sparked a global recession,” said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, the organization that analyzed international funding levels. “Time will tell whether support will resume its rapid growth once the global recovery takes hold.”
In the meantime, unlike when she left the Berlin convention, Dr. Helene Gayle is upbeat.
“There are over five million people in poor countries that have access to antiretroviral therapy - that’s about a 12-fold increase in less than a decade,” she said. “I think the continued demonstration that men will go for circumcision is important. We know that circumcision can reduce transmission to men by 60 percent, so it’s incredibly effective. And there’s more evidence that putting people on treatment will also have a preventive effect. The more in treatment, the more they help prevention.”
________________________________________
George E. Curry is a former Washington correspondent and New York bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune and was editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine.

Why African Americans Should Be Outraged at Arizona’s Immigration Law

Joel Dreyfuss

By Joel Dreyfuss

If you’re black and think that state’s new immigration law has nothing to do with you, think again.

A law that makes people suspects on the basis of their looks should outrage African Americans, even if they are worried about illegal immigration.

The immigration law passed in Arizona last week is the kind of reckless act that keeps us minorities paranoid in America. The new law compels local law enforcers to verify immigration status based on “reasonable suspicion”–whatever that is–and has created the potential for cops to stop brown people in the streets and demand to see their papers. Even the sheriff of Pima County, Ariz., (which borders Mexico) says the law is “stupid,” “racist,” and would force his officers to racially profile people. The scope of the law was narrowed after its passage in order to assure Hispanics, who make up 30 percent of the state’s population, that they would not be the victims of racial profiling.

But those assurances that people won’t be suspects because of the way they look have little credibility when the experience of black and brown people in America has been so contrary to those promises. Being stopped for Driving While Black (or Brown) is such a common phenomenon that comedians make jokes about it. And a city like New York, which operates a massive stop-and-frisk policy that probably violates a dozen constitutional principles, keeps trying to explain why black and brown citizens make up 80 to 90 percent of those questioned by police. The latest rationale: They fit the description of suspected perps when 98 percent of those stopped and questioned are innocent of any crime.

The reason people of color get worked up about such policies is America’s nasty habit of making everything racial in a panic. We have a long history of lynchings and runaway convictions that were triggered by fears that black people were getting out of hand in some fashion, whether it was interracial sex or talking back to massa. The roundup of Japanese Americans during World War II will forever stain this country’s history.

After 9/11, looking Arab or simply wearing a turban, whether you are Muslim or not, turned out to be a grave danger in some parts of the country and a constant annoyance in others. No Muslim American believes that the frequent “random” checks they endured at airports in the months after the tragedy were really a matter of chance. And last week, the front page of the Boston Herald illustrated a cover story about the crackdown on benefits for illegal immigrants with a photo of black, Hispanic and Asian models, their foreheads stamped with the following: “No Tuition, No Welfare, No Medicaid.” Ironically, the headline at above the newspaper’s logo announced a “workplace diversity job fair.”

Of course, the concept of white or blonde illegal aliens is apparently beyond the capacity of the people passing the laws or the editors at theHerald. But nearly 600,000 of those in the United States illegally were estimated to come from Europe or Canada in 2005; and while I knew many Irish, English and other Europeans who had overstayed their visas when I was growing up in New York, I never heard of a raid of an Irish bar, except when ATF or the FBI were trying to trap Irish Republican Army gun runners during the “troubles.”

Now Arizona, better known for resorts, retirees in golf carts, and college basketball teams whose players never graduate, is suddenly at the center of a debate that could shape U.S. politics for the next 10 years. The only surprise is that it took so long. All the great economies have been struggling with the immigration issue for years. Just last week, France was in tizzy about the burqa, the full-length outfit with only an eye-slit that conservative Muslim women wear. Nicolas Sarkozy’s government has considered banning the burqa on security grounds (you can’t identify the person), but the real reason behind this initiative, Arizona’s or any of the dozen being considered in other states or countries is fear of change.

