This Sunday evening "60 Minutes" did a story on another disturbing trait found in pockets of the black community. Don’t snitch. We are confronted with so many self-destructive attitudes in the black community that it seems that some communities will forever be precluded from the American Dream.

Many blacks refuse to acknowledge the self-destructive traits that we perpetuate in our community. The "60 Minutes" piece discussed the fact that the hip-hop community, at least prominent factions of it, endorses this credo, and a lot of young people follow like lemmings. A handful of hip-hop artists were interviewed, but not one of them could articulate why such a position made any sense. One after the other, these men confirmed that they believed cooperation with the police was a bad thing, but none could defend the belief. The truth be told, none even tried. Perhaps, in their hearts they recognize the utter stupidity and self-destructiveness of the credo.

With the many problems that face the black community crime is the single factor that magnifies all other problems. It can be argued that crime perpetuates the lack of economic opportunity in the black community. For example, one of the reasons few large grocery stores exist in some black communities is because of the high cost of insurance and the high incidence of retail theft. As a result, poor people in those communities pay more for the goods they consume. They have to leave the community to shop, they have to pay the added cost of traveling to other communities to do their shopping. Or, they have to pay the extra markup on the goods sold in the small neighborhood stores. Either way, the absence of large grocery stores increases the cost to the average person living in poorer black communities.

Drugs and violence affect poorer black communities out in the open. People are killed in the street, sometimes by accident, sometimes not by accident. The lives of young people hang in the balance, and in many communities, the balance is not tipped in their favor.

Yet, here we have prominent so called successful persons advocating that those who suffer the most from of the high incidence of crime do nothing to alleviate the crime in their communities. These "artist," mostly rich, are for the most part able to avoid the day to day tragedy other less fortunate persons face everyday. Who are you to say do nothing about murders and drug dealing in your community when, at the end of the day, you can retreat to your estate behind locked gate with armed security? Or, they can afford to hire other armed persons as bodyguards. These hip-hop performers have attained that American Dream, but advocate positions that will prevent others from ever achieving the dream.

And to think that many young children who endure the exposure to crime are spending money to help provide these "artists" with the "bling" that funds their retreat into sanctuary. Meanwhile, these vary same kids have to duck and run to avoid the bullets that fly when the killers and the drug dealers prowl and litter the streets with crack vials, shell casings, and lifeless bodies.

It is important to the health and well being of these poorer black communities that the thugs be stopped. Certainly, it is easier said than done. But, when you have well-known and well-respected persons advocating non-cooperation with the police, something must be done. How can the leaders in the community counter such irresponsibility? Now is the time for the leaders in these communities to speak up and denounce these "artist" who, in some instances, can no longer claim to be a part of the community.

A president’s legacy is often distorted when viewed through the cloudy lens of time, propaganda, and outright lies. Like a broken kaleidoscope, a legacy will appear different depending on the angle from which it is viewed. A legacy is often the product of major events during the president’s term of office. The large events of George W. Bush’s presidency can only lead to a negative legacy.

Every president who enjoys a favorable legacy has made the most of major events. The major events for Washington and Lincoln ended in significant victories for those presidents. Franklin Roosevelt had the depression and World War II. Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs incident. Lyndon Johnson had the end of the Viet Nam War and the Great Society. Each man suffered his share of criticism from various factions in the government and the public. But, as they say, everyone loves a winner. The above-mentioned men were perceived to be winners in the major events of their terms. Thus, favorable legacies.

George W. Bush’s presidency has been clouded with so much secrecy, intrigue, and distortions that those who assume to take on the responsibility to frame his legacy will have a difficult time separating the lies from the truth.

President Bush will always be remembered as the president who lost the election but was "enthroned" by grace of the United States Supreme Court. Being an illegitimate office holder from the outset, no one should be surprised that George W. Bush and his cohorts followed a pattern of roguish behavior throughout his two terms in office. Generally, the populace assumes that a president will act for the good of the country as a whole. However, George W. Bush has used the office of president as his private fiefdom, accountable to no one. History is myopic. Will the historian care or remember that George W. Bush used false intelligence to attack Iraq, or that civil liberties took a backseat to the desire of a group of hawks to use the September 11 tragedy as a ruse for war.

