Author: Rock Hackshaw

On the fifth of September, 2008, I did a column about the double standard that passes for justice in this country; something which often occurs when whites and blacks face the system against identical or similar charges. I totally anticipated doing another column on this issue before the end of the year: so here it is. 

In that column I spoke about the former mayor of Detroit, a black man named Kwame Maleek Kilpatrick. He pleaded guilty to two counts of obstruction of justice; in a situation emanating from issues surrounding his adulterous affair with his female chief of staff. I compared his dilemma to the one former president Bill Clinton faced during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I suggested that at various points, and in various places/situations, there was a double standard of justice for black electeds when compared to their white counterparts. 

The first part of this column left a few gaps for detractors to exploit, so I hope I can close some of the gaps here. We shall see. Maybe I should have drawn up a list of those New York City Council members, who I now see as having outlived their usefulness -as elected officials- prior to doing my last column; but in previous columns during this current term-limits brouhaha, I felt I had made the identities of some of these individuals quite clear to readers. Maybe I haven’t. Maybe someday I will.

Anyone who was elected knowing full well the two term rule when they ran -limiting them to eight consecutive years in the council and no more- should not seek re-election once their time is up. Period. Beyond the culprits already listed, include the likes of Larry Seabrook, Kendall Stewart, Martin Dilan jnr. and a few others we all know. What they have done is dishonest. Period. Anyone who voted for the mayor’s disgraceful bill overturning the will of the voters, should be voted out of office; period; and with no exceptions -including the mayor himself. Hijacking democracy is a capital crime against the polity. It is difficult to imagine that these people are such intellectual midgets that they don’t get all this.

It seems like Al Vann has been around Brooklyn’s politics since George Washington was president of the USA; no joke. In politics, his name has been discussed more times than the daily weather report on any television station. I have been told that over the years he has been a teacher, unionist, political activist and elected official. He was an assembly member in the Albany legislature for 27 years (1974-2001). He won election to the New York city council in 2001. Some of his detractors have suggested that he came here on pre-retirement leave.

I know that there are some good things that Al Vann has done -in terms of public service- and I believe that one of these days a street in Bed-Stuy will be named after him. After all, he has held public office for about 35 years. Fine. 

Before Barack Obama formally announced his candidacy for the US presidency last year, I did a three part series outlining why I thought he should run (1/25, 2/10 and 7/8/07); it wasn’t received nearly as well as it should have been on these supposedly high-quality NY blogs. And that’s because some of those who troll these sites, can’t see the nose on their faces even if standing directly in front of a mirror. I must admit that I was a bit saddened, perturbed and disappointed, at some of the responses elicited in the comment-sections; go see for yourselves. Thus Barack Obama’s victory last Tuesday is a vindication of sorts for me, since I was subject to some slight racial abuse in more than a few of those comments; especially in my finale, where I made a qualified prediction of this victory, when I said that only an “assassination” could stop him from winning. 

Sometimes I wonder about the honesty of some columnists in mainstream media; and sometimes the same applies for those in the unconventional alternatives like the blogs. They never cease to amaze me with their deliberate attempts to convey stupidity; especially when I know they know better. So the question is this: why are people seemingly missing the point in this debate on term limits? Is this deliberate? What part of democracy don’t they understand? 

Look, I have come to accept that most elected officials are self-serving, and I have come to accept that a few of them are just ethically challenged. I have even come to accept that some of them are simply corrupt. Recently I have even started to accept this awareness without disgust. Now I just see it as the customary disappointments of life for a political idealist. You don’t let it jade you and you don’t curtail your activism. You just plug on; pushing for a better community, town, city, state, country and world: in your own little way(s). And you do it without much fanfare, pomp and pageantry; you just do it because you believe it’s the right thing(s) to do. You do it without looking for monetary reward. You do it while making great sacrifices.

Last Thursday evening, the New York City Council shat on democracy’s face. I am mad. I am real angry. I am angry enough to run for public office again. I am pissed. I am steaming. I am so pissed and steaming that I have to make this announcement: I have activated a twelve-member formal exploratory committee to consider a run for the council next year. We must throw these bums out. I am willing to lay my body in front of the oncoming train, once my committee deems victory as feasible.

I understand that my announcement here is an upgrade on my earlier position, whereby I have been semi-quietly contemplating another run for public office. I had the year 2014 as being the latest possible year for any run. After that year I was willing to go into retirement like Maurice Gumbs. I was even willing to wait out the 2010 census, and the resultant redistricting process, but I am now ready to move my schedule forward, more so since I was keeping my eye on next year’s council races anyway. We need new leadership in the council. We need people who are willing to fight for the public interest, not only for their self-interest. We need members with spines. We need members with backbones. We need change. We now have the executive and legislative branches of this city morphed into one: “the Bloomberg branch”. This is not constitutional. This is adverse to the spirit of the city charter.

The organization known as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is around forty years old. It emerged from the 1960s era, when battles over civil rights issues were waged on the frontlines everyday. It’s an offshoot from the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), which by 1966 had around 170 member-groups in at least 60 cities all over the USA. The objectives here were to protect, edify, organize and empower the poor and working class people of this country; amongst other things.

By 1972, ACORN was already up and running for a couple years, while getting itself involved in the politics of Little Rock, Arkansas. Who can forget Little Rock as it relates to civil rights history? Today, ACORN still fights for poor people and the working class. They do a decent job in this regard.

I have avoided commentary on this presidential race lately, mainly because there are things I don’t want to discuss right now. As it relates to political issues, I will wait until it is all over before I get back to brass tacks. But given that I have been badgered by some of my many fans to call the race: I will. In fact I will do a little more than that. 

Let me say that there will be a record turnout for this year’s presidential race. I am talking about raw votes not percentage(s). Barack Obama will win easily; it won’t even be close. He will get closer to 400 electoral votes than three hundred. He will receive more single votes than any presidential candidate in the history of this great country.

A former student of mine called in anger recently. Of course the issue was this pending malevolent attack on term-limits (and probable hijack), by Mayor Bloomberg and a New York City Council majority; via proposed legislation altering the term limits law voted in by the people. The student was livid. 

With typical youthful innocence and idealism, he kept challenging me to make sense of all this. How could a plebiscite be overturned without going back to the voter via referendum? Why were there two referenda on this issue, when the legislators could just come in and sweep away the people’s vote (will) at anytime? And what is to stop them from extending the limit another four years, when 2013 rolls around?  Is this the “democracy” that we Americans love to boast about to the rest of the world?