No doubt, the Great Recession of the last three years has heightened American insecurity. Although the downturn has hit blue-collar workers the hardest, many people who thought they were solidly in the middle class have seen their savings, their safety net, even their homes evaporate in the financial collapse. The next step for many of them would be to step “down” into the blue-collar workforce. Suddenly, the Mexican, Salvadorian and African immigrants they hardly noticed during boom times are now potential competitors.

African Americans, who lost more than their fair share of blue-collar jobs in the downturn, have long been ambiguous about illegal immigration. As Cord Jefferson noted here a few months ago, a growing number of experts believe that blacks and Hispanic immigrants battle for unskilled jobs at the bottom of the labor pool. Black Americans have not turned out in large numbers at immigration rallies, despite the fact that many African-American politicians talk of the need for coalitions with Hispanics.

But a law that puts you in jeopardy for being has special resonance with black Americans. We already know the peril of living in a state where you are presumed guilty by the color of your skin. A law that makes a suspect of anyone who might look illegal should make us vigorously resist this encroachment.

Joel Dreyfuss is managing editor of The Root. He has heldeditorial positions at Fortune Magazine, PC Magazine, Black Enterprise magazine, and USA Today. He has been a writer at The Washington Post, The AP, and The New York Post, and Bloomberg, LP. This piece first appeared in TheRoot.com

How Devoted Should Obama Be To An African-American Agenda?

By Michael Fauntroy

A spat has developed among some prominent black leaders about the extent to which President Barack Obama should be pushed to give special attention to African American issues. Some believe that holding the president’s feet to the fire is not necessary (or potentially politically perilous for him) and that some of the unique issues facing black people can be addressed within the context of larger solutions.

They, in supporting their position, have erected a ridiculous straw man to under-gird their position: President Obama is not the President of black America and should not be held to that standard. This straw man that, if unchecked, will get in the way of addressing some of the crushing issues facing African Americans. For me, it’s perfectly acceptable for groups of Americans to push the government to deal with their causes, so black leaders who want to go easy on this president because he is black are failing their constituents and need to reverse course — now.

I believe this argument is a straw man because I have yet to hear one reasonable, credible person argue that Obama should be the President of Black America or solely any other segment of the nation. But that doesn’t mean that issues of particular importance to different constituencies should not be given extra attention. Special problems require special attention. Need proof? Consider what has happened with Wall Street. A massive problem — created by Wall Street’s own greed left to run amok in a deregulated environment — resulted in taxpayers convulsing more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to attempt to fix the problem.

The black community certainly has some responsibility for its current situation. The reality is, however, that with some black communities suffering from unemployment rates above 30 percent (In October 2009, the jobless rate for black males age 16-to-24 was 34.5 percent in my home city of Washington, D.C., a place that has made out reasonably well in the current recession and Milwaukee, Wisconsin has recently had a Black male unemployment rate hovering around 50 percent) and dangerously high dropout and criminal justice supervision rates, a unique, special, and acute problem has been established that requires attention above and beyond what our leaders — elected and appointed, and without regard to race are willing to acknowledge.

Black unemployment won’t get significantly reversed by treating it the same as white unemployment. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 10.7 percent of white men over the age of 20 were unemployed; 17.3 percent of black males were unemployed at the same time. White women over the age of 20 have an unemployment rate of 7.1 percent, while 13.3 percent of black women are jobless (this is a devastating number given the disproportionate number of single-woman headed households in the black community). Whites between the ages of 16-19 had an unemployment rate of 24.1 percent; the black unemployment rate for same aged blacks was 43.5 percent.

Groups of Americans, whether organized along ideological, religious, cultural, business, or other kinds of lines can, and do, ask the president for special attention to their issues. African Americans, however, are expected to sit in a corner and wait for the President to get around to their concerns whenever it’s convenient. I say no. Credibility requires black leaders to make sure that Congress and the White House, without regard to partisan control or the race of the leadership, that black issues are not ignored.

