President Obama

Border Security First, The Best Way Forward on Immigration Reform

Illegal Immigration

(Photo Credit: The Blaze)

One of the best ways to reach bipartisan agreement on comprehensive immigration reform is to begin with a significant border security bill. Before we decide on what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants in America, a bill substantively addressing the problems and threats along our Southern border needs to be crafted and enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. Comprehensive immigration reform does not have to take place in the form a single massive piece of legislation; a series of immigration reform bills can constitute comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it incredibly difficult for people to illegally enter into our nation. By starting comprehensive immigration reform with discourses about amnesty or a pathway to citizenship for extant illegal immigrants in America evinces a failure to commit to first principles: enforce the existing rule of law and keep the homeland safe from potential terrorists who could use our porous Southern border as a vehicle for entrance into our great country.

President Obama taking unilateral action on immigration is severely damaging to efforts to reach bipartisan reforms on immigration. If President Obama is truly interested in working with Republicans to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, then he must rescind his unilateral action on immigration and refrain from future unilateral action on immigration. President Obama cannot honestly expect to build relationship across political aisles while sending messages that he’ll do what he wants to do with or without the approval of Congress—that’s simply no way to engage in mature negotiations.

Although Republicans need to continue to insist on border security first as their approach to comprehensive immigration reform, they must also speak openly about their plans for comprehensive immigration beyond border security. Too often Republicans allow themselves to appear myopic on comprehensive immigration reform: they’ve permitted Democrats to paint an effective picture of them as having no real plans for comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans must publicly discuss their complete ideas for comprehensive immigration reform and not limited their public discussions of comprehensive immigration reform to border security.

After passing meaningful border security legislation and providing the necessary funding for this legislation, Democrats and Republicans can come together to reform the traditional immigration system. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the traditional immigration system needs modernizing to make the process of becoming an American citizen more humane. The length of time it takes to become an America citizen should be greatly reduced. Many illegal immigrants chose to enter our country illegally because it takes too long to gain citizenship through our current immigration process. We can make illegal immigration less attractive by making legal immigration more appealing.

Our elected national officials in Washington, D.C. too often take a failed approach to solving complex problems: by beginning with where they disagree instead of where they agree. The American people—Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike—must demand their elected national officials to approach comprehensive immigration reform by beginning with what they agree on and move on to the more contentious issues of comprehensive immigration reform.

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

David Perdue is Making a Huge Romney Mistake

David Perdue

(Photo Credit: Disclose TV)

Michelle Nunn, daughter of former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, has a more than legitimate chance to win the Georgia U.S. Senate seat.  As Republicans are passionately committed to taking back the U.S. Senate, and maintaining control of the U.S. House in the November 2014 elections, this would be a disappointing loss. Why disappointing?  Georgia is a slightly Republican-leaning state and a state that Republicans have already determined they will win.  If David Perdue, the Republican candidate for Senate and cousin of former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, does not do a better job of defending his business record, he will lose to Nunn.  In the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election, Mitt Romney did a poor job of defending his business record against the attacks of President Obama, contributing significantly to his defeat.  Romney highly touted his business experience as the primary evidence he knew how to ameliorate the U.S. economy and do a far better job of handling the economy than President Obama.  Romney never, however, seemed to respond adequately to President Obama’s attacks on his management of Bain Capital, and never appeared to provide a sufficient response to Obama’s general attacks on his business experience.

David Perdue is in danger of making the same huge mistake Romney made; he’s failing to defend his business experience adequately.  Perdue’s business experience is even more important to his candidacy than Romney’s was to his candidacy in 2012.  Business experience is the only substantive leadership Perdue has.

Former Senator Nunn is highly respected across the state among Democrats and Republicans.  It’s possible that his daughter will be able to benefit from his name recognition and earn enough votes to defeat Perdue. Michelle Nunn is running a highly effective television advertisement about a company, Pillowtex, Perdue once led.  It shares the anger of some former employees of the company who were negatively impacted by Perdue’s management of the company.  If Perdue wants to stop the adverse impact this advertisement is having on his campaign, then he must run a television advertisement that directly counters Nunn’s Pillowtex advertisement.

