Guess What, Y'all? After Going to Princeton and Yale, Sonia Sotomayor Didn't Move Back to the Projects!

How dare she!

The two sides of Sotomayor
A Blue-collar upbringing, but now a wealthy member of the power elite
By SHARON THEIMER
updated 9:54 a.m. CT, Fri., May 29, 2009

WASHINGTON - There are two sides to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: a Latina from a blue-collar family and a wealthy member of America's power elite.

The White House portrays Sotomayor as a living image of the American dream, though its telling of the rags-to-riches story emphasizes the rags, a more politically appealing narrative, and plays down the riches.

........................................................................................

On ethnicity, Sotomayor herself has recognized — and contributed to — the dichotomy. She proudly highlights her Puerto Rican roots but hasn't always liked it when others have. She once took issue with a prospective employer who singled her out as a Latina with questions she viewed as offensive yet has shown a keen ethnic consciousness herself.

.....................................................................................

"For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II," she explained.

Yet years ago, during a recruiting dinner in law school at Yale, Sotomayor objected when a law firm partner asked whether she would have been admitted to the school if she weren't Puerto Rican, and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students the firms know are unqualified and will ultimately be fired.

Afterward, Sotomayor confronted the partner about the questions, rejected his insistence that he meant no harm and turned down his invitation for further job interviews. She filed a discrimination complaint against the firm with the university, which could have barred the firm from recruiting on campus. She won a formal apology from the firm.

You mean Sonia Sotomayor didn't let someone clown her in an interview? That she just didn't shin and grin and go along with the insult? That, she, gasp, stood up for herself?

No!

Who told her that she could do that, and not just smile and go, " I'ze so grateful that you'd even consider me."

Here's more:

She now earns more than $200,000 a year and owns a condominium in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood of million-dollar-plus homes. Her brother, Dr. Juan Sotomayor, is a physician in North Syracuse, N.Y., whose practice doesn't accept Medicaid or Medicare — programs for the poor and elderly — according to its Web site.

Yes, she makes more than $200,000. She made all of $205,000 last year. Oh yeah, she's rolling in the dough.

Um, what the hell does her brother have to do with anything?
Just asking.

You can read the rest of this AP gem at the link above.

Someone on JJP asked if it had been this bad on Candidate Obama. My response was HELL YEAH. Remember the piece from the UK complaining that Michelle Obama wasn't 'poor enough'? That because she didn't grow up in The Projects, that, of course, meant, that she lived in luxury? Remember the piece on the Obama's MORTGAGE, questioning, ' how could two Black folks get those kind of GENEROUS terms, cause you know, 2 Black Harvard Law graduates just couldn't have gotten a regular, non-subprime mortgage.' Then, there were the snide articles on the Obama's home in Kenwood with the ' Who the hell do these Uppity Negroes think they are, living in a decent home?' undertone.

So, this attack on Judge Sotomayor, is same old, same old. How dare this ---"person-who-shouldn't-be-living-decently" actually live decently. How dare someone of color who went to Princeton and Yale, who has been successful in their career, live like any other WHITE graduate of Princeton and who was successful in their career. As for Judge Sotomayor being part of 'the elite', $1 million dollar apartment on the Isle of Manhattan isn't like $1 million dollar apartment in St. Louis, or Indianapolis, or Dallas. She probably has a 2 bedroom, 2 bath condo with a semi-decent size open living space.

I like what Booman Tribune said about this:

How One Lives Says a Lot
by BooMan
Fri May 29th, 2009 at 10:15:06 AM EST

What I find interesting is that she lives in a condo in Greenwich Village and that her only other assets are between $15,000-$65,000 in checking and savings accounts. She doesn't list massive investments in Goldman Sachs or Intel or AIG. Her total annual income, which combines her check for being a judge with her check for teaching at Columbia University, is $205,000. That seems a fair but modest amount of income for someone of her academic achievements, but it is not enough for her to be impacted by Obama's tax hike on America's wealthiest individuals.

She doesn't live in a multi-million parkside penthouse on the Upper East Side. She has a condo in the Village. If you've ever been to the Village you know that it marches to its own peculiar beat. It's the center of gay life in New York City, but it is also pulsing with multicultural artistic creativity and an intellectualism that combines the legacy of the Beat Generation with the rigors of New York University's curriculum. You cannot walk the streets of the Village and call it your home without understanding modern progressivism at its core.

Homegrown Terrorism Strikes - Abortion Provider George Tiller MURDERED In His CHURCH

From The Wichita Eagle:

Suspect in slaying of abortion provider George Tiller being returned to Wichita
BY STAN FINGER AND JOE RODRIGUEZ

WICHITA - A suspect in this morning's fatal shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller is in custody and on his way back to Wichita, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said this afternoon at a news conference.

The 51-year-old male suspect was arrested about three hours after the shooting without incident on I-35 in Johnson County, Stolz said.

Police did not release the suspect's name.

The investigation is in its "infancy stages," Stolz said. He said the incident appeared to be an isolated act.

Tiller, 67, was shot just after 10 a.m. in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th St., where he was a member of the congregation.

Stolz said Tiller was shot in the foyer of the church. There were three or four eyewitnesses, he said. Six to 12 people were in the foyer at the time of the shooting.

Two men attempted to apprehend the suspect, but he pointed a gun at them and threatened them before fleeing, Stolz said.

Police anticipate the suspect will be charged with murder and two counts of aggravated assault. Police will discuss with the Sedgwick County District Attorney's Office on Monday to determine if additional charges, including federal charges, are warranted.

Tiller was serving as an usher at the church, one of six ushers listed in the church bulletin. He was handing out bulletins to people going into the sanctuary minutes before being shot.

Rest of article at link above.


And will those that fostered the climate in which this man was MURDERED take RESPONSIBILITY for what they created?

Of course not.

About Sonia Sotomayor's 'Temperment'......

From The NYTimes:

Sotomayor’s Blunt Style Raises Issue of Temperament
By JO BECKER and ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 28, 2009

WASHINGTON — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s Supreme Court choice, has a blunt and even testy side, and it was on display in December during an argument before the federal appeals court in New York. The case concerned a Canadian man who said American officials had sent him to Syria to be tortured, and Judge Sotomayor peppered a government lawyer with skeptical questions.

“So the minute the executive raises the specter of foreign policy, national security,” Judge Sotomayor asked the lawyer, Jonathan F. Cohn, “it is the government’s position that that is a license to torture anyone?”

Mr. Cohn managed to get out two and a half words: “No, your hon—— .”

Judge Sotomayor cut him off, then hit him with two more questions and a flat declaration of what she said was his position. The lawyer managed to say she was wrong, but could not clarify the point until the chief judge, Dennis G. Jacobs, stepped in, asking, “Why don’t we just get the position?”

To supporters, Judge Sotomayor’s vigorous questioning of the Bush administration’s position in the case of the Canadian, Maher Arar, showcases some of her strengths. She is known as a formidably intelligent judge with a prodigious memory who meticulously prepares for oral arguments and is not shy about grilling the lawyers who appear before her to ensure that she fully understands their arguments.

But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as “difficult” and “nasty” — raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability — and one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her.



Judge Sotomayor’s colleagues on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit say her tough and direct questioning reflects engagement and, sometimes, an effort to persuade her colleagues. Those qualities, coupled with a gregarious personality, they said, make her a powerful force behind the scenes, where she has used her mastery of the cases to change minds, improve opinions and forge consensus.

Rest of article at link above.

---------------------------------------------

Let me explain to you why I gave this piece of so-called reporting the ' side eye'.

It's because I'm a highly educated THINKING Black woman that speaks my mind and knows how to debate.

Why do I just get the feeling that Sonia Sotomayor comes to her job PREPARED, and expects everyone else that arrives before her to also be prepared?

Why do I get the feeling that she doesn't suffer fools in silence?

Why do I just get the feeling that this is about a Latina Woman being on her p's and q's, and having the ' audacity' to challenge folks that never come across someone like her unless they're doing something in a service industry position?

Why am I getting flashbacks of 'ANGRY' Michelle Obama running through my mind?

Now, could be....Sotomayor could be hell on wheels in a courtroom.

But, I'm just a-sayin'...

due to my LIFE EXPERIENCES as an Educated Black Professional Woman...

I believe I come to this story with more than few DOUBTS about its underlying tone.

President Obama's Weekly Address

Roland Burris Caught On FBI Wiretap

Burris: "I might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright"

Roland Burris- who told Illinois lawmakers under oath that he had no discussions with anyone in the Blago camp about Obama's Senate seat or about providing favors for the seat...and that there was no talk of transferring money- was apparently caught on FBI phone taps wheeling and dealing with Rob Blagojevich, the brother of then Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich.

Yes... Burris was in a dilemma, as indicated by the conversation, but it was not because he genuinely wanted to avoid a conflict of interest. Clearly his concern was simply not getting caught. Why discuss providing money in someone else's name? Apparently Burris' business partner, Fred Lebed, may have also been involved in discussing the seat on Burris' behalf. Emptywheel from Firedoglake has an interesting take on the roles that surrogates might have played. See more here.

I knew how dirty and corrupt politics could be, but Chicago has taken corruption to new heights. Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had never seen anything like it.
It reinforces my cynicism about politics.

Hopefully Burris will be forced to finally step down. But he is so narcissistic and hungry for power that he isn't likely to step aside. It will probably take an indictment to get the Democrats to take any action. Blacks of course will cry foul. Black people, for the most part, are o.k. with having a tainted, corrupt Black Senator in office - because he's Black. Blacks seem much more tolerant and open to the idea of being represented by corrupt politicians. This is why Black support is so often associated with crooked and unaccountable Mayors in cities across the Country. Blacks elect the same kinds of Mayors over and over again...and then wonder why their cities are a mess. Blacks always seems to support these folks & always will (because they are Black...and by golly...we need Blacks in these positions).

Hear Full Audio of conversation between Burris and Rob Blagojevich (Blago's brother) back in the Fall of 2008.

Pennsylvania Newspaper "Apologizes" for Threatening Obama Ad

It just keeps getting worse....

(they claim they didn't catch it before publication)... yeah o.k.

Is This Why There Are No Hispanic Commentators on TV?

I've been asking from the moment the Sotomayor nomination hit..

Where are the Latino Commentators on TV? Especially those that wear that GOP hat? Where were they hiding?

well, hat tip:lamh32

Here's why there are no Hispanic GOP strategist on our televison screens ya'll. Unlike the black conservatives, they don't plan to kick their own people (even if they are on the opposite side) in the back.

From HuffingtonPost.com:

GOP Hispanic Strategists Stunned, Outraged By Sotomayor Attacks
First Posted: 05-29-09 05:23 PM | Updated: 05-29-09 05:33 PM

Top-ranking Republican strategists who specialize in Hispanic outreach say they are outraged, disturbed and concerned by the type of reception Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court has received from conservative activists.

In the days since the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, several prominent conservative voices have leveled unusually blunt attacks at her resume. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and radio host Rush Limbaugh both insisted that the court of appeals judge was a racist for saying that her Hispanic background allowed her to come to better judicial decisions. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, on Friday, called Sotomayor a member of the "Latino KKK."

The rhetoric has been enough to make Republican strategists in heavily Latino states cringe -- concerned that such slights could cement Democrats advantages among a growing and increasingly influential political constituency.

"Of course this disturbs me," said Lionel Sosa, one of the more influential Hispanic media advisers in the GOP. "I'm not surprised at Rush Limbaugh but I'm very surprised at Speaker Gingrich because he is one of the key people who knows the importance of the Latino vote to the Republican Party. He must realize how his rhetoric, if it does influence any Hispanics, how damaging it could be. This [confirmation] is something that is going to happen anyway. For a senator to have strong opposition to her, they are either not aware of the impact Latinos will have on the next election or they don't care."

Rest of article at link above.

------------------------------------------------------------------
I had to admit, I thought that might be the reason. Could you imagine being put on tv, someone showing the clip of a Tancredo or Limbaugh, and then, you're expected, because you're a Latino, to defend THAT and cast aspersions at an obviously qualified Latino candidate, just because she was nominated by a Democratic President.

Now, see, our Slave Catching Coons wouldn't blink twice about being shoved out there to defend the complete and utterly racist remarks of Limbaugh, Tancredo, Libby, et al. Need an example, how about our favorite Cross-Eyed Slave Catcher- he never misses a chance to defend his Overlords and their racist remarks.

Though someone in the comments made a good point: where ARE our Slave Catchers? They are nowhere to be found. Why aren't they speaking up? Or, are their mouths only open when it comes to tearing down someone Black?

They Are Who We Thought They Were

I've said for awhile that the GOP just can't help themselves. They simply can't.


May this go viral to every Spanish Speaking radio and tv station and make the rounds in Latino emails from coast to coast.

They are who we thought they were.

From Ta-Nehisi Coates:

29 May 2009 10:30 am

Just amazing. Bill Bennett (he of Superpredator fame) and Fred Barnes on Sotomayor:

BARNES: I think you can make the case that she's one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.

BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.

BARNES: One wonders.

BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don't think you get on affirmative action. I don't know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude's a pretty big deal.

BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there's some schools and maybe Princeton's not one of them, where if you don't get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you're a D+ student.

Media Alert

Un-Broke: What You Need to Know About Money
ABC, this Friday, 9 -10 pm EST with Mellody Hobson, President, Ariel Capital Management.

from ABC.com:

UN-BROKE: What You Need to Know About Money
Friday May 29th 9/8c

Schools teach us almost everything, but not "Money 101." For the basics on finance, turn to UN-BROKE: What You Need to Know About Money. It's an unconventional look at the fundamentals of everyday finance with all the facts about credit cards, mortgages, stocks and bonds, investing and 401(k)'s, in a fresh new format combining information and humor. The one-hour special airs FRIDAY, MAY 29 (9:00-10:00 p.m., ET) on the ABC Television Network.

Hosted by Good Morning America contributor and President of Ariel Investments Mellody Hobson, the special features Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson, the Jonas Brothers, Christian Slater, Cedric the Entertainer, Seth Green, Sesame Workshop's Oscar the Grouch, Rosario Dawson and the E*Trade Babies, among others.

Hobson said: "Financial education is critically important, and UN-BROKE proves that it doesn't have to be boring. The economic crisis was a harsh wake-up call that we can't keep doing the same thing in the same way. To me, that meant taking a fresh look at my own approach to financial education. This will make people laugh while they learn."

The special's take on basic money sense includes:

Will Smith, who gets down to basics with a boardroom full of corporate finance executives.

Samuel L. Jackson, who appears as a bestselling author of self-help books and who is "Broke as Hell and Not Going to Take it Anymore!"

The Jonas Brothers, who teach screaming teenage girls the mysteries of the stock market.

Seth Green, who explains the fundamentals of a smart mortgage from his "crib."

Cedric the Entertainer, who talks back to credit cards.

Christian Slater and Rosario Dawson, who visit an office workplace to explain the importance of investing in a 401(k) retirement plan.

The E*Trade Babies, who meet Mellody for an online chat from their high chairs.

UN-BROKE: What You Need to Know about Money is a co-production of Lincoln Square Productions and Overbrook Entertainment. The executive producers are Mellody Hobson and Rudy Bednar. A TV parental guideline will be posted closer to airdate.

Segregated Proms in 2009?

I ran across this great NYT piece about segregated proms in the South.

I spent my last two years of High School in Texas (a lonngggg longgggg time ago)...in small town Texas as a matter of fact, and I don't remember things being like this. But I guess it's different from place to place. In my case, I lived in a military community. Military communities tend to be a little different when it comes to race relations.

Apparently this is a tradition that many other Southern States don't want to give up. This is a kind of self segregation...years after all the battles that took place to end it. Should students be encouraged to end this tradition?

What leads Blacks to self segregate?

I never went to prom or homecomings or any other big events... I skipped them all. Although I went to a few Middle School dances way back in the 20th Century (80's). All those events were mixed. If I had a choice, I would prefer to go to mixed social events.

Self segregation doesn't prepare you for real life IMO. Eventually you will have to leave that safe bubble. This is one of the reasons why i'm not a very enthusiastic fan of HBCU's.

Republican Party Leader Calls Sotomayor A Racist

Republican party spokesman and leader Rush Limbaugh says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. And he didn't stop there...he also called President Obama a racist.

The Republicans are wasting no time with their attacks against this woman. It has only been a few hours since Obama made his announcement...and the Republican filth machine is already working at full capacity.



I have no problem with what Sotomayor said that supposedly drew Limbaugh's attention. They had these quotes picked out in advance to attack her...and they were going to attack her no matter what. But they are grasping at straws here.

Obama Governs From Strength

Hey folks, over at The Loop, I have a new column on how President Obama carefully uses his present political position to extract favorable outcomes.

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

The California Supreme Court has just upheld the anti-gay measure, Proposition 8. Gay marriage remains illegal.

But, those gays and lesbians who got married BEFORE the passage of Proposition 8 - their marriages are LEGAL.

Talk about a split decision.

Obama and the Torture Trap - Score A Round For the Republicans

President Obama suffered his first big defeat last week with the Senate voting 90-6 to block funding to close the Guantanamo detention facility, which was a major campaign promise. The House of Representatives also rejected the closure. The vote was mostly symbolic, since it does not really stop Obama from shutting down operations at Gitmo. But the Senate vote sent a strong message to the Obama Administration - with the main concern being that allowing these detainees into the U.S. as prisoners is not the best idea right now, and Americans may not be ready for that move. Some have expressed concern that these prisoners could eventually become folk heroes in Federal prisons and could influence & recruit other inmates. There is some precedent to that…but I think this concern is being overblown for political purposes. Essentially what the Senate was telling Obama is that they (and the American People) want to see the plan.

In addition to the Gitmo defeat in the Senate, Obama also allowed Republicans to set a trap for him not only on torture, but on the wider issues of Terrorism and National Security. Cheney has effectively changed the narrative by taking the focus off of the crimes that he himself took part in while pushing an illegitimate war to focus instead on labeling Obama as weak on terrorism. Now the narrative is - another terrorist attack will be Obama’s fault because of his soft on terror approach and his efforts to change interrogation policy. Of course any new attacks won’t likely be due to a difference in interrogation techniques… but that’s the perception that Republicans are trying to create in the minds of the American public….and with their media advantage, they may succeed in creating that perception. This is why I have always stated that the Republican media machine/Spin machine is so powerful that they will be able to control narratives and get their message out, even while in the minority and while they are politically unpopular. Democrats and progressives don’t yet have a media infrastructure that can match what the Republicans have.

One thing in particular is strange about Cheney’s argument. He is laying the groundwork for Obama to fail on National Security by setting him up to be blamed for any new attacks… but wasn’t it Bush/Cheney & Co. that emphasized in 2001 and the years immediately after that the U.S. would probably be hit again? They focused on that point every chance they got - when they were in office. Of course, they did that to cover their behinds… because it was their negligence that, in part, allowed 9/11 to take place. They knew Americans wouldn’t tolerate 2 big attacks in a row under the "leadership" the same cast of clowns…. They would surely be voted out in 2004 if they allowed that to happen. So they sent the message that any new attacks against the Country would not be because they weren’t working hard to stop it…besides, they had the 'War on Terror' that was going strong at the time (although in reality it actually radicalized more people to harm us than it discouraged)…but any new attacks would be because the enemy hates the U.S. and “freedom” so much and they are plotting day and night against us. They admitted that they may not be able to stop all attacks. Do you recall how they emphasized that so incessantly? But now that they are out of office…. A new terrorist attack (which the Republican Party is praying for) will be the fault of Obama and the Democrats....not because the enemy is so determined to kill Americans. The Republicans are so good at changing the narrative to fit their political aims...and they are often able to get people to believe in the script.

