Muzikal Thoughts

What Would We Say If Roles Were Reversed?

2010-02-26T14:44:00.001-05:00

*EDIT* Apparently they have the wrong video in the article (which would be why I was like “WTF!” LOL, here’s the actual video of the actual AKAs who ended up getting promoted. They are MUCH better than the ones who are in the article, I can see how it may have been a tight competition based on that video, but I STILL feel that the ZTAs were named the winners at the competition and as such should have remained the SOLE winners. If the judges felt it was a tie at the competition then they should have called it as such at the competition or had a step-off.

So last week (I think) I heard about the Sprite Step-off and how a white Sorority, Zeta Tau Alpha, won the competition. I didn’t think anything else about it. But today I see a post on a MB about how Sprite has done a total bitchass move and decided to say that there was a discrepancy in the scoring and that the only way they can think to fix it is to say the ZTAs and the AKAs were co-winners. I call bullshit. I think Black people complained about the White Sorority winning and Sprite got sick of hearing the complaints and figured they could just give $100,000 to both and call both orgs the “winners” and be done with it.

First of all, I watched BOTH performances, and ZTA stepped their asses off. Their routine was clean and entertaining. Listen to the crowd on both videos, the ZTAs got WAY more house. Their routines had more to them, and they won fair and square. I watched the AKAs video expecting them to be just totally awesome and so much more “precise” than the ZTAs, and they weren’t that. They weren’t more precise. In fact, early on in the routine the girl in the front on the right almost fell after doing her Varsity. Some of the moves were sloppy. They stepped HARDER (as in their feet were louder), but that’s about it. I thought their routine was rather boring (even outside of the fact that they weren’t a “novelty” like the ZTAs. All they did “better” than the ZTAs was fling their hair around. In fact, about a 3rd of their routine was them just standing their whipping their heads around to make their hair move.

Outside of how insulting this is to the ZTAs, imagine how we would feel if the roles were reversed. If the AKAs were one of the only Black Sororities at a White Step Show (or dance competition, or something that they wouldn’t expect a Black Sorority to do), and they won. Then imagine that White people went on the Internet or went to the Sponsors and complained about the AKAs winning to the point where the Sponsors said there was a “scoring discrepancy” and said that the AKAs were “tied” with the ZTAs. How much of an outrage would there be in the Black community? We’d have Al and Jesse ready to march. We’d be calling for Pres. Obama to make a speech. We’d be raising hell all because of a perceived racial slight. The ZTAs clearly worked very hard on their routine, and they were very good in their routine. They brought it when people had NO expectations or LOW expectations. They pleased the crowd, they were precise, and they got people to talk about their organization.

I think it is very small-minded on the part of everyone who complained about the ZTAs winning. Instead of being haters, how about you just give the ZTAs their due, and if they beat YOUR organization, then work harder the next time. The D9 are not the only organizations who step. Black people are not the only race that steps.

And Sprite should be ashamed, because in their quest to keep people from questioning the validity of their voting, they just made it a LOT worse. Like Dr. Watkins said in the article:

If you watch the Super Bowl and lose the game on a bad call, you don't expect the NFL commissioner to come out the next day and revise the call. If you see a player get fouled on the final shot of a college basketball game, you know that when the last whistle is blown, the game is over. I can't help but wonder if Sprite should have left their "scoring discrepancy" on the field, since I would certainly hope that the computer and judges adding up the numbers would know how to double-check their math.

To some extent, to receive a victory in a step competition the day after the competition is over is like getting an honorary bachelors degree or receiving a postmortem Grammy Award. It just doesn't have the same effect as winning the event on the stage, in your competitor's faces, in front of the audience. This competition should have been settled on the stage. In fact, while Sprite representatives are arguing that the decision was made to protect the integrity of the competition, it may have had the opposite effect.

(emphasis mine)

Well, Well, Well

2010-02-26T12:09:00.001-05:00

This will be short, I’m sure you all can see the posts where I was going after Gov. Paterson (NY) for going after Obama for not supporting his re-election bid. Well it looks like once again Pres. Obama was RIGHT, and now Paterson is bowing out because of a scandal.

Less than 48 hours after the New York Times revealed in a bombshell story that the administration of Gov. David Paterson had intervened in the domestic violence case of a top aide, Paterson has decided to pull the plug on his campaign for governor, the Daily News and the Post are reporting.

No official announcement has been made, but the Post says one is expected later today. Two sources familiar with the decision confirmed to TPM that Paterson will end his campaign.

Looks like the Pres. was right not NOT throw his support behind Paterson simply because he’s a Black man in a Governorship. As for me? I’m laughing my ass off right now. LOL

Wow Rev. Al, tell us how you REALLY feel.

2010-02-23T19:21:00.001-05:00

So I was up this morning and happened to catch Tavis’s “triumphant” (my word) return to the TJMS. As he got into his commentary I thought to myself “I see Tavis is back to Obama hatin’ on the TJMS.” Apparently his latest thing is he’s mad that Obama doesn’t have a specific “Black Agenda” and how “Black Leaders” aren’t going to push him on a “Black Agenda” and now feel that President Obama doesn’t HAVE to have a “"Black Agenda.” Well, we all know Tom looooooooooooooves him some Tavis, so pretty much Tavis wasn’t going to get called on any of his bullshit. I figured that would be the end of it. But nooooo, Rev. Al called in after the following commercial break, and what followed was full of EPIC WIN for Rev. Al. In the event that you missed this completely thorough smack down you can listen to it here.

Now I’ve never been a HUGE fan (or really a fan period) of Rev. Al’s, but lately he hasn’t been annoying me as much as usual, and I’ve actually found myself agreeing with him more often than not. Part of me thinks that’s because he’s mellowed out since Pres. Obama won the election and was inaugurated. But what he did to Tavis on the TJMS today reminded me of “Coming to America” where they walk into the apartment and there’s the chalk outline of the dog and the man with the cane and the guy says “damn shame what they did to that dog.” Rev. Al even went after Tavis for not trying to hold Former Pres. Clinton “accountable” to the Black community even though Tavis himself called Pres. Clinton “Black.” I mean he left no stone unturned. Rev. Al went SO hard on Tavis, that even Tom wasn’t trying to defend him by the end of the call. I heard he also went after Tavis during his own show, unfortunately I missed that, but I’m going to have to see if it’s somewhere on the Internet.

Point blank, Tavis is about TAVIS, not the Black community. Pres. Obama has been refusing Tavis and his bullshit since the election (remember when then Candidate Obama didn’t go to the SOTU and Tavis had a hissy fit in his TJMS commentary? It was shortly before he pulled a Palin and took his ball and went home). Pres. Obama has refused to stroke Tavis’s ego, and we all know Tavis needs his ego stroked often. I’m surprised he waited this long to put together an event where people can get together and hate on Pres. Obama for a few hours. And then of all places to choose, he choose CHICAGO? Real subtle Tavis. Personally, I think he should have had it at Texas Southern. But IF Rev. Al goes to this shindig, I think I may have to watch, if he doesn’t go, I’ll have to pass.

For all of the issues I’ve had with Rev. Al, he’s been pretty consistent. I’ve never thought he was out for “self” I did think some of the stuff he championed was overreation, but he’s been consistent. That’s more than we can say for Tavis.

blogger Tags: Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, President Obama, Barack Obama, Tom Joyner Morning Show, TJMS

She Did It HER Way

2010-01-21T14:18:00.003-05:00

Michelle Obama’s First Year: She Did It HER Way

Michelle Obama’s first year as First Lady of the United States of America has come and gone, and I think it was an amazing first year. I freely admit that I haven’t been paying attention to politics my entire life, at least not as closely as I have in the last year. I also freely admit that I’m more than a little biased when it comes to Michelle Obama. I can honestly say that in the last year I have seen Michelle Obama do things that I never imagined I’d see a First Lady do. I think perhaps the biggest impact she will have is on the young men and women in the Washington D.C. area.

In the past year I have seen and heard countless accounts of her going to schools and talking to teens or stopping in an elementary school to visit a class and read them a book. She's even invited some famous friends to start a mentoring program with a group of 10th and 11th graders. She invited those children and youth to essentially become a part of the Obamas’ extended family. She has gone to soup kitchens without a lot of fanfare and donated her time. Imagine how you’d feel if you were down on your luck and you had to go in to a soup kitchen, and you walked in and there was the First Lady of the United States smiling and joking with you and serving you food. That’s not something I could imagine any other First Lady (in my admittedly short lifetime of only 26 years) doing. She started a White House Garden an instead of simply hiring gardeners to come in and do the work, she did the work and she had children from a local school come in and help her. When the garden was ready to harvest, she then took them into the White House kitchens and showed them what they can do with the food. Again, something I couldn’t imagine any other First Lady doing. The garden has produced over 1,000 pounds of food, and some of that food has been donated to Miriam's Kitchen a local soup kitchen where Michelle volunteered. She even hula hooped and played double dutch, I definitely can’t see any other First Lady doing that. Maybe it’s because she’s one of the youngest First Ladies ever, or maybe it’s just that she cares that much. The White House is once again “the People’s House” mostly because Michelle Obama wanted to open it back up. Even something like the White House Blue Room Christmas tree became a symbol for how she wants to bring the country together and walk the walk instead of simply talking the talk.

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Sure, she hasn’t been doing the DC social scene, but she reached out to the people who mattered most. Not the ones who could afford to have exclusive parties where the President and First Lady show up, but the ones who probably never thought they’d ever get to hang out with the President and First Lady. You were more likely to see Barack and Michelle Obama if you were just a regular person than you were if instead you were a part of the DC social scene. I’m sure that really pissed a lot of people off, but Michelle Obama still continued to do things her way.

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

To top it all off, she still remains first and foremost Sasha and Malia’s mother. Her daughters are clearly her life. Even with all she’s doing as First Lady she has not once compromised being a good mother. This is something that everyday women do all the time. They have careers and they still take care of their families. Sure they have their support systems, but no one can take the place of a mother’s care and attention. Heck, she even had time to walk the dog regularly (something I think I recall her saying she wouldn’t do before they got him). I recently read an article where she commented that he daughters are still the same kids they were when they left Chicago. I think that's not only a testament to Sasha and Malia for being the level headed young women they are, but it's also a testament to Michelle Obama for making sure that her daughters continued to be raised as normal children, or at least as normal as possible given the circumstances. She even told the staff that the girls have to make their own beds in the morning and do chores.

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

I think what Michelle Obama has shown America is that it’s perfectly okay to just be a Mom. It’s perfectly okay to be who you were before you “arrived”, and if anyone has “arrived” it’s definitely the Obamas. She has shown future First Ladies that there are more important things than merely smiling for the cameras, it’s important to walk the walk. It’s important to not lose sight of who you are outside of your position. I can’t even imagine how many lives she’s personally touched in the DC area by simply being who she is. And I can’t fail to note that she’s happy with who she is, even going so far as to check in with her older friends to make sure she hasn’t changed after being in the bubble that is Washington DC.

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't mention her husband in all of this. The last year has certainly been a challenging one for our President. He's had to make some really hard decisions, a lot of which were unpopular not just on DKos but in the "real world" as well. We all know that he keeps a cool head, he's just a cool guy. Personally, I think it helps that he's surrounded by a family he loves when he goes home. He never looks quite as happy as he does when he's with his wife and children. The Obamas are always quick to tell people that their marriage isn't perfect, and of course every relationship has its issues, but they are an excellent example of how a husband and wife could and should work together. She is his rock, and he's not afraid to admit that. I'll even go so far as to say he wouldn't be where he is today if Michelle Obama wasn't who she is. They called her "The Closer" on the campaign trail, and anyone who listened to Michelle Obama speak about her husband and his vision for America couldn't help but at least give the man a second look if not vote for him.

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Through this year Michelle Obama has been criticized for just about everything from touching the Queen of England (who was also touching her at the time) to wearing shorts when it was hot outside. What she wore was criticized as if she was supposed to be dressing to please us. Even a new haircut is somehow news. Through it all she’s kept her head up, she’s stayed true to herself, and she did it all HER way.

Cross posted (although not as prettily)@ DailyKos

My Thoughts

2010-01-19T21:44:00.002-05:00

Whatever happens in MA, it's not a referendum on anyone but the candidates. With that being said, win or lose Democrats in Congress need to wake up and start getting shit done. There is NO excuse. They had 60 Senators and they STILL didn't get what they needed done accomplished. In 2008 they got a MANDATE for change, and instead they haven't been giving us what we need. The actions are not matching the rhetoric. I don't think that's President Obama's issue (even though I'm sure all of the talking heads whom I refuse to watch are going to say it is), I think that's Congress's issue. Jon Stewart said it best:

"Let me see if I have this straight. You need to replace perhaps the most beloved liberal in the history of the Senate with a candidate that believes Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan. Because if this lady loses, the health care reform bill that the beloved late senator considered his legacy will die. And the reason it will die is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only have then an 18-vote majority in the Senate. Which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whenever the f**k he wanted."

How about the Democrats grow a spine? This is a wake-up call, a warning shot if you will. While we fight amongst ourselves we are allowing the Republicans to get victories they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Yes, the Bush years were bad, but they are OVER and like it or not people actually ARE starting to forget who got us into this mess, and which policies got us into this mess.

To the Dems in Congress: You lost one seat, sure it's a big deal, but at the same time it's not a big deal. If we had that one seat, would that then light a fire under your asses to get shit done? You can't live worrying about the next election. Do what you promised. Pass good healthcare, stimulate the economy, stop holding us hostage to Wall St., start repairing our educational system, etc.. Stop with the fucking excuses and start getting stuff done, because this loss is NOT going to make anything any easier. The Republicans aren't that damn smart, you all are just that damn stupid.

To President Obama: You did what you could, you've done what you could, but maybe it's time to stop being so damn polite and start being "real" (to steal a phrase from MTV). As you always state, the buck stops with you whether it's fair or not, so maybe it's time to stop letting Democrats who apparently have no real audacity screw with YOUR legacy. It wouldn't hurt to see some of that audacity you showed during the campaign make an appearance in your Presidency. We all know you know how to get the American people behind you, maybe it's time to stop wasting political capital trying to cover the asses of people who wouldn't do the same for you and start getting more of the stuff you promised done.

Oh, and one more thing, when you have a mandate, you USE the mandate, or you LOSE the mandate.

In case ya'll can't tell, I'm a little (okay, more than a little) pissed right now.

Cross-Posted@ DailyKos

What's Going On?

2009-12-17T13:39:00.003-05:00

Lately the blogesphere has been going crazy over President Obama be it Afghanistan or Health Care or the Economy. And now it's getting to the point where people are trying to attribute that criticism to racism. While I do think there is some racism out there (I'm not willing to say that there is non), I do not think it's the driving force behind the criticism.

During the 2008 election, I was really excited. I watched all of his town halls if I wasn't in class. I wrote posts on DailyKos about my fervent support of his candidacy. I watched the debates. I donated. I volunteered. I know what he promised and what he said he would do. So if I feel disappointed in what he's done, or a bit disillusioned because I don't think he's done enough that's my right. Does that mean I'm disappointed in him because of his race? I'm Black, does that mean that I expect White people to save this country? No. It means I'm disappointed. I had really high expectations for President Obama. I believed what he said during the campaign. My biggest issues have been with transparency and GLBT rights. With regard to transparency, I don't think he's been significantly more transparent than the previous administration (they were doing things like refusing to release the visitors log to the WH). Well, actually they've gotten much better lately (they started releasing the logs). During the campaign, President Obama frequently said "I may not always agree with you (or was it "be right", but I will tell you what I'm thinking" more times than I can count. I believed that. Yet, this year has been fire with "leaks" that consistently contradict themselves. Some people called them trial balloons, I don't know what the hell they were. But they made me feel like I was being lied to or deceived. Sure Obama himself never came out and said the stuff, and a lot of it was "anonymous WH aides", but why didn't Pres. Obama himself just release a statement to clear it up?

President Obama said he'd end the political games in Washington. Games I admittedly didn't know much about because this is the first time in my life that I'm REALLY paying attention. Well, it seems to be that the same tired games are being played. Part of that is Republican obstructionism, which is wrong because I do think Obama deals with them in good faith, and part of it is "Conservadems" who have no damn excuse to be the way they are. Everyone is still playing games, and more often than not it looks like Obama is willing to compromise with the center-right and right wing, but isn't willing to compromise with the left/progressives. That can be frustrating for a lot of people. Health Care reform was supposed to be played out on CSPAN, yet there have been a lot of secret backroom meetings where we don't know what the hell is going on. Joe LIEberman is holding the Senate Bill hostage over policies that he's supported before, and reports are coming out that the WH is encouraging Reid to capitulate to his demands. These don't look like change. It doesn't feel like change. No, I didn't expect it all to be fixed and wonderful at the end of a year, but it doesn't even seem like steps are being taken to change the way things are done.

With regard to the economy, I'm frustrated. There's nothing Obama can do to make me less frustrated short of hiring me himself. I'll freely admit that. I don't want to hear about how he thinks about the unemployed every day. I want to SEE what he's doing to fix it. I'm not a laborer, I have two degrees, so when I hear about "green jobs" like insulating a house, that's not something I can do. I'd like to see more reform with regard to student loan repayment because we are getting fleeced out here (but that's another topic for another day).

Like I've said before, this is the first time I'm paying attention, and it's really making me wish I'd stayed uninvolved emotionally and otherwise. Just go to my civic duty and vote, and go home and ignore everything else. Paying attention is getting me nowhere. And now valid policy disagreements are being labeled as "racist" because Obama is a Black man. Well, I happen to think that Obama would be getting the same criticism if he were White. President Obama has a LOT of crap to deal with, it's going to be a long tiring process and he's going to get criticized a lot. I think the problem is that during his campaign he wanted us to "hope" and to expect things of him, and now that he has the job none of it is playing out as he would have hoped. In the beginning I think a lot of it was the Republicans being assholes, then it was the Conservadems being assholes, now I don't know maybe everyone in Washington is an asshole.

Overall, I think I've come out of this entire situation more cynical. I'm not inclined to believe Obama just because he says it. I'm looking to see what he does. Yes, my opinion has shifted over time, but as circumstances and situations change, so do opinions. I don't think all is lost, it's quite possible that Obama will "redeem" himself in my eyes before his first term is over. I like him personally, I just don't care too much for how he's governing right now.

Today I've seen some crazy stuff being said all over the place. Some people really just need to take a break. I support our President 100%. All I want is for him to do the stuff he promised to do.

Sorry if this was a little rambley, I'm just trying to express my thoughts (and I don't even know if I've done a great job of it, but I'm going to have to stop this stream of consciousness at some point ~lol~).

So We Don't Have To Pay For Things We Are Morally Opposed To?

2009-11-10T20:36:00.000-05:00

That seems to be the only argument for the Stupak amendment and why people support it. "Federal taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used for things people are morally against." Well, a lot of us are morally against war, and yet we're paying for two of them. I'm morally against a lot of things Republicans stand for, and yet we're still paying their salaries. I'm morally against some of the rulings coming out of the Supreme Court, and yet we're paying the salaries of the 5 (or more) on that side until they die. I'm morally against what some of the Blue Dogs do, and yet we're paying for their salaries.