President Bush’s performance in his major events does not flatter him. He didn’t perform well in the September 11 tragedy. Most would consider Rudy Giuliani the real hero. George Bush was nowhere to be found in the Katrina catastrophe. He has handled the Iraq War poorly.

What’s worse is that the President completely disregards the country’s wish to end the war in Iraq. It’s one thing to disagree with how the war should be ended, or whether there should be a published deadline on when the war should end, but it is apparent that this President has no intention to end the war during his term in office. Through the tried and true process of the ballot, the people of the United States confirmed that they wanted this war to end. Rather than listen to the people, this President continues as if not election took place. Rather than make efforts to bring the war to a close, he forces more American troops into harm’s way. He discards anyone whose opinion is different from his. And, in this case he has disposed of many advisors and generals who believed the war should end. He acquired office under less than clear circumstances, he dragged the country into was on false pretences, and he refused to remove American troops from harm’s way despite a clear message from the American people to do so.

President Bush’s overall performance has been poor. Ultimately, his legacy has to be unflattering.

Change is the only constant. The same can be true for men’s fashion.

Before deciding what you are going to wear, make certain what is meant by "formal." There was a time when every well-groomed man knew then meaning of "formal," "black tie" or "evening attire." For our purposes, let’s assume that "formal" means the traditional tuxedo or dinner jacket.

Decide whether you want to be strictly traditional or will you opt for a modern look. The classic approach is simple as black and white. Black tuxedo, white formal shirt, black shoes, black tie, black cuff links and studs, black cummerbund, white pocket square, and an elegant watch. That’s it pretty much. You’ll not see this too much today unless you’re at one of those very stuffy events where most of the men are over seventy, or on the head waiter at the local four star restaurant (sans the watch).

Along with the shoes, the shirt is not really an accessory, but since we’re talking, the shirt should be white and pleated in the front, with either a winged or traditional collar. Skip the colored shirts or the shirts with contrasting fronts or collars and cuffs. Leave the banded collar for a less "formal" occasion.

The choice in this category is mind boggling and can lead to some grotesque combinations. You will be fine as long as the cuff links match the studs. You cannot go wrong with the black links and black studs. Of course, forget the studs if you are wearing a shirt with concealed buttons.

The cummerbund is the traditional choice. But, it draws the eye to the mid-section, and it tends to ride up or sag when you’re active. So, if you have a keg rather than a six pack, or if you’re going to get your dance on, pick the vest. If you chose the cummerbund, remember the pleats face up, not down, and compliment or match the tie.

If you have decided on the vest, you do have some options. Generally, you want the vest to compliment your tie. It doesn’t necessarily have to match the tie, but make certain that they don’t clash.

A relatively slim elegant watch. Leave the Data Bank or the Iron Man at home. This is a perfect time to for that Rolex knock off. There’s no need for a bracelet on the other wrist unless your girlfriend insists that you wear it, and that it is 24 carat heavy link, and she bought it. If you have pierced ears, only diamond or cubic studs. Otherwise, leave them empty. No chains, pendants, medals, or pins unless it’s that kind of event.

The shoes should be black patent leather.

A pocket square if you choose. But, please remember that you don’t want to be a rainbow of colors. Keep in mind the color(s) of your tie/vest/cummerbund.

The modern formal shop has a vast array of options that allow you to exercise your discretion to you heart’s desire, and to make many a fashion faux pas. We all have seen the prom photos that circulate on the internet every May and June. Unfettered discretion without guidance can be dangerous. Don’t let that be you.

Racism is inherent in America. But for racism, there would be no America.

By the time Europeans arrived on these shores with settlement in mind, native peoples had already established rich and intricate cultures. Because Europeans believed the native peoples were savages and less than human, they took what they wanted, the land. For the same reason, the native cultures were destroyed.