The Republicans see an opening to possibly revitalize their dying Party by putting national security front & center. They are hoping that another terrorist attack will lead to a comeback, but they have to prep. Obama as the Fall guy to make it work. So far so good for the Republicans…with Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and others on the far Right showing their leadership over the Party.

The Republicans have hit Obama with a one-two punch combination… stunning him… almost knocking him down. How did Obama allow this opening? How did he get so distracted that he let his guard down? Because he allowed far Left elements of the Democratic Party to hijack his agenda & replace the nations top priorities with their own (torture, gay marriage, etc). It’s the same thing that has happened to the Republicans from time to time (and now on a more permanent basis) when they allow far Right single issue groups like the anti-abortion folks, the religious right, the racists, the anti-government crowd and the pro-gun community to hijack the wider Republican agenda. Ohh… wait a second. Hell… that is the Republican agenda. But you get my point. Obama got to this point by taking his eye off the ball… by taking his focus off of the economy, healthcare, and other bread & butter issues… to focus instead on matters that are not among the top concerns of most Americans. Although I blog about torture, it is not even a top 10 issue for me personally...never was. It's an important issue... I have stated as much before.. but i'm not as fired up about it as extreme Left ultra-Liberals are.

Obama has been unable (so far) to regain control of his Presidency since opening this can of worms. His hijacked agenda is now at risk of being driven over a cliff by some of the more fringe elements of his Party. Even Nancy Pelosi, who was dragged into this mess over the last few weeks, is now screaming uncle…and begging for the Obama train to be put back on the tracks to focus on Kitchen table issues. This is why I stated all along that pushing this issue too hard & taking the focus off of the economy was a bad idea. And attempting to close Gitmo without a well thought out detailed plan was boneheaded on the part of the President and his advisers.

Obama has also backtracked in the past few weeks on the issue of military style tribunals for terror suspects, a move that has irritated Progressives. So in the past few weeks, Obama has angered folks on the Right & the Left. But he did it to himself. Who in the World is advising him to make these boneheaded decisions?

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised considering this is an Administration with staff that didn’t understand that flying planes low over Manhattan was probably not a good idea. It’s amazing that these folks are able to have jobs in the White House. I was amazed at how clueless these people were on that issue…and how they didn’t think it was a big deal. Now some of these same folks are showing how clueless they are on other matters.

The issue regarding the detainees is not that hard to fix. Possible solution: Segregate the international terror detainees from other inmates. The issue regarding trials is complex but not something that can’t be dealt with. The Obama Administration could start by trying as many cases as possible in the Federal civilian court system. Those suspects who can’t be tried in the Federal Courts should be retried in a rebuilt and fair tribunal system…and they could be taken through a new interrogation process if necessary (for those who faced harsh or unfair treatment under the old system). Those suspects who can’t be tried under either system should be sent back to their home Countries or held for a defined period for further investigation or charged under more broad anti-terror legislation. Holding suspects indefinitely without attorney’s & without trial is crazy talk which should be out of the question.

Obama has to get back to focusing on the bread & butter issues that matter most to Americans. He does better on the pocket book issues that people are most concerned with…although the stimulus effort from Democrats was not aggressive enough in funneling money towards job creation and creating new industries. I call this the 3rd round of a 12 round fight. Obama scored a knockdown in round 1 (by winning the election)…and won on points for round 2 (his first 100 days). But round 3 goes to the Republicans. By pushing the Torture & Gitmo issues so aggressively… lured by Leftists in his own Party, Obama fell right into a Republican trap. It allowed them an opening to take the media’s focus off of the economy which they destroyed and allowed them to put National Security and fear back on the front page.

With North Korea engaging in irrational behavior, and with Iran testing missiles, you will see Republicans pressuring Obama and even dictating the nations foreign policy, even though they are in the minority. By painting Obama as weak… they will attempt to goat Obama into leaning towards some sort of military solution (when there is no military solution) with North Korea and Iran. Israel has already launched an effort to influence U.S. media and U.S. politics, by attempting to frighten the American public with their leaked intelligence reports on Iran. Israels goal is to push Obama to go to war with Iran (a war that would likely draw in other nations...and a war that wouldn't be in the best interests of the United States...or any other Country). And as I stated, there isn't even a military solution regarding Iran to begin with. The only military solution is a sensible containment policy and defense. The solution in both cases is political, strategic and economic….with some creative out of the box thinking required. But the Republicans would like a war with both Iran and North Korea. The torture issue has now weakened Obama’s hand …in terms of possible solutions and diplomatic approaches. Notice how he has already been forced to engage in tough talk…. Pushing more sanctions for North Korea…among other possible punishments… steps that aren’t likely to work. Obama should instead push harder for direct State to State talks…and getting rid of the Six Party framework… that hasn’t worked…and probably can’t work. The idea of the Six Party framework was flawed from the beginning. A wider, more comprehensive regional Peace Treaty or non-aggression pact is needed… starting with an official end to the Korean War. But Republicans are already working to paint Obama into a corner… (because he opened the door to be attacked on National Security). The Republican media is already calling the North Korea issue "a moment of truth for Obama". As if Bush & Co. didn’t have any moments of truth with North Korea that they completely bungled. For 8 years, the Neo-Conservatives refused to negotiate one on one with North Korea…even when they were willing to give up their program (back when the U.S. had leverage). The U.S. no longer has much leverage with North Korea. That window of optimal leverage closed some time ago… in the years under Clinton and Bush. Now they want Obama to fix it…

I’m hoping that Obama won’t allow Republicans to dictate policy…and will work on a diplomatic, political and economic solution. Americans tolerated 16 consecutive years of pro-war policy under Clinton and Bush…. But Republicans are ready to give up on more sensible alternative approaches after only a few months. It’s amazing. Iran and North Korea aren’t responding to Obama’s overtures after a few weeks (which have not been that friendly) and now all of a sudden it’s time to send in the Carriers and attack.

Sotomayor for The Supreme Court

Seems as if it will be Sonia Sotomayor for The Supreme Court.

_______________

It was just yesterday that the NYT was reporting that Obama had narrowed down his list to 4 women; Kagan, Napolitano, Wood, and Sotomayor. I thought all women in his final line-up was a little interesting. But before I could comment on that, he made his choice.

Get ready for a Senate fight. The Republicans indicated that they were itching for a Supreme Court battle and were leaning towards obstructing Obama's pick, before they even knew who the nominee would be.

I think any of the 4 women would have been fine... although I am not a big fan of Napolitano. All are well qualified. I'm glad that he didn't take the advice of those who wanted him to nominate a politician for the job.

This is also another historic first as Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic to sit on the Supreme Court. I can't find anything wrong with this choice. He chose a woman, and a minority.

But I can guarantee you that there will be folks who will see something wrong with this nomination. Just like clockwork... Republicans will call her too Liberal...and will seek to throw roadblocks up to prevent her confirmation (because to them, it's all about overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision.... a ruling which has ironically been protected by 2 Republican nominees over the years. They were nominees who turned out to be more moderate than Republicans had hoped - those 2 Justices being Souter, & O'Conner.). Republicans want Right Wing ideologues who will do what they are told.... basically robots like Clarence Thomas. Of course, the other group that will complain will be Blacks, particularly the Civil Rights Industrial Complex folks. They never miss a chance to complain. They can't seem to see the big picture in anything.... they see the World through their very narrow perspective. They will blanket the blogs and talk shows with the same tired arguments. Somehow they expected special treatment with Obama's election, treatment that I stated here shouldn't be given and wouldn't be given...not in any significant way. I warned people not to expect any special privileges. I have always been amused by Blacks who expected Obama to magically fix all the problems in so-called "Black America"... that he would magically fix dilapidated neighborhoods and a rotting culture. Yes, he can do a little for infrastructure...but I have always said that fixing the culture of destruction, irresponsibility, and moral decay that lies beneath...would have to be fixed by Black folks themselves...by folks deciding to change their own lives and their own families...and then their own neighborhoods.

But while Republicans and Blacks are busy complaining, Obama is effectively widening his tent. This is another reason why the Republicans are nervous. They would rather see division between Obama and Hispanics...(between Blacks and Hispanics). They don't want to see him establish a permanent majority of Hispanic support. If Republicans hope to make a comeback... they have to do well with Hispanics. But this choice also paints Republicans into a corner.... If they oppose the nomination too forcefully, they risk being seen as bigots (which many of them really are...but they don't want the World seeing it).

This will be an interesting fight.... one that Republicans would be smart to give up (assuming the nominee has no major skeletons waiting to be discovered). Obama is calling the GOP's bluff in a way with this choice. All the threats about obstructing Obama's choice before they even knew who the nominee would be was nonsensical. Not only do the Republicans risk alienating Hispanics (no pun intended....although many Republicans wouldn't have a problem with that)....they also risk alienating Women.


-- The Angry Independent

Glenn Beck Forced to Admit that He's A Liar

Apparently Glenn Beck visited the ladies of The View, after lying about the hosts on his radio program. Something happened on the show that he isn't accustomed to... someone challenged him about his lies. And what he lied about was so trivial and petty. But in Republican Right Wing media it's all about keeping the spin going to generate interests in their programs.

He admitted that he doesn't deal with facts... Watch here.

New Charges in Chauncey Bailey Case

It looks like the family of Chauncey Bailey may get Justice after all. Well... as much Justice as they could be expected to get in our system of Justice anyway. I had pretty much given up hope on this two year old case. I followed the case from the beginning. Some may remember this post from last year showing urban Terrorists gloating and giggling about the murder. Only one suspect had been charged at that time...but it appeared that he wasn't providing information about the plot.

Now a Grand Jury has indicted 2 more of Oakland's Black Terrorists for their involvement in the murder. Antoine Mackey, and Yusuf Bey IV, the leader of the Muslim Bakery that caught Bailey's attention, were both charged last month. Bey apparently ordered Bailey's execution and was allegedly behind the killings of two other men.

Happy Memorial Day

U.S. President Barack Obama fist-bumps with graduate Chauncy Gray, of Chicago, while attending the 2009 U.S. Naval Academy graduation in Annapolis, Maryland, May 22, 2009. REUTERS/Larry Downing

Geithner Continues to Show why he needs TO GO

Hat tip: RobM

From Bloomberg News:

TARP Warrants Show Banks May Reap ‘Ruthless Bargain’ (Update2)
By Mark Pittman

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Banks negotiating to reclaim stock warrants they granted in return for Troubled Asset Relief Program money may shortchange taxpayers by almost $10 billion if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s first sale sets the pace, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

While 17 financial institutions have repaid TARP funds, two have come to terms with the U.S. on the value of the rights to buy stock that taxpayers received for the risk of recapitalizing the industry. The first was Old National Bancorp in Evansville, Indiana, which gave the Treasury Department $1.2 million last week for warrants that may have been worth $5.81 million, according to the data.

If Geithner makes the same deal for all companies in the rescue program, lenders may walk away with 80 percent of the profits taxpayers might have claimed.

“For once we’d like to get a fair value when we come into contact with the banking system,” said Representative Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat and chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of House Science and Technology Committee. “We don’t want a ruthless bargain.”

Under the Old National warrants formula, Bank of America Corp. would save $2.03 billion, followed by Wells Fargo & Co. at $1.48 billion and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $1.46 billion. Morgan Stanley’s benefit would be $983 million, Citigroup Inc.’s would come in at $965 million and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. would have $693 million, according to the data compiled by Bloomberg.

‘Stronger Incentives’

For the 20 largest TARP recipients, the total savings would be $9.985 billion, the data show.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment, said today in a letter to Geithner that warrants were part of the TARP so that taxpayers could be compensated for the risks they took investing in lenders.

“We need to ensure that the financial industry recovers and that banks can start lending again, but taxpayers must be fairly compensated as well,” Reed said.

Rest of article at link above.

We keep on telling you: Geithner is a CROOK. Of the highest order. And the President's continued association with this CROOK ......
well, draw your own conclusions.

And, still, bitching and moaning for ANY HELP FOR MAIN STREET WHILE WALL STREET CONTINUES TO ROB US BLIND.

Review of the Weeks Events - Obama vs. Cheney

Hear a discussion from NPR on the weeks top events.

Obama vs. Cheney is the focus. Why are the major media outlets even giving Cheney (a disgraced VP) equal billing with the President?

And as for Obama.... i'll discuss that later. But he has created a mess for himself.

Listen Here

The Black Snob's 2nd Smackdown of Bonnie Erbe, re:The First Lady

----Callie Shell

From The Black Snob:

Someone Needs to Tell Bonnie Erbe to Let It Go (Rants)
Friday, May 22, 2009 at 10:56AM

Columnist Bonnie Erbe of "why isn't the First Lady kicking ass and taking names already" fame is still complaining. Most recently she shot down professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell's argument that Michelle Obama's domestic and ceremonial role as First Lady was already a revolution for black women considering how we've been treated and portrayed historically -- which would be not as women, let alone human, at all.

But let's listen to what Erbe had to say this time. (Sigh)

First lady Michelle Obama could be making history. She could take giant steps to give women and women of color more power in society and in the workplace. Instead, she self-selected the title of Mom-in-Chief and told Time Magazine, she stays out of public policy.

This attitude of hers is sad, very sad. I know it's constructed by the Obama public relations types—who want to tone down this brilliant, eminently qualified career woman. This new quote in particular reminds me of an all-time clunker from Barbara Bush who told the media when her husband was president she just, "went her own dumb way" and stayed out of politics.

What is it with these women? Or more importantly, what is with American society that it cannot accept a working spouse first lady? Is that so threatening it causes immediate public fear and dislike? If the answer is yes, and I fear it is, it reconfirms my belief during the last election attitudes toward race moved markedly forward, but gender-bias was allowed to remain politically correct.

Once again, Erbe continues to basically ignore the bigger picture or get over her narrow view of feminism or even acknowledge the arguments of black women and feminists who do find Michelle's role revolutionary because of its novelty and her background.

More after the jump.



Image-wise, black women have Mammies and Sapphires and ... not ... much ... in-between. And then there's reality that a black woman working isn't exactly new in the black community that she just seems to want to discount no matter how many ways you explain it.

............................................................................

Do you know how many black stay-at-home moms I knew growing up? One. Mine. Some of those black mothers had careers because they loved them. A majority had them because without two incomes the family would have been in dire straits. My grandmother picked cotton. Her sisters cleaned houses. My other grandmother cleaned houses. My all my aunts worked. I have great-aunts who were domestics and school teachers. My mom is like the weirdo who, due to my father's very good job as an engineer and later in management for what was then McDonnell Douglas, was able to stay at home and make sure we were taken care of completely.

This was a luxury that, sadly, not all black women had a choice in affording. See, choice was non-existent. Work or don't eat was the option for the majority of black women due to racism that kept black men from being able to get high paying jobs. You cannot compare the scars of institutionalized racism that kept everyone down regardless of educational background and geography to the unfairness of the class system which is what often impacted white women the most. As I said in an earlier post, white women and black women have very different image problems. Like, the complete opposite, and it seems extremely selfish to demand the First Lady to fulfill whatever your narrow view of what a feminist looks like.

My mom is a feminist. She raised three feminists. All while WHILE WORKING AT HOME. These things are not mutually exclusive. She'd worked since she was 10 years old and was the oldest of nine children. Believe me, she did not find this work liberating as this work was never denied to her because of her gender. As the family had no desire to starve, everyone regardless of gender was expected to work. There was nothing special about my mother being born a girl that perculded her from hard labor, picking cotton, cooking, cleaning and other work. She was not seen as too weak or too dumb in any task. It was a matter of survival.

She grew up and worked to put herself through college and received a degree in education, then went on to work as a school teacher until she started having children. Don't tell my mother she's an awful person because at 26, when she had my oldest sister, she'd already been working and/or partially starving for 16 years and she was tired. Don't tell her she's not living up to a feminist ideal just because she wanted to love her family. Don't tell her she let all of womanhood down because when her husband told her that as long as they weren't starving she could stay at home and that she relished in having a CHOICE for the first time in her life between work and that same starvation. That my father had a good job and was good with money and that she too was intelligent and good at saving and that together they were an awesome team who got farther and did more than their hardworking, but "Jim Crow" hampered parents.

Don't sit there and tell me that this was a bad thing. Don't sit there and tell me the First Lady is committing some crime by putting her daughters first and focusing on the ceremonial aspects of her role. She's a First Lady. Not a politician, or a governor, or a senator.
...............................................................................

But the most offensive thing to me about Erbe's statements is that she assumes what Michelle Obama is doing is bad for all women, including women of color, which makes me wonder what this woman thinks the impact of the First Lady's role is actually having on people. Yes, hearing a black woman talking about being a mom to her kids is must awful for all those black and brown women used to being dehumanized in the press. That is so hurtful to women of color! (Who often have jobs and degrees out of necessity, not because we thought it was really, really cool and grrl power and shit.) Why? I'm in pain over it RIGHT NOW! It bothers me SO MUCH to see her give commencement speeches and host guests at the White House and be fawned over by the public. That is just AWFUL for my self-esteem! All she did was go to an Ivy League school and be the primary wage-earner until her husband became president and then chose to focus on her family. My God. Think of how that will affect all the little black girls out there. What will they think?

You can read the entire piece at the link above.

My great-grandfather scraped to send my grandmother to Natchez College, because - family story goes -

the only children he wanted my grandmother to take care of were HER OWN.

And, those were the only ones she took care of..LOL

She was equally determined for her daughters, and all four of them went to college and got multiple degrees and went to work. I didn't know any Black stay-at-home mothers. I lived in a middle class Black neighborhood, and all the women had educations and went to work.

Erbe needs to go somewhere and STFU.

You know my feelings - White feminism was never for or about Black women , and us adopting it made no damn sense.

Obama names first Black NASA chief

From Politico.com:

Obama names first black NASA chief
By MIKE ALLEN | 5/23/09 12:20 PM EDT

President Barack Obama on Saturday named the first African-American to head NASA, the nation’s space agency.

The announcement was designed to coincide with this week’s return of the space shuttle Atlantis, now pushed back to Sunday.

General Charles Bolden is to be Administrator of NASA and Lori Garver is to be Deputy Administrator of NASA.

“These talented individuals will help put NASA on course to boldly push the boundaries of science, aeronautics and exploration in the 21st century and ensure the long-term vibrancy of America’s space program,” Obama said.