America should not fear a “black agenda” any more than it would fear an “environmental agenda” or an “education agenda”. As I see it, the “black agenda” is simply about making sure that some of the most acute issues facing black communities across the country are respected and acted upon. Black leaders who run from a “black agenda” to protect the “black President” need to be reassessed by those who put them in their positions.

Michael K. Fauntroy is assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com

Black Advertising Professionals Should Devise A Better Story Than This

By Robert Quashie

Go to a market in any West African country, including my father’s Ghana, and there’s a good chance you will hear someone call out the phrase, dead white man’s clothes!

Used clothing from the developed world is big business in emerging cities like Lagos, Accra and Monrovia. Africans rarely throw away their clothes. Recycling and reusing textiles is an everyday thing. Only a crazy fool would throw away perfectly wearable jeans because they were out of style. Make them into something else or give them to someone who can. This ethos forces the entrepreneur trying sell slightly a slightly dingy t-shirt to come up with a story such that they have somehow come into possession of the grand estate of an extravagantly rich and incredibility dead white man from New York, Paris or maybe London. Like our own yarns about improbable things like Swiss chocolate or cheap oil, this ad pitch about dead white men has gone from cutline to cultural meme.

Of course the dead guy has to be white because to most Black Africans, it’s unthinkable that Black people anywhere, in any situation could afford to be that wasteful. The invective to use what you’ve got till you get what you need runs deep. Indeed, my American grandfather, grandson of slaves himself, was a shoemaker. When we wore out a pair of shoes he fixed them. When we outgrew them, he cut off the toes and heels and made sandals.

But as a Black American and advertising professional I have to own up to the part that I and my colleagues have played in the distortion of our version of the American Dream. I also have to recognize our contribution to the confusion with regards to marketing and investment in emerging Black markets here and abroad. It is critical that we start to take an honest look at what we’ve done to the opportunity costs extracted from our communities world wide as a result.

In the 1960s for all intents and purposes, national advertising to Black Americans did not exist. Ads to black people were local and were created to capitalize on the wants, needs and desires of local black communities. Black media, like The Amsterdam News, The Chicago Defender or The Kansas City Call (what my maternal family read) and countless local radio stations thrived on real and relevant community news and local advertising.

Things changed in the early 1970s when the ad industry caught wind of the rising buying power of Black Americans and concocted a model of target marketing. The industry storyline went that because of the decimating effects of slavery and segregation, Black Americans lacked a real culture and were in a breakneck race to fill the void with new items and icons from mainstream culture that connoted status. Smart consumer brands, food, cigarette, car, beverage or clothing labels, stepping into that gap with the right look and the right spokespersons stood to prosper. Now whether this model was based in fact or not – like saying that the world is flat, until somebody proved otherwise – it worked well enough for everybody involved; black and white ad agencies, pro athletes, and rappers. Concurrently, you began to see the rise of national black media such as Essence, BET, Black Enterprise and a thicker Ebony Magazine.

Unfortunately we all believed the hype. We even fostered the notion among out children that overconsumption is a substitute for creativity and intelligence. As a marketing professional I have to own up to my role and challenge my colleagues to do likewise. Ironically as the general consumer market trends toward sustainability, do-it-yourself and less-is-more, our community seems to be caught in a holding pattern as to how we should behave as both consumers and producers in a recessionary economy. It’s like we still want to believe that bigger cars and more new clothes will make us better people.

But something else happened though in the 1970s that was missed by Madison Avenue and Corporate America. As colonialism fell, Black African, Afro-Latino and Black Caribbean people began to emerge on the scene in new force as nation builders, transnational migrants and yes, consumers. But they presented a different model of Black consumption. It’s not one that is foreign, at least it shouldn’t be to us. Those of us fortunate enough to have known our grandparents’ generation would recognize it. And here is an opportunity that can help guide and reshape our destiny in the U.S. and abroad.