Although Republicans are targeting open Senate seats where incumbent Democrats are vulnerable, it’s time for them to send David Perdue some much needed support in Georgia.  Some polls show Perdue leading Nunn and some show Nunn leading Perdue, with an average of the polls giving Perdue a slight edge.  This race will go right down to the finish.

Perdue is doing an excellent job of casting Nunn as being a rubberstamp vote for President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  He says that she will be a “proxy for both Obama and Reid,” and she will be “Obama’s Senator” and “not Georgia’s Senator.”  Nunn leadership experience is fairly limited but Perdue has not really done an effective job of exposing it.  To win, Perdue must become more aggressive in defending his business record and in exposing Nunn’s limited leadership experience.  His current campaign strategy will not be enough to win him the Senate seat.  Perdue cannot simply rely on the fact that Georgia is a Republican-leaning state, considering demographics have constantly been moving in favor of Georgia Democrats.  He needs to take an honest look at how much of a fight incumbent Governor Nathan Deal is in with Jason Carter, son of former President Jimmy Carter, as evidence of how tough it’s going to be to defeat Nunn.

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dr. Cornel West’s Courage Should Make You Proud

Dr. Cornel West

(Photo Credit: MTV)

Too many milquetoast Americans, especially Blacks, lack the courage to offer a substantive critique of President Obama.  With the national unemployment rate for Black people being 13.5%, one would think that more Blacks would be propounding their criticisms of President Obama’s poor record of creating jobs.  In many predominantly Black cities across the country, Black unemployment is twice as high as it is nationally.  Although one may not always agree with Dr. Cornel West, former distinguished professor of African American Studies at Princeton University and now Professor of Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary, one has to be proud of the courage he shows in his passionate criticisms of President Obama and his policies.

Dr. West’s accomplishments, brilliance, and academic work will forever make him one of the most important persons in American history.  He’s one of the greatest minds in world history.  Dr. West is one of the leading public intellectuals of our time.  As a responsible and effective public intellectual, Dr. Cornel West understands that he has a duty to speak truth to power.  He’s never been afraid to say and do things that might unsettle, unnerve, and unhouse people.

While many question the motivations of his vehement criticisms of Obama, the focus should be more on engaging in a discourse about the criticisms he proffers.  People who don’t want to enter into a conversation about his potent critiques of Obama simply desire to dismiss him as being bitter because Obama didn’t invite him to his first inauguration or first inaugural ball.  Well, after sponsoring and attending over 75 campaign events—many were located in brutally cold places—for President Obama, one would like to think that Dr. West would’ve received an invitation.  Dr. West has repeatedly stated that he’s not bothered by such an inane matter as not receiving an invitation.

One has to be proud of him for mustering the courage to take on some of the prominent liberals that have been given platforms by MSNBC to advocate for President Obama.  Dr. West asserts that MSNBC is a “rent-a-negro” network; that is, a liberal network that gives Black faces (e.g. Al Sharpton and Dr. Melissa Harris Perry) their own shows and/or allows them to make frequent appearances on other people’s shows in exchange for their puppy-dog loyalty to President Obama.  One person who is a stanch liberal and who has been friends with Dr. Cornel West is Dr. Michael Eric Dyson.  Dr. Dyson appears regularly on MSNBC and is a strong supporter and defender of Obama.  Dr. West contends that Dr. Dyson has “sold his soul for a mess of Obama pottage.”  Before Dr. Dyson became a frequent contributor on MSNBC, he was willing to critique Obama.  Now, he cannot find enough ways to praise Obama.

Dr. Cornel West’s record reflects a serious commitment to racial minorities, working people, and the poor.  He will not allow himself to be placed on the market for sale, as others have done for Obama.  West hasn’t let his black skin prevent him from criticizing President Obama appropriately.  Dr. West gives President Obama credit when he deserves it, but he’s never afraid to hold him accountable for horrible policy choices and his inattentiveness to the needs of poor and working people.

Dr. West has been on a “Poverty Tour” across the nation raising attention and support for the needs of the poor.  The poor is the only group in America without lobbyists in Washington, D.C.  West hopes to make the poor visible to President Obama and America.  His work to ameliorate the lives of poor people in America should be applauded and supported.