Here are the bios from the White House’s “intention to nominate” announcement:

Gen. Charles Bolden, Nominee for Administrator of NASA
Charles Bolden retired from the United States Marine Corps in 2003 as the Commanding General of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing after serving more than 34 years, and is currently CEO of JackandPanther LLC, a privately-held military and aerospace consulting firm. Gen. Bolden began his service in U.S. Marine Corps in 1968. He flew more than 100 sorties in Vietnam from 1972-73. In 1980, he was selected as an astronaut by NASA, flying two space shuttle missions as pilot and two missions as commander. Following the Challenger accident in 1986, Gen. Bolden was named the Chief of the Safety Division at the Johnson Space Center with responsibilities for overseeing the safety efforts in the return-to-flight efforts. He was appointed Assistant Deputy Administrator of NASA headquarters in 1992. He was Senior Vice President at TechTrans International, Inc. from 2003 until 2005. Gen. Bolden holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis and a M.S. in Systems Management from the University of Southern California.

President Obama's Weekly Youtube Address

About This Alleged Terrorist Plot in New York

For the record, I don't think these folks were as dangerous as the local gangbangers in the neighborhood.

From The NYTimes:

N.Y. Bomb Plot Suspects Acted Alone, Police Say
JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ and SEWELL CHAN
Published: May 21, 2009

The four men arrested Wednesday night in what the authorities said was a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military planes at an Air National Guard base in Newburgh, N.Y. were petty criminals who appeared to be acting alone, not in concert with any terrorist organization, the New York City police commissioner said Thursday.

The men were arrested in an elaborate sting operation at around 9 p.m. on Wednesday after planting what they believed to be bombs in cars outside the Riverdale Temple, a Reform synagogue, and the nearby Riverdale Jewish Center, an Orthodox synagogue. Once the explosives were planted, the men planned to drive to the National Guard base to shoot down military aircraft with a Stinger surface-to-air missile while detonating the bombs with a remote device.

The men did not know that the bombs, obtained with the help of an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were fake, and that the missile was incapable of being fired.

.....................................................................................

At the Masjid al-Ikhlas mosque in Newburgh where the men first met the F.B.I. informant, they were not considered devoted members, said an imam at the mosque, Salahuddin Mustafa. He also said that the man he believes was the informant showed up about two years ago and started inviting people to meals, where he would talk about jihad and violence. The imam and others believed the man was a government agent and steered clear of him, he said, but Mr. Cromitie apparently took the bait.

An assistant imam at the mosque, Hamin Rashada, said that another one of the four men, Mr. Payen, seemed disturbed. Mr. Payen often talked in circles, showed signs of paranoia and kept bottles of urine in a messy apartment.

“He has some very serious psychological problems,” Mr. Rashada said.

You can read the rest of the article at the link above.

Now, call me cynical. Call me a doubter. Call me a tinfoil hat wearer.

But, don't call me on that jury because I wouldn't vote to convict.

All the folks there at the mosque sniffed them out right away, so they zoom in on the guy who has psychological problems?

Um, ok.

Prove to me that they got their hands on those weapons. I don't believe it.
Where's the money for the missiles and explosives come from....you know no ex-cons got that kind of money.

it takes MONEY to be in terrorism, and it takes educated folks. Educated folks for bombs, etc. Sorry,you will not find a Brotha or Sista with the education needed to make a good bomb, wasting it on some terrorist cause. And, we simply don't have the funds.

Where would our Black terrorists be getting their money? I keep on asking that.

This is a bogus case with folks not smart enough to know their explosives...and America's supposed to feel SAFER because of this bogusness?

Whatever.

It's not that I don't believe that Black folk couldn't become jihadists. It's just that the ones they've put forth as 'plotters', first in Miami and in this case---I'm not hunting this dog. The government will have to do better. While funds were wasted on this 'operative', I'm sure there are REAL cells out there, NOT funded by government informants trying to entrap, that are going about their business.

Changing the Art on the White House Walls

Hat tip: Angelar

There are small and big changes with the Obamas being in The White House.

From The Wall Street Journal:

Changing the Art on the White House Walls
By AMY CHOZICK and KELLY CROW

Barack Obama is taking on health care, financial regulation, torture and environmental policy. He’s also revamping the White House art collection.

The Obamas are sending ripples through the art world as they put the call out to museums, galleries and private collectors that they’d like to borrow modern art by African-American, Asian, Hispanic and female artists for the White House. In a sharp departure from the 19th-century still lifes, pastorals and portraits that dominate the White House’s public rooms, they are choosing bold, abstract art works.

The overhaul is an important event for the art market. The Obamas’ art choices could affect the market values of the works and artists they decide to display. Museums and collectors have been moving quickly to offer up works for inclusion in the iconic space.

Their choices also, inevitably, have political implications, and could serve as a savvy tool to drive the ongoing message of a more inclusive administration. The Clintons received political praise after they selected Simmie Knox, an African-American artist from Alabama, to paint their official portraits. The Bush administration garnered approval for acquiring “The Builders,” a painting by African-American artist Jacob Lawrence, but also some criticism for the picture, which depicts black men doing menial labor.

Last week the first family installed seven works on loan from the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden in Washington in the White House’s private residence, including “Sky Light” and “Watusi (Hard Edge),” a pair of blue and yellow abstracts by lesser-known African-American abstract artist Alma Thomas, acclaimed for her post-war paintings of geometric shapes in cheery colors.



...............................................................................

The Obamas began their art hunt shortly after the November election, says White House curator William Allman. Michael Smith, a Los Angeles-based decorator hired by the Obamas to redo their private quarters, worked with Mr. Allman, White House social secretary Desirée Rogers and others on the Obama transition team to determine which works would make the Obamas feel at home in Washington.

Mr. Smith and Mrs. Obama made a wish list of about 40 artists and asked for potential loans in a letter to the Hirshhorn, according to Kerry Brougher, the museum’s deputy director and chief curator. Mr. Brougher says Mr. Smith insisted any loans be plucked from the museum’s storage collection and not pulled off gallery walls.

..................................................................................

Currently, the roughly 450-piece permanent collection includes five works by black artists: the Clinton portraits by Mr. Knox; “The Builders” by Lawrence ; “Sand Dunes at Sunset, Atlantic City” by Henry Ossawa Tanner, which hangs in the Green Room and was purchased at Hillary Clinton’s urging in 1995; and “The Farm Landing,” a tranquil landscape painted in 1892 by Rhode Island artist Edward Bannister, purchased with donations in 2006.

The White House may also temporarily cull works from museums, galleries and collectors to display in either the private residence or public rooms. Presidents must return loans at the end of their final term.

Many of the same deep-pocketed collectors who helped Mr. Obama fund his presidential campaign are now offering works. E.T. Williams, a New York collector of African-American art who has sat on museum boards including the Museum of Modern Art in New York, is among the would-be donors.

Earlier this month, Mr. Williams, a retired banker and real estate investor, strolled through his Manhattan apartment and stopped in front of the jewel of his collection, a smoky-hued portrait of a man in a fedora by Lois Mailou Jones. The painting is appraised at $150,000 but he says he would happily donate it to the White House permanent collection. He also says the Obamas can “borrow anything they like” from his collection, which includes works by Romare Bearden and Hale Woodruff.

Mr. Williams says that although a loan or donation to the White House could boost his collection’s profile, his offer is motivated by a desire to support the president. A White House spokeswoman says that any potential donations to the permanent collection must go through the curator’s office.

African-American collectors, in particular, snapped to attention when word spread that Mr. Obama might want to borrow art, says Bridgette McCullough Alexander, a Chicago art advisor who went to high school with the first lady. She says some of her collector clients have expressed interest in loaning works to the White House.

“For collectors, it was as if a call went out that the Obamas needed to fill their fridge. The grocery list of artists just rolled out,” she says.

Complete article at link above.

I liked this article, because it was something I hadn't thought of with regards to the Obamas.

Media Alert

The Article is HERE.

The Interview is HERE.

The Callie Shell Picture Gallery is HERE.

A Sista Rabbi...yes, you lived to see the day.

Hat tip:GreenLadyHere

Alysa Stanton is set to become the first African-American female rabbi when she is ordained next month.


From Abc.com:

Alysa Stanton Becomes First Female Black Rabbi
First African-American Jewish Rabbi To Be Ordained Was Raised in a Pentecostal Family
By EMILY FRIEDMAN
May 21, 2009

Growing up in a black, Pentecostal family in Cleveland, Alysa Stanton never imagined the day when she would be preparing to be ordained as a Jewish rabbi.

But that day will come June 6 for the single mother who will be ordained by the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, becoming the first African-American female rabbi in the world.

"Ten years ago, if someone said I was going to be a rabbi, I would have laughed," Stanton, 45, told ABCnews.com. "Me, a spiritual leader?"

Soon-to-be rabbi Stanton and her daughter Shana, 14, whom she adopted when she was 14 months old, will move to Greenville, N.C., in August, where Stanton will take her spot behind the pulpit at Congregation Bayt Shalom, which is both conservative and reform.


First Female Black Rabbi
Stanton, a reform Jew, said that her mother encouraged her to explore different religions as a young child and that, at the age of 9, she was already asking her priest to teach her about Kaballah, which focuses on the mystical aspect of Judaism.
Then, at age 10, she received her first Hebrew grammar book from her devout Christian uncle who made it a habit to attend Jewish ceremonies, as well as his own. By her early 20s, Stanton said she'd decided to convert.

"Most people convert because they're marrying or dating someone who is Jewish or for another reason other than just picking that spiritual path," Stanton said.

"I did so because it was the path for me," she said. "Not only from a religious standpoint but from an ethical and social and communal standpoint, it was important to me."

Rest of article at link above.

Congratulations to the Rabbi and the Synagogue that gets her.

President Obama's Speech at the National Archives

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery
Protecting Our Security and Our Values
National Archives Museum
Washington, D.C.
May 21, 2009

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.



Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.

It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.

It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration - including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community - that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong - in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is - quite simply - a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center - he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker - he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee - al-Marri - in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded - we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon - and I will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.

Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration - along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security - will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.

This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Steven Spielberg to make biopic on Martin Luther King, Jr.

This has been brought up several times in the past couple of days by astute posters.

Steven Spielbeg has aquired the rights to make a biopic of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But, of course, there are problems.

MEDIA ALERT INSIDE.

From the Los Angeles Business Journal:

Posted date: 5/20/2009
King Family Fighting Over Spielberg Film Deal
By DEBORAH CROWE
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff

Two of Martin Luther King Jr.’s children are threatening to throw a wrench into Steven Spielberg’s plans to bring the late civil rights leader’s life to the big screen.

Bernice King and Martin Luther King III told the Associated Press that they had no input in the film deal brokered by their brother, Dexter King, who is chief executive officer of King Inc. The siblings have been involved in several legal disputes with their brother for more than a year over his handling of the intellectual property of their parents’ estate.

King, who was assassinated in 1968 in Memphis, Tenn., was careful to copyright his speeches, books and famous works.

Bernice and Martin have not yet filed suit to block the project. "This is a deal that Mr. Spielberg and his people ... have entered into believing that they have the blessing of the King Estate. They don't have the blessings of Bernice and Martin King," Bernice King told the Associated Press.

DreamWorks SKG on Monday announced it had acquired the rights to King’s life and planned a theatrical release that would be produced by Spielberg, Suzanne de Passe and Madison Jones. The production company would not say how much the deal is worth.

MEDIA ALERT:
Roland Martin has just posted at his blog:

Bernice, Martin Luther King III on CNN @ 8pm EST tonight

Bernice King and her brother, Martin Luther King III, will join me tonight on CNN at 8 p.m. EST to discuss the latest feud between them and their brother, Dexter.

Dexter, who is the executor of the estate of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., has signed a movie deal with Steven Spielberg and Dreamworks to bring a picture of their father to the big screen. But Bernice and MLK III say as shareholders in the company that controls the rights to their father, they were never informed and found out through the media.

They truly have issues with Dexter. It's a shame that they have to do this in public.

Questions for our readers:
1. Should a Black director do this movie?
2. Got any casting choices, not only for MLK, but Coretta, et al?

The Senate Democrats Refusing to go along with the closing of Guantanamo

I give the floor to Booman of Booman Tribune:

Enough of Harry Reid
by BooMan
Wed May 20th, 2009 at 12:46:49 AM EST

On the whole, I've been a defender of Majority Leader Harry Reid. I believe he is often unjustly criticized for decisions that are made not by him, but by a few centrist members of the Democratic Caucus. A Majority Leader can suggest a direction for the caucus but he can't make senators go where they are unwilling to go. And, once it is clear that the caucus will not support something, it is up to Reid to put the best face on it to the base of the party. This often results in Harry Reid insulting our intelligence by telling us that dogshit smells and tastes just great. Consequently, Reid winds up taking a lot of heat that would be more equitably directed at unnamed senators who are the real obstacles to progressive change. I still believe this, but I can't defend him anymore. He's a yellow-bellied coward who I am ashamed to associate with as a co-member of the Democratic Party.
Oh, I know that this time is no different. If it weren't for cowards within his caucus refusing to provide funding for the closing of Guantanamo Bay, Reid wouldn't have had to give us the dogshit spiel. But he went further than usual. He didn't just whip out his cock, piss on our legs, and tell us that it's raining. He cut tail and ran. In the Army, they shoot people for that. It's called fucking 'desertion' and it puts your comrades at needless risk.

The President ran a campaign in which he promised repeatedly to close Guantanamo Bay and to treat the people there within traditional American practices of jurisprudence. He got no argument on that score from Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, or anyone else. But now that the Republicans are trying to frighten people about our ability to keep potentially violent criminals behind bars in this country of a bazillion prisons, Harry Reid is playing a different tune. Now he's a coward.

Let me tell you something. This country doesn't need Harry Reid in Congress. We'll do just fine without him. We need him to show courage and help the president do what he promised to do. If he loses his seat as a result, so fucking what? That's what they call a Profile in Courage. There will be no new chapters dedicated to Harry Reid in the next edition of that book. He's a complete turncoat and an absolutely gutless fool.

And let me tell you why this upsets me so much. For my entire life the Republicans have made a political living by arguing that the Democrats don't have what it takes to protect American interests and American security. I always thought they were full of shit. But the Democrats in the Senate are proving the Republicans right, and me wrong. Any organization that is afraid to house Gitmo prisoners in super-maximum security prisons within the United States (for real or political reasons) is too yellow-bellied to protect the United States. If this is all the guts the Democrats have, they should be voted out of power and the Republicans should be re-entrusted with our national security. At least with them, you know that they will fight.

The idea that a proud and confident party would shrink from backing their own president on a matter of such profound national consequence because of the illogical and ridiculous fearmongering arguments being advanced by the Republicans is so far beneath my contempt that I cannot stomach it.

Harry Reid is dead to me.

I feel ya, Booman.

The Morehouse Shooting - is this a matter of class?

When this story was first brought to my attention, it just startled me. I had to read it a couple of times to get the full gist of it.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, here's the outline of the story:

From CNN.com:

Student who shot classmate to graduate, no jail time
updated 10:19 a.m. EDT, Fri May 15, 2009
From Gary Tuchman and Ismael Estrada
CNN AC360°

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- About 500 students will graduate this weekend from Atlanta's prestigious Morehouse College. One person who won't be there is Rashad Johnson, shot three times by a fellow student. But the shooter will receive his diploma -- part of a plea deal that spared him up to 20 years in prison.
It's a puzzling case that raises a huge question: How can this be?

Even Atlanta's chief district attorney, Paul Howard, is outraged by the generous plea deal, an offer that was made by a prosecutor under his command.

"First of all, for the victim and his family, they deserved a better resolution," said Howard, a Morehouse graduate himself. "It seems like the wrong person got the right benefit."

Joshua Brandon Norris faced one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and a second count for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. But in a court hearing in January, he was presented with what the judge described as "the break of your life."

He pleaded no contest to the first count; the second charge was dropped. He got six years of probation, a $1,000 fine and 240 hours of community service. He avoided any jail time, and the plea also mandated that he "remain in college and complete your college degree," according to court transcripts. The sentence was not the judge's idea, but he followed the prosecutor's recommendation.

Johnson, who still has a bullet in his left leg, says he wasn't told about the court hearing. When he learned of the plea deal, his reaction was: "He's gotta return to college? This criminal?"



....................................................

CNN also asked Morehouse officials to comment on why Norris was allowed back in school and asked if they ever talked about safety considerations involving other students there. The school had allowed Norris to return to classes, even before the plea was entered.

Morehouse refused to discuss the issue on camera. But in a written statement, the school said, "The college cannot comment on specific student conduct matters, incidents of inappropriate student behavior, whether on or off campus."

The assistant district attorney who made the plea deal could not be reached for comment. Howard, his boss, said that the prosecutor of the case has resigned and that he would have been fired for his handling of this case. Howard feels a stiffer penalty was warranted.

"We are sorry this happened for so many reasons," Howard said. "When something like this happens, I am very upset by it."

He added, "It was an inappropriate sentence."

As for Johnson, he is attending Sacramento City College and plans to attend law school after he graduates in 2011. Johnson said he no longer wants to be a Morehouse man. The fact that Norris is graduating this weekend, he said, is an injustice.

"I really feel sick, like how could this happen," he said, fighting back tears.

Morehouse student shoots other Morehouse student - and, not only is he not in jail, but he's going to GRADUATE?

I gotta tell you, the thing that crossed my mind was, 'how'd this kid get White folk's justice?'

--------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Boyce Watkins chimed in:

Bottom Line with Dr. Boyce: Morehouse Men or Morehouse Money?
Posted May 19th 2009 2:52PM by Dr. Boyce Watkins, PhD
Filed under: BlackSpin

In the intro to one of his songs, the rapper and former gang member Snoop Dogg (replicating a scene from the 1973 film 'The Mack') says to another man in a nightclub, "We can settle this like some gentlemen or we can get into some ol' gangsta sh*t." While one might expect such a conversation to occur between two gang members, one would not expect to see this exchange between two men from Morehouse College, arguably the most prestigious Historically Black College in America.

But that is one summary of how things went down on that strange October night. Joshua Brandon Norris attended a Halloween Party in 2007 and was kicked out of the party for causing trouble. A few minutes later, everyone ducked for cover when they heard gunshots. The shooting victim, Frank Rashad Johnson, said that he got into an altercation with Norris, and that Norris rolled up a few minutes later in a Hummer and put a gun to Johnson's head. Johnson then grabbed Norris by the arm and that is when the shooting started. Although he did not kill the victim, Norris shot Johnson three times. Yes, two Morehouse men getting "into some ol' gangsta sh*t". Wow.

The only thing crazier than the story is how it was resolved. Norris, the shooter, faced one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and a second count for possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The prosecutor, who may have lacked necessary supervision, really put the hammer on Norris: six years probation, a $1,000 fine and 240 hours of community service. Oh by the way, he was also allowed back into Morehouse College to graduate with the rest of his 2009 class this past weekend after serving no jail time. I have to do a Gary Coleman on this one and ask,"Whatchoo talking 'bout Morehouse?"

Johnson, the victim, had just lost his father during the same year. Given the obvious discomfort of going to school with the man who shot him, Johnson has chosen to move out west to be with his mother. After going through such a traumatic experience, I would want to be with my mama, too. Norris, the shooter, has stayed to enjoy the university, along with his $450,000 condo (quite the standard possession for a 22-year old college student). So, the real Morehouse man, whose family had been at the school for three generations, was being run out of town by a rich, gun totting punk who thought he could shoot someone because he disagreed with him.