Since when do people get to pick and choose what the federal government does and does not pay for?

I'm in Ohio, my tax dollars help fund executions, and I'm very much morally opposed to that.

If the government didn't pay for everything that someone was morally opposed to, they'd never pay for anything.

This is just a short diary with my thoughts on that amendment and the arguments I've been hearing FOR it. If you don't want federal money to go towards paying for abortions, than use the part of the money that the woman is STILL paying for (as I understand it, none of the plans would be FREE) to pay for "that" part of the plan. I don't get what's so difficult about that.

What else is the Federal Government doing that I'm morally opposed to, I wonder?

27%

2009-10-20T21:09:00.000-04:00

27% of Republicans believe President Obama loves America.

That's it.

48% of them don't believe he loves America.

25% aren't sure.

I don't know about you, but if I seriously doubt that President Obama would BE President Obama if he didn't love this country. Remember when he was the first candidate (that wasn't a previous First Lady) to get Secret Service Detail during the election? That was when he was still a LONG SHOT, he could have said "you know what, it's not worth it" and walk away, but he didn't.

With all of the bullshit this President is dealing with on TOP of the regular BS Presidents have to deal with, I wonder how anyone could question his love for this country. I could see if he just up and QUIT in the middle of his term. . .

Or if he was taking vacations, MONTH LONG vacations, in his first term.

Not to mention the fact that his EVERY MOVE is recorded and blogged about on the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a site out there monitoring how often he went to the bathroom. Seriously, you'd think those Republicans would admire him for giving up so much personal privacy. Then again, maybe not.

Literally, EVERYTHING the man does is criticized. This may as well be his theme song. Remember when Chicago lost the Olympics and conservatives CELEBRATED?

People are all over the country comparing him to Hitler, saying he wants to kill their grandmothers, and even choosing to support the TALIBAN's views over him winning a prize for PEACE.

He's getting 400% more death threats than any other President. Pastors are preaching about how he deserves to be killed. Hell, some people are even calling for a military coup against him, even in a time of war.

And yet he's still there, he's still fighting, he's not giving up. He continues to work so even those who hate him can have a better life, and only 27% of Republicans believe he loves America?

No wonder only 20% of the country identifies themselves as Republicans.

"The Lost Generation"

2009-10-12T11:00:00.005-04:00

I ran into this interesting article on the Huffington Post about how the recession is affecting my generation. According to the article:

Only 46% of people aged 16-24 had jobs in September, the lowest since the government began counting in 1948. The crisis is even hitting recent college graduates. "I've applied for a whole lot of restaurant jobs, but even those, nobody calls me back," says Dan Schmitz, 25, a University of Wisconsin graduate with a bachelor's degree in English who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. "Every morning I wake up thinking today's going to be the day I get a job. I've not had a job for months, and it's getting really frustrating."

* * *

Most analyses of youth employment focus on people aged 16 to 24, which includes everyone from high school dropouts to wet-behind-the-ears college grads. But in this era of rising educational requirements, some people don't start their careers until their mid or late 20s—and these young college grads are taking it on the chin as well.

According to a BusinessWeek analysis, college graduates aged 22 to 27 have fared worse than their older educated peers during the downturn. Two years ago, 84.4% of young grads had jobs, only somewhat lower than the 86.8% figure for college graduates aged 28 to 50. Since then, the employment gap between the two groups has almost doubled.

As a recent law school graduate, I can understand where Dan Schmitz is coming from. I'm applying for jobs that I would have thought I'd never have to apply for again because of how hard the legal community has been hit by the recession. I don't mind applying for these jobs because I need some form of income. I do have monthly bills that are dangerously close to no longer getting paid. Even applying for these "lesser" (for lack of a better word) jobs, I am still sitting here unemployed for the third month since I've seriously started looking.

I found the article to be an interesting read, but I didn't understand how lowering the minimum wage will be helpful. Personally, I'd do fine on a sub-minimum wage as far as paying the couple of bills that I have, but that means I'll have to continue living with my parents (something I REALLY don't want to do), and I'll have to continue putting off paying my student loans meaning more and more interest will accrue. That wouldn't be a problem if I was just working with the $8,000 I had after undergrad, but those law school loans. . . I don't even want to talk about it.

The article points out that there needs to be more job training opportunities while we wait for the recession to end and recovery to truly begin. I think there's some merit there, if there are job training programs then people in my generation can get the experience needed for these jobs and then when the Baby Boomers leave, the companies will have people ready and trained in their policies ready to move up. I wouldn't mind working for sub-minimum wage if I knew I was pretty much guaranteed to move up to a higher salary within a couple of years.

It doesn't really seem like anyone in the government is paying much attention to the problems my generation is having. It seems like most of the focus is on the generation coming up behind us. We've gone and gotten the education we were told would enable us to get good paying jobs, and yet we are sitting here without jobs. We are either over-qualified or under-qualified. I know some people really hate that term, but it's the truth. I remember feeling the same way when all I had was a BA when I graduated in 2005 (before the shit really hit the fan), going to law school was supposed to OPEN more doors for me, and yet I find myself in the same situation. It is and can be very de-motivating to feel like you've done everything right, and you're actually WORSE off (because I could have totally avoided a LOT of debt by going to work somewhere straight out of H.S. instead of going to college/grad school).

The man in the video called it a crisis, I'm inclined to agree. What do you think?

Sad But True

2009-10-10T18:14:00.003-04:00

Oh, and it's not just the "right wingers" seems like it's the GOP "leadership" as well.

New Template

2009-10-09T16:05:00.004-04:00

Well, I don't know if you all know this about me, but I get bored with things easily. You may or may not have been here before, if you have then you know that I have changed the template of my blog. I went with the color because it's almost fall, plus I'm in an orange/gold phase right now as far as the color I like, in fact the icon I'm using on Disqus is my current desktop background.

I've also added a labels section word cloud, thanks to a very helpful person on Explore Computer World.

So what do you guys think of the new layout?

President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize. . .

2009-10-09T10:50:00.003-04:00

. . . and heads explode all over the place. I just ran into this crap:

The last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise.

Right, this is the absolute WORSE thing that could have EVER happened.

At this moment many Americans are longing for a president who is more bully, less pulpit.

Really? We just gleefully left that behind when we voted for President Barack Hussein Obama over McCain. I think we like having a President that can take over the pulpit when necessary, and knows when to be a bully. Just because he's not STEAMROLLING over all of his opponents all the time, doesn't mean all he does is TALK. He's actually gotten a lot accomplished in just 9 months considering the children he has to deal with in Congress.

Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress.

Ah, so there we have it, did the author of that piece lose some money in a bet or something? President Obama didn't ASK for the award, he didn't lobby for it. He had nothing to do with the decision.

And of course the idiots on Morning Joe freak out:

The cast of "Morning Joe" Friday tried valiantly to find any possible good in President Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. They failed, but they did offer the president some tips on how to move past what they saw as the awful embarrassment of winning an international award.

"The upside is the European community is embracing this president and saying we like the direction that he is taking this country in and it's drastically different," suggested Mika Brzezinski. She was quickly shot down.

"The upside is the Nobel Prize committee that has had suspect selections in the past has just befuddled a lot of people across the world," said host Joe Scarborough.

"I predict right now that he will find a way to basically turn it down," Time's Mark Halperin added . "I think he is going to say, I share this with the world or whatever. I don't think he'll embrace this. Because there is no upside."

"The damage is done," Brzezinski responded.

The Nobel committee recognized Obama’s efforts to solve complex global problems including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said.

Jagland said the decision was “unanimous” and came with ease.

He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.

“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population,” it said.

Source

THAT'S a bad thing? Seriously? Well, haters are gonna hate. Have we fallen so damn far that winning a prize for PEACE is a bad thing? It's not about fucking Europe, it's about President Obama bringing the same Hope to the World that he brought to most of America. Ugh, I'm over the haters, and they are not going to bring me down. Hell, I think he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for not cursing out the idiots in the GOP and the (supposedly liberal) media (MSNBC is terrible right now, I don't even want to know what they are saying on FAUX and FAUX-lite).

So I'd like to dedicate this song to Pres. Obama, just keep on shaking the haters off Mr. President:

Just think, exactly a week ago today President Obama was allegedly a failure because Chicago didn't get the Olympics, now the man is a Nobel Peace Prize winner!

Go Nancy!!

2009-10-08T15:01:00.002-04:00

Via Think Progress:

Earlier this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) put out a press release criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) comments on Afghanistan, saying that Gen. Stanley McChrystal should “put her in her place.” Today, Pelosi responded during her weekly briefing:

It’s really sad that they really don’t understand how inappropriate that is. I’m in my place. I’m the speaker of the House — the first woman speaker of the House. And I’m in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there.

You tell them Nancy! I honestly think the big reason Republicans don't like her is because she's a strong woman who doesn't let them steamroll her. As the Speaker of the House, she's getting a lot of tough legislation through and rather quickly. Of course that would chafe the draws of the Party of No.

I'm Going Back To My Roots

2009-10-08T12:08:00.009-04:00

Alright, there's been a lot of focus on Black Women's hair lately with the release of Chris Rock's documentary "Good Hair." I've been mulling it over for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that it's time to let go of the perm. Sure, I thought it made my hair more manageable, but it's a chemical, it makes my scalp burn (because I inevitably scratch even when I KNOW I'm getting a perm soon thereafter), and I don't think my hair really likes it.

As it stands right now I haven't had a perm since sometime in early May. For the last month or so, I haven't been putting any heat on my hair either. Since my last perm I have about 4 inches of new growth. Instead of cutting all of my hair off and sporting the short Afro, I'm going to do what my mom did a couple of years ago, and just get my ends clipped each month until the relaxer is gone. I figure at this rate it will take about a year to transition.

Here's my hair now, no perm since May, that's a lot of new growth

I've been getting perms since the 3rd grade, and I remember one time when the lady that did my perm left it on too long and ended up burning off a lot of my hair. Since then I've gone from short to medium to short on the top and long in the back to medium to kind of long (it's starting to go down my back now), to attempting to get back to my roots. I think it's going to be a fun process. BTW, for me it was never about wanting to look white, it was about manageability. I got a perm because I hated getting my hair pressed (and I think my mom was tired of doing it). A lot of my friends have transitioned in the last couple of years, and I think their hair is gorgeous. I can't wait for the day when I can sport a nice full Afro. I don't even think it's a matter of "to be a professional you have to have straight hair" I know LOTS of Professional Black Women who have natural hair, be it short and curly or dreds.

Parts of my hair has broken off in the middle (it's always the same spot), but I think that was more from stress than anything, so all that's there is "new growth" and like a centimeter of permed hair. So no more chemicals for me, time to get back to juices and berries ~lol~

So I'll keep you all posted via this blog.

Why Do Republican Senators Support Gang Rape?

2009-10-07T18:17:00.002-04:00

Senator Al Franken introduced an Amendment to the Senate Appropriations Bill that would defund any Federal Contractors that force their employees to sign away their right to bring charges against said company for rape. Check out the video:

Think Progress has more:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.”

Sounds reasonable right? Why would we want to discourage employees (men and women) for standing up for their right to work without being harassed and abused? Well, apparently there are quite a few Republican Senators who don't think people should have that right, and indeed that the United States Federal Government should continue to fund the companies perpetuating this:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

How nice to know that these Senators put their business interests ahead of those of their constituents. I wonder if they've ever read Title VII. According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

I think being Gang Raped (or otherwise raped) falls within that description.

Also:

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on sex or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

Even sadder is the fact that the U.S. Commerce Department also approves of denying people the right to work without being sexually harassed/assaulted.

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

Only 10 Republican Senators voted FOR Senator Franken's Amendment. That is very discouraging.

Wonkette points out:

Thirty Republican males voted against it. They thought Al Franken was just being mean to Halliburton because of Dick Cheney and politics.

Yes, because it's ALWAYS about Dick Cheney and politics right? It's never actually about doing the right thing.

Well, I for one am proud of Senator Al Franken. He may have once been a comedian, but he's doing a kick ass job as a Senator.

Oh, Shut Up

2009-10-02T16:37:00.001-04:00

Oh, Shut Up

Posted using ShareThis

Public Option = NO/ Abstinence Only Funding = Yes

2009-10-01T11:22:00.008-04:00

W.T.F. I caught wind of this on The Daily Show last night:

The Senate Finance Committee approved an amendment that would provide millions of dollars to fund abstinence-only programs on a 12 to 11 vote last night. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT), would allocate $50 million per year for such programs through 2014, according to the Washington Independent.

All 10 Republicans on the committee and Democratic Senators Kent Conrad (ND) and Blanche Lincoln (AK) voted for the Hatch amendment.

So we can't get a public option, but they can get abstinence only funding even when it's been proven REPEATEDLY that abstinence only doesn't work? Even Bristol Palin knows that, or at least she did before her mother got to her.

Even Texas, one of the most conservative states in the country is coming the the realization that abstinence only doesn't work:

Some Texas school districts are abandoning abstinence-only curricula in favor of abstinence-based programs that also teach about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted infections, the Austin American-Statesman reports. Many of the school districts, including Austin's, made the change after it became clear that teen pregnancy rates were climbing under the abstinence-only approach, according to the American-Statesman. The change also comes as the Obama administration seeks to shift federal abstinence-only dollars to programs proven to reduce teen pregnancy rates.

More government money has been spent teaching abstinence in Texas than any other state, and it has the third-highest teen birth rate in the country, the American-Statesman reports. A Texas State University study released earlier this year found that less than 5% of Texas districts have comprehensive sex education. The school districts in Austin, Lufkin and some other areas have adopted "abstinence-plus" curricula, which teach that abstinence is the safest choice but also stress the importance of using contraception if teens become sexually active.

If TEXAS can get it, why can't the Senate?

Instead of voting to support something that any non-biased source believes will actually WORK when it comes to lowering the cost of health care, they chose to vote to support a curriculum that doesn't work, hasn't work, and will NEVER work? Where is the logic in that.

In fact, there are a lot of states that don't even bother with the funding, which means there are millions of dollars out there going unclaimed that could be claimed by states that need the money for stuff that actually WORKS:

We also referenced an Associated Press article that confirmed the data noting “that participation in the program is down 40 percent over two years.” States opting not to partake in the program meant that nearly half of all funds for such programming remained unclaimed, this despite the fact that most states were experiencing enormous funding shortfalls.

In fact:

In the most recent study, researchers compared teens who had taken the virginity pledge to those who had not taken a pledge. The researchers found results similar to the aforementioned studies.

First, the rate of the teens taking part in sex was the same. Those taking the virginity pledge were just as likely to have intercourse. The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge.

However, two other findings were most damning. First, those taking the virginity pledge were less likely to protect themselves. Pledge takers were found to be less frequent users of condoms and other forms of birth control.

Therefore, those youngsters who took the virginity pledge were not only just as likely to have intercourse, they ultimately were more likely to take part in sex in an unsafe manner. This has led experts to conclude that the lessons students take from their abstinence-only education programs is a negative and/or faulty view of contraception.

Instead of listening to the FACTS, the Senators seem to be listening to the batshit crazy "logic" of people like Michele Bachman (R-Crazy):

The bill goes on to say what's going to go on -- comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor acute medical conditions, referrals to follow-up for specialty care -- is that abortion? Does that mean that someone's 13 year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser.

To be fair, Max Baucus actually did something RIGHT in proposing another amendment which also passed:

Committee Chair, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), opposed Hatch's amendment and offered his own amendment. The Baucus amendment would create a program that would include information on contraceptive options, abstinence, and life skills, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. The committee also voted to pass the Baucus amendment on 14 to 9 vote.

Meanwhile, we get something they call a "quasi-public option":

The Senate Finance Committee narrowly passed an amendment Thursday from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that moves the conservative panel as close as it will likely get to a public health insurance option.

The amendment creates a "federally funded, non-Medicaid, state plan which combines the innovation and quality of private sector competition with the purchasing power of the states," according to an overview.

It would be available to people with incomes above Medicaid eligibility but below 200 percent of the federal poverty level -- a very narrow window. However, Republicans fear -- and progressives hope -- that once the plan becomes law there will be pressure to expand it.

The plan would not be free. It is based on Washington state's Basic Health plan, which costs roughly 60 dollars a month, with the remainder of the premium subsidized by the state.

Private insurers would be eligible to participate in the plan, as would HMOs or other networks of health care providers.

Huh? That sounds a hell of a lot more complicated than the actual public options I've been hearing about.

And once again I have to turn to late night news/satire to get the truth:

All three of those clips illustrate how the Democrats are blowing a good thing. They have no more excuses, yet they seem to be doing everything they in their power to fail. They are no different when it comes to working for the lobbyists instead of their constituents.

And with all of this bending over backwards to think more like Republicans than Democrats, they STILL won't get any Republican support:

The Senate Republican leader made clear on Wednesday that his party, despite all its griping over the public health insurance option, abortion-funding or health care for illegal immigrants, is simply and flatly opposed to the "core" of the Democratic health care reform proposal.

Satisfying every Republican demand short of scrapping the entire project, said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would still not capture GOP support.

Maybe we should do as Stephen suggests, and have everyone send Max Baucus and the other "Democrats" on that committee our health insurance bills, so he can pay them.

Another Gov Paterson FAIL

2009-09-27T14:35:00.004-04:00

From the Huffington Post:

In an uncomfortable interview on "Meet the Press," the embattled Democratic Governor ducked and dodged a barrage of questions over a report that the Obama administration had pushed for him to step aside in 2010.

"I'm blind, but I'm not oblivious," said Paterson. "I realize that there are people who don't want me to run."

"All right," said host David Gregory, "but let's be very clear here about what happened. The president's team -- and others speaking on their behalf -- said to you, 'You should not run.' Isn't that right?"

"I can't say that, David," Paterson responded. "There are people who have told me not to run. There are a lot of people who told -- have told me not to run."

Gregory pushed: "But the White House specifically said, 'Don't run.'"

"I don't know that," Paterson replied.

YOU DON'T KNOW? You and your wife and supporters have been running around letting people think President Obama threw you under a proverbial bus, and YOU DON'T KNOW if he told you to get out of the race? Typically when people don't KNOW if someone said anything, they don't go around perpetuating the rumor that the person said it. Well, people do, but people with CLASS don't. All President Obama did was express concerns to you through someone else in PRIVATE, he didn't put you on front street, and now you're sitting up on Meet the Press looking like your SNL character talkin' bout "I don't know if President Obama told me to get out of the race."

Gov. Paterson, you are exemplifying one of the big problems in politics right now, it's all about the games and the truth be damned.

The Funniest Thing I've Seen All Week

2009-09-25T14:28:00.006-04:00

According to the Guardian:

He is a notorious ladies' man and has spent the summer battling a series of sex scandals.