It’s not popular to be Black and say things in opposition to President Obama, but Dr. Cornel West isn’t willing to submit to the pressure of staying popular.  He’s working to hold President Obama, a man who has tremendous power, accountable to all Americans, especially the most vulnerable people in America: the poor.  For this, he should make us all proud.

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Open Letter to Colin Powell

Colin Powell

Dear Colin Powell:

I would like to thank you for your many distinguished years of military and public service.  The work you’ve done is extraordinary.  Your true American story is inspiring and speaks to what is possible in this great nation.  Mr. Powell, I have deep respect for you.

It’s becoming increasingly ostensible that you’re no longer a republican.  You’ve voted for President Obama in the last two presidential elections and have been fiercely critical of the Republican Party for the last 8 years.  While there’s certainly nothing wrong with being critical of one’s political party, you seem to find nothing you like about the party any longer.  You, however, have no problem with finding things you like about the Democratic Party and President Obama.

If you really believe that the Republican Party does not value minorities, then why are you still claiming to be a republican?  Why not change your political affiliation?  Are you masquerading as a republican when you’re really a democrat for the potential political benefits this can offer the Democratic Party?  Are you really that thrilled with the Democratic Party in the last 8 years, or do you just have a fondness for President Obama?  If you’re using the label of republican against republicans, then it’s having little to no impact on voters.

You’ve never really been too comfortable in the Republican Party in the first place.  Why continue to experience this discomfort?  Would the Democratic Party make you feel more comfortable, or would you feel more relaxed as an independent?  Are you enjoying the spotlight that your opposition to republican presidential candidates gains you?  Do you feel the need to have substantial national political power and see this as your way to command this desired power?

The policies, values, and worldview of President Obama are diametrically opposed to the Republican Party.  You’ve given the policies, values, and worldview of President Obama ringing endorsements.  You cannot honestly admit that you’re committed to the Republican Party.  What would it hurt if you changed parties?  Someone with an illustrious record as you have is more than entitled to do what you please.  If you’re truly a republican, then publish a piece about why you’re a republican and how you reconcile this with being a zealous supporter of President Obama.

Mr. Powell, you’ve given many people the right to question the authenticity of your claim to be a republican.  Don’t get angry when people question your genuineness about being a republican—simply explain to them why you are.  Many democrats, republicans and independents are curious about why have elected to remain a republican.

Would it be best for you to sever all ties with the Republican Party?


Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Happy 49th Birthday President Barack H. Obama

Revolutionary Paideia would like to take a brief moment and wish President Barack H. Obama a happy 49th birthday! We hope that you will have a great day today and we appreciate your public service to our country. This is a day that conservatives, moderates, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents can come together to wish our American President a happy birthday! Regardless of how you feel about President Obama, you should have the decency to wish him a happy birthday. If you find that you cannot wish this man a happy birthday, then you might want to examine yourself really carefully because clear thinking individuals are willing to do this. Although Revolutionary Paideia does not endorse President Obama, we do honor the office of the President of the United States of America and we do appreciate President Obama’s public service. Again, happy birthday President Obama!

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Tea Party and Questions about Racism

I want people to understand that the Tea Party is not a “party” in the sense of the Democratic or Republican parties. The Tea Party is still a large and growing movement of conservatives, moderates, and even some liberals of all races, ethnicities, and nationalities who are dissatisfied with politics as usual. The Tea Party’s dominant “membership” supports smaller government, embraces individual responsibility, loves low taxes, advocates for a strong defense, and longs for a return to the days when we truly cherished the Constitution. Of course, there are racist people in the Tea Party—we have witnessed a number of signs to indicate this. It is, however, unfair to characterize the Tea Party as racist. Just because a small percentage of people associated with the Tea Party resort to using racist signs, it is silly to call the Tea Party racist for the actions of these people.

I know people associated with the NAACP who admit that they hate White people, but should I call the NAACP a racist organization? Would it be useful to examine the racism of the membership of the NAACP? No. I would like to see the same courtesy extended to both organizations. Revolutionary Paideia does not endorse either organization. Revolutionary Paideia appreciates the important role that the NAACP played and continues to play in the fight for equality, justice, and freedom. Revolutionary Paideia also appreciates the Tea Party for its active participation in the political process. For me, it is great to see such zealous political participation in America.