I fight for black men on a regular basis, and have put my career on the line for them. But I must say that we all deserve certain fundamental rights of blackness. One of those rights should be that a student at Morehouse College who gets into a fight with another student should not expect to have a gun put to his head. Let's be clear: Morehouse College did not do this. Hip-hop did not do this. Morehouse also has the wealthiest of traditions when it comes to educating black men and making them strong. But in this case, Morehouse administrators' behavior appears to be very "unMorehouse" in nature.

Rest of article at link above.

-----------------------------------

Black Scholars Speak Up on the Morehouse College Shooting Incident

After the recent shooting incident between two Morehouse College students, we felt compelled to make sure that Black scholars from around the nation had an opportunity to chime in.

Juan E. Gilbert, Ph.D., President of the Brothers of the Academy

"When I saw this story on CNN, I thought there was something strange about it. Here's a young man that is a 2nd or 3rd generation Morehouse man that had to leave school after being shot by a young man that is graduating, what? It appeared to me that there is more to this story than meets the eye. I don't know the full story, but there has to be more to this story. Lets keep it real, I am all about giving a young Black man a second chance, but how did he get to come back to the same school as the victim? I don't have answers, just questions.”

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Columbia University

“Institutions like Morehouse College have a long and deep history of
producing some of the most extraordinary Black men in the world.
Sometimes, this tradition forces the institution into a protective
posture that privileges "respectability" over "responsibility." This
tragedy also highlights the ways in which HBCUs sometimes replicate
the same class-based inequalities that govern the institutional
decision making of predominately white universities.”

Rest of scholars at link above.

--------------------

So, what say you, MOA?

Is this a matter of Class?

If this had been Jerome, on Scholarship, would he have been under the jail by now?

White Men Only

My dating life can be summed up in one word: sad. In fact, I don’t have a dating life. Currently I’m not dating anyone and I haven’t been on a date in several years. Confession: The Angry Independent has never had a girlfriend/relationship, never been kissed, and has never even asked a woman out…and I’m in my mid 30’s. Yes, I know…. Pathetic. I guess that means that I pretty much fall into the category of “loser”. Most men would have already blown their brains out by now. But that’s not an option for me (although some would probably disagree). This is all tied to my racial identity, my tendency to be a homebody, and my lack of resources. I’m also a little picky when it comes to the kinds of women who I would date.

I’m generally not attracted to Black women…physically, mentally or otherwise. I typically don’t have much in common with them. To be honest, I don’t think I could deal with most Black women…and I don’t have any interest in going down that road….although I don’t exclude the possibility of meeting and dating one. There are always exceptions. Excluding anyone based on race alone would be stupid on my part. I’m just emphasizing that if it happens….it would be more by accident than by any mission driven kind of effort. And i'm not saying that there aren't any great Black women out there... there definitely are. But they are few. And for whatever reason, I don't get along as well with Black women. I have written before about some of my interracial dating experiences and some of the issues that drove me in that direction.

And Black women generally aren’t attracted to me because I’ve never been arrested, I can hold down a steady job, won’t abuse them, am considered “nice”, and I hate ebonics. In other words, I don’t fit the image of what a “Black Man” is supposed to be….and I don’t act the way that the image says I am supposed to act. I’m just not considered “sexy” to them. I’m more James Taylor, Sharon Jones, Dave Matthews, Classic Motown, Rock & Jazz than modern R&B and Rap. I guess I don’t fit the mold. For some strange reason, certain women are attracted to violence, B.S., heartache, and irresponsible behavior. If you aren’t a meathead with “protective qualities” (meaning if you aren’t musclebound with tattoos and you haven’t been to prison) then you aren’t seen as authentic --as authentically Black or as a “real“ man -- and you just aren’t considered very attractive in a certain community. Black women are like social masochists in a way. I will never understand it. But it is what it is.

I have a whole series on this blog about the Black female subculture (yes it is distinct) and the kinds of men that they tend to be attracted to. Now of course not all Black women fall into that category… but I would say…from common sense, general observations and anecdotal evidence that at least a small majority between ages 20 & 40 probably fall into that group. Anyone who still doubts this phenomenon is in a serious state of denial.

That’s one side of the coin that I have to face. The other side is that I don’t tend to have it any easier with non-Black women. I tend to be more attracted to non-Black women, but they generally aren’t attracted to me. I typically don’t fit what they are looking for in terms of race and socio-economics. The financial part of that probably has a lot to do with it…. But that is strongly tied to race.

What am I getting at? How does a Black Man date when the options are so limited?

When dealing with non-Black women I often run into the dreaded “white men only” problem. These are primarily White, Asian, Hispanic, & East Indian women…but in a few cases I have encountered this from Black women - those few who I did have an interest in.

Back in the early 2000’s I was brave enough to post a profile on a few online dating services. I would use online services because they were convenient and because I don’t go to places such as nightclubs or bars to find dates. I’ve never set foot in one…and don’t plan to. I hate the nightclub culture. There’s nothing & no one in a nightclub that I want - period!

But what I typically found on the online services is that all the women who I would contact or would signal an interest in would almost uniformly mention in their profiles or would confirm in their responses that they were only interested in white men or that they could not/would not date a Black man. It got so bad that I eventually realized that if I wanted a chance to meet someone… I would have to remove any indication of my race from my profile. But leaving the race category blank only led to more aggravation. It only created a situation where I would waste time emailing someone back and forth (successfully) over a number of days, only to be stabbed in the chest when I would be forced to reveal my race, usually before a date or meeting.

“Oh, by the way… I just want to make sure you know that I’m Black”. “You do know that I’m a Black guy right?”

Typical response:

“Sorry… I don’t date Black guys”.

Or

“You seem nice, but my family would not approve of me dating a Black man. I will have to cancel for tomorrow night. Sorry for the confusion. Good luck in your search.”

Or

“No need to contact me again. I don’t deal with Black guys”.


You get the idea.

This became a constant problem. It became such a pain in the ass that I gave up dating only after one Summer & decided to concentrate on School/work. I didn’t want to deal with all the aggravation involved in the dating game.

And it goes back to why I don’t approach women and never have. It’s primarily because I have never believed that I was good enough to actually prevail and win the hunt so to speak… or to “get the girl” (at least not the women who interest me). “Not good enough” refers to not only being the wrong ethnicity, but it also refers to not having reached a level of socio-economic status that would allow me to compensate. This is why I’m single, have always been single, and will likely die single. Men have to be good at “the chase” and it’s something that I don’t even have the desire to do.

I most often got these responses from Asian women. I don’t know if this was because I interacted with more Asian women online (or don’t think I did) or because racial prejudice was more prevalent in that group….. who knows?

But what’s behind the “White Men Only” phenomenon? Few people are willing to do sociological studies on interracial dating to answer that kind of question because it may be too taboo, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that race tends to be associated with socio-economics.

White, Hispanic, and especially Asian women (and yes a few Black women) see White men as a symbol of money, a symbol of success, and a symbol of stability & financial security (the primary thing that women seek and the way that men are measured by women). In all the important areas….White men seem to be the better choice…. It’s just natural selection in a way. White men are associated with all that’s good.
Black men, on the other hand, tend to be associated with all that’s bad. Black men tend to be associated with crime, irresponsibility, a lack of values, sexual aggressiveness, poor education, and as a whole being lower on the socio-economic ladder.

The heart of the story is that my dating options will always be limited. I have always seen my race almost as a disability when it comes to dating…and dating freedom. It’s like a prison for me. Add socio-economics to the mix and I feel even more handicapped by race. It‘s constraining. I always feel like I’m in sort of a racial Purgatory. I don’t feel at home or at peace in Black Culture. In fact, I don’t identify with Black Culture. The Culture annoys me (that’s the nice way of putting it). And I have never felt accepted or welcomed by any other group. I‘ve never been able to “fit in” with any particular Culture or group. I don’t have an attraction to Black women (generally speaking) and they don’t have any attraction to me because I don’t fit their image of “Black Manhood”. And White, Asian, and Hispanic women aren’t interested because I’m not White & I can’t compete with what a White man can provide for them (in terms of money, social status, a trophy, looks, as a family provider, as financial security, etc). There are Asian-American families who consider their daughters to be successful if they meet and marry a White guy (craziness!!!). They may not say that publicly…but that’s the general thinking process for some Asians.

That leaves me socially confined. I’ve always felt like a prisoner in my own skin.

When and if I try dating again in a few years (once my financial fortunes improve) my options are still going to be extremely limited. But then again… we are in the age of Obama and attitudes about race are supposedly changing… so I guess I’ll have to wait and see if there is some sort of improvement. Some people believe that Black is in fashion….I have heard and read comments to that effect. But I don’t really buy into that…and I don’t believe the rise of a political figure could really translate into an improvement in the realm of dating relationships… the level of tolerance needed to accept a Black President is different from the level of tolerance needed to actually bring someone home and have someone in your life who is of a different race. These are two different things.

A Discussion about Dick Cheney and His Efforts to Make Obama The Fall Guy

NPR had a great discussion about Tricky Dick II last week and his efforts to turn the tables in the torture debate. Dick Cheney has been on a media blitz lately on behalf of the Republican Party (and in an effort to cover his own rear end). His aim seems to be to argue that tough interrogation techniques (torture) worked and therefore were justified. He is also attempting to use fear (although I don't think it's working this time) to support his argument. He keeps repeating the argument that getting rid of "enhanced interrogation techniques" will put the U.S. at serious risk of another terrorist attack. Although none of the top experts and national security officials (National Security Adviser Jones, DNI Blair, the CIA Director, nor the Joint Chiefs Chairman) believe that changing the interrogation process will increase the risk of another 9/11. Even if there were another attack...it isn't even remotely likely that it could be tied to the change in interrogation rules. But by using this argument, Cheney's goal seems to be to set Obama up for blame if another terrorist attack takes place under the new Administration. In other words... he is hoping to use another terrorist attack as a way to breathe new life into the Republican Party. Sickening stuff!

Listen to Discussion

President Obama's Commencement Address at Notre Dame

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

First Lady Michelle Obama Gives Commencement Address at University of California -Merced

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Utah Governor Huntsman - Next Ambassador to China

US President Barack Obama (L) chats with Utah Governor Jon Huntsman in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House May 16, 2009 in Washington, DC. Obama nominated Huntsman as the next US ambassador to China. AFP PHOTO/Mandel NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

From HuffingtonPost.com:

Jon Huntsman: China Ambassador
DARLENE SUPERVILLE
| May 16, 2009 11:24 AM EST |

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama reached across the political divide Saturday and named Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a possible GOP White House contender and top John McCain supporter, to the sensitive diplomatic post of U.S. ambassador to China.

With the selection, Obama may have sidelined a potentially formidable moderate Republican from the 2012 presidential field. For Huntsman, it's a chance to burnish his credentials and position himself as a viable hopeful _ perhaps for 2016 if Obama is seen as a strong candidate for a second term in 2012.

Fluent in Mandarin Chinese from his days as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan, the 49-year-old Huntsman is a popular two-term governor who served in both Bush administrations and was national co-chairman of Arizona Sen. McCain's campaign against Obama last year. Huntsman has made a name for himself advocating a moderate agenda in one of the nation's most conservative states.

Rest of article at link above.

Al Giordano over at The Field, has another take on it:

Huntsman to China: It's About Romney
Posted by Al Giordano - May 16, 2009 at 9:55 am By Al Giordano

When, a day before the 2008 Tsunami Tuesday primaries, Michelle Obama visited with top apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, eyebrows were raised. What was the Obama campaign doing reaching out to Mormons, some said, who have long been a reliable voting bloc for Republicans? Mormons for Obama had, in fact, been formed a year before that, even as former Mormon Bishop Mitt Romney was pursuing the Republican nomination for President.

The nomination, yesterday, of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to be US Ambassador to the People's Republic of China - like Romney, a handsome and articulate boy-wonder billionaire of that faith - has those eyebrows wagging again. It speaks volumes of the outside-the-box tendencies of the President and his team that the thought would even occur to them to appoint such an unexpected envoy, that they would know that Huntsman - a former LDS missionary in Taiwan - speaks Mandarin, and that they'd be able to convince the Governor to switch jobs for a post that is not necessarily a promotion. They must have also had good enough intelligence to sense that Huntsman was bored at his current gig. That they made the sale is a head turner, indeed.



That they announced this shortly after Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele gaffed his way into another controversy, this time regarding the evident anti-Mormon bigotry in Evangelical Christian circles, is nothing less than political poetry. Steele said, on Bill Bennett's radio show, "Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism..."

What is a gaffe? Generally it's something that's true but that society doesn't want to admit.

Mitt Romney is technically the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. He's got the money, a national organization, and the on-camera talent and political experience to handle the national spotlight. Ideologically, his positions line up pretty perfectly with the conservative GOP platform. If any Republican "deserves" it for having paid his dues loyally to the party, it's Mitt. And yet it's extremely unlikely that the said GOP base - we're talking mainly white Southern Baptists here - is going to get over its Mormonphobia in just three years enough to make that possible.

The appointment of Huntsman is thus, politically, a slam dunk. When GOP primary voters inevitably reject Romney once again in the 2012 primaries and caucuses outside of the Mountain West, the resentment - already boiling after last year's adventures in presidential politics - among rank-and-file Mormons that the party to whom they've given so much still doesn't really want them in the Master's house rather than the servant's quarters, will sting. Meanwhile, another of their prominent citizens will likely still be Obama's man in Beijing, proof that somebody in American politics isn't dissing the LDS and its members. And in key swing states like Nevada and Colorado, LDS members are legion.

Some said Obama was crazy, back in 2007 and 2008, to reach out to what conventional wisdom thought was an impenetrable GOP base... Crazy, like a fox.

Interesting.

Come on, you think this is adorable too

Sasha Obama waves to her father
as he returns from his trip to Arizona and New Mexico.

President Obama's Weekly Youtube Address

The Political Outsiders Part II: Progressive Democrats

I recommend reading a couple of books and a blog post to get a good background on the insurgency within the Democratic Party by Progressive grassroots activists.

- Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics

- Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era

- MRZine: Guide to Democratic Party and the Democrats

Both books make the point that Internet and advances in social media technology have the capacity to empower ordinary people who have felt powerless and shut out of the political process to effective political participation. More than that, they have a potential to and in many cases, have had real impact in challenging and toppling entrenched interests in the Democratic Party and in traditional two-party politics. The blog post provides context on where this Progressive insurgency fits within the various groupings of the Democratic Party.

Just who are these Progressive insurgents? These are regular readers and contributors to blogs such as Open Left, Daily Kos, MyDD and Firedoglake. They attend conferences such as the Netroots Nation and America’s Future Now (formerly Take Back America). They are members of political organizations such as Progressive Majority, MoveOn and Democracy for America. They have trained or taken part in seminars offered by the New Organizing Institute (NOI) in Washington, DC or Wellstone Action in Minnesota. For political jobs they peruse listings and professional development opportunities for activists and organizers in the NOI and Democratic GAIN job boards. While not an exhaustive list the examples I cited give a scope of participation by grassroots Progressives in various capacities.

I find myself extremely impressed by the breadth of activities and membership associations that I described above. They seem to suggest—dare I say it?—an actual, attempt to form a bona fide political opposition movement to challenge not only the influence of the powerful right wing but the right wing from within the Democratic Party as well. In lurking at Progressive blogs and mingling with people from within this movement in person in Washington, DC, the phrase “movement-building” is a phrase that I have overheard being used. More than just cocktail party chatter, the breadth of existing organizations and activists suggest people are actually doing it and taking organizing seriously.

Are there critical things to say about this movement? My review of the book Taking on the System sums up what I have to say that is critical:

My questions for Zuniga — and I am still speaking as a Progressive here — what if I am not a Democrat and don’t want to be one? Nothing against Democrats but what if I disagree with the strategy of electing Democrats into office as the primary way to define victory in the fight for Progressive politics? What if I adhere to beliefs and political positions that just don’t jibe with mainstream Democratic policies? Is there room for someone like me to make an impact in small “d” democracy in America or should I just resign myself to being in the fringes, marginal and irrelevant?

After all, being a Progressive within the Democratic Party seems to be no great shakes either. We’ve all seen how politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Progressive perspectives on foreign policy, trade, domestic policy, healthcare, etc. pretty much are marginalized in the Democratic Party. Even in newly-elected President’s Barack Obama’s administration, Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in his cabinet appointments which are populated primarily by the DLC, corporate-friendly Democrats.

Conclusion

From the perspective of this Progressive Independent, there is a lot of positive to say about this Progressive insurgency. Not only do they represent a revitalized Progressive movement, they also represent the first, wide-ranging organizing effort among Progressives to actually organize ordinary folks into becoming effective activists and participants in small “d” democracy. I’m a believer in grassroots, populist, power to the people, up from the bottom philosophies. The Progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party is an example of such a movement. Hence, these grassroots activists deserve kudos and respect in my book.

If there are critical things to say in my perspective, it would have to be the movement’s narrow focus on the Democratic Party and electoral politics as the primary strategy to realize Progressive goals. I am a believer of what political scientist Adolph Reed has to say regarding Progressives hitching their hopes solely on the Democratic Party. I also believe that a Progressive political movement has to be larger than any political party and would have to be inclusive of people who are outside of the two major parties—independents, third and minor parties, the Left, etc.

But this Democratic Party insurgency is a great start and I can’t wait to see how American politics will be re-shaped in the future as a direct result of their efforts.

• Part I of the series

GM whacks 1,100 dealers

Hat tip: GreenLadyHere


These numbers will have ripple effects. This is what I mean by taking care of Main Street. The Auto Industry's ripples are far larger than people realize. The sheer number of jobs associated with the auto industry is why I didn't care about the money given to it, and I for damn sure didn't think it should be a loan. There's something so wrong about giving billions- GIVING billions -- to those liars and thieves on Wall Street, while making Main Street beg for crumbs. Where are the wholesale firings at the banks?

I simply do not believe that The President has anyone on this in Treasury that actually SEES this. Oh, I don't mean that they don't know it - in theory, but I'd bet money not a one of them mofos at Treasury is remotely related to anyone or grew up in a house with anyone who actually had to work a blue-collar job. That they knew anyone that didn't wear a suit to work.

From CNNMoney.com:

GM whacks 1,100 dealers
Automaker makes big cut as part of plan to drop 40% of dealer network. Many are expected to leave the business this year.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: May 15, 2009: 4:45 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors notified 1,100 of its 6,000 dealerships Friday that it is terminating their contracts with the struggling automaker, the first step in cutting up to 40% of its retail network.

GM spokeswoman Susan Garontakos said that the dealers receiving notice Friday are being told that their contracts will not be renewed in October 2010. Many of them are expected to close shop this year.

The company is likely to cut another 900 and eventually get its network down to between 3,600 and 4,000 dealers by next year, GM vice president Mark LaNeve said.

Of the 900, about 500 will come from GM's plans to sell or close four brands - Saturn, Hummer, Saab and Pontiac. Another 400 dealers will be eliminated in a second cut as GM continues to restructure.