So when Silvio Berlusconi turned on the charm in the presence of Michelle Obama, it's no surprise the US president was instantly on his guard.

Attending a dinner for the wives of world leaders alone, the Italian prime minister looked thrilled as America's First Lady entered the room.

He threw his hands up in a delighted gesture, pulled a rather alarming expression and for several seconds, appeared to be contemplating taking Mrs Obama in a passionate embrace.

But a handshake - and a filthy look from Obama - were all he got.

You gotta see the progression:

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"?

2009-09-24T13:58:00.001-04:00

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"?

Posted using ShareThis

A Village Cannot Reorganize Village Life To Suit The Village Idiot

2009-09-23T14:51:00.004-04:00

They are having a hard time reigning in the "crazy". By they I mean the Republican "leadership." It was reported last week that perhaps Reps. Boehner and Cantor were trying to reign in the crazy part of their Republican family. Remember this?:

Long before the tea parties or Wilson’s outburst, Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had struggled to moderate the rhetorical excesses of House conservatives hammering away on Obama’s birth certificate, decrying the creation of “death panels” and ferreting out signs of creeping socialism.

Sources say they have been especially wary of the possible damage inflicted on the party’s reputation by bomb-throwing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who last fall called for an investigation into whether members of Congress are “pro-America or anti-America.”

Well, as it turns out, the all powerful Right Wing base weighed in and now Boehner and Cantor are singing a different tune.

Check out this screen capture from their blog (which apparently has since changed):

The Huffington Post points out:

One fan in particular -- Andy Aplikowski, a conservative Minnesota blogger -- suggested that GOP leaders were "spineless wimps" who had issued "stupid and moronic attacks on one of the best members of your caucus."

"A word of advice, issue an apology and retraction right now, or else. Or else you will see people like me bust their butt so hard that she raises millions, wins by a landslide, and takes your job and sends you to the back bench," Aplikowski wrote on his relatively obscure blog, ResidualForces.

The blog entry apparently resonated deep within the circles of GOP power. Addressing their reply personally to Aplikowski, both Boehner and Cantor dismissed the Politico piece and insisted that Bachmann remains a strong fixture within the party.

When they asked the running joke Michael Steele why the letter was taken down from the original blog, his answer was that the letter was meant to go on the obscure blog run by Aplikowski.

All this does is give further evidence, as if we needed any more, that the far right is taking over the Republican Party as a whole. While we may celebrate this for the potential electoral victories it will bring us, it's really hurting the country. I think a guest on Rachel's Show (I think it was last week) put it best "a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot":

Full Transcript:

MADDOW:* * * willing to rule it out.

What do you think the White House strategy is going to be to rebut the fact that more than one in three conservatives think the president might be the anti-Christ? At least in New Jersey. That is a P.R. challenge.

Joining us now is Frank Schaeffer. He grew up in the religious far right. He is the author of “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived to Take All or Almost All of It Back.” Mr. Schaeffer, thank you so much for coming back on the show tonight.

FRANK SCHAEFFER, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Thanks for having me on.

MADDOW: I do not know what possessed this polling firm to ask whether or not people think the president is the anti-Christ, but they did. Does the response rate among conservatives surprise you? More than one in three saying yes or they don‘t know.

SCHAEFFER: Well, I was a child when President Kennedy was assassinated, and my mother thought, because he died of a head wound, foretold in scripture of the anti-Christ he would be resurrected as the anti-Christ. She thought this might be a possibility.

So, those of us who come from the evangelical subculture have been weaned with our mother‘s milk on a changing cast list of villains. It might be Kennedy to one generation, Obama to the next.

But I think the larger point this brings up is that the mainstream—not just media, but culture—doesn‘t sufficiently take stock of the fact that within our culture, we have a subculture which is literally a fifth column of insanity, that is bred from birth through home school, Christian school, evangelical college, whatever, to reject facts as a matter of faith. And so, this substitute for authentic historic Christianity, and I may add as a little caveat here, I‘m a church-going Christian, really brings up the question: Can Christianity be rescued from Christians? And that‘s an open question.

And when you see a bunch of people going around thinking that our president is the anti-Christ, you have to draw one of two conclusions. Either these are racists looking for any excuse to level the next accusation or they‘re beyond crazy? And I think beyond crazy is a better explanation.

And that evangelical subculture has rotted the brain of the United States of America and we have a big slice of our population waiting for Jesus to come back. They look forward to Armageddon. Good news is bad news to them.

When we talk about the “Left Behind” series of books that I talk about in my book “Crazy for God.” what we‘re talking about is a group of people that are resentful because they‘ve been left behind by modernity, by science, by education, by art, by literature. The rest of us are getting on with our lives. These people are standing on the hilltop waiting for the end.

And this is a dangerous group of people to have as neighbors, and they‘re our national neighbors. And this is the source of all of these insanities that we see leveled at the president. One way or another they go back to this little evangelical subculture. It‘s a disaster.

MADDOW: It is one thing though to think about these as almost cultish
views, to think about these as views that are on the fringes of beyond the edge of mainstream Christianity. It‘s another thing to look at the numbers. I mean, in this same poll, the numbers are also really high on the question of whether or not the president was born in the United States 61 percent of McCain voters in New Jersey expressing doubt that Obama is American, saying he definitely wasn‘t born in the U.S. or they‘re not sure.

The birther thing has been disproven. The anti-Christ thing is—it‘s all another kettle of fish. But how do you work to move people off that position? It doesn‘t seem like facts are relevant in trying to move people away from these beliefs.

SCHAEFFER: You don‘t work to move them off this position. You move past them. Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. It‘s as simple as that. And we have to understand, we have a village idiot in this country, it‘s called “Fundamentalist Christianity.”

And until we move past these people—and let me add as a former lifelong Republican—until the Republican leadership has the guts to stand up and say it would better—it would be better not to have a Republican Party than have a party that caters to the village idiot, there‘s going to be no end in sight. The next thing they‘ll do is accuse Obama of being the anti-Christ and then who knows what comes next on and on it goes.

There is no end to this stuff. Why? Because this subculture has as its fundamentalist faith that they distrust facts per se. They believe in a younger of 6,000 years old with dinosaurs cavorting with human beings. They think that whether it‘s economic news or news from the Middle East, it all has to do with the end of time and Christ returns. This is la-la land.

And the Republican Party is totally enthralled to this subculture to the extent that there is no Republican Party. There is a fundamentalist subculture which has become a cult. It‘s fed red meat by the pawns like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other people who are just not terribly bright themselves and they are talking to even stupider people. That‘s where we‘re at. That‘s where all of this is coming from.

And it‘s becoming circular. It‘s becoming a joke. Unfortunately, a dangerous joke because once in a while, one of these “looney tunes,” as we see, brings guns to public meetings. Who knows what they do next. It‘s a serious thing we all have to face, but the Democrats and sane Americans just have to move past these people, say, “Wait on the hilltop until the end, the rest of us are going to get on with rebuilding our country.”

MADDOW: Mr. Schaeffer, briefly, is there anybody on the right who could be constructive here if they wanted to be? To the extent that people could be moved off of these conspiracy theories? And I understand your point that they not—it‘s not true that all of them could be. But is there anybody who could be influential to try to stop the impact of these conspiracies?

SCHAEFFER: Look, in the year 2000 I worked for John McCain, to try to get him elected in the primaries instead of George Bush. But John McCain sold out by nominating Sarah Palin who comes directly from the heart of this movement and carries with her all that baggage. So, he sold out. I don‘t see anybody on the Republican side of things these days who has the moral standing to provide real leadership, or who will risk their position to do so.

MADDOW: Frank Schaeffer, author of “Crazy for God”—thank you very much for your time tonight, sir. It‘s always fascinating and a pleasure to have you on the show. Thanks.

SCHAEFFER: Thanks a lot.

Jon Stewart offered his take on the Values Voters Summit, worth a watch (and a chuckle or two):

(sorry, no transcript)

Cross-Posted@ DailyKos

Just Keep Digging. . .

2009-09-22T18:16:00.006-04:00

Was it only yesterday I was pointing out how incompetent Gov. Paterson is, and how he hasn't done anything to inspire loyalty from President Obama? Well Paterson just keeps on digging that hole:

Paterson chalked up Obama’s intervention to Washington politics.

“I understand the president’s concern and I understand concern of staff members at the White House. If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation.”

As Ben Smith of Politico points out:

One of the things that has made the White House angriest at Paterson is his linking his woes to the president's. The last time was about race, of course, which made it worse.

and Paterson also had this to say:

Every state accepted stimulus money – some said they weren’t, but all accepted stimulus money – it was shocking that the vote on the stimulus money for the ARRA went along party lines. Here, with the healthcare legislation, they’re talking about negotiating to get one Republican senator to vote with them – they can’t get one Republican?

Paterson really just needs to shut up, I'm pretty sure he's not even on Obama's radar right now, so why he'd go and essentially pick a fight with Obama (and Rahm for that matter) is just dumb. Paterson is trying to play with people that are many levels above him. This isn't even about "black on black crime" so to speak, this is about a Governor who apparently has no TACT at all, looking at how he handled the Caroline Kennedy situation, and how he's handling this now. I guess he's taking the Sarah Palin route, that any publicity is good publicity even if it makes you look like a complete asshole.

Protect Insurance Companies PSA

2009-09-22T14:21:00.003-04:00

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

On The Death Penalty

2009-09-21T19:11:00.006-04:00

When it comes to the Death Penalty, I'm about as far left as you can get. No matter what the person is accused or convicted of, I don't think the government has the right to put that person to death. Recently, Romell Broom's attempted execution in Ohio was unsuccessful. I'm totally against the death penalty, but if you are going to HAVE the death penalty, you should only get one bite at the apple. That means if you aren't successful the first time, you don't get a second chance.

Granted, Romell Broom is a TERRIBLE person according to what he's been convicted of-- the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl in 1984.

The girl, Tryna Middleton, was abducted at knifepoint on Sept. 21, 1984, while she was walking home from a Friday night football game with two friends.

[snip]

On the day of the murder, Broom watched the girls from a slow-moving car. They sensed something wasn't right and turned up a different street to get home, Bessye Middleton said.

But Broom, who was familiar with the neighborhood, apparently guessed their detour and was waiting for them. He raped Tryna Middleton and stabbed her seven times, according to the attorney general's office.

Broom's preying on girls eventually caught up with him.

Three months later, Broom forced an 11-year-old girl into his car but the victim's mother thwarted his escape by running after the car, which was stuck on ice, and yelling to her daughter to jump out.

"The daughter finally jumped out, just about the same time he got some traction on the vehicle and he actually ran over her leg," said Gary Belluomini, an FBI agent who worked in a white-collar crime unit where Bessye Middleton was a clerk.

Two eyewitnesses to the attempted abduction collaborated, one getting the numbers on the getaway car's license plate and the other the letters. That led to Broom's arrest.

He was identified by the girl, her mother and by two eyewitnesses and, after police recognized the similarities with the cases, by Tryna's girlfriends.

And while he may not have given that girl the same opportunity to live, I don't think it's right to plan the execution, have the person awaiting that day (I imagine it would be like waiting for a spanking when you're a child only a million times worse, because at least you know you'll be alive when the spanking is over), only to have the State be unable to find a vein after poking and prodding every possible vein in your body.

Broom, 53, tried to assist technicians in finding a vein, lying on his side, sliding the tube up and down his forearm and flexing his fingers. At 2.49pm Broom "wiped his face with a tissue", and "appeared to be crying". Eventually, the team at the so-called "death house" gave up.

That is inhumane.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer said it best:

Last week's fiasco was the third time since 2006 that Ohio corrections officials have struggled to complete an execution by lethal injection. The problem each time has been difficulty finding a vein. The first two were eventually successful, although the 2007 execution of Christopher Newton dragged on so long he was granted a bathroom break.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection is not inherently a "cruel and unusual punishment" forbidden by the Constitution, Ohio changed its protocols to ensure that prisoners are sedated before the fatal drip begins. Broom's was to have been the third execution under these guidelines.

We in no way condone or defend what Broom did. No person with a heart or a brain could. The question is how does a civilized society respond to the ultimate uncivilized act.

Lethal injection has been sold to the public as a more humane -- and dependable -- means of capital punishment. But there was nothing humane about what happened last week. It's time to end the charade.

(emphasis is mine)

I think he deserves to burn in Hell for what he did, I just don't think WE should be the ones to send him there.

Pass it on: Pres. Obama's HealthCare Plan in 4 Mins

2009-09-21T16:18:00.005-04:00

Just ran into this on the web, and I think we need to make it viral and pass it around. It's Obama laying out his plan for health care in a relatively short video that is easy to understand.

So now, when people say they don't know President Obama's plan, we can just show them this video. Even if they can't hear it, they can read the bullet points conveniently placed on the right.

We have to be vigilent now because the "GOP" is continuing to spread lies about the plan, the latest of which being that the health care will be rationed by RACE (who's not racist again? Sounds like playing on people's racist fears to me).

Bullet points in the video:

1. If you like your insurance, you can keep it
2. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions
3. No dropped coverage when you get sick
4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage
5. Caps out-of-pocket expenses
6. Required coverage for preventative care

If you don't have insurance:
1. A new insurance marketplace, the Exchange
2. New tax xredits for individuals and small business
3. Low-cost coverage for all individuals and small businesses
4. A public health insurance option

For All Americans:
1. Won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront
2. Independent medical experts to identify waste, fraud, and abuse
3. Required coverage for preventative care
4. Eliminates the prescription drug "Donut Hole"
5. Immediate medical malpractice reform projects

Video ends with: "The time for bickering is over, the time for games has passed. Now is the time for action. Now is when we must bring the BEST ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on HealthCare!"

Cross-Posted@ DailyKos

[UPDATE]: While you're at it go to this page on the OFA website to send a letter to your Congress Critter.

President Obama is not "A Negro in Sheep's Clothing"

2009-09-21T12:01:00.008-04:00

I just read a blog post titled Obama Disses Paterson, Beware the Negro in Sheep's Clothing, and I find it to be utter bullshit.

Since when does Obama have to support someone in a position he doesn't think s/he should be in simply because s/he is Black?

The economy is still in the toilet and many states have Govs that are acting like fools right now or have ruined their state's infrastructure. Take one Mark Sanford. Take one Arnold Schwarzenegger. I don't see Obama asking them to go away. Oh yeah I'm supposed to dismiss them because they're Republicans. Does that mean I'm also supposed to ignore the fact that Paterson is African-American? He's not half-African and half-white like our president. He's not a post-racial crossover politician either. He's part of the bonafied black elite in fact. His family is well-established along with the Dinkins, the Suttons and many others. So am I expected to ignore the blatant disrespect the Obama administration (or is it the "Rahm & David Show") have shown by PUBLICLY doing this? I don't think so. Two wrongs don't make it right.

No, you don't see Obama saying anything about the Republican Governors because he's not a Republican. He doesn't care if Republicans get re-elected or not. Wrong or right, that's the truth of the situation. No one can ignore the fact that Paterson is an African American, but the fact that he's an African American doesn't mean Obama shouldn't feel free to voice his own opinion (if he even did, because there is some evidence that Obama himself hasn't spoken on the matter). Also, no one with any sense is claiming Obama is a post-racial anything. Simply because most Blacks are proud that Obama has been elected as President doesn't mean we think racism is over. A non-elite Black man couldn't have done what Obama did with his campaign.

And crying about "disrespect" considering how Paterson and his administration treated Caroline Kennedy (whether he was actually considering appointing her to Clinton's seat or not).

Right now the signs are saying that Paterson is not in a good position to get re-elected.

Governor David Paterson can’t catch a break from registered voters in New York State. Only one-fifth thinks he is performing well in office while 34% say he is doing a poor job. Paterson has had no luck climbing out of the political basement. In Marist’s June survey, the governor garnered a 21% approval rating. One month prior, he chalked up 19%.

He's getting close to Bush 2008 territory with those poll numbers.

And while the author of the Obama Hates Black People post I'm responding to is talking about Obama disrespecting Paterson, President Obama had every intention of keeping the conversations private:

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.

“Is there concern about the situation in New York? Absolutely,” the second administration official said Saturday evening. “Has that concern been conveyed to the governor? Yes.”

The administration officials and the Democratic operative spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with the governor were intended to be confidential.

Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't have time to make sure random "democratic operatives" keep their mouths shut. Even if Obama had taken the time to call Gov. Paterson himself, it would have been leaked. That's the nature of politics these days.

This latest move by Obama gives me the creeps. If he wanted to humiliate Paterson this very public chastisement should do that. It has the air of a personal beef and Obama thinks it's okay to treat Paterson poorly in retaliation but rewarded Hillary Clinton with the Secretary of State position?!!! SMH. What of the unforeseen ramifications of such an action? While it's true that blacks are not a monolith and not in lockstep with each other on every issue this is still a bad look. Obama is very calculated and cautious in his moves. He's trying to deny he's black right now so this obvious lack of faith gesture is especially galling to me. Yet I already hear the deniers discussing how he "needs" to do this because of blah blah blah.

Personal beef? If President Obama has a personal beef with Gov. Paterson, he STILL wouldn't do a "very public chastisement", in fact, he didn't do a "very public chastisement" in this case. I'm not understanding what Acts of Faith in Love is trying to prove with her post. It seems to me (based on this blog post) that she has a beef against President Obama and is hardly looking at this through a non-biased lens.

What good does it do the Black community to have people in high positions that are performing poorly? Should we just continue to try to get these people elected because it's better to have a Black person in the position doing a bad job than it is to have a Whtie person in the position doing a good job?

It's a betrayal plain and simple. Oh wait...I retract that. It can't be a betrayal because Obama is not a real ally of blacks to begin with. Not the collective anyway. I could mention that black voters are a fickle bunch who don't exercise any discretion or build coalitions to wield power effectively. I could mention too many focus on pulling a lever or punching a hole during a national election and remain silent and uninvolved the remainder of the time. I could mention too many have treated this president as some sort of prized calf where any criticism is taken as an invitation to fight. There's a huge lack of discernment in effect. He's not going to hitch himself to a wagon that could very well fall off the side of a cliff. Yet it's still a slap in the face with the relative ease by which Obama abandons those blacks who are not "useful" to him but says nothing of the blatant disrespect heaped upon him by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Dobbs, etc.

How exactly is President Obama NOT a real ally of Blacks? What has he done to show that he doesn't care about Black people? Sounds to me, what I just block quoted is saying that Black people aren't real allies of themselves. They go vote, but they don't stay involved? They don't know how to build coalitions or wield power? That doesn't sound like something Obama can fix. And no SANE person will hitch him/herself to a wagon that "could very well fall off the side of a cliff." And Obama DOES talk about the blatant disrespect heaped on him by Right Wing Smear Artists, but as the President of the United States of America, he can't spend all of his time complaining about people who don't like him. He calls out FOX all the time, and just slapped them in the face yesterday by refusing to give them an interview when he gave one to everyone else (even Univision). if Obama called out all of the people we'd like him to call out by name he'd only given them "credibility" which wouldn't help his case at all. Sometimes it's really just better to ignore the ignorant people and continue trying to reach those who approach debate respectfully and make arguments in good faith.