Everyone wants things and is entitled to goods and services. Commerce is not inherently evil. We can have and eat our cake. Let’s take telecom as an example. Under the model of overconsumption perfected by the target marketing and advertising industry of yesterday, advertising is designed to goad African Americans into chasing the latest device as a symbol of status and fashion, a replacement for culture – and we buy it. By comparison in emerging markets, behaving as what I will call adaptive consumers, Black people are using phone cards as transferrable currency, cell phones to lift villages out of poverty, lap tops to organize trade and grow fortunes. Telecom suppliers have paid attention to adaptive consumers in Africa and Latin America responding with lower price points, more flexible plans and often better, more advanced technical solutions. Companies are being rewarded with unheard of profits, demonstrating that adaptive consumption is compatible with capitalism.

There are more examples but the point here is that as a marketing professional, I have to own what my profession has done to help move our community away from the habits of adaptability and creativity toward waste and overconsumption. I have to own that it is not good business in the long run and hurts our community.

In the new global economy, marketers have an opportunity to create more sustainable and profitable models for selling products and services to all people, including us, based in large part on adaptive consumption.

Of course in order to sell this idea it to our people and corporate America, Black ad agencies might have to come up with a story about a dead white man.

Robert Quashie, Founder of RQi Marketing, is a senior consultant with more than 20 years experience in marketing, advertising, public relations and corporate communications.

Political Big Bangs in the Big Apple

By Charles D. Ellison

The Big Apple’s Black politicos are blowing up - literally. Paterson. Ford. Rangel. Who’s next? Of course, the political shake-up in the Empire State is beyond racial identification and group polemics. There is the continuing upheaval since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s departure as Senator and former Governor Eliot Spitzer’s (D) ugly demise.

One can’t help but think, for a moment, that it’s some kind of lingering payback engineered by Chicago-land Obama operatives who didn’t appreciate the New York machine’s backing of Clinton in 2008. Not the President’s style, for sure, but he’s got some sharp toothed consigliere’s surrounding him. But, what choice did the Northeastern state hacks have at the time? Illinois cats had to back their junior Senator; New York cats were probably pushed against a brick wall to do the same for their carpet bagging home girl whether they liked her or not. State budget woes, across-the-board funding cuts and a completely dysfunctional legislature in Albany don’t help the situation. A shifting or recalibration of the state’s famed Democratic political machine is taking place. Where that ends up hinges on the outcome of 2010 Congressional mid-terms and if appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) can keep her seat. What is certain is that it opens up many opportunities for hungry state Republicans. But, it puts a dagger in the aspirations of New York’s Black political establishment, which must regroup fast if it is to maintain any decent hold on power.

The horn-blaring and euphoria of New York’s first Black Governor seems to have never occurred. It’s lost in the fog. No one wants to go there. He jacked his own “Black History Moment.” Plus, brother in the White House sucks all the air out of that balloon. In soap opera fashion very similar to that of his disgraced, prostitute-hiring predecessor, the legally blind and embattled New York Governor finally realizes that he can’t hold on and drops out of his quixotic campaign bid. Unfathomable is the political suicide committed through undying loyalty to former key aide David Johnson. What’s that all about? Other top aides, including the Governor’s press secretary, are snagged in some bizarre, scandalous cover-up. His State Police Superintendent Harry Corbitt suddenly resigns. All because Johnson, allegedly, couldn’t keep his hands to himself. How ironic it is that Paterson, of all folks posing as serious advocate for domestic violence victims, would actually engage in obstructing accusations of such from an aide’s girlfriend. Some observers may contend that the jury is still out on whether Johnson did indeed commit violence. But, Johnson is no stranger to these accusations. And something fairly significant went down if the Governor felt compelled to personally intervene. Let’s take a moment to mention here that domestic violence is the top public health issue impacting Black women. Where’s that discussion?