On top of the dealers GM is cutting, LaNeve said another 400 will be lost through attrition and consolidation. Some will decide to move away from selling GM brands and others will decline to meet the automakers' requirements for additional investment in their facilities.

The company's expectation is that the surviving dealerships will become larger and more profitable as a result of the thinning out, which in turn will allow them to spend more on advertising and facilities. But GM also acknowledges that its long-term decline in U.S. market share will continue as a result of the smaller network of dealers.

Rest of story at link above.

Post NBA Career Choice? Weed Dealer

From ESPN

Updated: May 13, 2009, 10:39 AM ET
Judge rejects Blount's claim
Associated Press

HAMILTON, Ohio -- Former NBA player and University of Cincinnati star Corie Blount was sentenced to one year in prison on Wednesday in a plea arrangement resulting from drug charges.
Blount, 40, had pleaded guilty in Butler County Common Pleas Court last month to two felony counts of marijuana possession after prosecutors dropped two trafficking charges.

Blount was arrested Dec. 4 after sheriff's deputies intercepted 11 pounds of marijuana sent to him at a relative's house. Investigators said they found another 18 pounds in a subsequent search of his home.

Although Judge Craig Hedric did not sentence Blount to the maximum 10 years in prison, he rejected Blount's claim that the marijuana was intended for personal use and to share with friends.

"Cheech and Chong would have had a hard time smoking that much," Hedric told Blount.

Hedric fined Blount $10,000 and ordered him to surrender two vehicles and $34,000 in cash seized in the bust.

Blount was a first-round draft pick by the Chicago Bulls in 1993. In an 11-year NBA career, he also played for the Los Angeles Lakers, Cleveland Cavaliers, Phoenix Suns, Philadelphia 76ers and Toronto Raptors.

He played 11 years in the NBA, and this is what he does? He couldn't find ANYTHING else to do ?

The Truth About Torture

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Flip-Flop on the Torture Photos

Mr. President, this is a wrong move.

This goes against transparency in government.

Folks need to SEE what has been done in the name of America.

President Obama on Sri Lanka and Detainee Photos from White House on Vimeo.

President Obama's Commencement Address at ASU

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This Just Broke My Heart

Javon R. Jackson, 23, was shot and killed,
less than a day after graduating from the University at Buffalo



I try and make sense of things. Some things, though, just make me so angry. I'm tired as hell of Black folks who are trying to make something positive happen in the world being snuffed out by the criminal element that would be better 6 feet under. The wrong folks are winding up at the cemetary. There's a Black talk show host that calls these folks 'Urban Terrorists'. I believe I see his point.

Hat tip: Bossip

From the NYDailyNews:

For Bronx mom of Buffalo graduate, son's death turns joy to horror
BY Stephanie Gaskell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Monday, May 11th 2009, 4:00 AM
A day after proudly watching her son graduate from the University of Buffalo, a Bronx mom is now making plans to bury the brainy future engineer.

Javon Jackson, 23, was shot and killed just after 3 a.m. Sunday outside a bar in Buffalo as he celebrated his graduation.

Cops believe the gunman and three other men walked up behind Jackson and fired at least twice at the newly minted grad.

"This was supposed to be my Mother's Day gift," grieving mom Theresa Williams, told reporters in Buffalo. "I was so proud of him."

Williams and Jackson's father, who flew in from Chicago, both attended their son's graduation and were still upstate when they learned of the terrible news.

Even hardboiled cops were jarred by the parents' tragedy.

"His father and mother were so proud to have their son graduate from college," Chief of Detectives Dennis Richards said. "Now, they are distraught beyond words."

Jackson grew up in the Pelham Parkway Houses and graduated from Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics. Friends flooded an online memorial site with stories about his quick wit and big smile.

Childhood friend Alexis Dorsett said Jackson was always more interested in his studies than fighting.

"He's a good kid. Humorous, focused on school," Dorsett said. "He's a great kid. It's hard."

Williams said she last saw her son alive when he went out to see some friends.

"I never thought it would be the last time," she said, fighting back tears.

Jackson was crossing Main St., a stretch of road lined with bars full of students celebrating graduation, when he was gunned down.

Police believe they may have caught the shooting on a surveillance camera.

The Subprime Crisis- How it hit the Black Community: An Update

From The Root.com:

More Proof Blacks Are Losing the Most Homes
By Kai Wright
Posted: May 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM

We’ve known the foreclosure crisis is hitting blacks and Latinos hardest for a while, but the Pew Hispanic Center further substantiates the point in a report released this week. The report summarizes a bunch of new housing data, but here’s the most important stat: Blacks lost more homes between 2004 and 2007 than any other racial group. According to a February Federal Reserve update, which Pew summarizes, black home ownership rates dropped by nearly three percentage points, to 47.5 percent.

This is an important stat for a bunch of reasons.

First, mortgage industry defenders have repeatedly asserted that the wave of subprime and other exotic loans that flowed over black neighborhoods did plenty of good, too. It drove up the black home ownership rate to an historic high of nearly 50 percent (alongside a rapid increase in home ownership across the racial spectrum). As we now see, however, that gain was illusory. It was based upon predatory, unsustainable loans. Worse, as I’ve reported, the massive strip mining of equity from longtime black homeowners means many, many families will come out of this much worse off than they started.

Second, home ownership is the most crucial element of middle-class wealth in America—and the black/white gap remains astounding. Overall, 69 percent of Americans were homeowners at the end of 2007, and 75 percent of white Americans. But fewer than half of blacks and just 53 percent of Latinos owned homes. Subprime brokers preyed upon this disparity—which was created through generations of publicly financed discrimination in the lending market—and gave everyone the impression that housing equality was on its way. Well, it wasn’t. Ultimately, the public sector will have to take meaningful action to erase the home ownership gap it helped create, or it won’t be long before another scam comes along to prey upon black and brown folks again.

I’ll dig into all of this in more depth in an upcoming essay in THE AMERICAN PROSPECT.

—KAI WRIGHT

The consquences to the Black Community are just beginning to be felt from this mortgage scam. Losing the homes is only step one. And the truth is, a good portion of those with subprime loans were qualified for regular loans, but couldn't get them. And, folks wonder why people like me get mad as hell when I look at these mofos in the banks, and their flunkies in the Senate and THE WHITE HOUSE, when they put up a middle finger to Main Street asking for some assistance?

Senate Rejects Limit on Credit-Card Interest Rates

Thanks for spirit and whiterosebuddy for the hat tips.

Senator Dick Durbin told us:

The Banks Own The Senate.

From The New York Times

May 13, 2009, 5:49 pm
Senate Rejects Limit on Credit-Card Interest Rates
By Carl Hulse

Despite complaints that banks and credit card companies are gouging customers by charging outrageous interest rates, the Senate on Wednesday easily turned back an effort to cap interest rates at 15 percent.

The effort by Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, drew only 33 votes and needed 60, with a bipartisan group of 60 senators opposing it as the Senate pushed its credit card overhaul toward the finish line. Some Democrats and consumer groups have said that an interest cap is needed to put real teeth into an otherwise solid bill.

Other backers of the measure calculated that an interest rate ceiling would doom the popular legislation. The banking industry, which had some heavy-weight representatives monitoring the vote off of the Senate floor, warned that an interest rate limit could cause a sour reaction in the financial markets.

But Mr. Sanders said the card companies and banks were engaged in conduct that could get others hauled into court. He said one-third of all credit card holders are paying interest above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent.

“When banks are charging 30 percent interest rates, they are not making credit available,” said Mr. Sanders, who noted credit unions are limited to 15 percent. “They are engaged in loan-sharking.”

After the effort failed, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the Democratic chairman of the banking committee, proposed that the Federal Reserve be asked to provide an analysis of how Congress could rein in interest rates.

Senators said they hoped to finish up the credit card bill as early as Thursday, coinciding with a town hall meeting by President Obama on credit card issues in New Mexico.

---------------------------------------

From Senate.gov

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Sanders Amdt. No. 1062 )
Vote Number: 191 Vote Date: May 13, 2009, 04:24 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1062 to S.Amdt. 1058 to H.R. 627 (Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To establish a national consumer credit usury rate.
Vote Counts: YEAs 33
NAYs 60
Not Voting 6
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Not Voting
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Not Voting
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (D-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Not Voting
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Not Voting
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Lost Potential

Over at The Loop, I've got a column up on the lost potential of so many young black males in prison. Check it out.

Add Our Widget

Add the widget to your blogs.

The link will also be in the sidebar.

Cristo Redentor

The great Donald Byrd doing Cristo Redentor. (I'm not overly Religious... I just like what he did with the song).

One of my favorite Trumpet players...along with Miles Davis of course (St. Louis' own) and Chuck Mangione. You could probably throw Wallace Roney and Freddie Hubbard in there too.

Defending Michelle Obama's Choice To Be Mom-In-Chief: A Black Libertarian Feminist Perspective

This is from Shay, the owner/operator of Booker Rising

Defending Michelle Obama's Choice To Be Mom-In-Chief: A Black Libertarian Feminist Perspective

No woman should be authorised to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. — Simone de Beauvoir, French feminist in response to American feminist Betty Friedan's proposal for wages for housework.

Many feminists have long been upset with U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama’s self-described “Mom-In-Chief” moniker and her assertion that motherhood is her primary role. A recent debate that began on Sunday between black leftist feminist professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell and white liberal feminist journalist Bonnie Erbe illustrates this debate. Professor Harris-Lacewell argues that Mrs. Obama is changing racial images of what it means to be a mother (even though she has some concerns about Mrs. Obama's choices and argues that her First Lady agenda is not "progressive" enough). Ms. Erbe accuses the First Lady of "caving in" to politics and stereotypes when she should be out there with an independent career while in the White House.

Let me add my black libertarian feminist perspective here, especially since I have interacted with two of the three ladies that figure into this debate. As Booker Rising readers know, Mrs. Obama is the former boss of a couple of college friends of mine so I met her a long time ago. I've seen her in a work setting, I've seen her in a relaxed setting (i.e., a get-together at one of my friends' homes). I disagree with most of Mrs. Obama's politics, but I like her as a person. I have collaborated with Ms. Erbe on work & family issues, in my past capacity as a communications director for a national non-profit. I also like Ms. Erbe as a person, even though we disagree on most policy positions. However, she is dead wrong on this issue. Ms. Erbe is not racist, but my first thought reading her piece was: “We are in the 21st century, right? Michelle Obama ain’t on Johnson Plantation required to go to the cotton fields, right? She does own herself, right?”





As Professor Harris-Bracewell points out in her piece, Mrs. Obama is hardly caving in to stereotypes: "African American women were full participants in agricultural labor during slavery, the backbreaking work of sharecropping and the domestic services of Jim Crow. Even middle class and elite African American women have typically worked as teachers, journalists, entrepreneurs and professionals. At every level of household income and at every point in American history, these women have been much more likely to engage in paid labor than their white counterparts. Even Claire Huxtable worked full time. So when first lady Obama makes a choice to focus on supporting her daughters through their school transition and providing companionship to her husband as he governs, she is not really conforming to norms. She is surprisingly thwarting expectations of African American women's role in the family and representing a different image than we are used to encountering in this country."

Ms. Erbe will have none of this racial-difference-towards-women-and-work talk. Pointing out that her white female ancestors worked as well, she writes: "I believe Mrs. Obama's 'Mom-in-Chief' image was created more by Obama image-makers David Axelrod et. al. to soften her into a first lady Americans could love. I think it is a sad state of affairs that Americans are more comfortable with a non-threatening first lady than with a career woman, but it is also a stereotype that screams to be abolished. Michelle Obama is just the person who could have done it, but she decided against it. Instead, she caved into advisors' demands. The truth is, until that stereotype becomes history, all women will suffer less power and clout in the workplace."

Slow down, Ms. Erbe. While your white ancestors worked, that was not the norm among white women in the United States until relatively recently. However, the same can't be said for black women. Michelle Obama's choices is only caving in to stereotypes about motherhood…if you look at this issue from a white perspective. This black libertarian feminist sees a family-loving and married black woman who is breaking down stereotypes of the "reckless" black single mom. Given that 68% of black women are not married, Mrs. Obama is hardly the norm in Black America. Besides, it’s not like Mrs. Obama hasn’t been out there promoting her issues. She’s just not all Hillary Clinton aggro about it, and that's fine.

While I've only met her a few times, Mrs. Obama as maternal caretaker is the real Mrs. Obama. A key element of libertarian feminism is non-coercion and individual autonomy. Mrs. Obama has made her own choices, sans coercion. It was difficult for Mrs. Obama to even have children, so she is probably particularly sensitive about spending time with them. Let us not forget that Mrs. Obama's mother was a stay-at-home mother.

Ms. Erbe's sentiments about Mrs. Obama reveals a certain strain in liberal feminism, especially white liberal feminism: that women should aspire to be like men. Another strain is that a woman's body and labor should (de jure or de facto) belong to the state or to what liberals deem proper. As the person who possesses her body and her labor, Mrs. Obama can and should be able to contract it out as she pleases. If she wants much of her labor to go toward her daughters, that is her choice (by the way, I do believe that Mrs. Obama should get a salary for her First Lady duties, but that’s another post). If we feminists are going to claim that choice is key in women’s lives, that includes the right of Mrs. Obama to her choices. I find it ironic that Ms. Erbe castigates Mrs. Obama's choices for not being more like…well, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

In discussing Mrs. Obama's family life choices, both Professor Harris-Lacewell and Ms. Erbe overlook two key entities: Malia Obama and Sasha Obama. Do the Obama girls’ needs enter the picture at all to them, while they promote a desire for Mrs. Obama to save the world? Why should Mrs. Obama's body and time be spent more toward their idea of creating new norms and smashing stereotypes, with nary a mention about the girls' relationship with Mama?

Ms. Erbe's sentiments in particular remind me of Ms. de Beauvoir, whose Marxist feminist writings I didn't care for even when I was a socialist feminist. Ms. de Beauvoir always seemed to want to force women to go her way, when feminism is about freedom of choice and women creating our own choices. Individual liberty includes liberty in one’s life, and not having to deal with monopolistic thinking of how one should craft one's life.

Perhaps Michelle made her choice because she is more comfortable with putting her children first, particularly in this transitional period in their lives. Malia and Sasha have moved to a new city, they've had to make new friends, they’re thrust even more into the spotlight, and their parents are world famous. That’s a lot for 10 year old and 7 year old girls to digest in just a short amount of time. Dang, the Obamas ain’t even been in the White House four months and folks are castigating Mrs. Obama for her choice to consider her daughters' needs. Never mind that Mrs. Obama is taking personal responsibility for her life and her daughters' lives.

Even though she is First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Obama's family life does not belong to Simone de Beauvoir's Marxist notion "community of women", where childrearing is community property and motherhood is not private property, and where women are denied choice. Mrs. Obama's family life does not belong to the state. Nor does Mrs. Obama's life belong to feminists like Ms. Erbe who want her to do whatever they want her to do. Mrs. Obama's family life belongs to Mrs. Obama. Do you, Mrs. Obama.

Media Alert

Hat tip:claudia_m


Tonight Michelle Obama will be hosting “an evening celebrating poetry, music and the spoken word in the East Room of the White House.”

This first-of-its-kind "poetry jam" will be live-streamed at 7:45 PM ET at whitehouse.gov - how wonderful! Saul Williams is supposed to be there, along with James Earl Jones. You can find a few more details here.

Rachel Maddow On Rick Scott and the Republican Strategy to Fight Healthcare Reform

Click to Enlarge
Maddow reveals Rick Scott and discusses the return of the Swiftboaters...

It looks like the corporate strategy is to kill Obama's plans from the inside, while their Republican allies try to defeat it from the outside.

And notice how single-payer supporters don't even get a seat at the table. Obama once again alienates Progressives. I actually believe that Obama's plan of allowing Americans to choose what healthcare coverage they want is actually a good idea... I am feeling better about this now than I did a year ago (now that I know more about the general plan)....and that's if it doesn't change completely between now and the point where there is a final Bill in Congress. Allowing choice blunts the argument by the Right wing noise machine that Obama's new evil socialist system will deprive the well-to-do of choice and will destroy the Health system.

No matter what plan finally materializes...Republicans will obstruct it all the way.
And I still believe that Obama is choosing this fight a little too soon.

The Republican Party's Makeover Is Going Well

It's going well if the goal is irrelevance.

Over the past week, Republicans have been busy self destructing and attacking one another. And I have to admit, it has been a joy to watch. The Republican base (the racists, the bigots, Southern White xenophobes, hate mongers, religious radicals, fiscal incompetents and the like) have been chastising a phony group of moderates who are at least attempting to appear reasonable and want to show that they are pulling the Party back to some sort of common sense position. The so-called Moderates, led by Congressman Eric Cantor, Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney are calling themselves the National Council for a New America. The group wants to travel the Country (outside of the South) to get a sense of what Americans are feeling and thinking and to get ideas on what direction they should take the Party. It's all part of efforts by Republicans to re-brand. But Rush Limbaugh (the Republican Party leader) is having none of it. Limbaugh & Co. believe that racism, greed, Laissez-faire government, free markets, torture, war, Wall Street, corporate incompetence, John Wayne Foreign Policy, Confederate Southern ideology, the Party of the White- Rich- and elderly, and the Party of "no" is the way of the future for the Republicans.

Tricky Dick II reaffirmed Limbaugh's position as the Republican leader and his out of touch ideology over the weekend by saying that he would support Boss Limbaugh's Republican Brand over that of Colin Powell (a man who actually served in war and has a very distinguished career). Because Powell endorsed Barack Obama during the 2008 General Election Campaign, Cheney stated that he "didn't know Powell was still a Republican".

The Republican Party is now being consumed by the very monster that it created some 20+ years ago - the powerful Right Wing Media.... which believes in the Party's more hardline, radical ideology regarding governance and religion. Don't doubt the strength they hold. They were able to sell the Country a phony war and were able to get a buffoon elected not once, but twice. Now the powerful Republican/Right Wing media is targeting its own. The resulting battle is going to be ugly.... but quite entertaining if you are a Progressive or Democrat.

This is why I have suggested that this is the time to force Republicans to make a choice. Force Republicans (those who will even admit to being Republican at this point) to either support the ridiculous comments and beliefs of their leaders in the Right wing media, or reject & denounce them. But this is a big dilemma for Republicans (and this is where Progressives trap them in a corner) because they can't afford to accept either choice. The Republican Party dies if the ideology of Limbaugh & Co. (the vast radical Republican media apparatus) is accepted by the Party's rank and file members. Because the rest of America (Democrats, Progressives, Independents, etc) isn't interested in buying the racism, religious radicalism, backwards thinking, out of touch beliefs, failed policies, and Laissez-faire attitude that the Republicans are selling. On the other hand, Republicans can't afford to reject the Right wing media either.... because the GOP has always relied on its propaganda wing to sustain the Party. It has never been sustained by its ideas (not in modern times at least) it has always been the Party's ability to control the narrative, control information and distort its opponents that has sustained the Party. The Republican Party is just a shell without its media platform. Right wing media is essential for the Party to gets its message out, to raise cash, to mobilize voters, to agitate and anger its base with wedge issues, to run its propaganda.... to do everything. Right wing media is a well orchestrated machine.