The situation in New York isn't a "black vs white" situation, it's about electoral viability. Looking at that blog post the author seems to be a resident of NY, well instead of whining about some perceived disrespect being heaped on Gov. Paterson by President Obama, maybe she should go volunteer for Paterson's campaign, since he's probably going to get primaried since he's determined to run for a full term.

Also, based on this NYT article, Gov. Paterson hasn't done much (if anything) to earn any "loyalty" from President Obama:

Mr. Paterson, who was elevated to governor from lieutenant governor in March 2008, in the wake of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s resignation after a prostitution scandal, announced in October that he would seek a full term.

But in the intervening months, White House officials have watched the deteriorating political fortunes of Mr. Paterson with growing alarm, as his popularity plunged and he committed a series of missteps that raised questions about his ability to govern.

In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor’s selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official.

The White House and Democratic House leaders were concerned that her sudden departure from the House would give Republicans a prime opportunity to reclaim the seat. Aides to the president conveyed those concerns to the governor, according to Democrats who have discussed the matter with Mr. Obama’s aides.

In the end, Mr. Paterson selected Ms. Gillibrand anyway, infuriating White House officials and Democratic leaders in Washington. Making matters worse, the governor also publicly snubbed Caroline Kennedy, a close personal friend and ally of Mr. Obama’s, who announced in December her wish to be chosen as Mrs. Clinton’s replacement, but then withdrew her name from consideration in January, citing personal reasons.

The concerns of Obama aides deepened last month, when the governor, speaking on a radio talk show in New York, suggested that criticism of him was racially motivated and that Mr. Obama would soon suffer similar attacks. Mr. Obama’s advisers, who have long sought to defuse the issue of race, found the comments inflammatory and expressed their displeasure directly to the Paterson camp.

Video: Michelle Obama Talks Health Care

2009-09-18T14:02:00.007-04:00

REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY ON WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM MEANS FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

Room 450

11:33 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you all. Please, sit. Rest. (Laughter.) First of all, good morning. I am so thrilled to see so many of you here this morning at the White House. Welcome. And that's including my good friend, Dr. Dorothy Height. (Applause.) You know, she is always there, for the past eight months and before. If there was a big event, an important event, she finds a way to be here. She is my inspiration, and it is wonderful to see you again today. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Thank you all for joining us today for the outstanding work you're doing every day on behalf of women and families all across this country. I have to thank our extraordinary Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, for taking the time to be here. (Applause.) And for her tireless efforts to keep our nation healthy. And that includes not just pushing for health insurance reform but preparing us for H1N1, pursuing cutting-edge research to find treatments and cures for tomorrow. Clearly this is not the easiest portfolio she could have, but she is doing a terrific job, and we are grateful for her leadership.

And I also want to thank Tina Tchen, who you all know, for emceeing today. (Applause.) She, too, is doing a fabulous job as Director of our Office of Public Engagement, and she played a critical role in pulling together today's event -- not just as an emcee but as a key figurehead, making sure that we're all aware of what's going on.

And finally, I want to thank the three women behind me -- to Debi, Easter, and Roxi. (Applause.) It is not easy to come here and tell your story. And these stories aren't new. You know, these stories are happening all over this country, not just for thousands of women -- for millions of them. For two years on the campaign trail, this was what I heard from women, that they were being crushed, crushed by the current structure of our health care. Crushed. But these stories that we've heard today, and all of us -- if we're not experiencing it, we know someone who is. These are the stories that remind us about what's at stake in this debate. This is really all that matters. This is why we are fighting so hard for health insurance reform. This is it. This is the face of the fight.

And that's why I'd like to talk to you today. That's why I'm here. That's why reform is so critical in this country -- not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now. People are hurting in this country right now.

But there is also a reason why I invited this particular group to talk today. There's a reason why we've invited the leaders not only from family advocacy groups and health care advocacy groups, but for so many organizations that have been fighting for decades for empowerment for women. And that's because when it comes to health care, as the Secretary said, as we all know, women play a unique and increasingly significant role in our families. We know the pain, because we are usually the ones dealing with it.

Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they're the ones responsible for choosing their children's doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for managing that follow-up care. Women are the ones to do it. Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses. (Laughter.) And more than 10 percent of women in this country are currently caring for a sick or elderly relative. It's often a parent, but it could a grandparent, or a mother -- or a relative of some sort -- but it's often a parent. So they're making critical health care decisions for those family members as well.

In other words, being part of the sandwich generation, is what we are now finding, raising kids while caring for a sick or elderly parent, that's not just a work/family balance issue anymore. It's not just an economic issue anymore. More and more it is a health care issue. It's something that I have thought a great deal about as a mother.

I will never forget the time eight years ago when Sasha was four months that she would not stop crying. And she was not a crier, so we knew something was wrong. So we fortunately were able to take her to our pediatrician that next morning. He examined her and same something's wrong. We didn't know what. But he told us that she could have meningitis. So we were terrified. He said, get to the emergency room right away.

And fortunately for us, things worked out, because she is now the Sasha that we all know and love today -- (laughter) -- who is causing me great -- excitement. (Laughter.)

But it is that moment in our lives that flashes through my head every time we engage in this health insurance conversation. It's that moment in my life. Because I think about what on earth would we have done if we had not had insurance. What would have happened to that beautiful little girl if we hadn't been able to get to a pediatrician who was able to get us to an emergency room? The consequences I can't even imagine. She could have lost her hearing. She could have lost her life if we had had to wait because of insurance.

And it was also fortunate that we happened to have good insurance, right? Because if we hadn't had good insurance, like many of the panelists up here, we would have been saddled with costs for covering that emergency room visit for her two days in the hospital. We would have still been paying off those bills.

And this issue isn't something that I've thought about as a mother. I think about it as a daughter. As many of you know, my father had multiple sclerosis. He contracted it in his twenties. And as you all know, my father was a rock. He was able to get up and go to work every day, even though it got harder for him as he got sicker and more debilitated. And I find myself thinking, what would we have done as a family on the South Side of Chicago if my father hadn't had insurance, if he hadn't been able to cover his treatments? What would it have done to him to think that his illness could have put his entire family into bankruptcy? And what if he had lost his job, which fortunately he never did? What if his company had changed insurance, which fortunately never happened, and we became one of the millions of Americans, families, who can't get insurance because of a preexisting condition?

So these are the thoughts that run through my mind as I watch this debate and hope that we get it right.

But let's be clear: Women aren't just disproportionately affected by this issue because of the roles that we play in families. As Tina and Kathleen mentioned, women are affected because of the jobs that we do in this economy. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time, or to work in small companies or businesses that don't provide any insurance at all.

Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender. And this is still shocking to me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night; that women in this country have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions like having a C-section or having had a baby. In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence.

And a recent study showed that 25-year-old women are charged up to 45 percent more for insurance than 25-year-old men for the exact same coverage. And as the age goes up, you get to 40, that disparity increases to 48 percent -- 48 percent difference for women for the exact same coverage in this country.

But it's not just women without insurance, as we've heard, as we know who are affected. Plenty of women have insurance. But it doesn't cover basic women's health services like maternity care or preventative care like mammograms or pap smears, which we all know we have to have. We can't go without these basic services. But many insurance policies don't even cover it.

Or policies cap the amount of coverage that you can receive, as you've heard, or it drops coverage when people get sick and they really need the care. Or maybe people have coverage but they're worried about losing it if they lose their jobs or if they change jobs or if the company changes insurance carriers. Out-of-pocket costs get higher and higher. It's hard to be able to plan your monthly bills when you don't know what your premiums are going to be. So a lot of people find they have to drop their insurance because they can no longer afford it.

Just think about it. Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man. So it's not exactly surprising when we hear statistics that more than half of women report putting off needed medical care simply because they can't afford it.

Now, we have trouble putting ourselves first when we have the resources -- just making the appointment when you have insurance to get your regular screenings, to take care of those illnesses, those bumps and lumps and pains that we tend to ignore. But then not to be able to do it because you can't have insurance, you don't have insurance -- it's not surprising that so many millions of women around this country are simply going without insurance at all.

See, and the thing that we all know is that the current state -- this current situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. (Applause.) No one in this country should be treated that way. It's not fair. It's not right. And these are hard-working people we're talking about, right? People who care about their kids, care about their lives. And these circumstances could happen to any of us. This is one of those, "There but for the grace of God go I" kind of situations. None of us are exempt -- ever.

So I think it's clear that health insurance reform and what it means for our families is very much a women's issue. It is very much a women's issue.

And if we want to achieve true equality for women, if that is our goal; if we want to ensure that women have opportunities that they deserve, if that is our goal; if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things that they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system. We have to reform the system. The status quo is unacceptable. It is holding women and families back, and we know it.

Fortunately, that is exactly what my husband's plan proposes to do, and it's important for us to understand some of the basic principles of that plan. Under his plan, if you don't have insurance now, or you lose your insurance at some point in the future, you'll be able to purchase affordable coverage through an insurance exchange -- a marketplace with a variety of options that will let you compare prices and benefits. This is exactly the approach that is used to provide members of Congress with insurance. So the thought is that if it's good enough for members of Congress, it should be good enough for the people who vote them in. (Applause.)

And this is also an important part of the plan. If you already have insurance -- and it seems that there are a lot of people who are worried that they'll lose what they have under this plan -- but under this plan, if you already have insurance, you're set. Nothing changes. You keep your insurance, you keep your doctors -- and you're blessed. (Laughter.) This plan just puts in place some basic rules of the road to protect you from the kinds of abuses and unfair practices that we've heard.

Under this plan, insurance companies will never again be allowed to deny people like Debi and her son coverage for preexisting conditions. Sounds like a good thing. So whether you have breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, or hypertension -- or even just had a C-section, or some mental health treatment that you had in your past -- none of that will be a reason to refuse you coverage under the plan that my husband is proposing. Because when you're fighting an illness, he believes that you shouldn't also have to be in the process of fighting the insurance companies at the same time. (Applause.) It's a basic idea.

Under this plan, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get too sick, or refuse to pay for the care that you need, or to set a cap on the amount of coverage that you can get. And it will limit how much they can charge you for out-of-pocket expenses, because getting sick in this country shouldn't mean that you go bankrupt. That's a basic principle of this plan.

And finally, this plan will require insurance companies to cover basic preventative care. Seems simple. (Applause.) From routine checkups, to mammograms, to pap smears -- and this would come at no extra charge to the patient, so folks like Roxi can get the chance to get the kind of screenings that she needs to save her life, because we already know that if we catch diseases like cancer early -- we know this -- it's much less costly to treat, and we might just be able to save some lives. We know this.

So, under this plan, we can save lives and we can save money. It's not just good medicine but it's good economics as well.

So I think this is a pretty reasonable plan. I don't know about you. (Applause.) But I know many of you believe it's a good plan as well. And I know that many of the groups that you represent believe that what we're doing here, this fight, is important. It's important to this country, it's important to women, it's important to families that we succeed.

And now more than ever, as Tina said, as Secretary Sebelius said, we need to act. No longer can we sit by and watch the debate take on a life of its own. It is up to us to get involved, because what we have to remember is that now more than ever, we have to channel our passions into change.

That's nothing that you all haven't done before, right? (Laughter.) You all have been the driving force behind so many of our greatest health care achievements, whether it's been children's health insurance; to funding breast cancer research, stem cell research; to passing the Family Medical Leave Act. The folks in this room, you're the ones that made those phone calls, right? That you wrote those letters, you knocked on those doors. You're the ones that helped make that happen.

And that's exactly what we need you to do today for health insurance reform. We are going to need you over the next few weeks to mobilize like you've never mobilized before. We need you to educate your members about what the plan really is and what it isn't, because education is the key to understanding, and it's going to take phone calls to explain, to talk things through, to make sure that people understand not just what's at stake but what this all means.

And we know there will be all sorts of myths and misconceptions about what the plan is and isn't, so it's so important that you make sure that people know the facts, and at least they make their decisions based on the truth of what this plan is and isn't. We need you to make your voices heard right here in Washington. And you all know how to do that. (Laughter.)

And no, it won't be easy, because there are always folks who are a little afraid of change. We all understand that. We talked about this all during the campaign. Change is hard. Sometimes the status quo, even if it isn't right, feels comfortable because it's what we know. So it is understandable that people are cautious about moving into a new place in this society. There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the way they are, to settle for the world as it is. We talked about that so much. This is one of those times.

But look, I am here today, standing before you as the First Lady of the United States of America, because you all didn't settle for the world as it is, right? (Applause.) You refused to settle. And as a result of many of your efforts, as a young girl, I was able to dream in ways that I could have never imagined, that my mother could never have imagined, that my grandmother could never have imagined. And thanks to so many of you, I am raising these beautiful young women, you know -- (applause) -- who are going to be able to think so differently about their place in the world because of the work that you've done.

Health care reform is part of that movement. Health insurance reform is the next step. So we're going to need you all, focused and clear, picking up the phones, talking, calling, writing your congressmen and women, making this something that is the highest priority for all of us, so that we can make sure that every single family in this country can move forward as we hope that they can; that they don't have to worry about whether they can insure themselves. They don't have to worry about whether their kids are going to break an arm. That's what kids do, they break stuff. (Laughter.)

So I am grateful for all of you, for the work that you've done, and for what I know that we can do together over the next several weeks. But we have to be, what, fired up and what?

AUDIENCE: Ready to go!

MRS. OBAMA: And ready to go. A little fired up and ready to go. So thank you so much. God bless you all, and God bless America. (Applause.)

END 11:57 A.M. EDT

Overall, it was a very moving speech. She related health care struggles back to her own family and how she had to deal with them as a woman first with her father's illness and later in life when Sasha was sick at 3 months old.

This speech was directed to the Women of America who Michelle pointed out commonly are the ones who have to deal with the "healing" aspect of life for their families. Before the First Lady spoke, she had other women come up on the stage and relate their own stories.

Also, the RW Smear Machine is trying to go after Michelle by saying that she was re-routing poor people to less quality health care while she was working for the University hospital in Chicago. The claim is that the bigger hospital was "shunning" poor patients by sending them to community doctors in an effort to keep them out of the emergency room.

Here's what the original article says:

Michelle Obama . . . helped create [a] program, which aims to find neighborhood doctors for low-income people who were flooding the emergency room for basic treatment. Hospital officials say such patients hinder their ability to focus on more critically ill patients in need of specialized care, such as cancer treatment and organ transplants.

I don't see what's wrong with that. People shouldn't be flooding the emergency room for basic treatment. Finding these people affordable physicians to get their basic needs met is NOT shunning them at all. If you go to the University of Chicago Hospital Website, they clear up the rumors:

The cornerstone of the UHI is helping people find a "medical home" -- a place in the community where they can get effective care for both prevention and treatment of non-urgent conditions, routine care and management of health issues and be referred to specialists or hospitals for more complex care.

Currently, 25 percent of patients who come to the UCMC emergency room do not have a medical home or a primary care physician. These patients are not receiving routine preventative care, early detection or consistent disease management. The UHI aims to provide the right care at the right time in the right place.

Q. Even though UHI is in its very early stages, can you point to any encouraging results?
A. There are some encouraging signs. Last year, for instance, we treated fewer non-urgent care cases in our ER -- non-emergency patients dropped from 40 percent to 34 percent. That means the ER was doing more of what it is intended to do: treating urgent medical needs.

At the same time, non-urgent patients -- many with chronic health problems and risky health behaviors -- were referred to other UHI collaborators and got better care. For example, of the patients we referred:

* Thirty-eight (38) percent had been seen two or more times by a primary care provider other than UCMC and 67 percent had had a general physical exam.
* Seventy-nine (79) percent of patients with hypertension were taking regular medication to treat their condition.
* Forty six (46) percent identified as smokers had enrolled in smoking-cessation programs.
* Fifty-two (52) had their cholesterol checked.

People are getting preventative and continuing care that they otherwise would not have gotten absent this program. So no, Michelle Obama did NOT help create a program to shun poor people, she helped create a program to help them.

In fact, check out this Editorial from the Chicago Tribune written a year ago when this smear first arose:

Michelle Obama's role in steering poor people away from the University of Chicago Medical Center, where she works, to neighborhood clinics has been the subject of recent reports in the Sun-Times and the Washington Post. Mrs. Obama and the South Side teaching hospital are being accused -- sincerely by some, for cynical political gain by others -- of essentially turning their back on the urban poor.

On the contrary, we believe the university hospital's efforts to essential outsource non-urgent medical problems to neighborhood clinics is good health care policy, with the potential to become a model for the nation. If done right, it could help contain the escalating costs of medicine that burden all Americans while providing quality primary medical care for the poor and uninsured.

Cross-Posted@ DailyKos

Time to Send In "The Closer"!!

2009-09-17T09:44:00.002-04:00

Politico Reports:

“She will do things that fit in with what she cares about, like health care reform and the implications it has for family and kids,” said Camille Johnston, Obama’s director of communications. “She will spend her time focusing on where policy and people intersect.”

For the health care reform push, which got something of a reboot last week with President Barack Obama’s address to Congress, the aim is for the first lady’s imprimatur to put a friendly face and a noncontroversial spin on a complex, highly partisan issue.

She won’t get into the weeds on health care, pushing specific details or plans as Clinton did. Instead, she’ll make the soft, soccer-mom sell, highlighting the need to eat healthy, exercise and get preventive care. On Friday, Michelle Obama will appear at an event where women and families will talk about the health care system, and she will deliver remarks that will “amplify the president’s message on the need for health insurance reform,” according to the White House.

This is great for two reasons.

1. It's tough to protest Michelle, she's more popular than her husband is right now (and contrary to popular opinion, he's still pretty popular), and she's not actually IN office. Sure there will be some assholes out there who try to start something, but it won't be nearly as bad as the jerks that go after Obama. Also, I think the backlash would be A LOT worse if they go after Michelle, especially since she won't be wading into the weeds on the policy and legislative stuff.

2. She's a GREAT person to pitch what her husband's health care plan will mean to the average person. Anyone who saw her give speeches during the campaign knows that she just has this ability to connect to people (and she tends to NOT use a teleprompter). She can (and apparently will) break it down so the average person can understand how the reforms will affect them which will more likely ADD to the level of support Obama's plan has now.

I think this further cements the fact that President Obama is planning to finish out health care by treating it like a campaign, which as someone pointed out on MSNBC last Saturday is the best way for him to go about it because we KNOW he's a kick-ass campaigner. Michelle will be another way for President Obama to talk PAST/OVER the talking-heads and straight to the American people.

All in all, I'm excited we'll get to see more of our First Lady! I guess now that the girls are back in school, she's got to have something to fill her time :o)

Cross-Posted@ DailyKos

Michael Eric Dyson Tries To Teach Morning Joe. . .