To Paterson’s blurred right came Harold Ford. If in Ford’s position, we’d see the opening, too: bad economic climate driving electorate rage; very unpopular Governor whom neither White House nor Albany could stand; a clowned Senator handpicked by that same Governor; and a state Democratic apparatus in disarray. Ford emerged from his moderate, center right “New South” leanings, suddenly switching center left in an effort to appease his new home’s political sensibilities. From dropping hints in the New York Post to boasting about helicopter rides and pedicures in the Times, Ford caught heat from the start. There was little love for the extravagance, particularly from a critical Black voting bloc that is getting hit hard by high unemployment. But, in the end, little coincidence that the fire drawn by powerful gay rights activists on his same-sex marriage stance proved a final straw in this short bid’s saga. Still, Ford will attempt to paint a portrait of humble populist did-in by greedy Tammany Hall political machinists. The White House is relieved that it won’t have that thorn to deal with anytime soon, comfortable with Ford waiting till well after Obama’s second term.

Will he stage a comeback? Beyond the temerity of his telegenic ego, Harold Ford lives for the tough races. It’s the only way he can shed the shadow of his once powerful, now defunct political family’s fortunes. A way to show that “see - Memphis native son and daddy legacy candidate can really make it on his own.” Plus, Ford is a perennial Presidential candidate in constant quest for his own path to Pennsylvania Ave. Hear him tell it and he was supposed to be the First Black President. We saw this during his early years as Congressman out of Tennessee’s 9th District. The streak of independence, the carefully crafted urban conservative Blue Doggedness that didn’t rub his Congressional Black Caucus colleagues the right way. We could see former Congressman Harold, Sr. getting the late night calls from perturbed senior Members of the Black Hill clan: “Thought you had him under control.” But, Harold, Jr. needed to bust out and show that he was his own man. So, against much conventional, bigoted Volunteer State wisdom, he ran a rather tightening effort to become the South’s first African American Senator since Reconstruction. It was a tough proposition that ultimately failed. And not just because Ford is Black or his opponent, then Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R), ran nasty attack ads implying trysts with White girls. He was weighed down by clouds of alleged corruption by the Ford political dynasty and uncertainty over where exactly Ford stood on a buffet of controversial issues. Even back then, there was conversation about Ford the policy-grasping Congressman versus Ford the shady opportunist.

In Harlem, the once invincible House Ways and Means Chairman, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D), is now confined to a self-imposed “leave of absence.” This is a clever and controlled, saving face way of being ousted, which is what really went down since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi values her party majority more than she does longstanding political friendships. Again, Rangel didn’t endear the Obama 2008 team with his bullish support of the other primary candidate. And when the microscope of ethics probes moved in closer (a glaring problem for many CBC Members these days), it was clear Rangel wouldn’t have the support he once commanded pre-2008. Classic new school takeover sweeps out old school. Some prognosticators doubt the primary challenge from former Rangel Chief of Staff Vincent Morgan will go anywhere – “Rangel is just too powerful,” they say. But, in the wake of Spitzer, Clinton (who got lucky), Paterson and Ford, anything is possible. Banks on Wall Street, attempting a comeback because New York’s economy needs them to, are placing bets on Morgan. Stay tuned. Rangel’s fall may even be the key to a number of deals on key legislative items (hint: healthcare) between shaky Democrats and emboldened Republicans offering a baby dove in return for slain lamb. It is what it is.

Charles D. Ellison is author of the critically-acclaimed urban political thriller TANTRUM and Host of “The New School” on Sirius/XM satellite radio. He is Director of the Center for New Politics and Policy and a frequent contributor to The Huffington Post, Politico and TheRoot.com.

Let’s Get America Working Again in 2010

By Dedrick Muhammad

This year, we need to recognize that the government, not the private sector, is the best tool for job creation.

It is time to move on from the past and embrace the opportunities and challenges that we face this new year: In 2010 the most challenging domestic issue is high unemployment.

