The Center for Worker Education runs a graduate program in Urban Policy and Public Administration, through the Department of Political Science at Brooklyn College. Last semester (Fall 2008), five graduate students from the course “Politics and Public Opinion Formation (#735x)” completed a poll on the term limits extension issue. It was conducted over a one month period and ended on December 13th, 2008.

There were nine questions asked to a total of 364 respondents. Ninety-three percent of the respondents were registered voters in NYC. Eighty-five percent of them were Democrats. The poll was authorized -as part of this course- by Dr. Joe Wilson; the program’s director. Professor Many Ness is his deputy. M. Pam Miller is the administrator of this program and also approved the survey. It just happens that I have been a lecturer here since last year. I also facilitated the students in this endeavor; this effort was primarily theirs; they deserve the credit: not me.

When asked whether or not they were in agreement with the idea or concept of term limits, 78.3% of the respondents said yes they were. The nays were 21.4%. Only 0.3% had no response/opinion. This finding is close to similar findings of other public opinion polls done on the topic. Most New Yorkers favor term-limits by a fairly wide margin. We can safely extrapolate that it is roughly four to one; some polls found it even higher than this.

Back to the poll: when asked how many four-year terms should be allowed to a NYC council-member, 71.1% of those who agreed with the term-limits concept said two terms. Interestingly enough 21.0% said three. This means that one in five New Yorkers may think that two terms are too short. Fewer still (7.2%) said four terms; while 0.7% offered no response to this question.

Normally I don’t do these Christmas parties that politicians and political organizations throw. You see, inevitably someone will ask me to dance, and then the “Mr. Bojangles” in me comes out. Then next thing you know, my “island blood” starts flowing and I am fighting with the deejay to play some calypso, reggae or soca. Sometimes the wannabee comedian in me takes over: then I am holding court in some corner, much to the chagrin of my host or hostess. I really don’t need to add anything further to my “bad-boy” political reputation at Christmas time; I’ve got enough detractors as it is already. That’s why the political Santa Claus usually drives his sleigh right past my house every year. I hardly ever get political presents (like high-profile big-money jobs; although I am over-qualified and overdue for one of them). I am often the “Rodney Dangerfield” of Brooklyn’s politics: “no respect”/lol.

So, in general, I am very selective of the political Christmas parties I attend. Sometimes I show up with a bodyguard or two: with or without invitation. Other times I arrive early, and of course my escorts promptly arrive a few minutes later: to throw me out. One time I called in a RSVP and they told me the party started at nine; when I got there at ten, the cleaner-woman said it ended at seven. Another time, the attendant doing the valet parking, took one look at my van and immediately called the junk yard. Another one threw away my keys; he said I shouldn’t be driving that rat-trap. It’s not easy being me sometimes. It’s not!

This year however, I decided to come out of my crease (so to speak). Let Gatemouth -the pseudo cricket aficionado- figure what I meant there/lol. Given that I am intent on running for the city council next year, I thought that I should show my pretty face more often now. So if you people start seeing me show up at events in the New Year, don’t be alarmed; my plastic surgeon promised that my face improves with time: it’s the healing process stupid. Don’t be scared folks.

Lori Knipel -the Dems female district leader of the 44th AD- throws the best Christmas Party in Brooklyn. And this is an understatement; no other party comes close. She does it annually with the Lefkowitz family, at a classy senior residence manor overlooking Sheepshead Bay. The fishes are caught only moments before they are fried. It’s real “fancy-schmansy”. All the female waitresses do lap dances for the men in attendance. But seriously folks: it is reputed to be the best Christmas party in all of Brooklyn’s politics. It’s by invitation only, and she invites me every year. Lori must like bad-boys who are black and sometimes irascible; or she must think I am someone I am not.

Ed: Huh. Don't quite know what to say.

I watched the raindrops as they fell
slapping away at your grainy streets
where the pebbles from the quarry
smelled
like gun-powder over heat
when mixed with tropical dust and more
and rain and sun
and yards of lore
whether shirt-tailed
bare-backed
or bare-feet
I watched the refraction from the moonlit floors
of those two elegantly-junctioned
memory-filled streets;
where good friends did meet
in wide-eyed awe
and hugged
as they tried to greet each other
and did more
for the years lost
and the high costs
of happiness once fresh and sweet
now gone offshore.
Was some breathtaking feat my friend
for two eager eyes to see
as they watched with delight
the silver specks gleaming
and tiny golden nuggets streaming
as they headed out to sea
and the twinkling flakes shimmering
on being caught by surprise
every time they sparkled
during nighttime drizzles
and when caught up in the headlights
of intermittently passing cars
and on the misty eyelids
of recollections
still neatly compiled
still pleasantly tabulated.
And I saw a sardonyx I never knew
and an aquamarine too
whenever the rains fell
late into the edges of evening
and whenever the boundaries
of day and night were flooded.
And when the nights stood still
and were calm
and peaceful
and silent
like an innocent baby at sleep
I snuggled
while I struggled
with the strange newness of this tropical heat
but I didn’t mind;
not at all.