2009-09-16T10:30:00.007-04:00

Dr. Dyson tried to teach them and they just weren't getting it. No one is claiming it's ALL about Racism, but there is a lot out there that is based on racism. For them to cite poll numbers to back up their claims that there's no racism at all involved is disingenuous at best. I've stated repeatedly that I think it's more ignorance than anything. Sure, some of it is just because he's a Democrat. If they thought they could get away with claiming Obama is a murderer they would, in fact they do call him a "baby killer." But there are a lot of images being used by the "tea baggers" that are racially motivated.

Then Joe Scarborough tries to act like Rush Limbaugh has never said anything racist. He said this just YESTERDAY:

You put your kids on a school bus you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering 'yeah, right on, right on, right on.' Of course everybody said the white kid deserved it he was born a racist, he's white.

And he's been saying crap like that since Obama was inaugurated, and probably before then. "Obama's America" as if it's not the United States of America. As if suddenly by virtue of having an African American President everything is going to change and White people will suddenly be oppressed, and Black people are going to take over. It's sickening.

Dr. Dyson tried his hardest to get through to the other people in the conversation, but judging from their dumbstruck looks through most of it, they didn't get it.

Really?

2009-09-15T22:21:00.006-04:00

Since when it is 'breaking news' that someone actually tells the damn truth about something? Earlier today, Pres. Jimmy Carter had the following to say:

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

So basically he said that a lot of the vitriol against President Obama is based on racism. And people are SHOCKED by this? He told the damn truth. Sure, there is some opposition out there that is just based on the fact that Obama is a Democrat, and there may even be some who are seriously against his policy, but to claim that race isn't an issue when you see signs like:

>

Some Conservative TV Talking Heads would like to say that these same protests were taking place when Bush was in office giving out Tarp money. Really? I don't recall seeing people carrying Bush= Hitler signs? Hell, at the health care rally on Sunday there were a LOT of signs there that had NOTHING to do with any of the current health care proposals? I stated a couple of days ago that it's ignorance, and I still think that's what most of it is, but I also think a lot of it is flat out racism.

President Obama has been in office all of 8-9 months. He hasn't done ANYTHING to warrant people showing up at his rallies with guns just because they can. He's done nothing to warrant the hatred coming from the right. He's done nothing to be called a racist on a popular (unfortunately) 24 hour news station.

I am reluctant to say it's ALL racism, but to pretend that a LOT of the people you see going to those rallies aren't racist is deluding yourself. And instead of the Republican Party calling these people out and trying to distance themselves, they are holding on to them because they are pretty much what's left of their party. They are embracing the hatred against the President of this country in a way that is disturbing, and the level to which they condone the lack of civility is evident by the outburst by Congressman Joe Wilson during President Obama's joint address to Congress last week. As it turns out, Wilson has a history of doing racist things.

The election of an African American President did nothing to eradicate racism in this country, if anything it made the "hardcore" racists more bold. They no longer even TRY to hide it, they like to revel in their hatred, and that is truly disgusting. There are policy arguments that can be made against what President Obama is doing, but the arguments actually being advanced are based on lies that center around making President Obama scary.

Racism, The Right Wing, and President Obama

2009-09-12T16:03:00.004-04:00

I do not deny that a lot of the flack that President Obama is getting from the right is from racists. However, I don't think we should get into the habit of blaming ALL of the vitriol from the conservatives on Racism. Most of it, I think, is just plain ignorance. We'd be hearing the same exact arguments against Obama's policies if he were White instead of Black, the signs just wouldn't be as racially hinged. The problem is, people don't seem to be thinking for themselves. Instead of going to many different sources to get their news, they watch only one channel (the right wing typically watches FOX News (or as I say it FAUX News) and the left is more inclined to watch MSNBC after 8 PM) and all they get is a skewed idea of the issues of the day and the President's stance.

As an African American, I am tired of seeing racist being synonymous with policy criticism. Is racism there? Yes. But it's not everything, and people these days tend to say "racism" before they label it for what it really is-- pure ignorance. We can't just keep throwing "racism" around when sometimes that's not what it is because it makes it less likely that people will believe it when it really IS racism. Why do you think President Obama and his team never play that card, even when it's warranted sometimes?

The Blatant Disrespect of the President is Starting to Piss Me Off

2009-09-09T18:58:00.001-04:00

I didn't like George Bush. I may have felt a little pity for him sometimes, but I didn't like him. That being said, I still showed the necessary respect for his office when he was the President of the United States. I don't recall ever hearing about mass protests and school districts refusing to allow him to speak to school children, and we wouldn't have heard it.

With that being said, the blatant disrespect shown to President Obama by Republicans is really starting to piss me off. First I read this crap yesterday:

"What you're seeing is folks on my side anxious to see what the president has to say tomorrow night," Chambliss said. "I think he's gonna have to express some humility based on what we've seen around the country this August and that's not his inclination."

I don't recall any Republicans (or even Democrats) saying that BUSH needed to show humility, and that guy had an ego BIGGER than the whole damn state of Texas even when he was wrong as hell. We simply disagreed and tried to press our logical points (of course, there's always the fringe, I'm talking about elected officials).

And today I read THIS bullshit:

The Arlington Independent School District in Texas decided not to show President Obama’s address to students live yesterday because it reportedly didn’t want to interrupt its regularly scheduled lesson plans. However, the district has now decided to bus its students off-campus on Sept. 21 to hear President Bush speak:

District officials said it’s part of a Cowboys Stadium field trip that the North Texas Super Bowl Host Committee invited 28 fifth-grade classes to attend several months ago.

In addition to hearing from Bush and former first lady Laura Bush, the students will hear from legendary Dallas Cowboys players and North Texas business and community leaders. The event launches the Super Bowl committee’s largest-ever youth education program.

What. The. FUCK!?!?!?! So they couldn't SIT in the school and listen to President Obama talk about education, but they can be BUSED to a fucking stadium to listen to Bush? The same Bush who has never shown any particular like for education, learning, science, or anything that will make someone smarter? To be fair, it's not former President Bush's fault, I'm sure HE didn't tell the school district to not show Obama's speech. Hell, I'm sure if his daughters were still in school, he'd have let them watch the speech.

But seriously?

Barack Obama WON the election fair and square.

Let me say that again, BARACK OBAMA WON THE ELECTION FAIR AND SQUARE.

EVEN if you didn't vote for him, even if your state went MORE "red" than it was before, even if you dislike or even HATE his policies, HE'S THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!

I don't know what it's about, although I'm very much inclined to say the fact that he's African American AND a Democrat doesn't help, and I really don't care. He's the President! If you don't like the fact that he's the President soooooooo much that you can't show him the basic respect that the office demands, you are more than welcome to leave the country.

The irony is, the President who actually respects these assholes is the one getting treated like shit constantly. EVERY DAY the Republicans and their cohorts do something to show disrespect, whether it's refusing to allow school children to hear a fucking pep talk about school or talking shit about his policies overseas, and I'm sick of it. If Democrats treated a REPUBLICAN President the way the Republicans treat Obama, they'd have a conniption.

To clarify, I'm largely talking about people in positions of power, not teabaggers (although the teabaggers are BACKED by people in positions of power), even though the every day citizens are pushing the envelope too. And yes, I realize our side has its fringe too, the difference is, the fringe isn't the mainstream.

Cross Posted @ DailyKos

GOP Boggarts

2009-09-08T13:56:00.003-04:00

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Republicans are Boggarts. I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter Series, in fact I just finished reading all of the books yesterday. In the books there is a "thing" called a Boggart. Here's the description from Harry Potter Wiki

A boggart is a shape-shifting creature that takes on the form of the viewer's worst fear. When facing a boggart, it is best to have someone else along, to try to confuse it. Because of their shape-shifting ability, no one knows what a boggart looks like when it is alone.

Just look at how they react to EVERYTHING. They look for what they think will scare people the most and that's what they push out there. With President Obama during the campaign they pushed out that he's a scary Black Man. Then they said he's a Muslim (which shouldn't be a smear). They essentially called him a terrorist. They went after Michelle by trying to say she hates America.

Since before President Obama was elected, they have been claiming he's not a citizen of the United States, that he was born in Kenya. They even went so far as to make a fake birth certificate.

In the last month during the health care debate, they've tried to scare people with death panels. They've tried to scare people with tax hikes. They've tried to scare people with rationing. They've tried to scare people by saying Obama and the Democrats want to encourage soldiers to kill themselves after war.

And then we have this crap with the school children where they said Obama was going to try to indoctrinate them with his socialist tendencies. They blamed that on the "lesson plan" that's no longer being used. May the lesson plan's wording have been bad? Yes, but a lesson plan/literature that was completely optional to the teachers showing the speech was not enough to warrant the "uproar" that ensued.

And a little while ago on MSNBC, I saw perhaps the dumbest argument yet. Joe Watkins claimed that they had a problem with President Obama's speech because they are afraid the kids will like him too much. You see, President Obama is too eloquent and "persuasive" and he may undo any of the -wiring- teaching that parents have done. Today he's talking about staying in school to get the kids to like him, tomorrow he's telling them it's okay for gays to be married and abortion is a good thing. Parents have the constitutional right to raise their children as they wish, and I seriously doubt that a speech from the President is going to undo YEARS of -wiring- teachings. Joe Watkins had me CRACKIN' UP, literally. I was tempted to roll on the floor with laughter. (I seriously hope video pops up soon).

So, how do you get rid of Boggarts?

The charm that combats a boggart is Riddikulus. The charm requires a strong mind and good concentration. The incantation and wand movement alone will not affect a boggart. The correct way to perform the charm is to push past the fear, and concentrate on something that will make the boggart look amusing. The charm does not, in fact, repel a Boggart; it just forces it to assume a shape that the caster will find comical, inspiring laughter, which will defeat a boggart.

We know this works because laughter may well have saved us from a McCain Presidency, SNL eviscerated Sarah Palin week after week, even when she was ON the program they made her look like a fool. Indeed "that's ridiculous!" is usually what people say when they realize what the republican argument against _________ is.

The teabaggers, aside from the unfortunate name choice, were made to look completely insane and laughable, even if they had some legitimate complaints they jumped the shark to crazyland, and now no one takes them seriously.

Look at Michele Bachmann, every time I see her name I get ready to giggle. She never makes me mad, she may make me cry though (of laughter).

And then there's this school flap, my friends and I have been joking about it all morning on Facebook. Even if there were legitimate complaints at one time, they take it too far and it becomes hilarious.

The Republican Party thrives on fear, and can't take being mocked. They can dish it out, but they damn sure can't take it.

Now I'm not saying all of our "GOP" woes will be fixed with laughter, but once the party becomes a joke, people won't take them seriously at all anymore outside of their whacked out base (again, look at Sarah Palin).

Cross-Posted at DailyKos

UPDATE: Watch the Joe Watkins Video for epic LOLs

McCain: Torture Violated the Law and Didn't Make the U.S. Safer

2009-08-30T19:25:00.000-04:00

Republicans don't impress me much, but this statement from McCain impressed me:

"I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan," said the Arizona Republican. "I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq... I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other members."

of course, he then remembered he was a Republican and claimed that the DOJ shouldn't be looking into the incidents of torture that we know about because we should look "forward, not backward."

"I believe the president was right when he said we ought to go forward and not back," he said. "I worry about the morale and effectiveness of the CIA. I worry about this thing getting out of control and us harming our ability to carry out the struggle we are in with radical Islamic extremism."

I think the "looking forward" argument is a dumb one. How are we really going to move on and restore those allies' faith in America if we won't even go so far as to convict the people who committed the torture? Also, the CIA shouldn't be exempt from following the law. If the CIA isn't doing anything to violate the law, then the CIA has nothing to worry about.

Let's say someone killed someone in McCain's family 4 or 5 years ago, and the killer was just now being tried, do you think he'd be saying "we need to look forward not back, let the murderer go?" Or if someone tortured someone in HIS family, how would he like it if the prosecutor decided to "look forward not back." Just look at the campaign, McCain was using footage of when when was being released after being tortured decades ago, I bet if he could go after the people who held and tortured him (or his pals) he wouldn't want us to just "look forward."

There are many times when we can't just "look forward" without acknowledging our past. President Obama's unwillingness to have the investigations take place (mind you, the investigations taking place now won't even really get the people who authorized the torture, only SOME of the people who actually DID it) makes me wonder if his administration is planning on bending the law as much as they can and ignoring it when it gets in their way.

[. . .]on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) pointed out that President Obama has been a bit more reluctant to open an investigation. Holder’s decision to nevertheless move forward is actually a welcome break from the days of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who made all his decisions based on political guidance from the White House:

KERRY: I think there is a little bit of a tension between the White House itself and the lawyers in the Justice Department as they see the law and as what their obligation is. In a sense, that’s good. That’s appropriate, because it shows that we have an attorney general who is not pursuing a political agenda, but who is doing what he believes the law requires him to do. And we have an administration, on the other hand, that is balancing some of those other issues.

Source

I'm glad Eric Holder looked past all of the politicians and is doing what's right, even if it's just a really small drop in the bucket, it's SOMETHING.

Torture doesn't work. No SANE person thinks torture works. Even in the aftermath of 9/11 I wouldn't have approved of torture being done in my name for "national security". The people being tortured don't actually believe you'll stop or let them go if they tell you want they want to know (that's provided that they actually have the information), if anything I'd think the torture would make them dig their heels in and/or just tell the torturer what they want to hear. McCain himself has a story about how he lied to his captors when they wanted information, so he should know.

OFA Liveblog

2009-08-20T16:43:00.001-04:00

I moved it from the diary on Kos since people seem to think I was trying to use it to get recs. My original diary is back as I had it. Here's the liveblog for those who wanted it:

Liveblog starts here:

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: Just started, Gov. Tim Kaine speaking now.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: Gov. Kaine basically gave a "health care is necssary" pep talk. Mitch Stewart is talking now.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: Over 64,000 people went to visit their congresspeople to show support for health insurance reform. Also, Pro-Reformers have been outnumbering the Anti-Reformers. You can go to the website to find events happening in the next 19 days and sign up to attend. Now introducing Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: DWS: We all worked hard to elect Obama to bring real change, but we have to work hard to change a bad system and ensure that every American has quality health care. Some say this is the wrong time, but she disagrees, now it's the right time. Many of the same critics said we weren't ready for a Black President, they were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Real reform won't be easy, but we know that change worth having doesn't come easy. When Congress returns there will be hard bargaining and hard choices, but nothing is more important than making sure every American has quality health care that can't be taken away from them. There are many people working hard to build support for Obama's plan, and we need you to keep working. The most sweeping reform of our generation is within our grasp, we must seize it. We've done this before, and we can do it again. Together we will pass health insurance reform THIS YEAR. Introduces a volunteer from Virginia.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: Obama on now

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: Talking about the work that was done during the election. Calls this our toughest fight and tells us to recall what we've already done. Talking about the Stimulus and SCHIP and other things passed earlier this year now.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: it's on CSPAN if you're at home

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: For all those saying the public option isn't essential, it's STILL on the OFA website:

Guarantee choice — Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor – including the choice of a public insurance option

Now Obama is joking about the campaign.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: We are going to have to cut through a lot of nonsense about things that are/aren't in the health care reform proposals. "We can have a real debate because health care's hard and there are some legitimate issues that need to be worked through" but we need to cut through the BS, and we all need to do it because we have more credibility than the people on TV.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: 1. No matter what you heard if you like what you have now, you can keep it
2. if you don't have health insurance, we will provide you "high quality, affordable options" this doesn't just include poor people. We want to give them a menu of options and help
3. We want to provide them with a public option. "I think a public option is important" because we are going to have a marketplace. An overwhelming majority in the exchange will be private, but having a public option in there will keep insurers honest and show them what the plan should look like.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: The public option is just one option, it will be voluntary, no one will be forced to be in in. But it will be a choice.

We also want to stop insurance companies from covering you for pre-existing conditions. If you get sick you should be able to keep your insurance or if you lose your job. We have to make sure that's against the law.

Medicare will be more efficient for seniors.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: taking questions now

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: Only taking three questions from outside the room.

First question: The volunteers have gotten support from over 26,000 people. The debate is heating up, what's the most compelling argument we can make for health reform?

Answer: The status quo is unsustainable. Even if you have private insurance, you may end up losing it because costs are going to continue to inflate and your employer may decide to drop it or you may start getting more taken out of your check.

There will be an exchange, and it will be the individual's choice. One of the options WILL be a public option (more confusion for me!) in the marketplace.

Insurance companies won't be able to deny people coverage under fine print for pre-existing coverage or because they are sick.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]::

Second question: Retired health care administrator from DWS's district, was a team leader during the campaign. Are we winning support from members of Congress? Are we making a difference?

Answer: Yes. (starts answering question that wasn't asked about Medicare, remind Seniors that we aren't trying to take Medicare away, we want to expand it)

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]::

Third question: What do we do about the misconceptions (lies) being spread?

Answer: The best offense against lies is the truth, so all we can do is keep pushing the truth. There is no plan to cover illegal immigrants, despite what people believe. There are no plans to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal tax-payer dollars on abortions. Nobody has proposed anything remotely close to a government takeover of health care, even the most liberal proposal has stated that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. We don't want government insurance bureaucrats interfering, we also don't want insurance company bureaucrats interfering. No one is going to kill Grandma, and people should stop using the death panel lies to promote LIES (I said lies, not him).

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]::

Fourth Question: Man from North Carolina thanks for turning NC Blue. It's unconscionable that there are people who don't have health insurance. You've been good at trying to get a bi-partisan bill and got 3 republicans to stand with you. Where are we going to go from here?

Answer: We don't know about Republican support, but Grassly, Ensin, and Snowe have been working "diligently" to get a bill out. I give them a lot of credit for negotiating because they are under pressure not to negotiate. But they are showing tremendous resolve. We want the bill to include Republican ideas, but we have no control over their strategy. We're going to get this done one way or another.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]::

Fourth Question: How are we going to pay for this? How do we know employers won't force people into public plan.

Answer: We are spending 8-9 BILLION dollars a MONTH on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's enough to pay for health care reform. We are going to reallocate tax-payer money that's being wasted and use it to make people healthy. The way we reimburse hospitals, we don't incentivise them to get their patients the best treatment the first time so people have to keep going back. We need to come up with 30-40 billion dollars a year, and we are not going to tax middle and lower class families.

Also, employers who are providing insurance can't force their employees into a public option.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]::

Fifth Question: Man from Durham, why aren't you pushing a public option if you think it's the best way to lower costs? If you don't think it's the best way, what are the other options?

Answer: He supports a public option and thinks it's important. The only thnk we've said is that the public option is just one component of a broader plan. We are also doing insurance reforms that regulate the behaviors of insurance companies. If we regulate them and have a public option then the insurance companies have a model to follow. All of these things are "important" and if the debate ends up being focused on one aspect of it then we are missing the boat because if all we talk about is the public option, the people who have insurance will think the health reform won't help them. We're just trying to not twist the debate to give opponents another tool to use against us. We need to focus on all of the elements of reform so we can build the largest coalition possible to get it done.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]::

Sixth question: what about personal responsibility?