In the next month or two the Senate will be considering the “Jobs for Main Street Act.” This bill is a $174 billion dollar package that aims to create less than 400,000 jobs, maintain 250,000 state education jobs, assist states with Medicaid costs and extend unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the unemployed.

This plan is so 2008/2009. A jobs bill that creates less than a half million jobs when over seven million jobs have been lost during this Great Recession and there is an estimated 10 million jobs deficit (if we factor in those who have entered into the workforce since the beginning of the Great Recession) continues the policy of placing a band aid on a gaping economic wound.

In dealing with the economic challenges of 2010 there should not be such a narrow focus on the problems arising from the current Great Recession (until unemployment drops significantly, I cannot consider the recession to have ended). For decades the middle and working classes have been challenged by stagnating wages. Former industrial centers have been dealing with near double digit unemployment for nearly as long.

If the United States hopes to maintain a strong middle class — one that has been in a long term decline — dramatic government action is necessary to position American workers and the economy to rebound. Below are my three suggested policy actions for 2010 to get the country on the right direction for the foreseeable future.

1. A three million public jobs program. For what the United States is about to spend on soldiers in Afghanistan for 2010 — $100 billion — more than three million jobs could be created in this country. These jobs would not be high-paying ones but would quickly replace 40 percent of those lost during the Great Recession, and they would be most beneficial to those who have suffered the most during this downturn: lower-paid workers.

A government investment in these workers would not just put money in their pockets but would strengthen the resumes of millions of Americans, so they can better compete in the private job market.

These jobs should also be aimed at strengthening communities, providing assistance in education and public works, and focused on those who have experienced extended unemployment or live in high-unemployment, high-poverty areas. There are too many Americans and their communities being left behind in this post-industrial economy. A public jobs program will assist these Americans maintain employment and better prepare them for private sector work in the future.

2. Twenty billion dollars of investment in the Workforce Investment Act. About $10 billion should be spent on strengthening the scope and reach of such programs as Job Corps and Youth Build. Another $10 billion would go to a tax credit for businesses that hire people who have gone through programs related to the Workforce Investment Act. This could be paid for by ending public subsidies for high and excessive executive pay.

3. An equity assessment of all future spending focused on strengthening the economy. An equity assessment will review whether federal funds are investing in communities that will most benefit from and are most in need of federal assistance. A proper assessment should determine where funds go, what jobs are created, and in what communities. This information will help make sure that government funds get to working-class and middle-class Americans who must be at the center of the economic recovery.

With the unemployment rate still in double digits, it is time for government to do what government is meant to do: step in when private forces are inadequate to solve a problem. It is clear that the private economy is not yet capable of generating the kind of job creation that will help the economy rebound. The most effective strategy for the government to assist in job creation is simply to create jobs. By doing this, investing more strongly in job training, and having an equity assessment of all spending will help get America back to work again and refocus the American economy from one where wealth was increasingly in the hands of the few to a more broad and shared prosperity.

Dedrick Muhammad is a Senior Organizer and Research Associate of the Institute for Policy Studies.

In Moving the Caribbean Forward: The Need to Create and Organize a Machinery of Knowledge

By Lindon P. George

In these pressing times of major contraction in nearly every economic arena, every country – and for that matter every municipality – is now compelled to reassess priorities and restructure relationships. That need is particularly acute in the Caribbean, where the imbalance in the relationship with the powerful (the United States by proxy) has evolved in a partnership that is as unhealthy as it is undemocratic.

And it is a relationship that Caribbean leaders need urgently to rethink and recalibrate — not that they haven’t considered it. The dynamic of that relationship we can reasonably ascertain is rooted in the Caribbean colonial history. What is not reasonable is to abrogate the responsibility to assess the role that we ourselves (as Caribbean contemporaries) have played in how this imbalanced relationship has played out: What intimate qualities in our behavior (or lack of oversight) that allowed us to be in the respect-deprived situation that continues to beleaguer our efforts for measurable and sustainable growth for our economies? This ugly legacy is the very thing being confronted with the proposal that follows, as we go about the task of rethinking and restructuring our priorities and geopolitical posture, to once and for all sever the umbilical cord (of which we have been self- implicated).