Our president-elect Barack Hussein “Barry” Obama has stacked his Economic Recovery Advisory Board: good move. It is headed by an 81 year old economist with a heavyweight reputation: Paul Volcker. He was once the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Fine. There are others on the board with sterling reputations in economics and economic theory. Great.

And yet the board is defective in its construction; Barack Obama didn’t select Ralph Nader to a position on the same board: bad move. And before I move forward with this column, let me reiterate: I fancy myself a strong supporter of Barack Obama. However, that doesn’t mean that I am afraid to scrutinize or critique his decisions and actions. Real “change” is bigger than Barack Hussein “Barry” Obama: much bigger. When you read this column you will see what I mean.

Of all the social-sciences I have studied, I find economics the most challenging. After all, we are attempting -as humans- to design a system to deal with the unlimited needs, wants, cravings, desires and such, of near all those alive and a small few of those already dead/lol. And we attempt this with limited resources. It’s no wonder that laissez-faire capitalism has so many core headaches; just as pure socialism. And that’s why over the course of economic history, we have seen many socio-economic experiments; many a mix and match with serfdom, feudalism, the barter system, mercantilism, colonialism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, communism, and others. Designing socio-economic systems that will satisfy the majority in the polity are ongoing challenges. It has been like this since time stood still.

And so, here we are in the midst of another crisis; something that’s not uncommon to history, anthropology, sociology, politics, economics, whathaveyou. This is life people. Crises are normal: so get over this one already; at least in your head. Crises challenge us to do our best. They motivate us to dig deeper into the core of our souls; they push us to seek out higher ground. They are invigorating. They are stimulating.

Maybe it’s time for me to take off the kid gloves again. Maybe it’s time for me to start going after the many mistakes that Barack Obama makes; mistakes which some in mainstream media (and also in alternative media) tend to be lenient about. The campaign is over now, so those of us who didn’t want to negatively impact on his chances for victory can return from that hiatus from objectivity. He won.

I am quite perplexed by the many problems that Barack Obama often seems to create for himself: there is a pattern here. And because the media tends to be relatively lenient it doesn’t mean that he will forever get away from full scrutiny. Many times I have wondered if Obama really understands what he is getting into. Has this always been about raw personal political ambition? Is this about some death-wish for martyrdom? Or is this truly about “change”?

We don’t need just another ordinary American president right now: we don’t. We need an exceptional one: like yesterday. Barack Obama is inspirational, and that’s great; he gives many of us hope, and that too is great; since inspiration and hope often brings outstanding outcomes. But that’s not a given; we have got a long way to go.

Look; to many (myself included); re-cycling ex-officials and workers from the Bill Clinton administration is not quite our idea of change. Floating Hillary Clinton’s name for Secretary of State, when Bill Richardson offers him a chance to appoint the first Hispanic in the role, is nothing short of ludicrous. Especially after the many things the Clintons said about his foreign policy ideas during the primary. How do you square this? Are we still at politics as usual? Is this the change we can believe in? Or is “change” only a word? You know: “just words”? Words that gets you to the White House? And then what: same old same old?

I remember doing a column earlier this year which dealt with the Fox News Network’s (FNN) unfair and unbalanced handling of the election coverage; I don’t think it got much attention, although it should have. You see, from my perspective FNN had a vendetta against Barack Obama. I know that their response to this column will be, that other mediums were in the tank for him; and as such, they weren’t about to go down the same highway.

I am not going to sit here writing this without admitting that Barack Obama charmed the pants off of many a journalist’s/reporter’s typewriter: he did. And he did it with brilliant speeches, surprising (to them) primary and caucus victories, a high-quality political organization, his decorum, temperament, intellect and more. His reassuring calm -especially when under fire- was as admirable a trait as seen in any presidential candidate in contemporary times. It is possible that mainstream media gave him the half-decent treatment he deserved; something that he earned; and not their usual ferocious pit-bull attacks. Despite his mixed-race (he is a mulatto) they treated him like the full human being he is; something admirable coming from mainstream media.

When you tally the newspaper endorsements shared between Obama and McCain, you find that Obama got more endorsements than his rival by about two to one. At university campuses you could easily double that spread. Some early studies are showing that Obama also got more favorable stories (reports) than his rival by about the same two to one margin. To analyze the reasons why will take a dissertation, so I wont try to do that here.

Yet, during the entire election season -including both primary and general election campaigns- you found that Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and other right-wingers who troll the shows on FNN, perpetually attempted to demonize Barack. They attacked his patriotism, character, associations, positions, affiliations, ideas, vision, and the like. And they did this relentlessly; in fact: almost non-stop. It was way above and beyond the pale. In my recollection, this was abnormal for any presidential campaign I have experienced first hand.

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.

What I tried to get from responders to my last column was something the mayor’s flunkies failed to give us during the public hearings: the dire reasoning behind the justification for an extension. So I will ask it here in more stringent terms.

