Being wrong for the right reasons...

We lock the doors of our car from the inside as we cross
the Anacostia River going eastward. We are now in a supposedly
no-go area for whites. A district with 77,000 inhabitants
(over 90% black) of which even a black policeman tells us he
would not enter unarmed at night. This is a district where
more than 3.000 people have been murdered since 1960.
Where in one summer evening in 2007, four different shootings
led to eight victims within two hours. This is a district
of which a former criminal says, “When we see teenagers, we
cross the street. That is how scared we are of our kids.”


Only every second resident has a job. Every third lives below
the poverty line. Two out of three children grow up without
their father. Nowhere else in the city are there as many high
school dropouts (34%) and as many overweight people (71%,
33% of them obese). We are in the capital of the richest country
in the world: Washington, DC. However, this is a place
where tourists and even most Congressmen never venture.
Even some of the city’s street maps do not clearly detail this
district. We fi nd ourselves in the infamous Ward 8 district in
Southeast DC, one and a half miles from the Capitol. The 8th
Ward leads nearly in every negative statistic of Washington’s
eight districts. Ward 7, which neighbors the 8th Ward, follows
a close second.


Originally, we had planned to write a report on the forgotten
people and the misery that exists in the shadow of the Capitol.
Three months and countless rides across the Anacostia
River later, during which nothing bad ever happened to us,
we are coming to the conclusion: We are a few years too late ➟


to write the report we had envisioned. It is still dangerous
here, and the high levels of poverty and desperation are
striking, but: the Ward 8 is changing. Only its reputation
has remained the same. We have since decided to write a
report about change and how such change can materialize.
What roles do civil engagement, careful city planning,
and free market forces play? For one man this
answer is simple: Washington DC’s former two-time
Mayor Marion Barry (1979"1991 and 1995"1999), who
has been the Councilmember of Ward 8 since 2004: “My
leadership”.

one of his commenters on a previous post wrote:

Focusing on Barry's opposition to recognizing gay marriage causes us to miss the forest for the trees; in a majority black city with a majority black political leadership, the City Council voted overwhelmingly (12 to 1) IN SUPPORT of recognizing gay marriage (albeit ones performed outside of DC). This represents a great political victory for the gay rights movements, and refutes the meme which claims that the African-American community is monolithically, implacably, and irresolutely opposed to recognizing gay civil marriage.

I don't think that can be said loudly enough. There are 12 members of the City Council. Seven of them are black. One is Marion Barry. To anyone who's followed Barry's career, I'm not sure why "Marion Barry Is A Demagogue" is breaking news. It's really wrong to erase the other six votes on that measure, and make Barry the face of blacks on the Council, and blacks in the City.

and refutes the meme which claims that the African-American community is monolithically, implacably, and irresolutely opposed to recognizing gay civil marriage

Former DC Mayor Marion Barry Dies at 78

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former District of Columbia Mayor Marion Barry,
whose four terms were overshadowed by his 1990 arrest after being
caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine, died Sunday morning.
He was 78.

Barry D.C. council spokeswoman LaToya Foster says he died shortly
after midnight Sunday at a hospital in Washington. He had battled
kidney problems stemming from diabetes and high blood pressure
and underwent a kidney transplant in February 2009.

In The Phantom Tollbooth, Norton Juster wrote:

Quote:

For you often learn more by being wrong for the right reasons than you do by being right for the wrong reasons.

I've used that as my signature line on A2K for quite some time now and today I came across something that seemed to really exemplify it. Leonard Pitts writing on Marion Barry said:

Quote:

The former mayor and current city councilman of Washington, D.C. is a longtime supporter of gay rights. So observers were stunned last week when a bill committing the city to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere passed the council on a vote of 12-1.

The ''one'' was Barry.

Wait, it gets worse. Barry said his position hasn't changed but warned that the council needs to move slowly on this issue. ''All hell is going to break loose,'' Barry said. ''We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.'' Indeed, after the vote, a group of black ministers reportedly ''stormed'' the hallway outside the council chambers, vowing political reprisals.

The Washington Post quotes Barry as saying he voted as he did because ''I am representing my constituents.'' He reminded reporters that ``98 percent of my constituents are black, and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents.''

That's a lot of words to say what he could have said in three: I punked out.

There's something to be said for representing one's constituents. But there is more to be said for leading them. Barry's failure to understand the difference is galling in light of the fact that he was once a leader in the civil-rights movement.

Read all about it: http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1039247.html

I was reminded of when then governer of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, signed our Physician Assisted Suicide bill into law even though he, as an emergency room physician, opposed the law.

I respected his decision to sign, the people who voted him into office wanted the law passed, it shouldn't matter what he wanted.

I think the role of an elected official is to represent his constituents.

Even though I disagree with Mr. Barry's vote, I respect his reasons for making it.

What do you think?

Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was appointed one of the four police commissioners of New York in the 1880s. There were two from each party. He was probably the most active of the four, and quickly drew public attention. At that time, New York had a "Sunday blue law," which meant you couldn't serve beer or other strong drinks on a Sunday. Taverns put out a few sandwiches, called it a meal, and poured the beers as fast as they could, claiming they were only serving a beverage with a meal. Roosevelt made the cops go in and shut these people down, and the city howled. The city also changed its ordinance. Roosevelt's comment was that the quickest way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.

Quote:

Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was appointed one of the four police commissioners of New York in the 1880s. There were two from each party. He was probably the most active of the four, and quickly drew public attention. At that time, New York had a "Sunday blue law," which meant you couldn't serve beer or other strong drinks on a Sunday. Taverns put out a few sandwiches, called it a meal, and poured the beers as fast as they could, claiming they were only serving a beverage with a meal. Roosevelt made the cops go in and shut these people down, and the city howled. The city also changed its ordinance. Roosevelt's comment was that the quickest way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.

Sorry for responding and getting off topic, but what an interesting piece of history.

As far as decision of the mayor goes, it is somewhat tricky. What if an elected official is morally against abortion, a bill comes up which restricts abortion rights? Does he go with his conscience or what most of his constituent's want? Or does he go with already established court rulings on the subject?

Or say his constituents were for gay marriage rights but he was against them,
does he go against his morally held beliefs or what his constituents want?
If he goes against, what is the difference in the reverse?

Maybe, but it seems to me like he loses anyway.

In this particular case, he's firmly stated his support for gay marriage.

Those vehemently against gay marriage aren't going to believe he's changed his mind.

I think they will support a more radical opponent regardless.
A few might be happy that he can be strong-armed.
Those constituents (and there are many in DC besides those
represented by the black ministers present at the meeting) who
support gay marriage might now see Barry as someone who could
have won the battle, but instead surrendered and can't be trusted
to follow through on his rhetoric.

It seems to me like he loses the battle, loses the war and has to look
at himself in the mirror knowing he could have made a difference.