The black political process is no more or less broken than the general one. Insofar as the criticism of the black poor, not only is it staggeringly classist, it's factually wrong.

The author imagines that the problem with the black political process is because it arose from the poor or, as he put it, from "impoverished conditions" and, I suppose, he imagines it reflects what he probably considers the "values" of the poor. Aside from the bizzare values notion, as if a college degree and a house in the suburbs means you automatically gain "values" that poor folks lack, it's amazing that someone who's writing on the subject apprently doesn't know that a good deal of the politicans he's alleging who are part of the broken "poor" process are, at least, decidely middle class already.

Here in NY, the idea that established black political figures like Daivd Dinkins, Percy Sutton, Carl Mcall, Basil Patterson, Calvin Butts, Denny Farell and Floyd Flake are poor is beyond laughable. I'm sure the same could be said for leading black political figures all over the country.

That's why I brought up context earlier. The black political process doesn't need an infusion of supposedly new "middle class values" because, despite the fact that the impetus for change usually starts with the poor, the leadership has mostly been middle class (in black terms) since the days of Dubois's "Talented Tenth" suggestion. So I guess all those middle class blacks didn't have "middle class" values, huh? That the author doesn't seem to have any real historical perspective on the situation, other than pet peeves about the Civil Rights era part of the process, is amazing.

"Here's news: criticizing successful black politicians for "acting white" is the new racism. Crying racism when someone calls out the failures of the African-American political machine is the new annoying."

Really? That is news. Which succesful black politicians/figures do you have in mind? Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Andy Young, and on and on and on? Somehow I don't think so. Also, using terms like "crying racism" and "acting white" (the hottest thing since ebonics) labels in place of any intelligent opinions on the matter is sadly hysterical and the quite the old annoying.

I'm wishy washy on this one. I can see both sides on the argument but the notion that even if was, while not a perfect poster boy for death penalty opponents, innocent of the crime he was convicted of, but that somehow he was guilty in a larger sense because he co-founded the Crips is a bit much. To follow that logic, I'm not sure I'd want to argue that guys who founded the Mafia were more guilty than say, a notorious gangster like John Gotti.

I agree, but you can't cop to your crimes while claiming innocence. Also, why is Tookie soooo cute? It's not like liberal death penalty opponents gave him the nickname for PR purposes. In the end though, he was a bad man who tried to redeem himself somwhat and, from the reports, seemed more at peace with his fate then folks on both sides on the death penalty argument.

"Regardless, he helped foster a culture of fear and intimidation probably not lived by any other Americans in any other time."

I know people get crazy about street gangs in major urban centers but are you sure you want to make that statement? If so, I'd suggest you consider Slavery, the Klan, the Mafia, etc. in your analysis. If you really want a hair raising experience, go read about the largely Irish street gangs that dominated crime in NYC in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The Crips and the Bloods have nothing on them.

Not to worry, Jessie Jackson probably won't be alive by the time it's Scott Peterson's turn. So you can rest easy. I'm not sure what hip hop and Bill Cosby have to do with anything but okay....