Given our current economic crisis - claimed as the main reason for this extension- what fiscal expertise do you bring to the table? Please answer this in both individualistic and collective ways. What expertise in the area of economics do you bring to the table? Where, when and why did you study accounting, fiscal-management, budgets, finance and economics? What are your accomplishments in these fields? Why would you give a member of the same class that got us into this mess another opportunity at the helm? Is this common-sense at work? What exactly are the problems you foresee (I bet there is no good answer to this one)? Also: how do you plan to solve these anticipated problems? Do spell it out in tangible and credible ways; especially since at both federal and state levels (and relative to the economic crisis) we are seeing blind men running around with no end in sight.

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.

Lew Fidler is a fixture in NYC politics, has been so for years and years. It seems that he has spent a lifetime of heavy involvement in Brooklyn’s politics, especially in the areas of Midwood, Carnarsie and East Flatbush. For a pragmatic politician -as compared to a political idealist- he has done relatively well for himself. His mother was heavily involved in the politics of East Flatbush for eons, and many of his relatives are also stuck deep in the trenches of Brooklyn’s politics. There is nothing wrong with that. There seems to be some family friction but that’s personal stuff and I won’t touch it; not my political business.

Leroy Comrie has been around the city council for the last quarter century or so. Comrie was Archie Spingner’s chief of staff. For many years Spigner was the deputy speaker of that body. Spigner used to represent St. Albans in Queens until he was term-limited in 2001. He was the council member for about two decades. Then Leroy won the seat; so between the two of them, this district has been on Spigner-Comrie lock-down for a very long time.

Look; before I go forward here, let emphatically state that I have total respect for Al Vann, and his fights for black-empowerment, inclusion and respect. I admire and respect his contributions to the politics of this city; but you have got to know when to quit. You have got to know when you have gone past your prime and your usefulness.

Before Barack Obama formally announced his candidacy for the US presidency last year, I did a three part series outlining why I thought Barack Obama 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.

When I first started writing about this moving phenomenon, one detractor said that I was on “crack” to even suggest that Barack could win. I didn’t scream as loudly as I could have because I have grown accustomed to that attack-stuff, which I now see it as “coming with the blogging territory” for as audacious a black man as I am. And despite the attacks, I did understand why some of the more respectful detractors felt that Barack wasn’t experienced enough. He could have surely used a little more seasoning in the Senate. But audacity seldom waits; and hope springs eternal; so it was inevitable that when both could meet on some optimistic street, they might just combine to beat the long odds against them. And they did.

Now, please don’t think for a minute that this is a self-congratulatory piece; it isn’t. I have had enough kudos dropped on me since January, to create the reverse-effect of applying preparation-H on my ego. Some have come in the form of calls or correspondence(s) from all over the world. I am already “souped-up” enough. I am using these facts to make my central point(s) here; that’s all.

When I predicted that Barack Obama would win the Iowa primary -almost two months before the caucus- some thought I was going crazy. Now today, it all looks so easy to many: “how soon do they forget!”

But back then, very few -even in the black community- allowed themselves the faculty of embracing the concept of an Obama presidency. Even when I was calling his demolition of the Clintons way in advance -during the democrats’ primary contest- there were those who suggested I should be sued for libel. And remember folks, I went into this election cycle feeling/thinking that Al Gore was the best candidate the democrats could have fielded for this race. My Obama transformation/transfusion was an evolution of sorts over the past four years or so.

I will have lots of time to write about the historical dimensions of this victory later on, but today I want to talk a little bit about what made this all happen.

Mark this one done under the title: Rock’s Long Range Predictions. I predict that after he signs the term limit extension bill next week, Michael Bloomberg will find his approval ratings dropping like a heavy load. They will drop all the way to his political demise. Recently, his approval was in the high sixties percentile, having been as high as the seventies before that. By the end of next January, I predict that his approval ratings will come in be under fifty percent.

Furthermore, I expect that when the issues around the economic crisis sinks in, and when they begin to affect the city’s budget and attendant services in extreme ways; Bloomberg’s ratings will sink even lower. He will have little time to prevent the freefall, since the election is one year away. It is evident that the mayor will have to raise taxes and fees to increase revenue flow in the coming months; these won’t be popular measures. Like Senator John McCain in this presidential cycle, Mayor Michael Bloomberg will be negatively affected by the country’s current economic woes. They will both suffer similar election-fates.

Not too long ago, Bloomberg told council members -who were concerned about their vote on the controversial bill- that the voters will soon forget the issue. He was wrong; dead wrong. His hubris blinds him from the reality that voters are pissed; extremely pissed.

I believe that there is more than a fifty-fifty chance of the courts overturning this bill. I also believe that even if the bill stands up to legal scrutiny, the high court of public opinion will speak out emphatically against what happened here. The inability of Bloomberg’s advisors to convince him to take his plans for the extension to referendum, will be the biggest failure of their service tenure. He disrespected the voters, and it was disrespect with a capital-“D”. He will pay the two ultimate prices: his mayoralty will be ended; and his legacy will be permanently tarnished.