Answer: If the obesity rate went down, the cost of health care would go down. We also need to make sure people are getting regular checkups and eating healthy food.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]::

Last question:

What about the young people who are off of their parent's insurance and aren't getting paid enough to afford health insurance?

Answer: We want to extend the length they can stay on their parents health care plan until they get a more stable job. (Muz- Personally, I could have used this) Also, it doesn't cost much to insure young people so it should be more affordable. There will be some who decide to opt out, but they'll be able to afford it. Also, we want to give hardship exemptions.

Update [2009-8-20 15:58:31 by Muzikal203]:: Closing: it's easy to do nothing and see your poll numbers go up and get away with that for years, but I came here to get stuff done and you got me here to get stuff done. Washington is trying to steal your "can do" spirit, and we aren't going to let them. Thanks, and goodnight ~drops mic~ (okay, he didn't really drop the mic :o) )

END LIVEBLOG
_________________________________________________

Justices Scalia and Thomas Think It's Constitutional To Execute INNOCENT People

2009-08-17T20:25:00.002-04:00

Cross posted @ DailyKos

Antonin Scalia (Yes, that Scalia) thinks mere innocence isn't enough to keep you from being executed, and his pal Clarence Thomas agrees with him.

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

Scalia also states that:

Far from demonstrating, as this Court’s Rule 20.4(a) requires, “exceptional circumstances” that “warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers,” petitioner’s claim is a sure loser.

An innocent man may be put to DEATH and Scalia doesn't think that's an "exceptional circumstance"? What kind of unfeeling jerk says something like that? If HE were in Troy Davis's shoes, I'm sure he'd have a very different opinion.

Davis was convicted in 1991 of murdering an off-duty Savannah police officer, Mark Allen MacPhail, in 1989. Since his trial, Davis has claimed, seven of the state of Georgia’s key witneeses have recanted the testimony they gave at the trial. Several other individuals have implicated another man — the prosecution’s key witness against Davis — as the shooter.

Read more about Troy's case here.

In fact, as Justice Stevens points out:

JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissent is wrong in two respects.First, he assumes as a matter of fact that petitioner Davis is guilty of the murder of Officer MacPhail. He does this even though seven of the State’s key witnesses have re-canted their trial testimony; several individuals have implicated the State’s principal witness as the shooter; and “no court,” state or federal, “has ever conducted a hearing to assess the reliability of the score of [post conviction] affidavits that, if reliable, would satisfy the threshold showing for a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence,” 565 F. 3d 810, 827 (CA11 2009) (Barkett, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing. Simply put, the case is sufficiently “exceptional” to warrant utilization of this Court’s Rule 20.4(a).

[snip]

JUSTICE SCALIA would pretermit all of these unresolved legal questions on the theory that we must treat even the most robust showing of actual innocence identically on habeas review to an accusation of minor procedural error. Without briefing or argument, he concludes that Congress chose to foreclose relief and that the Constitution permits this. But imagine a petitioner in Davis’s situation who possesses new evidence conclusively and definitively proving, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that he is an innocent man. The dissent’s reasoning would allow such a petitioner to be put to death nonetheless. The Court correctly refuses to endorse such reasoning.

When you execute someone, that's PERMANENT. It's not like you can just raise him from the dead if he happens to be proven innocent AFTER being killed. Even if you get a "full and fair trial" you could be innocent. While our criminal procedure and evidence rules are good, they are not PERFECT. Please let this jerk be the next one to retire, or Thomas who concurred with him.

Cross posted @ DailyKos

President Obama, Please Just Give Up Already

2009-08-12T14:04:00.003-04:00

Dear President Obama,

Look, we all like the idea of bipartisanship, it's a lofty goal. However, I think when it comes to health care, bipartisanship needs to go out the window. Stop worrying about Repubicans and get the Blue Dogs in line. Besides, we all know when health care passes and starts working for folks, the Republicans will take credit for it anyway so maybe people will believe it was a bipartisan effort down the line.
Yesterday, you had this to say about Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa:

Now, I think that there are some of my Republican friends on Capitol Hill who are sincerely trying to figure out if they can find a health care bill that works -- Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Olympia Snowe from Maine have been -- (applause) -- yes, I got to admit I like Olympia, too. (Laughter.) They are diligently working to see if they can come up with a plan that could get both Republican and Democratic support.

So imagine my surprise when I read "'Grassley Endorses "Death Panel" Rumor: 'You Have Every Right To Fear'" on the Politics page as the headline on the Huffington Post.

So I followed the link and came upon this

WINTERSET — Americans should be scared of provisions in a health care bill currently in the U.S. House because it will allow the government to have a say in end-of-life decisions, Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley told a crowd of more than 300 Wednesday morning.

“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma”

Really? Like seriously? THIS is the guy you cited as really "sincerely" trying to work out something on healthcare? Forgive me if I'm not convinced. And this isn't the first time he's shown a willingness to promote the talking points of the far right that are being used to derail ANY type of health care reform:

This isn’t the first time Grassley has used debunked rumors during the health care debate. Last week he said Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts would not receive quality care for his brain tumor under President Obama’s health care plan because the care would go to a younger person who can “contribute more to the economy.”

So President Obama, I implore you, please stop wasting your time and effort on these people. We may not like Blue Dogs, but at least they aren't endorsing BS rumors like the "death panels"

Sincerely,

Muzikal203

P.S. Maybe you should watch this video from the Colbert Report, Johnathan Cohn does a good job of dealing with the "deather" crap:

P.P.S. I get that you needed to at least make the effort, the sane people in this country saw you make the effort, it's safe to move on and get something passed now without them.

P.P.P.S. Give my love to Michelle and the girls :o)
Cross-posted at DailyKos

Eventually They Will Lose Control

2009-08-07T19:26:00.002-04:00

Cross-posted @ Daily Kos

We all hear the reports about the "angry protesters" at the health care townhalls around the country. And it is becoming increasingly obvious, even to those who are in denial about it that this so called "spontaneous uprising" is being promoted by the GOP and people in the media on the conservative side of things. They are encouraging these people to go and be rude and disorderly. They are encouraging these people to give death threats (while simultaneously trying to seem like they are trying to tamp down on the violence).

While they might be "controlling" these people now, they will eventually lose control of them. We saw it during the election when people started yelling that Obama was a terrorist at McCain/Palin rallies.

The last week or so we have been hearing a lot about these protests at town hall meetings. We've seen a U.S. House Representative laugh over the possibility of his Democratic colleagues being lynched by these "angry" mobs. Now it's escalated to the point where the "protesters" are encouraging each other to carry firearms to the townhalls and use them if they feel someone is being rude and disruptive (sounds like they should be shooting each other if that is the case). It's only going to get worse. Now Palin has reared her head in our airspace once again to accuse Obama of trying to kill her child (but don't mention her kids).

The Republicans created this monster, and they aren't going to be able to control it. The situation is rapidly reaching the point where they WON'T be able to pull back. Remember the McCain/Palin rallies? By the time McCain realized it looked bad and was starting to get out of hands, it was too late. He literally got booed by his own crowd for saying Obama is a good guy. When the Republicans lose control, it will be too late for them to distance themselves because all of the evidence points to the fact that they are the ones promoting these people. They are the ones who gave the ideas. They are the ones who are playing with the emotions of the fringe of their party. That very same fringe is well on its way to being the MAJORITY in the Republican Party because they will be all that's left.

Who knows how this violence will end up playing out on the street between every day people. In Missouri, people already came to blows over it. The Republican Party, and its cohorts, has been extremely reckless here. They continue to allow people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to play on the racial fears of that very vocal minority and no one checks them on it. Glenn Beck went on his show and fantasized about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, that man is not sane and he has a following.

I don't scare easily, but this situation is rapidly getting out of control.

Cross-posted @ Daily Kos

. . . Because lynching people is just sooooo funny

2009-08-06T12:39:00.003-04:00

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos
I'm sorry (not really), but fuck this asshole:

Yes, let's joke about lynching people. Lynching just doesn't get the respect it should in the comedic world. For a House Representative to even THINK this is funny, much less SAY it at a townhall I think illustrates the futility of trying to work with those people. They think their colleagues being KILLED is funny. What happened to "all life is sacred"? Even worse is the crowd APPLAUDING and LAUGHING with him.

If you don't know what lynching is, or how terrible it really was, check out this link about a special PBS did in 2007, this link with pictures of lynchings that were used as POSTCARDS because the racists were so proud, or this link with more sources you can check out. I would post the pictures in this diary, but not everyone can handle looking at graphic photos.

[UPDATE]Just thought I'd share these:

Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" one of the most powerful songs I know:

and India.Aire's Version:

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos

I Am NOT Afraid

2009-08-05T12:36:00.001-04:00

Cross-Posted@ Daily Kos

I know lots of you disagree with me, but I am not afraid for President Obama's life. I have never been afraid for his life. Yes, I realize there are crazy people out there and there are "more" threats against Obama's life than any other recent President. The only thing that surprised me when I heard that was that it's only 30 a day. But still I'm not afraid.

Yes, I'm Black, but I never even entertained the thought of not supporting Obama because I was afraid someone would kill him.

Yes, I know he had to get Secret Service protection earlier in the campaign than anyone else who didn't already have it.

I know these things. I know racism is still alive and well. But I am not afraid.

Perhaps it's because I'm part of that younger generation who has largely gotten this far in life without being subjected to outright racism. We came about when the racists were the minority, not the majority. Racism wasn't the law of the land when we were born. Perhaps it's because I never thought my own life was in danger because I'm Black.

I agree that racism is alive and thriving in some areas of this country and among some racial groups, but that group is largely becoming even more of a minority than it was before. Most of the country watching what's going on are appalled, they aren't cheering these wackos on. Those racists who are so proud to be racist are the MINORITY. Obama's election did not create any racists who weren't already that way. Maybe before his election those people were doing a better job of "hiding" their racism, but they were still racists. There are some people out there who just hate Obama regardless of his skin color, just like there were people out there who hated every president. That's just life.

I trust the Secret Service to keep him safe.

Racism is a real problem in America, mostly because no one seems to want to deal with it. People complain about it constantly, but don't really want to do anything to remedy it because it may not be politically expedient.

I think Michelle put it best during the campaign:

\

and again in Phoenix

She called on another supporter, whose voice quivered and broke with barely contained emotion as she explained how important it is to her, personally, that our country change course. She explained that she had just returned from Oregon where she campaigned for Obama and attended the 75,000-person rally by the river. She had noticed, she said, that the Secret Service had increased security dramatically for Barack Obama's rallies since the Phoenix rally in January.

The room collectively gasped and murmured, some aghast that these fears were being spoken aloud directly to Barack Obama's wife. Some nodded, concern and fear on their faces. Others shifted on their feet, displaying a range of emotions -- concern, discomfort with the topic, indignation.

The woman continued: "What can you tell us..." and then her voice caught and broke as a sob rose up from her chest. She paused for a moment. "I'm afraid of what might happen. What can you tell us, after last week's comments--" another sob-- "after last week's comments, to make us feel more at ease?" She cried unabashedly after finally getting out her words.

The room that had been electrified with positive energy throughout the evening suddenly became still and quiet, all eyes focused on Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama's eyes, though, were focused on that concerned supporter. She paused, allowing the clearly distraught supporter to pull herself together. Maybe it was 30 seconds before Obama spoke, stretched out into imaginary minutes. Finally, she said firmly, "I'm ok. Really. I am ok. And if I'm ok, you should be ok.

"You know, we talked about this as a family."

She held the microphone with one hand, the other curved inward over her heart as she talked. Her tenor and body language was clear. Michelle Obama was talking as a mother. She was introspective and intimate, looking the questioner in the eyes as if they are the only two in the room.

"We talked about this as a family."

The room remained still and quiet. Imagine having that talk with your children. Then, she paused, gathering herself, pulling herself up, seeming to grow even taller, Michelle, the campaigning wife returns. She says,

"I've talked about this before. Barack is probably safer now than he was before. Kids are dying in the street in our community. They get shot walking to class, sitting in school, taking the bus home. They are dying in the street.... Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk.It's not funny. You don't have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk."

Then she reminded the crowd what we are fighting for, and why it is important to forge ahead without fear. "Fear is the reason this country is where it is today. Fear is a useless emotion. Don't ever make decisions based on fear. Make decisions based on hope and possibility. Make decisions based on what should happen, not what shouldn't. Don't ever make decisions based on fear."

:

So yes, I see the racism, I know what's going on, but I'm not afraid.

Cross-Posted@ Daily Kos

More On Louisiana Schools

2009-08-03T19:59:00.007-04:00

According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, 38% of the high school seniors in Louisiana fail to graduate with a regular high school diploma. According to the same group, only 51% of African Americans in Louisiana graduate. That’s a low number, a number that the state is not, and should not, be proud of. So what is the state legislature and Gov. Bobby Jindal’s solution to this problem? Lowering the graduation standards for students who feel they can’t graduate with the normal standards if they get their parent’s consent and placing them on a career track designed to get them into the state’s community colleges and technical schools, but not 4-year colleges.

According to Gov. Jindal those students will be trained for blue collar jobs instead as an effort to retain them in school, and build Louisiana’s economy at the same time. I don’t disagree with that. The state’s legislature agreed with him passing a law, through broad bi-partisan support, that will enable students who cannot pass the basic requirements for English and Math at the end of their 8th grade year, to bypass those requirements and go to high school on a “career track” that includes overall lower standards. While I, personally, am not a fan of using standardized tests to determine the quality of education from grade to grade year to year, I also disagree with allowing some students to skip the test while requiring others to participate. Exempting certain students who may struggle through the test and then placing them in a special program that results in what is essentially a “lesser” degree is not the answer.

Blue collar jobs are essential in America, but those who work them are no less capable of graduating from high school than others if they have the proper support. There are plenty who disagree with me and feel there are some students out there who are simply incapable of graduating from high school without having the standards lowered for them, but I refuse to believe that it is impossible. There are a lot of students out there who won’t go to college because that’s their choice, but they shouldn’t be making that decision at the age of 15. Most students probably don’t even start considering which colleges they want to go to or if they want to go until their Junior year of high school. Personally, I didn’t narrow my choice down until I was in my Senior year.

To be fair, the actual bill does seem to replace the classes they wouldn't be taking with "comparable" classes in the community colleges and technical schools where the kids will be going instead. It really largely depends on what those schools consider "comparable" to English that can be tied to the career. Somehow I don't think the classes will be all that comparable. Here are the requirements:

(2) The course requirements for the career major shall consist of the following:

(a) At least four English credits in ~~courses with content equal to that of college preparatory English~~, including English I, English II, and two additional courses comparable or identical to English courses offered by the Louisiana Technical College, as approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

(b) At least ~~three~~ four mathematics credits, ~~not fewer than two courses of which have content equal to that of college preparatory mathematics~~ including Algebra I, Algebra I PartOne and Algebra I Part Two, or an applied or hybrid Algebra course, and additional applied or hybrid mathematics courses comparable or identical to courses offered by the Louisiana Technical College as needed to fulfill the mathematics course requirements as approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

(c) At least three science credits, ~~not fewer than two courses of which have content equal to that of college preparatory science~~ including one unit of Biology and two additional courses selected from a list of science courses related to the student's chosen career major as approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

(d) At least three social studies credits, ~~not fewer than two courses of which shall have content equal to that of college preparatory social studies~~ including one unit of American History and one additional course selected from a list of social studies courses approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Each student shall successfully complete a course in free enterprise Free Enterprise, as provided in R.S. 17:274, and civics Civics, as provided in R.S.
17:274.1.

(e) At least two credits in ~~health~~ Health and ~~physical education~~ Physical Education.

(f) At least ~~six or more~~ seven credits ~~consisting of four credits in an area of concentration and two related credits, including one credit in a computer technology course~~ in career and technical education courses with end-of-course testing as appropriate and approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, including at least one-half credit in a career readiness course and one credit in a computer applications course. Courses shall be selected to prepare a student for postsecondary education or a career.

(g) Additional electives or career and technical education courses required by the city, parish, or other local public school board as approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The words or phrases with the strikethrough are things that were in the old law that they took out of the new law, what follows the strikethrough is what was added in its place. The question is, how close to the actual classes in the high school will the "comparable" schools be.

Also, in the interest of being fair, the student and the parents will have to go through some counseling before making the decision.

Vocational programs at schools are a good thing, students should have the ability to prepare for a career straight out of high school if that is what they are going to do. But vocational programs can be successful without lowering the standard requirements. Simply because someone is going to work a blue collar job instead of a white collar job does not mean they shouldn’t be able to pass the basic requirements necessary to get a high school diploma.

During the 2008 general election campaign President Obama was the only candidate that was talking about education. When he talked about education he laid out specific goals for what is necessary to help a child be successful and graduate. About a week ago President Obama had
this to say:

“We will use the best evidence available to determine whether a state can meet a few key benchmarks for reform -- and states that outperform the rest will be rewarded with a grant. Not every state will win and not every school district will be happy with the results. But America's children, America's economy, and America itself will be better for it.
And one of the benchmarks we will use is whether states are designing and enforcing higher and clearer standards and assessments that prepare a student to graduate from college and succeed in life. Right now, some states like Massachusetts are setting high standards, but many others are not. Many others are low-balling expectations for students -- telling our kids they're prepared to move on to the next grade even if they aren't; awarding diplomas even if a graduate doesn't have the knowledge and skills to thrive in our economy.
That's a recipe for economic decline, and it has to stop.

I agree Mr. President.

Another Bobby Jindal FAIL

2009-08-01T21:00:00.004-04:00

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

So I'm sitting here watching CNN's reclaiming the dream, and they are talking about education. I'm sure most of you know that education was my #1 issue during the campaign, and I still think it's one of the biggest things that needs to be fixed in this country, it's right up there with health care for me. So as I'm watching they have Steve Perry on to talk about the wonderful things he's doing in his magnet school, and then they mention Bobby Jindal supporting LOWERING standards so kids in Louisiana can "graduate" and get blue collar jobs. I think I blanked out for the rest of the segment. I decided to google and see if I could find something about this because maybe I'd heard it wrong.

Unfortunately, I heard right

Under the new law, students 15 and older could leave the standard curriculum and instead take a "career track" if they have parental approval. They would face easier requirements for graduation and a curriculum less geared toward college preparation. It would also allow eighth graders to advance to ninth grade without passing the state's high-stakes standardized test.

Graduates would get a "career option" diploma, different from the state's standard diploma, designed to get them into a two-year technical school or community college but not four-year schools.

REALLY, Louisiana? Really? The solution to low graduation rates is NOT to lower the standards, that's essentially giving up on the students. That's telling them, we know you aren't good enough to go to college, and your parents know you aren't good enough to go to college (because the parents would have to approve it), so why not take this non-diploma and go get a blue collar job.

Now I don't think there is anything wrong with blue collar jobs. But I don't think kids should be basically FORCED into them. What if the child really wanted to go to college but just needed more academic help?

In my high school, we had kids who could go to career centers which was essentially a "career track" but their graduation requirements weren't relaxed, they still had the same requirements the rest of us had. I am so highly offended by this entire notion.

This is also the exact opposite of how President Obama addresses the issue of education. We don't need to make it EASIER and LOWER the standards to "raise" the graduation rate, we need to push those kids HARDER and give them more SUPPORT. The standards for graduation aren't really all that high all you have to do to graduate from high school is show up and do the work. If you need help, get tutoring there are lots of different ways to get it (at least I know there are in Ohio).

Bobby Jindal DISGUSTS me.

I'm going to update in a few with more of what Steve Perry said, I like his ideas. . .

[Clairification] I'm not talking about kids who have actual special educational needs, I'm talking about the kids who aren't graduating simply because they don't want to and/or they aren't getting the support they need. I understand that there are some kids out there who have real educational special needs, and I think it's right for school districts and states to try to help them along, but for these kids who just lack the will to graduate, lower standards is the LAST thing they need simply so a state can beef up its graduation rate.

[UPDATE] Here's a comment from Larin I think may help clear up exactly what it is I'm taking issue with:

The problem with the lower standards is even in blue collar jobs, you need to read and do math. You need to be able to operate expensive and computerized systems. In the chemical plants in Louisiana they are hiring college grads and very few vocational/tech people.

Louisiana's public school system is suffering cuts and cannot get certified teachers fast enough into the classroom. People move to new school districts so their children can get a good education and even in these districts, students do no qualify for TOPS or make it pass the first year of college, maintaining the 2.7 they need to keep TOPS. And those students, who go the vocational tech route will not get TOPS--close to 20,000 dollars given to you to go to state universities here in Louisiana. That's 5,000 a year. Yep that's right, my son will graduate with NO student debt, because of TOPS. His fall semester fees will be about 800 dollars.

That's because we insisted and assisted him so he did get the course work he needed to make it in high school and college.

The LEAP test is administered in middle school and you must score basic to move on. LEAP study and makeups are administered during the summer. In high school, they take exams in their second and third year and if they don't succeed, they have summer sessions and retesting even into the senior year.

It's been awhile since I have been in the classroom, but as a retired teacher and with family recently retired from the state department of education, this new standard is no standard at all.

Don't get me wrong, I think a vocational program would be good and it would help with retention, but I disagree with the notion that standards need to be lowered for students who choose to go the vocational route.

Thank you all for the great discussion!

[UPDATE]: I removed the statement that came off as condescending. Any of you who have been reading me before today know that I'm just not that type of "I'm better than you" person. But as it clearly offended so many people who knew my intent was not malicious, I'll gladly remove it. I apologize to all who were offended, I suppose I didn't realize it was that offensive as someone who will have to deal with lawyer jokes (that are really not representative of the average lawyer) for the rest of her life.

[UPDATE] okay 2 things: when did DKos start automatically putting the date and time of the updates? I like that I was always to lazy to do it myself. LOL.

Second, I've really appreciated all of the discussions going on in this diary. While I may disagree with a lot of you (and I tried to respond to all those I disagreed with), I respect your opinion. I'm glad to see so many of us here are passionate about education, maybe we can get Congress to do something to fix NCLB after they finish health care. We all bring different perspectives to the issue of education depending on where we are from and how much education we have. Maybe I put more emphasis on the standards because I do have a higher education and I think education is so important, especially as a young Black woman. I'm the first person on my dad's side of the family to go to college and graduate, my younger brother followed me (literally, he came to the same out-of-state school I went to ~lol~). Neither of my parents finished undergrad, but they always told us we had two options when we graduated from high school (not graduating wasn't an option), we were either going to college, or joining the military. So that's the background I grew up with, college wasn't a maybe it was a definite.

I just want to clear up two things before I sign off for the night:

First, I don't think there is anything wrong per se with having a career track. In fact, I believe I've written that I think tying education to real life is the best way to retain students in some of my past education diaries. I simply don't think students need to have any standards lowered even if they do choose to do the career track. The idea of having some vocational education is a good one. I notice most of the comments talking about the vocation programs at their various schools did not involve the kids being unable to meet the state's standards for graduation, and from what the commenters say those programs have been very successful.

Second, the fact that I don't think standards need to be lowered does NOT mean I think every high school student must do a college prep program or something akin to a college prep program. Not every child is destined for college, I get that. That doesn't meant hat every child shouldn't be able to get a high school diploma without the standards being watered down. I DO happen to think that every child could get a high school diploma if they had enough support. If you disagree, that's your right we clearly aren't going to change each other's minds tonight (if ever).

I just wanted to say that before I signed off for the night. I'll try to respond to more comments tomorrow, but I make no promises.

Oh, and here's an interesting op-ed lizard people found that I agree with:

The so-called "career diploma," available for students who fail part of the eighth-grade LEAP, is inherently shameful because it encourages adults to give up on their young students and those students to give up on themselves. It implies that they won't ever be able to learn as much as others, so why go through the pretense of trying to teach them?

The bill is even more shameful because it was signed into law by a governor who got his full quart's worth of education. If you had to make any assumption about a Rhodes Scholar like Jindal, you'd probably guess that such a scholar would place an incredibly high value on education and encourage children to maximize their potential. You wouldn't assume that such a brainiac would dissuade poor students from higher aspirations.

"This looks like social promotion," Orleans Parish School Board Vice President Lourdes Moran said of the career diploma Tuesday. "We're doing a disservice to our children." The Orleans Parish School Board is asking the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to give it a waiver so that the local board isn't forced to create a demeaning career diploma track for its students.

Click for full article

Again, thank you all for the stimulating conversations :o)

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Some Thoughts on Black In America 2

2009-08-01T19:30:00.002-04:00

From GenmaSpeaks:

I watched Black in America 2 with great trepidation. I honestly sent up a prayer begging God to have mercy on black folks, all America would be watching this show. My prayers got stuck somewhere over Nashville’s skyline because what I saw was a diversity project gone astray.

I applaud CNN for wanting to show that they are committed to diverse subject matter. After all, they are the “most trusted name in the news.” What I find perplexing is the need to script news segments and promote the result as a documentary about life in Black America. Based on the promos, BIA2 would bring forth new ideas or solutions to old problems within the black community. Part 1, which I watched three times, gave us the same extremes that are usually spotlighted by the media and left many wondering why repeat the predictable caricatures that appear on cable news every day.

CNN’s narratives exploited the most vulnerable segment of the community and highlighted bourgeois attitudes at their worst. There is no denying that the two groups – the very affluent and the poor - are parts of the black community. But the affluent and poor are in any group of people. For millions of black folks who work hard every day, who are not making six figure incomes, who pay their bills and taxes, and who have trials and struggles like everyone else, what CNN profiled is not a total of our sums. CNN continued the perpetuation of the same stereotypical genres of black life which are the focus of the media the majority of the time. Blacks are viewed as thugs in jail, unwed teens, and absentee fathers/mothers. While true facets of the black experience, they are not reflect of all of our lives. Just like poverty stricken trailer parks and welfare mothers are not reflective of any other group. In a veiled attempt to show balance, mainstream media who most often portray the negative aspects of the black experience will occasionally show an elitist intellectual who is out of touch with his/her people and reality. Good, wholesome and normal people in the black community are rarely shown on television. BIA2 should have been renamed the “Continued Mis-education of White America” (and the rest of the world). Where is the balance between the two extremes?

Continue reading here

My Thoughts on The Radio Performance Fees

2009-08-01T12:49:00.005-04:00

There's a lot of talk going on right now about the performance fee Bill currently in Congress that will apparently charge the radio stations more to play music. I'm torn on this, I used to listen to the radio all the time, but in the last few years I've listened to the radio less, and my iPod more. I find the radio stations, at least here in Columbus, to be repetitive. By that I mean I hear the same 5-10 songs all day. In the course of getting dressed one morning I heard the same Jamie Foxx song TWICE in about two hours. On top of that, it seems like there's a commercial break every 15 minutes, and these days with the performance tax bill it seems like every half hour there's that 5 minute long commercial by Cathy Hughes that's basically a rant against John Conyers his wife Sheila Jackson Lee, and Congress. That commercial does not inspire me to action, it inspires me to change the station or turn off the radio.

I have a friend who told me she never listens to the local radio stations, especially now that she has XM in her car. Sure, XM isn't FREE, but at the same time you can always find something to listen to that you'd enjoy and there are no commercials and lots more choices. Personally, I've wanted satellite radio for a while, and once I can afford to take on another bill, I'll probably purchase one to use in my house as well as my car.

People want to make the record companies the bad guys here, but I think they are hurting in this economy just like everyone else, especially since they are no longer the only or even main source to get the music. Even though there have been crackdowns on "illegal" downloads of music after the Napster situation a few years ago, people STILL share music files for free online. For those of us who can't afford Satellite radio right now, we can listen to Pandora for free, I even have Pandora downloaded on my BlackBerry, so I don't even need to be around a computer to listen to it. So basically, they still have to put up a lot of money to make these artists famous, but they aren't getting as much revenue from it. Are some of them probably just being greedy? Yes. But how would you like it if you were an artist or sponsoring an artist and you were losing millions of dollars because people decided to just go on the Internet and find your work instead of buying it?

There are just too many options out there other than free radio that are BETTER than free radio, which is why a lot of people may be feeling indifferent to its loss. Sure, I listen every once in a while, but usually after about an hour I just listen to iTunes on my computer.

The only thing I really listen to regularly on the radio is the Tom Joyner Morning Show, and I can even listen to THAT on the Internet. I think the radio is largely becoming irrelevant.

Of course, on the flip side, if the free non-internet radio ends up getting shut down by fees, there may be nothing to keep those same people from going after the free internet radio services like Pandora, so it could be a slippery slope.

So, I don't think I support the performance fee even though I understand where it's coming from, but I'm not all that convinced that Black radio is worth saving at this point.

Viewpoint: The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest

2009-07-25T20:56:00.000-04:00

Viewpoint: The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest

We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he doesn't know what disorderly conduct is or Crowley simply decided to show Gates who's boss the only way he knew how at the time — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped. (See TIME's 10 Questions for Henry Louis Gates Jr.)

We all know that happens. That's why so much of the commentary about this case is obsessed with exactly who said what to whom in the Gates home that day. Most white, and some black, TV talking heads obviously believe that Gates was stupid if he actually exercised his constitutional right to say anything he felt like saying to a cop. Because they know it is not terribly difficult to provoke American police to violate their oaths and the law and arrest people for no legal reason.

The president was right when he called the arrest stupid. It doesn't mean Crowley is stupid. It means that, in that moment, he made a stupid choice. Barack Obama has made some stupid choices on occasion too. We all do. Everyone who is defending Crowley's arrest, including his union, needs to re-read his report. There is a crime described in there. In fact, Sergeant Crowley's report is a written confession of the crime of false arrest.

Finally, someone who gets it.

This Is Exactly Why We Can't Discuss Race In This Country

2009-07-24T13:38:00.006-04:00

Cross posted at Daily Kos

I wasn't going to post a diary here until after I finished my exam next week, but I really just want to say this. The entire Gates-gate situation is illustrative of why we can't discuss race in this country.

President Obama was asked a question about the situation and what it says to him about race relations in America. Here is his full answer:

Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts.

What's been reported though is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called in to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so...

(LAUGHTER)

... it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago.

(LAUGHTER)

Here, I'd get shot.

(LAUGHTER)

But so far, so good. They're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate what happens.

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house and, at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause.

And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody is going to be.

All emphasis is mine. At no point in his statement did he EVER accuse the officer of being a racist or state that this case was an example of racial profiling.

Now, out of that entire statement, what do they focus on? They focus on one fucking word. I agree with the President, the officers on the scene acted stupidly in arrested Professor Gates. In fact, the night I learned of the incident, this is exactly what I said on my blog:

So basically, I think both sides of this situation are at fault for Professor Gates' arrest, but I'm having trouble believing that the officer here was actually as innocent as his report makes him out to be. We'll probably never know what really happened here, but let's cue all of the people saying one side or the other is racist for whatever reason.

then the following day, after Obama's press conference I wrote this:

So instead of this being the teachable moment it could have been, it's now going to be a reason for people to yell over each other on TV while trying to get their point across (like I just saw on CNN with Roland Martin trying to get a word in edgewise on CNN). Now we are going to have all of the "race experts" out there all over TV talking about why the President was right or wrong to say the police officer acted "stupidly." It's all going to turn into one giant headache all because Lynn Sweet couldn't stay on topic during the HEALTH CARE presser.

and here's what I wrote earlier this morning:

So here it is, day 3 of the Gates fall-out, and the media STILL doesn't get the issue. Like I said yesterday, President Obama said a LOT of things worthy of being focused on when he answered the question, but our increasingly inept press corps is choosing to focus on ONE word. I suppose I'm not REALLY surprised about it, we ARE talking about Obama here, and any little "mistake" he may make is going to be beat repeatedly until everyone is sick of hearing about it.

And now the cop, Crowley, is going to become the latest "posterboy" for this alleged White Racism that Obama is perpetuating (nevermind the fact that the family that RAISED him is White) now that he's President. Ooooooh, the poor oppressed White Man, they've been held down now for MONTHS because now the Black people have all of the power. HA! Even if we DO have a Black President, we still aren't "the power." But I digress. . .

All in all, the way this entire situation has blown up is completely illustrative about WHY it takes so long to make progress on race relations in this country, and WHY the election of a Black man as President is NOT proof positive that "it's all good." Instead of using this situation as a moment to talk about REAL racial disparities in the criminal justice system, or even whether the police officer abused his power (seeing as how the charges were DROPPED), we get this media circus where press conferences are held (by the officer and his pals) every day. Gates has actually been relatively silent on the matter . In fact, the press conference from earlier today shows that this is all about a bunch of hurt feelings.

The press is doing a SERIOUS disservice to the American people by focusing on what is essentially a pissing contest (where admittedly it seems the cops are the only ones really playing at this point) and back and forth mudslinging. I'm personally SICK of it. Now we have people coming out and talking bad about the President and calling him a DISGRACE because he gave his damn opinion (which is what was asked of him). He let everyone know he's not exactly a neutral party in this, but he's a DISGRACE for sticking up for his friend. Well Cambridge Police Union President (of which Crowley isn't even a MEMBER) you seem to be doing the same thing in standing behind Crowley, were YOU there? No.

Until people learn to get over themselves and have a REAL HONEST discussion, we aren't going to make any REAL progress on race relations in this Country. What happened to Gates only brought something to the forefront that we Black people have to deal with all the time. Even if it didn't necessarily happen TO Gates in this situation, it happens every day in this country (maybe even in ~gasp~ Cambridge). President Obama KNOWS what it's like to be racially profiled:

Security guards tailing me as I shop in department stores, white couples who toss me their keys as I stand outside a restaurant waiting for the valet, police cars pulling me over for no apparent reason. I know what it's like to have people tell me I can't do something because of my color, and I know the bitter swill of swallowed-back anger

I'm a Black woman, I've BEEN in a store with a friend (who was also Black) and saw a store employee follow us around the store (I guess they thought they were being discreet) while we shopped, it's not a good feeling.

This was an opportunity to have a great conversation about a REAL problem in this country, and instead it's become another missed opportunity.

[Update]: President Obama just came out and spoke on the issue, essentially saying what I said in this post (from Poltico 44):

"I actually just had a conversation with Sergeant James Crowley," Obama said, "and I have to tell you that, as I said yesterday, my impression of him is that he was an outstanding police officer...and that was confirmed in the phone conversation.
"Because this has been ratcheting up, and I helped to contribute to the ratcheting up...in my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically," he continued. "I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Prof. Gates out of his home and to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Prof. Gates probably overreacted as well."
"Because of our history...African Americans are sensitive to these issues."

Now, Obama did NOT apologize for what he said, he merely re-worded it. I'm willing to bet it will be characterized as an apology (in fact the press was trying to call it an apology right after that). He ALSO said that he does NOT think it was inappropriate for him to comment.
Cross posted at Daily Kos

Reeeaaaallllly?

2009-07-24T08:16:00.005-04:00

So here it is, day 3 of the Gates fall-out, and the media STILL doesn't get the issue. Like I said yesterday, President Obama said a LOT of things worthy of being focused on when he answered the question, but our increasingly inept press corps is choosing to focus on ONE word. I suppose I'm not REALLY surprised about it, we ARE talking about Obama here, and any little "mistake" he may make is going to be beat repeatedly until everyone is sick of hearing about it.

And now the cop, Crowley, is going to become the latest "posterboy" for this alleged White Racism that Obama is perpetuating (nevermind the fact that the family that RAISED him is White) now that he's President. Ooooooh, the poor oppressed White Man, they've been held down now for MONTHS because now the Black people have all of the power. HA! Even if we DO have a Black President, we still aren't "the power." But I digress. . .

This was a moment for the press to really do something EDUCATIONAL and talk about the disparities between Blacks/Latinos/Hispanics and Whites when it comes to dealing with the police. Instead they approach the situation as if the Police officer MUST be right (because they have no reason to lie in a police report where they arrested a man in his own home). Oh, and he teaches a racial profiling class (I'm going to assume that the class is supposed to PREVENT and not PERPETUATE racial profiling), and he has Black friends, so he can't possibly be even a LITTLE racist, nor could he have acted "stupidly" in this situation. Have you all seen the video of the cop responding to what Obama said? Just look at the way he answers the question at first "I didn't vote for him." That's not what they asked you. But the second time he's asked he remembers he's the victim and says "I support the President 110%." (starts at 2:09)

President Obama TOLD everyone that Gates is his friend, and he was going to be bias when he answered the question, but that's not enough for people. As some others in the Black Blogospehere are pointing out, instead of responding with the "White" (or at best "neutral") answer, he gave the "Black" answer. I suppose Lynn Sweet and her colleagues expected the President to do what he normally does and parse his words to stay even MORE in the gray area than he did. The way they are responding you would think President Obama responded by saying "Man, fuck the police" and walked out to N.W.A.

Thanks A Lot Lynn

2009-07-23T16:09:00.006-04:00

So last night President Obama gave a press conference that was supposed to be about healthcare, but what is being talked about today? Obama's answer to the last question at the presser about Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s arrest and the fact that he said the officer acted "stupidly." Now it's come out that the officer (ironically enough) teaches the racial profiling class at the Police Academy.

The white police sergeant criticized by President Barack Obama for arresting black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his Massachusetts home is a police academy expert on understanding racial profiling.

Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class about racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming.

"I have nothing but the highest respect for him as a police officer. He is very professional and he is a good role model for the young recruits in the police academy," Fleming told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The course, called "Racial Profiling," teaches about different cultures that officers could encounter in their community "and how you don't want to single people out because of their ethnic background or the culture they come from," Fleming said.