Although I love the passion that I see from Tea Party members, I do not support the racism of some of the members of this organization. I would like for the leaders of the Tea Party to be much more public and vocal about their opposition to racism, and to explaining efforts that they are making to keep people away from Tea Party rallies, meetings, and conventions who create signs that are racist. I know many Tea Party members—all of which are White and I’m African-American—and they do not have a racist bone in their bodies.

Much of the racist charges directed at the Tea Party emerge from a grand strategy to attempt to weaken the success of the Tea Party movement. I contend that many Democratic leaders are trying to charge this organization with racism to attempt to divert attention away from the message of change that the Tea Party offers. When one listens to much of what Tea Party members have to say across the country, the individual can find that they have some serious ideas about how to improve America, and one will find that this is not simply a group that hates President Obama.

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Revolutionary Paideia’s July 2010 Person of the Month: Sarah Palin

You probably cannot turn your television on without seeing some type of coverage about former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a figure in American politics who cannot be overlooked—whether you love or hate her. Revolutionary Paideia does not endorse Sarah Palin but has selected her as the July 2010 Person of the Month because she truly represents the “unsettling, unnerving, and unhousing” spirit that founded Revolutionary Paideia. What I most appreciate about Sarah Palin is her willingness to do things her own way. She is not willing to change anything up for political purposes or to fit a certain image—she is just Sarah Palin.

Governor Palin is ushering in a new kind of feminism—a conservative feminism. The type of conservative feminism she is offering provides a significant contribution to the extant feminist discourse, criticism, and theory. Extant feminism is fundamentally leftist. With Palin, we have an opportunity to see a new feminism that is rooted in the values and principles of limited government, individual responsibility, low taxes, pro-life, pro-business, a strong defense, and strong families. Unquestionably, those aforementioned values and principles are conspicuously absent from existing feminist discourse, criticism, and theory. The conservative feminist ideas and ideals being championed by Governor Palin will not be able to be ignored by feminists. Even though many (if not most) feminists will make a serious attempt to dismiss Palin’s feminist ideas and ideals, the ideas and ideals she offers deserve to be thoroughly considered in all spaces where feminism is contemplated.

Revolutionary Paideia really appreciates how willing Sarah Palin has been to attract more women to the Republican Party. Although pro-life positions are unpopular with the majority of women, Palin has not allowed that to stop her from pursuing a pro-life agenda aimed at gaining larger support of women for conservative causes. You got to give her credit—she is the only American politician who would believe that a significant number of American mothers would buy into the thought of themselves as “Grizzly Moms”—only Governor Palin has the level of nerve to do that.

Even though she was not successful in her bid to become the Vice-President of the United States of America, she has not allowed this to stop her criticism of President Obama when she has felt that his policies are wrong for America. She has communicated her criticisms of President Obama and his administration through Facebook and as a Fox News Contributor. Although Governor Palin is not the most sophisticated person when it comes to policy, she does offer a common sense conservative approach to policy that should not simply be overlooked. When the Left simply says that she does not have any answers to the vexing quandaries facing our country, I have to say that this is simply a lie. She has offered numerous times through various mediums answers to some of America’s most challenging problems, but some have simply disagreed with her answers and found her answers to mean no answers—this is unfair to her.

I am deeply troubled by how people are not willing to engage in substantive discourse about Sarah Palin. People just reduce her to a laugh, joke, smirk, and/or rude comment. I will simply say that this woman had more experience in actually running something than President Obama—this is just a fact and not an attack. At Revolutionary Paideia, we simply want to give credit where credit is due—Sarah Palin, like her or hate her, is certainly a figure that reflects the notion of “unsettling, unnerving, and unhousing” people that represents the founding ideas and ideals established by Revolutionary Paideia.

Congratulations to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for being selected as Revolutionary Paideia’s July 2010 Person of the Month! While Revolutionary Paideia does not endorse Sarah Palin, we do honor her willingness to challenge the status quo.

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Eradicate the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Now

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I-A needs to move from the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) to at least a 16 game playoff to determine an undisputed national champion. The current BCS system does not resolve the national champion in a way that is truly equitable for all schools and leaves many (if not most) sports fans feeling that the ultimate national champion is not unquestionably the national champion. Under the current BCS system, the elite powers in college athletics receive an automatic assurance that they will be in the national championship game. Unfortunately, schools like Utah and Boise State, who have played competitive schedules and went undefeated, do not even have a chance to be in the national championship game. Although the BCS structure has been reformed to allow opportunities for non-elite schools to have a chance to win the national championship, the chance that they have is still tremendously more difficult than it is for the elite schools.