Racism created the environment that bolstered the American economy. Most people have the incorrect notion that slavery was limited to southern states. Not true. Slavery existed all over the United States and its territories until it was confined to the south in the 19th century.

Racism did not disappear with slavery's end. Both northern and southern states had some form of Jim Crow though the 1960's. Just one generation ago! Remember, in the 60's at least two southern states abolished all public education just to keep black children from going to school with white children. Every advance in civil rights had to be fought for either in the streets or in the courts. Not a single solitary advancement came about because the white politicos decided to do the right thing. Not until the Voting Rights Act in the 60's did black have an enforceable right to vote. Before that, blacks were subjected to threats and intimidation at the polling place, and at the mercy of poll taxes and other schemes to deny them the right to votes. And, I must repeat, this was not in 1865, lasted until 1964.

We live in a country where nooses are still hung up in workplace break rooms (WalMart), where minority workers are made to use certain bathrooms (Tyson), where white executives refer to black employees as jelly beans at the bottom of the bag (TEXACO), where blacks are denied applications for certain apartments (NALCO), where black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death than white defendants.

Racism is a part of our complicated heritage.

This topic reflects our country's immaturity, youth, and tragic flaw. We are compelled to discuss the race and gender of candidates rather than the substance of their positions. I'm not criticizing the fact that we discuss race and gender, but merely make the point that the supposed greatest country on earth must discuss issues that other countries have disposed of long ago.
In the discussion, it is often forgotten that the United States is a young country. Just three generations ago have women had the right to vote. African Americans have only had an enforceable right to vote for only one generation. And, now here we are with a black and a women poised to be the Democratic party candidate for President.
England, India, the Philippines, Pakistan, and other countries have long ago had women serve as the country's chief executive, and Peru has elected an ethnic minority as president.
So, now that we have to discuss the issue, what do we have to say about it? Nothing! What can be said? It's not as if we have never had a black and a woman run for President. This is the first time that one of these minorities (if you consider women a minority, which they are not)is a lock to be the party candidate.
Then the question becomes whether or not the country is ready to elect a black or a woman President. The answer is no, at least as to a black.
This is a racist country. Conceived in racism and, until the mid-sixties, dedicated to the proposition that racial minorities should have no rights a white man is bound to respect. Is it coincidence that some of the authors here, writing on this subject, not taken the care to spell Barack Obama's name correctly? Often overlooked is this discussion is the fact that there would be no America if not for racism. Our government's treatment of the indigenous people has been appalling. If other countries currently did to their indigenous people what this country has done over the last two centuries, we would immediately and righteously condemn them or sanction them or something.
The tragedy of racism has not left us. We have not outgrown it. The racial undertones of the recent statewide campaigns in Tennessee and Virginia show the real America. A country conflicted.

Some remnants never seem to dissolve from our psyche. When will some in our community give up the ghost when it comes to this notion of who is, and who isn't "black enough?"
Here we are again when talking about Sen. Obama, giving the dominant media fodder for discussions about things of which they know litte. Tucker Carlson. Raises the discussion about "black enough." We fail to understand that such notions make us appear juvenile and unsophisticated when lager issue should drive our political discussion.
Professor Davison alerted us years ago to the destructive effects of our refusal to rid ourselves of the lessons learned at the master's whipping post. We shouldn't fail to appreciate and honor the diversity within our own cultural boundaries. Obama's diverse "black" upbringing is an asset, not something to be criticized as not black enough.
Rev. Sharpton's comments are certainly appropos. He reserves his support of Obama, not on some fragile logic or cultural immaturity, but on whether he believes the Senator will truly represent the interest about which the Rev cares.