The problem is... that the machine has gotten so big.... that it's now a monster that has taken on a life of its own. It is no longer an apparatus that the old traditional Republican political leaders in Washington D.C. can control. Thus, they lost the real leadership of the Party a long time ago. The huge network of Limbaugh and Co. represent the true leadership of the Party....regardless of how backwards that leadership is.

The Political Outsiders: A Series on the Possible Future of American Politics

I have always been fascinated by the question of how political outsiders—those who are not the elite or influential members of the major political parties—can become influential and affect the political process. I operate from the assumption that America is a democratic system and all citizens and residents should have a voice. The system, if it is working, therefore, should accommodate political outsiders. When ordinary people feel they do not have a voice or a stake in the system, then the system of American democracy has failed.

I am going to attempt a rather ambitious series of blog posts which will present and analyze various ongoing efforts to enact political reform and wider participation in the American political system.

• The Fusion Strategy as touted by the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP)
• A takeover of the Democratic Party by Progressive, grassroots activists as described and exemplified by the books Crashing the Gate and Taking on the System
• Structural political reforms championed by the organization FairVote such as Instant Runoff Voting and the National Popular Vote

I chose to focus on these three because I have been observing these efforts for a long time—for a number of years. I have been observing the efforts by the CUIP to organize political independents since I first heard about them in the early 2000s. I have been consistently amazed observing FairVote’s incremental success in enacting IRV and NPV city by city and state by state year after year seemingly under the radar of mainstream political media coverage and public consciousness.

Being a political junkie I am a voracious reader of political books. Two books in particular—Crashing the Gate and Taking on the System—made a deep impression on me. These books led me to start researching and observing the efforts of Progressive, grassroots activists who have used the power of Internet technology and social media to challenge entrenched powers in the Democratic Party to create a powerful and influential niche for themselves in recent years.

Part I: Independents and Fusion

In a recent article at my other blog, An Ordinary Person, I examined a political strategy that is being touted by Independent activists for people who do not belong to or believe in the traditional political parties. This strategy is called Fusion. I contrasted the Fusion approach with the approach of third and minor parties of running candidates in electoral politics:

The third party strategy has failed to bring power back to the people in the American political system. Third party candidates who run in local and national elections, except for some anomalies, routinely post miniscule results. This is primarily the result of structural factors and the lopsided rules by which electoral politics in the US is conducted.

The CUIP asserts that there is absolutely no need to wait for these crucial reforms to happen before independents can start participating as players in American politics. Independents have to find ways to participate in politics and affect the political process now. Independents have to be willing to join in the fray of mainstream politics and be ready to throw its support behind any candidate from any party, major or minor, which represents and speaks out for independents. Salit calls this the fusion strategy.

For political outsiders who view issues and politics outside of the prism of Republican or Democratic perspectives, the CUIP’s fusion strategy presents an intriguing possibility for political outsiders to affect the political process as players instead of marginal participants. Indeed, if Independents act as a unified bloc or an organized group of political actors, whatever agenda they represent can be attractive enough for mainstream political candidates who seek their support to adopt.

This crux of the Fusion approach (and its main weakness) is that political independents can and should act as an organized bloc of voters who will throw their support behind any political candidate or movement which represents their interests. If independents are united and mainstream politicians see the benefit of getting their support, independents can potentially alter power dynamics which have traditionally favored the entrenched two major parties. With more than a third of the American electorate now self-designating as independent, the Fusion approach has real potential to have a major impact.

I say weakness, however, because the job of organizing independents and enacting an agenda that this third of the electorate can rally behind is easier said than done. Absent such a consensus, this approach is still heavily dependent on the major parties to set the agenda of political choices. In addition, independents span the political spectrum left to right and there is not a consensus even within independents what types of reforms, if any, the majority of them favor.

What pretty much unifies independents is their distrust of the traditional major parties and their skepticism of both Democrats and Republicans in addressing and actually solving problems. But is that enough to rally them into an actual, bona-fide movement for political reform?

The ongoing efforts by the CUIP is the only existing effort I know that is attempting to do this. I am not aware of any official outreach within the Democratic or Republican parties to appeal to independents in-between election years.

Recommended reading:

• We the Purple by Marcia Ford
• Committee for a Unified Independent Party
• Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America by Micah Sifry
• Electoral Fusion (from Wikipedia)

King Abdullah of Jordan's ultimatum: peace now or it’s war next year

From The London Times:

King Abdullah of Jordan's ultimatum: peace now or it’s war next year
From The Times
May 11, 2009
by Richard Beeston and Michael Binyon in Amman

America is putting the final touches to a hugely ambitious peace plan for the Middle East, aimed at ending more than 60 years of conflict between Israel and the Arabs, according to Jordan’s King Abdullah, who is helping to bring the parties together.

The Obama Administration is pushing for a comprehensive peace agreement that would include settling Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.

Details of the plan are likely to be thrashed out in a series of diplomatic moves this month. Chief among them is President Obama’s meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu, the right-wing Israeli Prime Minister, in Washington a week today. The initiative could form the centrepiece for Mr Obama’s much-anticipated address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4. A peace conference could then take place involving all the parties as early as July or August. Such an ambitious project has not been attempted since 1991, when George Bush senior’s Administration assembled all the parties for a peace conference in Madrid.

“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the King, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that, if Mr Obama did not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would evaporate overnight.

Rest of article at link above.

With Netenyahu being elected in Israel, and America's unquestioned devotion to the 51st State, color me skeptical.

Not everybody gets to go to Columbia and Harvard, Mr. President

Hat tip: ruthdfw

From BlackInformant

Black colleges will fight cut to federal program
By JUSTIN POPE – 6 hours ago

Leaders of historically black colleges say they'll fight a reduction in a federal program they call a financial lifeline at a time of economic distress for the schools and their students.

President Barack Obama's education budget, unveiled Thursday, included major spending increases in many areas — but didn't include an extra $85 million that black institutions have received annually for the past two years thanks to a 2007 change to the student loan laws.

That two-year-old program provided direct funds to federally recognized HBCUs — historically black colleges and universities.

Other direct federal support to the schools would increase from $238 million to $250 million, but with the expiration of the HBCU fund the schools effectively would see a $73 million cut.

A program supporting Native American tribal colleges would also see decreased funding, while one for institutions serving large numbers of Hispanic students would see an increase from $93 million to $98 million.



Education Department officials emphasized that all such institutions stand to gain from other parts of the budget, notably the proposed increase in the maximum Pell Grant for low-income students by $200 — to $5,550.

Still, the move could suggest that even as the administration pushes big education spending increases focused on low-income and minority students, direct support for institutions isn't the most favored method. The HBCU program is unusual; most federal help for higher education goes to students, and thus only indirectly to schools.

"The administration is definitely committed to strengthening HBCUs and other colleges and universities that serve minority populations," said Carmel Martin, assistant secretary of education, on a press conference call Thursday. "And one of the best ways we can do that is by supporting our students."

The historically black colleges and universities have been hit particularly hard by the recession, and HBCU leaders said this is no time to cut back on programs offering direct support to institutions that play an outsized role educating the neediest students.

The 105 federally recognized HBCUs make up just 3 percent of U.S. colleges but account for nearly 20 percent of undergraduate degrees awarded to blacks, according to UNCF, the United Negro College Fund. However, some have struggled with low graduation rates. An AP analysis earlier this year found that, overall, black students at four-year HBCUs have lower graduation rates than black students at other schools.

HBCUs have about 132,000 students receiving Pell grants, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal figures collected by the nonprofit group The Education Trust. Even if all got the maximum $200 Pell Grant increase, that would provide HBCUs new revenue totaling only about one-third of the funding cut outlined in the budget.

Cutting funding to HBCU's, but INCREASING funding for Hispanics?

Uh huh.

************************************

Another article on this - hat tip Black Woman Rising

FromDiverse Issues in Higher Education

***********************************

I happen to concur with George Curry:

A Stimulus Plan for Black Colleges
By George E. Curry
NNPA Columnist
May 4, 2009

We need a stimulus plan to preserve and expand historically Black colleges. If the federal government can come up with rationalizations for bailing out Wall Street, making sure there is No Bank Left Behind and pumping millions into what comedian Bill Maher calls Notorious A.I.G., it can produce a stimulus plan for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Established in the post-Civil War era known as Reconstruction, HBCUs have made phenomenal contributions to the nation, producing such alumni as W.E. B. DuBois, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary McMcLeod Bethune, Thurgood Marshall, Bishop T.D. Jakes, Oprah Winfrey, Doug Wilder, Former Surgeon General David Satcher, Sean “P.Diddy” Combs, Astronaut Ronald E. McNair, Attorney Willie Gary, legendary football coaches Jake Gaither and Eddie Robinson and pro athletes such as Althea Gibson, Jerry Rice, John Stallworth, Doug Williams and Walter Payton.

Although there are a significant number of 2- and 4-year colleges with predominantly Black enrollments, only 105 qualify as HBCUs. The Higher Education Act of 1965 defines an HBCU as “Any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans…”

Black colleges represent only 3 percent of the nation’s universities, but they produce 23.6 percent of all bachelor’s degrees earned by Blacks. In the math and sciences, that figure is more than 40 percent. The United Negro College Fund reports that Black colleges have produced 70 percent of all Black doctors and dentists and half of all African-American engineers.

........................................................

There are thousands of similar HBCU success stories.

But in recent years, many HBCUs have been struggling because of a combination of factors, including underfunding. That’s why I am proposing that Congress and the Obama administration pass a 5-year, $5 billion stimulus plan for Black colleges. According to the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges, there are 105 HBCUs. So an expenditure of $1 billion per year for five years would mean that each college could average nearly $1 million per year for the next five years. If we can bail out Notorious A.I.G., we can and should help save our HBCUs. In fact, saving them is in the national interest.

My grandmother was able to make her way and not be cleaning up after White people because her parents scraped to send her to Natchez College. She made sure that all her daughters would never wind up cleaning or washing for White folks in the Jim Crow South because of Fisk, Tuskegee, Jackson State, and Atlanta University. Daddy made it out of the Jim Crow South through the G.I. Bill and Lane College. My own niece, who didn't get her bearings in high school, found her way at Tuskegee. I have a cousin that I worried about the social part of college, who just completed his successful freshmen year at FAMU.

Mine is just one family. HBCU's have been serving THIS COUNTRY for generations.

More Obstructionists On Healthcare Reform

Hat tip: Prometheus 6 and JJP poster RobM

From The Washington Post:

Ex-Hospital CEO Battles Reform Effort
Ads Cite Long Waits In Canada and Britain
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 11, 2009

The television ads that began airing last week feature horror stories from Canada and the United Kingdom: Patients who allegedly suffered long waits for surgeries, couldn't get the drugs they needed, or had to come to the United States for treatment.

"Before government rushes to overhaul health care, listen to those who already have government-run health care," intones Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. "Tell Congress to listen, too."

Scott, a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.

The campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift boat" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, and is inspired by the "Harry and Louise" ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration.

Rest of article at link above.

I thought Rob M's comment is on point:
This guy wants the market to determine healthcare because it will be rationed. it is rationed now because the insurance company determines what gets done. It is rationed becausee insurance works by having the healthiest into the system first so the premiums they pay can pay for older clients. Well that assumes you never change your insurer because if you do you may run into existing conditions exclusions. In an economy like ours where employment mobility is responsbile for productivity this happens all the time.
The absolute fear mongering to divide people into haves and have nots is ridiculous.


They are who we thought they were.

Roxana Saberi Freed From Iranian Prison

From HuffingtonPost.com:

TEHRAN, Iran — An American journalist jailed for four months in Iran was freed Monday and reunited with her parents after an appeals court suspended her eight-year prison sentence on charges of spying for the U.S. Her parents said they would bring her home to the U.S. within days.

The release of Roxana Saberi, a 32-year-old dual Iranian-American citizen, clears a major snag in President Barack Obama's efforts to engage Iran in a dialogue after decades of shunning the country. Washington had called the charges against Saberi baseless and repeatedly demanded her release.

Saberi's arrest in late January, followed by a secretive, one-day trial and a heavy prison sentence, prompted sharp U.S. criticism. Soon after, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other officials appeared to back off, suggesting the sentence could be reversed.

On Monday, an appeals court reduced her jail term to a two-year suspended sentence, Iran's judiciary spokesman, Ali Reza Jamshidi, told reporters. Jamshidi said she was free to leave Iran.

"I'm very happy that she is free. Roxana is in good condition," Saberi's Iranian-born father Reza Saberi said after her release.

Rest of article at link above.

Don't say that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't know how to play ball. First, the public assertion that a two-state solution is acceptable. Now this. International Poker has just gotten more interesting.

For Me, at the Correspondents Dinner, the Gold Standard is still Colbert in 2006

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3

President Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner

Part 1



Part 2

Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents Dinner

Part 1



Part 2

President Obama's Weekly Youtube Address

Smalltown Texas Cops ROB Black Drivers to the tune of $3 million

Hat tip: JJP

Single Payer - On or Off the Table, Mr. President?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

How the Republicans are going to attempt to stop HEALTHCARE REFORM

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

From Time Magazine:

How Republicans Should Talk About Health Care
By Randy James Thursday, May. 07, 2009

The Gist:

Politicians in Washington often speak with their own vocabulary. If they're Republicans, Frank Luntz helped write their dictionary. The influential GOP pollster and language guru has had a hand in framing the party's message since 1994's Contract with America, persuading Republicans to drop terms like "estate tax" and "oil drilling" in favor of the far more message-friendly "death tax" and "energy exploration" among other rebrandings. His latest project: the health-care debate. Relying on polling and "instant response dial sessions," Luntz penned a 28-page memo, leaked to Politico, giving Republicans the soundbites designed to spin them to victory. (See five truths about health care in America.)

Highlight Reel:

Luntz Tip No. 1: Scare people. Especially about their children.

Luntz's memo includes a road map to how to most effectively scare the bejeezus out of the American public when it comes to health care. Results show the phrase health care rationing frightened the most people, so Republicans are urged to sprinkle it around describing Democratic reform plans. It's also better to warn that Democrats want to put politicians in charge of health care, rather than bureaucrats: "Bureaucrats are scary — but at least they are professionals."

Finally, extra points for bringing voters' children into the conversation. "For the parents we talked to, the idea of waiting in line for the treatment they need — or being flat-out denied that treatment — was deeply worrying. But the idea that their children might not get life saving treatment in time? Unacceptable."

2. You, too, can be anti-corporate populists.

Americans don't like the insurance industry, Luntz writes to Republicans, and neither should they: "We suggest ratcheting up the rhetoric against insurance companies to almost the same degree as you do against Washington bureaucracy." In fact, the whole discussion of health care as an economic issue should be scuttled — it should be framed as a personal, human issue at every opportunity. So less talk of consumers and free markets, more talk of patients and wellness. Besides, he points out, "in case you missed it, capitalism isn't exactly in vogue these days."

3. Choose the right words, and keep using them.

As the Focus Group Shakespeare, Luntz's memo is packed with poll-driven, soundbite-friendly phrases to choose from. Expect to hear Republicans soon speaking earnestly of preserving "the sacred doctor-patient relationship" by never "putting politicians in charge of your health care." And not just any old politicians, but "federal bureaucrats, Washington lobbyists and out-of-touch politicians." Luntz even strings his creations together into mini-speeches on the topic, including phrases such as this soon-to-be C-SPAN classic: "We need targeted reform with measurable results that improves patient care — not a politicized, special interest-driven radical restructuring."

4. Leave Obama out of it.

Though he doesn't say so directly, Luntz makes clear that the President's popularity is too much for the GOP to counter right now. So better to frame the health care fight as a battle between Republicans and Democrats, or, better still, Americans and politicians. "If you make this debate about Republicans vs. Obama, you lose."

Rest of article at link above.

HERE IS LUNTZ'S MEMO IN FULL.

Read it for yourself, and don't let the GOPers slide by. Nail them to the wall.

NY Federal Reserve Chairman Resigns Suddenly

From The Big Picture

Wow, that has to be a record for shortest tenure ever at the NY Fed.

His resignation letter (below), is as Dealbook notes, rather disingenuous:

Mr. Friedman was chairman of the New York Fed at the same time he was a member of Goldman’s board. He also had a substantial stake in the firm as the Fed was crafting a solution to keep Wall Street banks afloat. Denis M. Hughes, deputy chair of the board, will take over as the interim chairman, the New York Fed said in a statement. (Read Mr. Friedman’s letter after the jump.)

Because the New York Fed approved a request by Goldman to become a bank holding company, the chairman’s involvement in Goldman was a violation of Fed policy, The Wall Street Journal said in an article earlier this week.

The New York Fed asked for a waiver, which, after about two and a half months, the Fed granted, the newspaper said. During that time, Mr. Friedman bought 37,300 more Goldman shares in December, which have since risen $1.7 million in value.

CROOK.

A mofo'ing CROOK.

Eleanor Rigby

Joe Sample/Crusaders 1968 (Live)

Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

From HuffingtonPost.com:

Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist
Aaron Belkin
Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm Center at UCSB
Posted May 7, 2009 | 04:52 PM (EST)


Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.

Or is it?

Don't ask, Don't tell is bad policy, Mr. President.

We have an Armed Services that now accepts:
1. Rural Terrorists - better known as White Supremacists
2. Urban Terrorists - better known as Gang Members
3. Actual CRIMINALS

But, a West Point Grad who speaks Arabic can be thrown out, during a time of WAR, because he's a homosexual.

Uh huh.

Michelle Obama, Mom-In-Chief

Food for thought of the role of our First Lady.

From The Nation:

Michelle Obama, Mom-in-Chief
posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell
05/05/2009 @ 1:46pm

With Mother's Day approaching I want to think about Michelle Obama's assertion that her primary role as First Lady is "Mom-in-Chief."

Many progressive feminists were distressed with Michelle's assertion of motherhood as her primary role. They hoped she would seek a more aggressive policy agenda. After all Michelle Obama is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. She spent her career as an effective advocate for urban communities in their fraught relationship with powerful institutions. She is smart, capable, and independent. She maintained her own career and ambitions throughout Barack's early political career and even during his election to the U.S. Senate.

...........................................................................................

Over the past several months I have received many press inquiries from reporters and scholars who are anxious about the ascendance of this kinder, gentler Michelle Obama. They worry that Michelle is being manufactured and handled in a way that thwarts her authenticity and undermines the efforts of feminist movements committed to the notion that women can and should have both family and career.

This is a potentially fair criticism, but I want to complicate this easy narrative a bit by encouraging us to remember that as an African American woman the stereotypes against which Michelle is struggling are distinct from those that seek to limit and inhibit white women.



White, middle-class, gender norms in the United States have generally asserted that women belong in the domestic sphere. These norms have limited white women's opportunities for education and employment. But the story has been different for women of color and women from poor and working class origins. These women have faced the requirement of employment and the shouldered the extreme burden of attempting to effectively parent while providing financially for their families. Black women were full participants in agricultural labor during slavery, the backbreaking work of sharecropping, and the domestic services of Jim Crow. Even middle class and elite black women have typically worked as teachers, journalists, entrepreneurs, and professionals. At every level of household income and at every point in American history, black women have been much more likely to engage in paid labor than their white counterparts. Even Claire Huxtable worked full time!