I would be fine with almost any playoff system that the NCAA would decide to go to, because anything is better than what we have now. To be frank, I liked the system of allowing the AP and coaches to determine the national champion. Why? The only reason that I say this is it was a better system than what we have in place now. This is not the system that I advocate for, but going back to it to temporarily replace the BCS would be an incredibly great thing for NCAA Division I-A football. If college presidents and chancellors are not willing to reform the current system for their colleges and universities, then they should at least do it for their student-athletes who work so hard to generate the millions and millions of dollars for them each year—in a multi-billion dollar industry.

Unfortunately, it is the college and university presidents and chancellors who do not want to move to a playoff system. The only time that I really hear them expressing their concern for the student-athletes’ academic achievement is when it comes to moving to a playoff system. The majority of the presidents and chancellors are only interested in the money that football and basketball players’ athletic prowess can generate for them. They are not really concerned about their educational experiences and outcomes.

I will be glad when student-athletes begin to stand up against the egregious exploitation they experience as participants in NCAA Division I.  I think that they are can play a vital role in helping us to achieve a playoff system, because they can expose college presidents and chancellors for their true lack of concern about their academic achievement. When they publicly promulgate their dissatisfaction with the extant commitment to their educational experiences and outcomes, I contend that the BCS will be well on its way to the graveyard: The BCS will no longer be able to hide behind the false cover of protecting its commitment to the academic achievement of student-athletes.

While I certainly have my disagreements with President Obama, we both agree that a playoff system is needed to replace the BCS. Can you just imagine what a playoff system in NCAA Division I-A would be like?

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Revolutionary Paideia’s June 2010 Person of the Month: General Stanley A. McChrystal

Brigadier General Stanley McChrystal, US Army

Brigadier General Stanley McChrystal, US Army (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Each month (towards the end of the month), Revolutionary Paideia will honor a living or dead person who embodies (in some way) the notion of “unsettling, unnerving, and unhousing” this site represents. Revolutionary Paideia does not have to necessarily like the individuals it selects, but every effort will be made to honor someone for doing something that “unsettles,” “unnerves,” and/or “unhouses” people. When Revolutionary Paideia likes one of its monthly honorees, this will be openly disclosed.  At the end of each year, Revolutionary Paideia will select a living person (or one who has died in the same year) as Person of the Year. Living people who have been selected as a Person of the Month are not ineligible for the Person of the Year award.


Revolutionary Paideia’s inaugural Person of the Month award is presented to General Stanley A. McChrystal. If you do not agree with General McChrystal receiving this award, I would simply like for you to go ask President Obama if General McChrystal did not “unsettle, unnerve, and unhouse” him. Revolutionary Paideia supports General McChrystal because he was willing to break with tradition and criticize the current U.S. President and his administration. One of the core problems that General McChrystal expressed to a freelance writer for Rolling Stone with President Obama is his lack of engagement with the counterinsurgence efforts in Afghanistan.  General McChrystal has had a history of being outspoken on issues.  Before this incident, he had been outspoken about his advocacy for the “surge” strategy in Afghanistan before President Obama even had a chance to make a decision about whether he supported an increase in troops in Afghanistan. Although General McChrystal’s “surge” strategy was successful and President Obama supported it, many found that General McChrystal acted inappropriately. I just wonder why there was not this level of criticism for him as there was for his recent direct criticism of President Obama and his administration.


When General McChrystal was interviewed by the freelance writer for Rolling Stone, he knew that what he was saying would eventually get back to President Obama and the members of his administration referenced during the interview. This did not stop him from disclosing his problems with President Obama and members of his administration about their handling of the war in Afghanistan. I agree with General McChrystal that President Obama has seemed to lack engagement with the efforts in Afghanistan. It took tremendous courage for General McChrystal to challenge the U.S. President in the way that he did. While people can view what he said as being disrespectful all they want to, I think this incident reveals a serious flaw in the military code of conduct: a Commanding General should have the right to speak his mind in public about how he feels about anything or anybody, including the Commander-in-Chief.