The challenge and charge is that the ongoing state of dependency that we find ourselves in as a people, as it invariably influences our current posture in international relations, warrants another edifice and attitude toward the conversation our governing bodies have with the powerful, if we should move forward in a way we have not in the past. Hence, our restructuring and development efforts require strategic positioning of not only our resources and priorities but, to be more specific, also, dialogue that we enter and intend to enter for the sake of securing the interest of our people.

The X-factor presumably is respect: how we engage ourselves and ultimately how we relate to others (by pre-empting how they choose to relate to us collectively and individually). The question then becomes, how exactly do we go about achieving that, to begin to command the other changes we seek?

I recommend the endorsement and sponsorship by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) of a non-partisan think tank to be established on American soil, preferably in New York City or Washington D.C., to serve as a satellite in providing surveillance, analysis, reporting and, in some respects, to lobby for more favorable policies geared toward the region or anticipated to impact it somehow.

The institution should be configured, operated, and directed by non-governmental, non-partisan members of the intellectual community, of Caribbean roots whose interest is to spur development across the Caribbean. Their work in the institution will do so as they devote their expertise in political science, sociology, economics and the like by staying abreast of U.S. policies or the lack thereof toward the region, with in-depth analysis and synthesis of such policies and issues.

As a side point: The number does not have to be limited to one institution. The initiative, however, will allow for the region to, in effect, reverse the most haunting symptom of the dependency mode (apart from our seeming inability to sustain our economies) that continues to plague our efforts for sustainable development in the region: a brain drain. The appeal is to assemble the brightest minds to be nurtured in the present context and others, with a sensitivity that want them to devote time and space to study the phenomenon that give shape to the realities we confront — not by choice it seems, because we continue to live out the ugly aspects of our history, structurally.

I contend that we begin to shift that dynamic and to gain adequate self-respect for our efforts and to be interpreted by others with seriousness and perhaps garner the respect they will eventually demand and deserve. Keeping that in mind, vital to this scheme, and has been lacking, is a logistical and analytical infrastructure that would preclude waiting for the United States to engage us after it has formulated its agenda only to seek our signatures. Instead, the think tank would assist in ensuring that we are engaging their architects from the inception of whatever it is they are fashioning. How else can we begin to seriously engage them on equal footing and foster a democratic process? The ideal condition in terms of coverage of an issue or promoting the interest of our people is to facilitate and engage in inside-the-beltway dialogue. And the pre-condition to such is to have an active and organized intelligencia to study, analyze and to report in a critical and comprehensive manner to our governing bodies as well as to their architects on the other side influencing the outcome/policy, even if it may first seem highly symbolic to the casual observer.

Moreover, engaging in inside-the-beltway dialogue, of whatever issue that is poised to take up time and space, will first and foremost demand the respect and democratic process that have been elusive when it comes to the U.S dealing with the region, whether collectively or individually, which of course we have to find the platform for other than our mere interests, i.e. a robust logistical and analytical infrastructure. In turn it will help churn out more favorable policies geared toward the region and Diaspora because our policymakers/elected officials will be better informed and advised, giving them the strength and confidence to be better representatives of the people’s interests and not somebody else’s (as has been the case throughout history, for the most part).

My inspiration for this proposal, in part, is an outgrowth of my observation of the American Federal system, mainly the involvement in the national political process taken up by city, state and non-for-profit institutions that invest in studying policies of their interest, though situated “proper” with federal authorities; essentially, their responsibility to proactively influence the political process and agenda, how the federal government relates to them vis-à-vis the policies it ultimately puts forth. At the very least, it enshrines the principle of respectful dialogue between these various governing (and non-governmental) bodies in the American context. I believe there is a lot to learn from the context just described.