So when Michelle Obama makes a choice to focus on supporting her daughters through their school transition and providing companionship to her husband as he governs she is not really conforming to norms. She is surprisingly thwarting expectations of black women's role in the family and representing a different image of black women than we are used to encountering in this country.

As mom-in-chief Michelle Obama also subverts a deep, powerful, and old public discourse on black women as bad mothers. Enslaved black women had no control over their own children. Their sons and daughters could be sold away from them without their consent, or brutally disciplined without their protection. So when a black woman claims public ownership of her children she helps rewrite that ugly history.

Rest of article at link above.

Republican Party Spokesman Banned From Britain for Fostering "Hate" & "Extremism"

Republican Party Spokesman Michael Savage (Michael Alan Weiner) has been put on notice by the British Government that he is not welcomed in the Country. Savage has been officially banned. He was included on a banned list for his constant hate speech. The banning is part of a program in Britain to stem the problem of Extremism.

This comes on the heels of a case from last week where another Republican spokesman, David Duke, was arrested in the Czech Republic for spreading hatred and fomenting extremism.

Kudos to Jacqui Smith and to the British government for recognizing this Cancer and not being afraid to put these folks on notice.

Additional Article from the Australian Press

The UN Issues Its Report on the War In Gaza

The UN investigation concluded that Israels conduct in the war was "Reckless".

Israel "purposely" bombed a school and other locations where civilians were known to be.

Why no war crimes investigation? Of course we know the U.S. would block it.

This is why I try to point out to the folks who are screaming about the U.S. losing the moral high ground regarding torture....that the U.S. lost its moral high ground a long time ago by engaging in unjust wars and blindly supporting Countries like Israel. The U.S. has lost much more of its moral authority with these types of strategic foreign policy choices.

Steele Yields Powers To Foes In RNC

From The Washington Times:

EXCLUSIVE: Steele yields powers to foes in RNC
Accepts limits on spending
By Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact) | Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Capitulating to critics on the Republican National Committee, embattled Republican Party Chairman Michael S. Steele has signed a secret pact agreeing to controls and restraints on how he spends hundreds of millions of dollars in party funds and contracts, The Washington Times has learned.

The "good governance" agreement revives checks and balances Mr. Steele resisted implementing for RNC contracts, fees for legal work and other expenditures that were not renewed after the 2008 presidential nominating contest.

The agreement, proposed by several current and former RNC officials, goes further, making 33-year RNC veteran Jay Banning, who was fired by Mr. Steele along with his deputy last month, an on-call adviser to the RNC treasurer. Mr. Banning was seen as a trusted liaison to RNC members critical of Mr. Steele's tenure and financial management.

"I regard them - the Steele administration - bound by it," former Republican National Committee General Counsel David Norcross told The Times on Tuesday.

Mr. Norcross, RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, and former party budget chiefs Ron Kaufman and Alec Poitevint had fought with Mr. Steele over having the 168-member committee vote on restoring the "good governance" guidelines created in 2004 at a special May 20 meeting.

Trevor Francis, the RNC's new communications director, would not comment on the agreement that several of the dissident members said was reached.

"Everything was already in place," Mr. Francis said.

Rest of article at link above.
---------------------------------------------

Now, I could comment here, but I'll let Shay, from Booker Rising, give the last comment:

I call it as I see it. Ol' boy is letting these dudes symbolically whip his back like a slave. As chairman, he has the power to hire and fire but yet he's required to re-hire someone whom he let go? Every other chairman has controlled the purse strings, but Steele cannot do so?

Steele is clearly politically weak, and not HNIC but in a Tobyesque situation.

For those that don't understand the Roots Reference:

U.S. Sens. Grassley, Hagan: Work to ensure black farmers receive funds for Pigford settlement claims

Hat tip:GreenLadyHere


Folks know that I've had some 'issues' with The President's decision last week to disrespect and dishonor the Black Farmers, by trying to go cheap on their settlement. What they were asking for, and were told ' it wasn't within the budget' is the equivalent of what we give the 51 State - EVERY DAMN YEAR WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS.

But, I digress.

From BlackPoliticsOnTheWeb.com:

U.S. Sens. Grassley, Hagan: Work to ensure black farmers receive funds for Pigford settlement claims
May 5, 2009

Senators Chuck Grassley and Kay Hagan today introduced legislation to ensure that African American farmers, who successfully filed claims as a result of the 2008 farm bill, will receive the money they are entitled to.

“The Department of Justice decided to cap the $100 million in the farm bill, so anybody who was successful in their petition after the money was gone was out of luck. It was clear from the start that $100 million wasn’t going to be enough money. So, we’re making reasonable fixes to ensure that those who have been successful in their cases are awarded what they rightly are entitled to,” Grassley said. “We’ve been working too hard on this for too many years to let bureaucratic procedure and mumbo-jumbo discriminate against African American farmers and ranchers again.”

“Years ago, thousands of African American farmers were found to have been unfairly discriminated against when applying for loans, credit, and other forms of financial help to ensure their farm’s success,” said Hagan. “The 2008 Farm Bill passed without adequately addressing the costs required to settle the claims in the Pigford case, and ultimately, help right the injustices these farmers faced so many years ago. This legislation seeks to correct that problem, and ensures the farmers who were discriminated against receive what is fairly due to them.”

The Department of Agriculture settled a landmark class action lawsuit with African American farmers in 1999. The Department and the county commissioners discriminated against African American farmers when they denied, delayed, or otherwise frustrated the applications of those farmers and those attempting to farm for farm loans and other credit and benefit programs. This settlement permitted over 22,000 black farmers to have their claims evaluated on the merits, and almost 15,000 had their claims vindicated.

For a variety of reasons, nearly 75,000 additional black farmers filed their claims of discrimination through the Pigford consent decree process past the deadline for their claims to be evaluated on the merits. As a result, thousands of victims of discrimination continue to be denied an opportunity even to have their claims heard.

The case of the Black Farmers is about JUSTICE. Plain and simple. The Department of Agriculture is notorious in its racist practices against Black Farmers, and it's time a wrong be righted. I would have hoped that The President, who exploited this issue during the campaign, would take the lead on it, but since he won't, I'm fine with anyone else who wants to step up to the plate and DO THE RIGHT THING.

Dear Latinos,

While I usually stay out of other groups' business, I have to say this:

You all better step up to the plate and start defending Sonia Sotomayor.

There have been attacks on Judge Sotomayor's ' qualifications' to be even considered for the Supreme Court seat opening up with the retirement of Justice Souter.

Now, people can call them 'criticisms', if they want, but I found it to be a pile of racist BS. I won't link to the original column in The New Republic, but I will point you towards three folks that countered it:

Ta-Nehisi Coates:
Judicial Malpractice,
Be Serious,
The Meme Builds
Glenn Greenwald, Jeffrey Rosen- TNR and the anonymous smears against Sonia Sotomayor
And, our own dnA, Adam Serwer, FRANK RICCI AND SONIA SOTOMAYOR.

Now, Sotomayor's not my dog in this hunt. I've made no bones about wanting a Black Woman for that spot, but you better believe that if any Sistas come out into the 'Universe of Possible Contenders', I, and others, won't let racist BS like that tripe at The New Republic go unchallenged. Be clear on this, the reason that Alberto Gonzales (no matter what you think of him), didn't make it to the Supreme Court, didn't have anything to do with Democrats. It was REPUBLICANS that torpedoed him. Alberto isn't fit to shine Sotomayor's shoes.

But, make no mistake on this:

IFFFFFFF they are successful at smearing Sotomayor, they'll try with the NEXT Latino that is thrown out there.

You better recognize and get out there slugging for this woman, who is more than qualified. Woman graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. They can go f-themselves about this ' unqualified minority' BS they're trying to spread.


UPDATE: I was alerted to this terrific piece: On the Brilliance of People like Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Barack Obama

Why Obama Won't Replace Souter With An African American

Over at The Loop I have a new column on why I believe Obama will not select an African American to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. Check it out.

Dave Bing Elected Detroit's Mayor

From HuffingtonPost.com:

Dave Bing, NBA Great, Elected Detroit's Mayor


DETROIT — Basketball legend Dave Bing was elected Tuesday as Detroit's mayor through the end of the year, sweeping the incumbent from office in the city with myriad problems.

"The real work starts now," Bing said to loud cheers during his victory speech.

"What we will bring ... is efficiency, transparency, honesty and integrity back to the mayor's office," he said.

With all but two of 629 precincts reporting, Bing had 52.3 percent of the vote, or 48,951 votes, to 47.7 percent, or 44,703 votes, for Ken Cockrel Jr. Both are Democrats.

Bing, 65, will be mayor through 2009, serving the balance of the term that belonged to Democrat Kwame Kilpatrick, who resigned in September and went to jail after admitting he lied during a civil trial to cover up an affair with his chief of staff.

Bing must run again in the regular Aug. 4 nonpartisan primary and win the Nov. 3 general election to hold the mayor's seat for a full four years.

The founder of steel manufacturer The Bing Group announced his run for mayor the day after Kilpatrick stepped down as part of pleas to two criminal cases.

Cockrel, 43, was City Council president before Kilpatrick's departure automatically promoted him to the mayor's office. He'll go back to that job now.

May the city heal from the exploits of the Trifling, Hip-Hop Mayor.

Congratulations, Mr. Bing.

First Lady Michelle Obama at the Time 100 Gala

REMARKS OF FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA AT
TIME 100 MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE AWARDS
New York, NY
May 5, 2009

"Thank you Rick for that kind introduction and thank you for including me in tonight's festivities.

"It is a pleasure to join you all.

"There are few times in history when the saying 'we are all in this together' would be more applicable than now.

"Events like this one show how truly connected our world is;

"how one person's invention can create an entirely new economy;

"how one person can change how we see the world.

"The ability of one person to influence the outcome of someone else's life inspires me.

"When I made the decision to leave my job to found Public Allies Chicago, an AmeriCorps program that prepares youth for public service, I realized right away that I had made the right decision.

"There are few things more rewarding than watching young people recognize that they have the power to enrich not only their lives, but the lives of others as well.

"But careers in public service are not always encouraged.

"We push our young people to strive for things, an advanced degree, a job title, a big salary.

"Rarely do we urge them to stop and think about what their passion is, what kind of life they want to live, what kind of neighbors and colleagues and parents they want to be.

"In doing so, we, as a society, often miss out on their creativity, their inventiveness, their resourcefulness- and some really good ideas!

"We also miss out on the opportunity to inspire a new generation of innovators and entrepreneurs who will direct their energy and talent toward solving their community's - and our nation's - most serious social problems.

"Careers focused on lifting up our communities - whether helping transform troubled schools or training workers for green jobs or helping low-income families access health care - are not always obvious.

"But, at a time when our nation is facing unprecedented challenges, encouraging careers in public service and social innovation is more important than ever.

"Already, we are seeing young people leading the way with their entrepreneurial spirit, energy and commitment to serving their communities.

"For example, Charles Best, a former Bronx public school teacher, started an online philanthropic marketplace called Donors Choose to help teachers who were spending up to $500 a year out of their own pockets for basic classroom materials.

"Through Donors Choose, ordinary citizens can directly fund projects initiated by enterprising public school teachers.

"Online donations have helped students in San Jose become avid readers through the Dr. Seuss series.

"An art class in the Bronx had no paint brushes. Now every student has a set.

"Rebecca Onie is a social entrepreneur who founded "Project Health" to help break the link between poverty and poor health.

"I remember meeting Rebecca when I was at the University of Chicago and I was very impressed with her.

"Rebecca organizes college students to staff Help Desks in urban medical centers, universities and community centers.

"Students then connect low-income families to other critical community and government resources - such as housing vouchers, supplemental nutrition assistance, and educational support.

"This year, 600 college volunteers will dedicate 100,000 hours to connect over 15,000 low-income children and adults to the resources they need to be healthy.

"And then there is John Alford who grew up in a housing project in Brooklyn, attended college in North Carolina and then Harvard Business School.

"John recently launched NOLA 180 a 'turn-around' organization for failing public schools in New Orleans.

"NOLA 180 transforms these public schools into high-functioning charter schools that prepare every student for college.

"Langston Hughes Academy is the first school to benefit.

"Students spend 50 percent more time in their classrooms.

"Parents are given teacher's cell phone numbers so they can call for help with homework.


"And, in honor of their namesake, Langston Hughes, students receive instruction in persuasive writing, public speaking, debate and poetry.

"In its first year, Langston Hughes students outperformed the city's public school average in reading, writing and math.

"Charles, Rebecca and John. I know they are here somewhere. Congratulations and thanks for all of your hard work.

"This is exactly the kind of social innovation and entrepreneurship we should be encouraging all across this country.

"And that is why tonight, I am pleased to announce that as part of the new Serve America Act, the Administration is creating a Social Innovation Fund to help innovative nonprofit groups and social entrepreneurs, like the ones I just mentioned, expand their successful approaches to tackling our most pressing national challenges.

"The idea is simple: find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country.

"By focusing on high-impact, results-oriented non-profits, we will ensure that government dollars are spent in a way that is effective, accountable and worthy of the public trust.

"In this room of Leaders and Revolutionaries, Builders and Titans, Artists and Entertainers, Scientists and Thinkers, Heroes and Pioneers, I think we can all agree, we did not get to where we are alone.

"Our success was made possible with the encouragement of a diligent parent or teacher, a grandparent who told us we had real talent, an older sibling who paved the way and set a good example, a scholarship or grant that created an unexpected opportunity, or a neighbor or community leader who told us to dream big.

"That's certainly been the case in my own life.

"I stand here today because of people who loved me, and pushed me and believed in me.

"I stand here today because of scholarships and grants and experiences that gave me opportunities I was afraid to dream of.

"I never imagined that, as a result of all that support, I would be in a position to be a role model for girls around the globe.

"Girls who look at me and see something more for themselves, more than society expects of them.

"Girls who now think anything is possible.

"As global leaders, let's not underestimate the power each of us has to change the world for someone - and let us not be afraid to try."

390 Years Minus 100 Days

TerranceDC, a blogger over at BoomanTribune, has done a series on President Obama's First 100 Days, where it concerns Black America.

Part 1:

390 Years Minus 100 Days, Pt. 1
by TerranceDC
Thu Apr 30th, 2009 at 03:34:56 PM EST

It's been pointed out by many — including the president himself — how absurd it is to Obama's success in cleaning up messes that were decades in the making, based on his first 100 days in office. It's equally absurd to expect that 100 days in the administration of our first African American president to even begin to address 390 years of racial history in this country. But it's at least an opportunity to assess where we really are, where we're headed, and how far we've yet to go.

Racism and the social construct of race itself are much older than the United States, with deep roots European colonialism. But its beginnings in this continent can be traced back to August of 1619, when the first Africans in America — 20 or so, stolen from a Spanish ship — were traded for food by a ship's captain, upon arrival at the Jamestown colony, in Virginia. Categorized as "indentured servants," but without vital dates indicating the end of their bondage, some were almost certainly slaves. By 1640, as least one African was listed as a slave, and slavery was underway.

The space between here and there is covered by enough history books to fill entire libraries. Suffice it to say that the election of a person such as Barack Obama reflects much that has changed for the better since then. The spectacle of our first African-American president, though not a descendant of slaves himself, being sworn in on the Lincoln bible — held by his wife, who is a descendant of slaves — was a "pinch me" moment for many of us. Reality, on that day, took on a dreamlike quality.

As I watched the inauguration from home, sitting on the carpet in our family room, with our two sons, I look up at my bookshelf. There, pictures of my father and grandfather seemed be to looking down at the scene. I sensed a division in time was born at that moment. On one side was the America they'd known all their lives. On the other, my family and I — along with the everyone else — were carried along by history into an America forever changed by what was unfolding before our eyes.

Rest of Article at link above.



Part 2:

390 Years Minus 100 Days, Pt. 2
by TerranceDC
Fri May 1st, 2009 at 01:06:47 PM EST

National Urban League head Mark Morial recently described the state of black America today as "the best of times and the worst of times." He's right. The inauguration of the first African-American president was a moment worth celebrating as an undeniable achievement of the progress we've made regarding race. Many African-Americans from communities across the county traveled to D.C. to witness the moment. Even more of us gathered around radios, television screens and computer monitors.

It was a brief respite, savored for as long as the day lasted, and then we all returned home, or turned off the television and returned to reality. For reality the day before and the day after was, and remains, an indicator of how far we are from "the Dream" so often referenced on that day. For just as much as "everything changed" for African Americans on that day, at the same time nothing changed, as one article noted days before Obama's inauguration.

Nothing will change for black Americans on Tuesday, when the first black president takes office. They will wake up in the same homes, go to work at the same jobs, face the same obstacles.

Just a month after Barack Obama's inauguration, the State of the Dream 2009 report revealed that Black Americans are, in this economy, experiencing a "Silent Depression," based on the following findings:

*Almost 12% of Blacks are unemployed; this is expected to increase to nearly 20% by 2010. Among young Black males aged 16-19, the unemployment rate is 32.8%, while their white counterparts are at 18.3%.
*Overall, 24% of Blacks and 21% of Latinos are in poverty, versus 8% of whites.
*The median household incomes of Blacks and Latinos are $38,269 and $40,000, respectively, while the median household income of whites is $61,280.
*Nearly 30% of Blacks have zero or negative worth, versus 15% of whites.
*On the median, for every dollar of white wealth, people of color have 15 cents. On average, people of color have 8 cents for every dollar of white wealth.

As the Obama administration neared its 100-day mark, the National Urban League published its State of Black America report, examining black progress in education, home ownership, entrepreneurship, health, other areas, and including a message to the president. The report features an Equality Index, a statistical measurement of the status of blacks compared with whites, and while the change in the index — from71.5% in 2008 to 71.1% in 2009 — reflects a continuation of the status quo, it is a status quo defined by disparity, as Morial mentioned in his remarks on the report.

Rest of article at link above.

Part 3:

390 Years Minus 100 Days ... And Counting
by TerranceDC
Mon May 4th, 2009 at 03:34:25 PM EST

In many ways, the discussion of race in America, particularly as it relates to today's issues (the economy, health care, education), brings to mind the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Different people have a firm grasp on part of the truth in the middle of the room — be it the tail, the trunk, an ear, or a leg — but no one seems able to look at the thing itself. Three examples of a similar phenomenon reveal some of the difficulties in our national discussion on race.

During the press conference concerning his first 100 days in office, BET reporter Andre Showell asked Obama about African American unemployment.


As the entire nation tries to climb out of this deep recession, in communities of color, the circumstances are far worse, the black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent. My question to you tonight is: given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what’s the timetable for us to see tangible results?

And in his answer, Obama reached out and firmly grabbed hold of one part of the elephant in the room.

When we put in place additional dollars for community health centers to ensure that people are still getting the help that they need, or we expand health insurance to millions more children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program, again, those probably disproportionately impact African-American and Latino families simply because they’re the ones who are most vulnerable. They have got higher rates of uninsured in their communities.