While I would have preferred for General McChrystal to not have apologized for what he said, I understand the enormous political pressure his faced to cause him to give an apology. What is more important for me, however, is his great courage before he apologized. The apology represents his decency—not his cowardice. We need more people in America like General McChrystal who are willing to speak truth to power, and who are willing to tell people how they feel without being fearful of any repercussions. Now, I know President Obama really does not like dissent and I know that his creation of “a team of rivals” is a farce. He does not appreciate dissent—he made this clear when he “accepted the resignation” (also known as “fired”) of General McChrystal.


Again, Revolutionary Paideia congratulates General Stanley A. McChrystal for being Revolutionary Paideia’s inaugural Person of the Month. Americans should be proud of the distinguished service of this solider, leader, and hero. I appreciate your service General McChrystal and love your candor!


Antonio Maurice Daniels


University of Wisconsin-Madison


President Obama is Not a Magic Negro: The Need for Patience with the Gulf Oil Spill

President Obama

I decided to use “Negro” in the title because President Obama allowed this term to be included on the 2010 U.S. Census. Although President Obama has been treated like the “Second Coming” in many ways, I want to offer the American people a reality that might be unsettling, unnerving, and unhousing for many: President Obama is not the “Second Coming.” While I disagree with President Obama on many issues, I think it is highly unfair for people to be criticizing him for not being able to have the current oil spill crisis resolved by now. This is a serious oil spill and is a crisis that cannot be remedied by simply having President Obama to snap his fingers. It is a little poetic justice, however. I remember President Obama being highly critical of President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. President Obama, things are a little more difficult when you are actually serving as the President of the United States of America, huh? The purpose of this article is to respond to the unfair criticisms and expectations of people for President Obama to quickly resolve the Gulf oil spill, and to still advocate for offshore oil drilling.

President Obama has a team of experts, scholars, and engineers working to address the Gulf oil spill. He is dedicating all of the resources and time possible to help us to have the swiftest resolution to this crisis as possible. If this crisis would have been able to be solved by now, President Obama would have had it solved by now. We should not use every opportunity possible to try to score political points and play “gotcha” politics. America needs a much more mature and healthier politics than this. Although I would like to see President Obama using language that clearly identifies that it is his job to resolve this crisis and not BP, I think he has handled this crisis about as good as any clear thinking American can expect. The law actually requires the President of the United States of America to remedy this crisis. While he can involve BP in the process of resolving this crisis, he is legally responsible for addressing the crisis. When President Obama continues to say that BP will be held responsible for paying for this oil spill, he is not trying to remove blame from himself for this crisis, but he is trying to let the American people know that the taxpayers are not going to be held responsible for paying for an accident caused by BP. I applaud President Obama for this too.

While this crisis is unfortunate, I do not want it to become a distraction for preventing more offshore drilling and oil exploration. We cannot conserve our way to energy independence. Conservation is one important dimension of improving our energy supply, but we have to do a tremendous amount more on the production side of things. I was proud to hear President Obama’s support of offshore drilling and willingness to support nuclear energy.  Offshore drilling and nuclear energy are essential to ameliorating our efforts to be less reliant on foreign sources of oil. I really hope that President Obama will not allow this current Gulf oil spill to sway his publicly expressed support for more offshore drilling and nuclear energy.

More regulation of the oil industry is not needed to solve future problems with oil spills. What is needed is more investment in safer exploration for oil and safer methods of offshore oil drilling.  BP needs to be held accountable for as much of the costs of this crisis as possible. We should not, however, try to unfairly demonize BP for this oil spill. It is not like BP intentionally tried to cause this oil spill. Accidents do happen; after all, we are human beings.

I want us to remember that President Obama has done as much as he can do to address this crisis. While he has not always used the best language that I (and many) would like him to employ to respond to issues about this crisis, it is unfair to think that he is not strongly engaged and making every effort possible to bring a swift resolution to this crisis. Again, this Gulf oil spill crisis has demonstrated to many that President Barack H. Obama is not a magic Negro. My thoughts and prayers are with the people who have been deeply affected by this crisis. I encourage President Obama and the American people to do what is necessary to help those affected by this crisis.

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison