Sunday, May 31, 2009

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
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?


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:

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

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.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

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

From The NYTimes:
Sotomayor’s Blunt Style Raises Issue of Temperament
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.

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.

Friday, May 29, 2009

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.

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."

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.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

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.


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.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

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) 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 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

Monday, May 25, 2009

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

Sunday, May 24, 2009

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.


Saturday, May 23, 2009

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.

Obama names first Black NASA chief



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

Friday, May 22, 2009

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
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.

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

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.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

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.


Alysa Stanton Becomes First Female Black Rabbi
First African-American Jewish Rabbi To Be Ordained Was Raised in a Pentecostal Family
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 "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.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

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.


From the Los Angeles Business Journal:
Posted date: 5/20/2009
King Family Fighting Over Spielberg Film Deal
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.

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.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

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:

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?"

Monday, May 18, 2009

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”.


“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.”


“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 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

Saturday, May 16, 2009

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)

Jon Huntsman: China Ambassador
| 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.

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.


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.

Friday, May 15, 2009

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.


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, senior writer
Last Updated: May 15, 2009: 4:45 PM ET

NEW YORK ( -- 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.