The bottom line is that it is imperative to be an active participant in any dialogue of interest to the welfare of our people, from the onset, I may add. The marketplace of ideas should not be remote nor seem remote for our intelligencia. We cannot afford to wait on after-the-fact reporting by our Caribbean, local papers to serve as our primary cues and source of information, or equally defeating –to wait for foreign media to shed light on what matters to us. To gain respect is to be proactive — that is the mantra. Whether we embrace it wholly or not is what will determine our destiny (in this world as we know it and come to know it). In this interdependent world, change is all our business, especially those that are bound to affect the livelihood and welfare of the region’s population.

We have to first forge the kind and level of respect in our approach that we seek to demand of others, especially when they are known for setting the tone. In this hyper information age — as it is called that for a valid reason — we in the Caribbean and those with the region’s interest in mind cannot tarry nor be complacent about embracing an approach more suitable for the time and space we share with our international neighbors.

The premium remains unchanged: we can only be as good as the tools we put to use – intentions set aside. So far, we have not remotely been efficient with the resources that we do have at our disposal. Developing our logistical and analytical infrastructure is now our only recourse, given the tide. Moreover, the mechanism for handling issues and polices has long exceeded where we have found ourselves operating from: Knowledge we may come to find out, if we have not already, is the force of the universe, and more so putting it to use. Thus, there is a critical need for creating and organizing a machinery of knowledge, as characterized throughout this article. This is my appeal, at this point, to Caribbean heads of state.

In putting forth this proposal, I am fully cognizant of the pioneering work of Caribbean nationals throughout the U.S., in various organizations, doing a tremendous job in preserving the region’s cultural artifacts and building alliances with black elected officials, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus. They have been successful through advocacy in making inroads along the cultural and business lines while engaging the political sphere in their respective districts, namely the 17-year-old Institute of Caribbean Studies. All these efforts are commended, including that of various business organizations/ chamber of commerce (Dr. Roy Hastick and the Caribbean Chamber of Commerce in Brooklyn, N.Y., is notable).

However, a more robust and disciplined approach to policy analysis is warranted despite these established connections and vehicles. In short, there is a need for more centralized planning and coordinating of the work on the analytical side of things, even to allow ourselves to go beyond the issues and policies and study the very phenomenon that gave rise to the issues and policies that the region and Diaspora confront and need adequate redress. For us in the Diaspora, business leaders – not necessarily social scientists — have led the charge of promoting the Caribbean and its Diaspora’s interests, which inevitably comes with its limitations. This is earth-moving work, a break from the way of doing business as we come to know it.

A point of reflection: Symbolism takes up more space in our consciousness than all the practical things we can do — at any given moment; thus, it influences behavior, and mutually so, giving the one(s) who gave rise to it special relevance, for a tone/frame is pre-empted. Respect is its home and so is disrespect. Therefore, the kind of symbolism we engage in and/or engender matters. In it lies power to give shape to conviction as conviction gives shape to it. In other words, symbolism never operates strictly in the abstract (as many are led to believe).

For an idea to ascend to the level of symbolism it has to be afforded currency by a multitude, either actively or by default (blindly). I suspect that is how a favorable set of reality is gained and sustained. By definition, a revolution is a direct attempt to overturn a particular symbolism — to reiterate the point that they are omnipresent in our consciousness. Its job is to simplify complexity, though without actually removing its potency. If image operates on alpha-ray (radioactive particles), symbolism operates on a gamma-ray part of the spectrum. It comes to bear witness in our very molecular structure. Perhaps it’s the reason why our bodies are less solid than we perceive it to be. It is hardly the physical that reaches us — not in the first instance.

Lindon P. George, who has a master’s degree in Political Science with a concentration in Urban Policy and Administration from Brooklyn College, is a political scientist living in New York.