Trick question. Like the rest of America, "black America" is a diverse, multifaceted entity, and its parameters are sometimes difficult to define. Loaded with so much that is great and wonderful, high achievement, community empowerment, and a growing middle class, black America does have its share of problems. Those problems work to lessen the potential of a community ready to take full advantage of the American dream. Like most communities, the black community is hyper sensitive to criticism. That's a problem. An unwillingness to take a hard look at oneself is a problem for any individual, and the same is true of a community. Remember the hubbub with Bill Cosby? Dr. Cosby was viciously and brutally attacked by so many members of the black community that you would have though he was David Duke. Some of the attackers are very prominent achievers. the attacks ranged from "he shouldn't talk about those things in front of white folk" to " he should have to walk a mile in my shoes" to "he shouldn't indict all poor people." In my opinion, what most of the attackers fail to acknowledge is that bill Cosby didn't say anything that wasn't true. At least, it was true for an all too significant part of the black community. No where in Cosby's remarks did he say that his comments applied to all black people or all poor black people. The sad fact is that many black people refuse to let go of the remnants of the sad and tragic history of black people in this country. One of the worst things affecting the black community is the notion that we must reject all things white. Or more specifically, thing perceived to be white. Worse yet is the notion that achievement and education is something reserved for white people. Yes, believe it or not, among a significant part of the black community, to work hard in school or to try to get a good job and make something of oneself, is a bad thing. Translate, a white thing. When Cosby talked about young kids, and not so young "kids", buying bling and sneakers, he didn't make that stuff up. This behavior wasn't fiction. Can anyone really suggest that when the choices are between an expensive pair of sneakers and putting the $150.00 in a mutual fund of other savings account, that purchasing the sneakers is the wisest choice? Cosby wasn't indicting all black people or all poor people. But, he was talking to those to whom those criticisms applied. No pun intended, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Just so long as it isn't a pair of sneakers. Just about anyone will tell you that the first step to solving a problem is recognizing it. The black community can never expect to address the self destructive issues if it refuses to look in the mirror.

The only time a biological father should be relieved of the support obligation is when he is not married to the mother, and he has unequivocally told the mother that he does not want a child. Otherwise, it is always ethical to force the biological father to pay child support. Many deadbeat dads put their own interest above the interest of the child. Thus, creating a conflict between them and the court system because the latter is only concerned with the best interest of the child. These "fathers" ignore the fact that it takes a lot of money to raise a child. Why should the child be penalized for drawing the losing lottery of a "father" who skips out on an obligation as old as humanity itself? I'm referring to the obligation to provide for the support of a child. The amount of the obligation is a separate matter, and it can legitimately be argued that the court system has some inequity build in. However, that inequity is usually overstated. Those fathers who have been denied visitation often have a legitimate gripe. But, for the father who sincerely wants the company of his child(ren), the system provide him a remedy. Sadly, all too many father use deprived visitation as an excuse, rather than expending the effort to force the visitation issue. Some really don't want visitation. They just need to have a reason to avoid child support.

This year some of my friends and I will reach our 50th birthdays. Talking with one of them this past week, he noted that the 50th is a big deal. I guess he's right.
I must admit, not until very recently did I even give it a thought that my 50th birthday was on the horizon. It didn't hit me until my recent health issues arose. Before that, I didn't feel like what almost 50 should feel like. Whatever that is supposed to be. If someone had asked, "how old do you feel?" I would have had to give it some serious thought. We associate advancing age with a loss of vigor and various ailments. I remember once when an office mate discussing her grandmother's desire to learn ballroom dancing said, "she should be at home in her rocking chair, not on the dance floor." That's often how we look at older persons. The reality is that many older persons are very vigorous and active. Not that I place myself in the older person category, but I did feel vigorous and was indeed active. So, the answer to the "how old do you feel?" question would have been, "young."
That changed. Not because of stealthily advancing age, but rather because of the rapid onslaught of medical professionals. On day I felt vigorous, vital, and energetic, the next day I felt old. Not old as in advanced years, but old as in drained and decrepit. Since age is not just a state of mind, but also a matter of physical reality, I wonder if something can be done about my particular artificially induced aging process. Not just slowing it down, but reverse it altogether. You know, like a face lift makes the face look younger.
I'm looking for a flux capacitor.