So my general approach is that if the economy is strong, that will lift all boats as long as it is also supported by, for example, strategies around college affordability and job training, tax cuts for working families as opposed to the wealthiest that level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.

And I’m confident that that will help the African-American community live out the American dream at the same time that it’s helping communities all across the country.”

His answer echoed and expanded upon his video-taped message to the State of Black America forum a month earlier. He's not entirely wrong, though it depends on what one means by a strong economy. As pointed out in the State of Black America report, the "rising tide" of the so-called recovery during the Bush years did not lift all boats.

Rest of article at link above.

I thought this has been a thoughtful series, and we try and bring you things that make you think at JJP. So, go show TerranceDC some appreciation.

Republican Party Spokesmen Are Still Pushing Story that President Obama Is Not A Natural Born U.S. Citizen

It's interesting to see how on one hand the Republican Party is trying to give the impression that it is putting on a new face and is no longer tone deaf. Yet, on the other hand, underneath all of that, it's pretty obvious that nothing is really changing within the GOP. They still have their spokespeople out spreading divisive propaganda and showing their bigotry, at exactly the same time that the Republican Party is putting on an act to convince voters that the GOP is receiving a makeover.

Mirror On America Exclusive

Listen to the following audio which I obtained myself, from the Bill Cunningham Show which aired Sunday evening (May 3, 2009). This is a discussion between Cunningham and Jerome Corsi (another Republican Party hack).

The narrative that they are pushing is - Obama is a Muslim; Obama is not a (Natural Born) U.S. Citizen; Obama didn't really have the right to attend college; Obama didn't really earn his education; Obama is a Communist; we don't really know who Barack Obama is... could be a friend to the terrorists....etc. These are the people who speak for the Republican Party....and they are still spewing this kind of poison and hatred. I could feel the racism through the radio. (part of the discussion is caught off in the very beginning... I was using my digital recorder).



Check out the Republican Media Page via the sidebar (still under construction) to find out more about the Republican media strategy regarding President Obama.

Birds Fly Away

More Republican Lunacy

Republicans went crazy over this a couple of weeks ago (still are going nuts over it)....

Obama dipped his head as he approached Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to shake his hand. Probably not a great move for Obama... but it is nothing close to what we have seen in the past. (another case of a Black person being held to a different standard... something I said was going to happen and happen often in terms of how the Country would deal with Obama).



*****************************










Let me get this straight... Obama is called a terrorist... a Muslim (not that this would be bad necessarily), weak on terror, etc etc etc...for the way that he greeted the Saudi King? This was essentially part of a handshake.

Yet George W. Bush, a White man, walks around holding hands with the King...and even tastes the Kings lips on several occasions and there was no outcry from these same folks. Tradition? Perhaps... but the folks who are up in arms are John Wayne types... for them, George W. was their John Wayne. They don't care about tradition. But no mention of Bush being weak. I don't recall Bush being called a Terrorist... a closet Muslim...or any of that nonsense. And many of the above pictures were taken when gas prices were $4.00 +.... No President that I know of has ever groveled at the feet of Saudi Royals the way that George W. Bush did.

Could you imagine the reaction if Obama kissed the King? These crazy Right wing Republicans wouldn't be able to control themselves.

Is Lindsey Graham Out of His Mind?

He's either Delusional or experimenting with drugs. Another example of how they create their own reality when the real World doesn't suit them.... hoping that they can use their huge media platform to fool the American public into buying into their world of make believe. It has worked in the past.... so I can't write it off. It's just frustrating to see them using the same basic script over and over again. Hopefully Americans won't fall for it this time.

Republicans are "closer to America" than Obama

Elderly Black Farmer Arrested on Terroristic Threatening Charges

Hat tip: Miranda

From Kansas City InfoZine:

Elderly Black Farmer Arrested on Terroristic Threatening Charges
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

By Monica Davis - Harry Young, an 82 year old black farmer from Owensboro, Kentucky has been released on $50,000 bond after being arrested on allegations of terroristic threatening. It all stems from a contested foreclosure and sale of his family farm in 2005.

Evansville, IN - infoZine - Young was arrested on allegations that he threatened a federal marshal five years ago and allegedly made a bomb threat to an employee of the Farm Services Agency over the phone a few days ago. Supporters are questioning the arrest on allegations that old, particularly given the fact that Young has consistently maintained an orderly, legal attempt to regain his land and has been in plain sight, presenting his case to Congress and to the world and working his rented fields for years.

Given the long standing feud between FSA employees and Young, critics also question the difference in the wording of the alleged threat, which changes, depending on whether the employee who received the “threat” is quoted, or whether the investigator is quoted.

Readers of a local newspaper question the “he said, she said” nature of the bomb threat. One reader noted:

“USDA has been known to use force and intimidation tactics before. And, it seems to me, they are using it in this man's case. Plain, cold fact here: the man is 82 years old. The government knows he hasn't that long to fight this and his children probably don't know first hand all the knowledge that can prove his case.

No sir, it's not just because you are Black. It's because you are old. (Maybe also) Notice they want him to go for a psych eval?

One thing usda never has: Proof. Did they record this conversation - no? His word vs theirs and I never have believed that lying government entity. (Evansville Courier, 4-24-09)

Since the foreclosure and auction his Utica, Kentucky farm in 2005, Young has given interviews, written hundreds of letters to Congress and newspapers and testified before Congress. His outspokenness has generated enmity from hate groups who have allegedly shot at his house, trespassed and vandalized his rented fields, and pulled gateposts out of the ground with a tractor. Young has also been the target of terrorist threats by phone.

Noting the historic institutional racism and anti-family farmer bias within the USDA, critics dubbed the USDA the “Last Plantation.” Even after years of investigations, lawsuits and congressional hearings, critics say the agency remains biased. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack says USDA and the Farm Services Agency (FSA) still have problems.

He told a group of black farmers at a conference sponsored by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and the Land Assistance Fund, that "Some folks refer to USDA as the last plantation, and it has a pretty poor history of taking care of people of color.” (Congress Daily, 2-23-09)

Critics say the agency has been practicing agism, sexism and racism for so long, that discrimination against minority employees and farmers is part of the agency's work culture. “You've got outright bias and discrimination. Also you've got good people who don't even know that they're discriminating," said Vilsack. "It's necessary to begin the process of re-educating people." (Ibid)

Activists say “business as usual” at FSA includes document forgery, the illegal destruction of documents, identity theft and collusion with real estate developers, favored white farmers and county deed personnel. Farmers around the country have voiced complaints over alleged foot dragging and obstruction of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the agency. Many say the information in their files is not accurate and often contains forged or incomplete documents.

As in the cases of tens of thousands of foreclosure cases, many documents are missing, or unavailable—even through Freedom of Information Requests. Mr. Young says he has a signed document from the local Farm Service Agency supervisor that his loan was paid.

This man is no terrorist. He's a Black man who has been done wrong. Plain and Simple.This systematic racism that pervades the Department of Agriculture....I'd leap to the betrayal of the Black Farmers by the President, but we'll get back to that in another post.

Dealing with Somali Pirates

Background on the problem (in context)



Great CBC Report


With that said... this is not a legitimate excuse for the crimes that are being committed.

There are two main solutions to this problem; one tactical and the other strategic.

Tactical

The hijackings could be made more difficult by using a comprehensive approach, combining maneuvers and tactics with increased security on board the ships. There must be layers of security.... not just one or two options. All options should be available to the captains and crew of merchant ships.

Run the ships at Maximum Speed to attempt to outrun the pirates (hard to do for very large ships when pirates are in small speed boats)

Use barbed wire to help prevent pirates from boarding the Ships

Use Non-lethal weapons such as Long Range Acoustic Device's (LRAD)

Use high pressure water hoses (may not be very effective if pirates are firing weapons)

Hire armed security teams to join crew

Train and arm crews with firearms

Add more Naval Forces to the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean off Somalia

I'm an advocate for arming the crews of Merchant ships in the Horn of Africa. However, I believe that the use of firearms should be a last resort. Firearms are particularly effective for large ships (in trained hands) because such ships provide the high ground for shooters...giving them a tactical advantage (even if the Pirates are using more powerful rifles). I also believe that firearms should be locked away on board until they are needed. Protective Gun shields (for rifles) should also be placed around the perimeter of these ships.

Once merchant ships have security on board or they have armed crews, it will change the game of piracy. Once pirates begin to calculate and recognize that there is a heavy price to pay for attacking merchant ships, then they will (over time) be forced to find another line of work. Even if half the ships took these comprehensive measures, it would begin to raise doubts and concerns in the minds of pirates as to which ships are armed and which ones are not... it would raise so much doubt that pirates would be deterred enough to bypass more and more targets.

Having security on board works. Just last week an Italian cruise ship was attacked by suspected Somali Pirates but the on board security team fought off the attack with small caliber firearms (proving that even small arms can have an impact in trained hands). We also know that LRAD's do work, and several cruise ship companies are investing in these non-lethal tools. However, these tools have to be part of a larger more comprehensive program. On their own, they may not be very effective.

The shipping companies have balked at adding more security because they are more concerned about their bottom lines than the security of their employees. I don't think they care much about their employees at all. It should be illegal for a company to knowingly put its employees in harms way when there are measures that could be taken to increase security for their crews. The lack of action to protect employees in these situations led Richard Hicks, one of the crew members of the Maersk Alabama, to sue the owner of the ship and the company that manages the crew. Even Richard Phillips, the Maersk Captain who was taken hostage by Pirates, mentioned in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that arming the crews could be part of a comprehensive solution. But not surprisingly the owner of the shipping company disagreed during the same Senate hearing.... arguing that putting the safety of his employees in the hands of fate is a much better approach. (Of course what he was really saying was that he doesn't want to spend the money).

Watch the Video of Richard Phillips Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The shipping companies claim that the costs of taking preventive measures, adding armed security or arming the crews would be too much for them to pay. Yet, they have been paying ransoms to Pirates averaging $1-2 million per ship. Training crew members, adding armed guards or providing weapons for their ships would be far less expensive. Their response to that is - "Well... insurance rates would increase". I don't see how, considering that weapons would be locked away on board, and only used during legitimate emergencies. Also....only the Captain and first mate should have a key to access the weapons. Cruise Ship companies (those with armed security) don't seem to mind an increase in insurance...and that industry is struggling as well. If insurance costs do rise, that could be mitigated with subsidies from the Countries of origin (where shipping companies are based) or through some sort of special UN fund that could be set up. To me, the greater risk is knowingly sending employees into harms way, unarmed, putting them in a situation where they may not see their families again.

There is a strategic solution to this problem as well...and it has to play out along with the tactical solutions.

Strategic

Bring Somalia out of its Failed State status. Whenever you have a Country that has no functioning government, (in this case) no Navy, and no economy, this sort of lawlessness is often the result. Men will always try to find a way to support themselves and their families. If no legitimate economy exists, then they will resort to illegal activity.

The international community is partly to blame for this situation. Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush dropped the ball on Somalia, just like they failed Rwanda and Darfur. Somalia has been without a government since 1991. It is a nation led by tribes and criminal gangs who fight over territory. Yes, there is an officially recognized President that has emerged recently but he does not have effective control of the Country. The UN has to do more to help build a Somali Military, especially a Naval force, route out Tribal gangs, help Somalia rebuild its economy and educate its people. It will be difficult to do any of that now, because the situation has been allowed to fester unattended for so long. Unfortunately, due to the misdeeds of the Bush Administration, Americans are not in much of a mood to have another war or nation building adventure, especially in Africa where mitigating the suffering of the people has never been seen as a priority by the rest of the World. The only time that Africa has been seen as vital was when Europeans were raping the Continent of its natural resources. And even then...it was the resources that concerned Europeans, not the people. Africans are the only people on this earth that can be allowed to die by the hundreds of thousands while the World sits back and does nothing. That kind of apathy in the face of suffering just doesn't happen on that kind of scale anywhere else in the World on such a consistent basis.

Bottom line- until there are comprehensive solutions that address both tactical and strategic issues, that use multiple approaches to deal with the problem, and can provide layers of security, then Piracy off the coast of Somalia will continue.

Mr. President, Where is the Help for the HOMEOWNER?

You listen to crooks like Geithner and Summers. You bail out the crooks that got us into this financial situation, but where is the help for the Average Homeowner? When people voted for you, they expected more than this from you.

From the NYTimes Editorial Page:

Editorial
As Foreclosures Surge ...
Published: May 3, 2009

The Obama administration sat by last week as 12 Senate Democrats joined 39 Senate Republicans to block a vote on an amendment that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify troubled mortgages.

Senator Obama campaigned on the provision. And President Obama made its passage part of his antiforeclosure plan. It would have been a very useful prod to get lenders to rework bad loans rather than leaving the modification to a judge.

But when the time came to stand up to the banking lobbies and cajole yes votes from reluctant senators — the White House didn’t. When the measure failed, there wasn’t even a statement of regret.

Not even a statement of regret.

YOU COULD HAVE placed this in the reconciliation Bill.

YOU.DID.NOT.

You chose to stiff those in most need, Mr. President. Just like you're trying to stiff those Black Farmers -don't think that has gone away from our consciousness - your BETRAYAL of them.

Mr. President, you allowed those thieves -Geitner and Summers- to swindle the average American Taxpayer into bailing out folks that won't even admit that it's their fault and their mismanagement that got THE WORLD into this financial crisis.

The Average American isn't a simpleton. They understand the interconnectedness of the financial situations. All they have asked for is that, as you look out for Wall Street, you all look out for Main Street.

You are FAILING IN LOOKING OUT FOR MAIN STREET.

And Main Street's patience will only last for so long, before they return the FU.

I'll say it again: Fredo and Summers aren't serving you. They serve Wall Street, and you better wake up to that point before it's too late.

Mr. President, Where is the Help for the HOMEOWNER?

You listen to crooks like Geithner and Summers. You bail out the crooks that got us into this financial situation, but where is the help for the Average Homeowner? When people voted for you, they expected more than this from you.

From the NYTimes Editorial Page:

Editorial
As Foreclosures Surge ...
Published: May 3, 2009

The Obama administration sat by last week as 12 Senate Democrats joined 39 Senate Republicans to block a vote on an amendment that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify troubled mortgages.

Senator Obama campaigned on the provision. And President Obama made its passage part of his antiforeclosure plan. It would have been a very useful prod to get lenders to rework bad loans rather than leaving the modification to a judge.

But when the time came to stand up to the banking lobbies and cajole yes votes from reluctant senators — the White House didn’t. When the measure failed, there wasn’t even a statement of regret.

Not even a statement of regret.

YOU COULD HAVE placed this in the reconciliation Bill.

YOU.DID.NOT.

You chose to stiff those in most need, Mr. President. Just like you're trying to stiff those Black Farmers -don't think that has gone away from our consciousness - your BETRAYAL of them.

Mr. President, you allowed those thieves -Geitner and Summers- to swindle the average American Taxpayer into bailing out folks that won't even admit that it's their fault and their mismanagement that got THE WORLD into this financial crisis.

The Average American isn't a simpleton. They understand the interconnectedness of the financial situations. All they have asked for is that, as you look out for Wall Street, you all look out for Main Street.

You are FAILING IN LOOKING OUT FOR MAIN STREET.

And Main Street's patience will only last for so long, before they return the FU.

I'll say it again: Fredo and Summers aren't serving you. They serve Wall Street, and you better wake up to that point before it's too late.

Mortgaging the White House

Hat tip: Craig Hickman

On CommonDreams.org

Published on Saturday, May 2, 2009
Mortgaging the White House
by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship


Finally, here we are at the end of this week of a hundred days. As everyone in the western world probably knows by now, this benchmark for assessing presidencies goes back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who arrived at the White House in the depths of the Great Depression.

In his first hundred days, FDR came out swinging. He shut down the banks, threw the money lenders from the temple, cranked out so much legislation so fast he would shout to his secretary, Grace Tully, "Grace, take a law!" Will Rogers said Congress didn't pass bills anymore; it just waved as they went by.

President Obama's been busy, but contrary to many of the pundits, he's no FDR. Our new president got his political education in the world of Chicago ward politics, and seems to have adopted a strategy from the machine of that city's longtime boss, the late Richard J. Daley, father of the current mayor there. "Don't make no waves," one of Daley's henchmen used to advise, "don't back no losers."

Your opinion of Obama's first 100 days depends of course on your own vantage point. But we'd argue that as part of his bending over backwards to support the banks and avoid the losers, he has blundered mightily in his choice of economic advisers.

Last week, at a hearing of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) monitoring the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tried to correct AFL-CIO General Counsel Damon Silvers. "I've practiced law and you've been a banker," Silvers said. Never, Geithner replied, "I've only been in public service."

We beg to differ. Read Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson's front-page profile of Secretary Geithner in Monday's New York Times, and you'll see how Robert Rubin protégé Geithner, during the five years he was running the New York Federal Reserve, fell under the spell of the big barons of banking to whom he would one day help shovel overly generous sums of money at taxpayer expense.

During "an era of unbridled and ultimately disastrous risk-taking by the financial industry," the Times reported, "... He forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street's giant financial institutions.

"His actions, as a regulator and later a bailout king, often aligned with the industry's interests and desires, according to interviews with financiers, regulators and analysts and a review of Federal Reserve records."

Wined and dined at the Four Seasons, and in corporate dining rooms and fine homes by the very men whose greed and judgment helped bring on the Great Collapse, Geithner became so much a favorite of the Club that former Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill talked with him about becoming the bank's CEO.

According to Becker and Morgenson, "Even as banks complain that the government has attached too many intrusive strings to its financial assistance, a range of critics -- lawmakers, economists and even former Federal Reserve colleagues -- say that the bailout Mr. Geithner has played such a central role in fashioning is overly generous to the financial industry at taxpayer expense."

The two reporters write that Geithner "repeatedly missed or overlooked signs" that the financial system was self-destructing. "When he did spot trouble, analysts say, his responses were too measured, or too late."

In choosing a man to manage the bailout of the banks who's so cozy with its players, and then installing as his White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who in the Clinton administration took a laissez-faire attitude toward the financial industry which would later enrich him, the president bought into the old fantasy that what's best for Wall Street is best for America.

With these two as his financial gatekeepers, President Obama's now in the position of Louis XVI being advised by Marie Antoinette to have another piece of cake until that rumble in the streets has passed on by.

In fact, other Wall Street insiders -- many of them big contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, and progressive in their concern for the public interest -- privately are expressing serious concerns that Geithner, Summers and their associates are leading the president and America's taxpayers down a path toward further economic disaster.

This week, as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois unsuccessfully fought for a congressional amendment he said would have helped 1.7 million Americans save their homes from foreclosure, the senator told a radio station back home that, "The banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

He could say the same of the White House.

There is a reason so many of us have serious doubts about Fredo and Summers and whether they are serving The President. I'll say it: I don't think their primary loyalty is to The President of the United States, and him listening to these crooked clowns could lead to him being a one-term President.

Jack Kemp Has Passed Away

Jack Kemp's Letter to His Grandchildren, following the elec