To me this is representative of what our press has become. It's all about politics and playing the "gotcha" game. It never fails, at EVERY press conference someone tries to force Obama to talk about race. This time Obama was commenting on his friend, he even pointed out the bias he had in answering the question. Instead of focusing on all of the important things Obama said about racial profiling, our increasingly inept media chose to focus on the least newsworthy comment. No one who has commented or reported on this situation before knew all of the facts. Here's the video of the question and the answer:

OBAMA'S ANSWER ON GATES

Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts.

What's been reported though is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called in to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so...

(LAUGHTER)

... it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago.

(LAUGHTER)

Here, I'd get shot.

(LAUGHTER)

But so far, so good. They're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate what happens.

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house and, at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause.

And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody is going to be.

Taken in context, I honestly don't think the statement is that bad. Obama (contrary to popular opinion in the press) does NOT have any authority over local police departments. He gave his opinion, one that is shared by a lot of people, that a man shouldn't be arrested in his home after showing that it was in fact his home. Gates himself said he's glad the neighbor called the police because if someone was breaking in, he'd want them stopped. There's no problem with the police responding to a call, the issue arises when it's mentioned that Gates was arrested. At this point I doubt the truth of what happened is ever really going to come out because now it's become a media circus. In fact, the Cambridge police will be giving a press conference later today.

So instead of this being the teachable moment it could have been, it's now going to be a reason for people to yell over each other on TV while trying to get their point across (like I just saw on CNN with Roland Martin trying to get a word in edgewise on CNN). Now we are going to have all of the "race experts" out there all over TV talking about why the President was right or wrong to say the police officer acted "stupidly." It's all going to turn into one giant headache all because Lynn Sweet could't stay on topic during the HEALTH CARE presser.

[UPDATE] Pres. Obama responds to non-troversy:

"I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement because I think it was a pretty straight forward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home," Obama said.

...

"I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do," the president told Moran. "And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That's my suspicion."

The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an "outstanding police officer." But he added that with all that's going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, "it doesn't make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he's not causing a serious disturbance."

Jon Stewart Breaks it Down, Again

2009-07-23T14:18:00.006-04:00

I'm more than a little skeptical of the journalistic abilities of the "traditional" media, especially when it comes to 24-hour "news" channels, but I absolutely LOVE Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Even though their shows are largely satire, they do a better job of putting stupid stuff if perspective. Last night, Jon Stewart was GENIUS on the whole "Birther" non-troversy. Check it out in case you missed it:

Racial Profiling?

2009-07-20T22:50:00.007-04:00

So I log on to JJP to check out the news after a day of studying for the Bar Exam, and what do I see, but a post about Professor Henry Louis Gates being arrested in his own home for being loud [and Black]. I go to read the police report, and as I read it I can't help but laugh and shake my head at that mess.

After Professor Gates showed him his Harvard ID, the officer called the HARVARD police like they could do something about Professor being less than cooperative on his own property. The officer then goes on to say that Professor Gates yelled at him repeatedly to get his name, and I suppose to threaten him. While this man is standing on HIS property "yelling" at this officer, the officer remarks that the people around are "alarmed" at his yelling.

Reading the entire report is really quite remarkable. Best I can tell, they arrested him simply for yelling at the officer. He didn't physically threaten the officer, he yelled at him.

While Gates may have been a bit irrational in yelling at the officer who was only there to do his job, the officer (based on his own report which may or may not be totally accurate, seeing as how he's not exactly a disinterested party here) wasn't making matters any better by calling in "back-up" in the form of the Harvard police officers for one little old man who was on his own property. Once he found out the home was Professor Gates', he should have just left. What was the point in continuing the dialogue with Professor Gates? How did a trained officer let it get so out of hand that suddenly people are "alarmed"?

For Professor Gates to automatically assume the officer was there simply because he was Black (again, if the police report is correct) was not the best way to handle the situation. When people think you are ignorant as hell, it's best to not confirm their beliefs even if you believe with every fiber of your being. If you really think you are being racially discriminated against, there are avenues you can take. The police report mentions that the lady said that there were two Black men trying to break down the front door of the residence, where are those two young Black men?

So basically, I think both sides of this situation are at fault for Professor Gates' arrest, but I'm having trouble believing that the officer here was actually as innocent as his report makes him out to be. We'll probably never know what really happened here, but let's cue all of the people saying one side or the other is racist for whatever reason.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"Muzikal" Interulde

2009-07-17T23:10:00.012-04:00

This song always makes me dance, enjoy!

BTW, I first heard this on Craig Ferguson:

Obama, Education, and Economic Inequality

2009-07-17T20:03:00.004-04:00

President Obama gave a great speech at the NAACP last night, but before that speech he gave an interview to Black Media where he said the following (h/t JJP):

For example, the most important issue for the African-American community, according to the President, is education. "If we close the achievement gap, then a big chunk of economic inequality in this society is diminished," he said, arguing that getting our kids up to speed involves better teachers, greater accountability, and a combination of more resources and education reform.

I agree that education is the biggest problem facing our community, it largely seems like people coming up behind me are almost proud to revel in their ignorance. I remember seeing somewhere where a young Black male couldn't READ, and he was PROUD of that. Unfortunately the "mainstream" of Black culture seems to elevate going to prison, being a thug, and disrespecting women. I do think that all Black folks need to take advantage of all of the FREE education they can, especially considering the fact that there was a time where teaching Blacks how to read and write was a crime.

With that being said, there was something very important missing from that paragraph, COST. I graduated from high school, went straight to college and had lots of scholarships (I managed to end up with only about $8,000 in loans after 4 years at an out of state school), then I took a year off and went to law school (just graduated in May, getting ready to take the Bar in a couple of weeks) and my student loan debt is now astronomical, I did have a scholarship, but it barely covered the cost of books each year, not to mention the rising cost of tuition. When I first got to the school, it was about $900 a credit hour, by the time I graduated it had risen each year to the point where it was $1060 per credit hour. I didn't work (except for the summers), so I also had to take out loans to pay for the cost of living (about $10,000 a year). Luckily I managed to avoid private loans. With that said, my student loan payments are going to end up being approximately a house payment per month. I don't want to work for a big firm, I want to work for a gov't agency or maybe a non-profit organization.

Economically, going to school isn't really helping me right now. I'm sure it will end up paying off in the long term, but I think a lot of the younger Blacks look at people like me who did do the whole school thing, and will be in mountains of debt for YEARS (unless I write a couple of best-selling books or win the lottery), and then they look at their friend "Ray Ray" who dropped out of high school and is doing some illegal activity and living in a big house in a nice neighborhood with a gas guzzling SUV with platinum rims and they wonder why should they bother going to school.

So it's not enough to simply get Black kids though high school and send them off to a community or 4 year college, we need to get the COST of education down. Lawyers and Doctors default the most on their student loans. I wasn't surprised when I first heard that. Yet we need more lawyers and doctors to go into public service. The government loan forgiveness program is nice, but we still have to pay those astronomical loan payments for 10 years before that will kick in (and I'm not sure if whatever is paid off is taxable or not, but it probably is). The Income Based Repayment program also isn't perfect, it's nice that it gets payments down for maybe 25 years, but I know for sure whatever isn't paid off there is taxable, and your loan payments will fluctuate every year which may make it more difficult to budget.

I think fixing the cost of education is right up there with health care as far as draining people. My parents didn't take out any loans for me, all of my loans are in MY name and they are MY responsibility, and the last thing I want to do is default.

Sorry for the long rant, but I hope my point got through. Again, I'm thrilled that he actually TALKS about education that was my #1 issue during the campaign, and the biggest reason why I was supporting his candidacy.

We have not reached the Promised Land

2009-01-19T12:28:00.001-05:00

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is historical, it’s a giant step in the right direction, but it does not mean we have reached the “Promised Land.” Our work is not done. When children in rural and urban schools around the country are still not receiving the education they deserve, we have not reached the Promised Land. When the joblessness rates in this country rise with every report, we have not reached the Promised Land. When people are still being racially profiled, we have not reached the Promised Land. When people are not being treated TRULY as equals, be it for their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation, we have not reached the Promised Land.

I say all this, not to minimize what the election of Barack Obama means to this country, I say it so we don’t start to get complacent and think our work is done. It’s nice to think that with the election of our first African American President we have actually achieved Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream, but we have not.

So while we celebrate the inauguration of President Obama, let us not forget that our work is not done.

I strongly suggest you read the entire speech here, but I will post the most famous part:

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."2

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Barack Obama is not a “Young Man”

2008-08-03T21:04:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama is not a “Young Man”

Let me say it again. Barack Obama is not a “young man” he is 47 (on August 4th) years old. That’s almost 50. He is a man. He needs no qualifier.

I am so tired of people talking about Senator Obama as if he were a young man in his 20s. He is a United States Senator. Let me repeat that. He is a United States Senator .

He is not some sort of “celebrity” who did “nothing” to get where he is. He was born to a mother who at one point was on food stamps to feed her children. Yes, he went to a prestigious school, but he went on SCHOLARSHIP not because he had the money and could afford for mommy and daddy to pay the tuition. He went to college on scholarships and loans. He went to law school on scholarships and loans. He JUST paid off his student loans a couple of years ago thanks to the success of his books. He was a community organizer in Chicago, in fact he moved there not knowing anyone because he felt it was his place to do something to help people. Even when he graduated near the top of his class at Harvard Law School, he chose to return to his community organizing job instead of taking some fancy job on Wall Street. He ran for office because we wanted to do more to help more people. He was unsuccessful in one election when he ran for U.S. Congress, so he does know the bitter taste of defeat.

He is by no means perfect, but to reduce him to a celebrity, and then say “he’s a good young man” is insulting and belittling. The man is a United States Senator, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for President. He may be our next president. He is not a “young man” he is not “inexperienced” he is not “uninformed” he DOES “understand” the issues and what needs to be done to put the United States back on course.

He is not “arrogant” or “presumptuous” or “cocky” or “uppity.” He is confident. Maybe he has an ego, but anyone who thinks they can and should be the President of the United States has an ego.

So stop calling him “young” because while just about anyone or anything is younger than John McCain, Barack Obama is not a “young man.”

The "De-Blackification" of Barack and Michelle Obama

2008-06-19T14:52:00.000-04:00

I've been noticing a disturbing trend since Barack Obama locked up the nomination for President from the Democratic Party. I was trying not to read too much into it, but it's getting to the point now where I can't ignore it.

Before he was officially the "presumptive nominee" he would pretty regularly go on black radio stations to garner support from his "base." Since he has become the nominee, I have heard nothing but excitement about it from Tom Joyner and the people that call IN to Tom Joyner, but Obama has not made an appearance. Before someone says "but he's busy, and he's not running to be the President of Black America, he's running to be the President of the "United States Of America"" I know all that, and I was one of the first to bring up that point when Black people were upset that he wasn't going to Black events. At that time he was in a highly contested primary, and I believed he needed to get out and campaign so people could get to know him better.

But the primaries are over, have been for almost 2 weeks now.

Since he's locked up the nomination, he's done all sorts of townhalls, given all sorts of speeches, done "exclusive interviews" on the nightly news programs, but he has not found the time to call in to the TJMS.

Then there's Michelle, who is now getting her own personal war room, and going on shows like "The View" to "soften her image." The thing I loved about Michelle was that she wasn't necessarily a PC wife, she said what she really felt. This new Michelle isn't like the fiery Michelle I've seen before. Now you have so called "reputable" news organizations (well, FOX) calling her things like "Obama's Baby Mama" and an "angry Black woman" who "hates her country." I fully understand the need to combat these things, but I feel like her voice is going to be muted from now on. Even yesterday on The View, I didn't feel like it was the fiery Michelle that I loved even a couple of weeks ago. I understand the crowd she was trying to appeal to, and I'm not saying she wasn't being genuine, but something just felt different.

Today is Juneteenth, the African American version of Independence Day. I haven't heard anything on the subject from Barack Obama.

Sure, he went to a Black church on Sunday and gave a speech, which is largely being haled as a call to Black Men to be more involved in their children's lives. I agree totally with his message, but maybe he should have done a better job of making it clear that he wasn't only talking about BLACK men (even though it's a huge problem in the African American community). People are calling it his "sistah souljah" moment. Yes, I realize he's given the speech before, I've heard him say similar things before, but it just felt different. Again, I don't disagree with what he said, but considering he knew cameras were going to be there hanging on to his every word, he should have made the message seem more universal than it did.

And now he's released his first general election ad, and as I watched the ad the first time I noticed I was seeing a lot of white people. I didn't think I saw any Black people other than Obama, so I went back and watched the Ad again. This time I counted two Black people, but I had to search pretty hard to find them. Thinking my eyes were deceiving me I watched a THIRD time, and discovered they weren't. So the candidate that is all about diversity, and "one America" doesn't have any Black people in his ad, not in focus anyway. This, the day after the news "broke" that his campaign volunteers were telling Muslim women wearing their traditional headgear that they couldn't be seen on camera with Obama during the Gore endorsement. Of course the Obama "campaign" quickly apologized and then released a picture of him posing with a Muslim woman wearing traditional headgear, but that's about as persuasive to me as George Bush saying he doesn't hate Black people because he has a Black friend named Condoleeza Rice.

I'm really trying to NOT go there, but I'm starting to feel a little "used." Like we are only important in states where there are a lot of us, and even then only during the primary. I don't like this feeling, and I hope I'm proven wrong soon, but while he's so busy trying to get working class whites and Republicans, he's in danger of losing or demotivating his base. Every day a little more of that "new penny" shine wears off of him in my eyes.

They are so afraid of being painted as "scary" and "too black" that they are willing to make themselves look as white as possible without looking like they are "selling out." There was a report about a week ago about him telling people at a fundraiser that the GOP was going to try to paint him as too black and too scary. I hate to say it, but it looks like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are right, he is very sensitive to those types of attacks. For all of his rhetoric about the American people being smarter than that old style of politics, and ready to move on and elevate the political dialogue, I don't think he honestly believes that.

What is also disturbing to me is this trend of Obama supporters to say this type of behavior is acceptable because he HAS to get elected. Throughout the entire primary he preached about not playing these types of games to get elected, and yet here we are in the general, and he's playing these games just like every other politician. He's pandering. It may not be as blatant as the gas tax/oil drilling McCain is putting out there, but it's pandering nonetheless. The few Obama supporters that DO want to hold him accountable get treated like trash for questioning the "great" Barack Obama. But let McCain do some of this stuff, like two of his unpaid volunteers tell Black people not to sit behind him during a major campaign moment, and all hell would break lose among Obama supporters and "progressives."

The longer this goes on, the less I believe that Obama is anything other than the usual game player, only he's better at it because he makes people think he's not playing the game.

This blog is just my opinion, and I welcome your thoughts, but it's what I'm feeling right now.

When Will There Be A Time To Love?

2008-05-30T02:08:00.000-04:00

When Will There Be A Time To Love?

This primary and other things going on in my personal life right now have me feeling really down. It seems like there’s nothing good going on right now. When I get down I always turn to music, the greats like Earth, Wind, and Fire, Stevie Wonder, Donny Hathaway, Michael Jackson, Marvin Gaye, Blue Magic, etc. Nothing makes me feel better than an appropriate song. So for the past week or so one song in particular has been stuck in my head, and it’s a song that is very appropriate given the current political climate and what’s going on in my personal life. I’m sure there are some other people out there going through some things too, so this is for you and me.

A Time To Love
Stevie Wonder feat. India Arie

We have time for racism
We have time for criticism
Held bondage by our isms
When where there be a time to love?

We make time to debate religion
For passing bills and building prisons
For building fortunes and passing judgment
When will there be a time to love?

At this point in history we have a choice to make
To either walk the path of love, or be crippled by our hate

We have time to cause pollution
We have time to cause confusion
All wrapped up in our own illusions
When will there be a time to love?

We have time to conquer nations
Time for oil excavation
Hatred, violence and terrorism
When will there be a time to love?

At this moment in time we have a choice to make
Father god is watching while we cause mother earth so much pain
It’s such a shame

Not enough money for
The young, the old and the poor
But for war there is always more
When will there be a time to love?

We make time for paying taxes
For paying bills and buying status
But we will pay the consequences
If we don’t make the time to love
Now’s the time to pay attention
Yes, now’s the time to love

I’m not a fan of conflict. I avoid it whenever I can. This is the first time I’m really paying close attention to politics, and I’m not liking what I see. Everyone seems to be about dividing us all into “neat” little groups describing who we should be supporting according to them. Older women and blue class Appalachians for Clinton, Youth, African Americans, and educated persons for Barack Obama. Even with a candidate that really does seem to be all about unity, politics is managing to divide us up into these “neat” little groups.

This is really making me more sad than angry. When I go to Politico and read comments to an article about white women refusing to support Barack Obama because they feel he’s somehow thwarted their only chance of getting a woman into the White House it breaks my heart. I read the accusations: “He flipped her off!” “He dusted off his shoulders!” “He called a female reporter sexist!” and it breaks my heart. I read a comment that described a woman who was being harassed in Macy’s because she was wearing an Obama shirt, the women surrounded her like it was the old days when people were stoned and taunted her calling her a traitor.

I saw an Obama supporter wearing a campaign t-shirt being verbally harassed by three women in Macy's On Tuesday. Taunts of "traitor", and "Obambi" were the most common. I, a REPUBLICAN, finally came to the woman’s defense. Of course by the time I was done verbally berating the "witches three" for their harassment security asked all of us to leave.

What did that woman do to deserve that? Have her own opinion? What is this type of behavior doing to solve our problems? Even Oprah was being harassed by grown women who should really know better and at least be adult enough to respect that someone has an opinion different from his or hers.

I read the “analysis” being force fed to us daily, “how are the Democrats going to unite?” “Can Obama get Clinton supporters?” “We’re all doomed! Doomed I tell ya!” none of this is doing anything to advance the conversation.

As an Obama supporter, I will admit that I have played into the hype before, and even after this blog I will probably play into it again. Every little thing Hillary (or Bill) says will be quickly construed to the worst possible meaning in my head because that’s the point this primary season has brought me to. I’ve come to expect the worst for them, and grab at every opportunity to say “Ha! I told ya!” It’s gotten to the point where I’d wager that a lot of Obama supporters who are paying attention as closely as I am resent Hillary (and Bill) with almost everything that is inside of us. We don’t want to give them any string to make a mistake. Perhaps it’s because we don’t feel they gave our candidate any string. Every little gaffe or misstatement he made they pounced on and distorted. I would watch in anger and disbelief as Obama simply responded with the truth, not even forcefully all the time, and turned the other cheek. I would ask myself when he would run out of cheeks to turn. I convinced myself that if he wasn’t going to fight to my satisfaction then I was going to fight for him. My candidate wouldn’t get in the mud and trade insults back and forth, so I would do it for him. Any little gaffe, misstatement, or outright lie made by the Clinton camp I happily exploited. Every argument she would make for staying in this race after Ohio/Texas I shot down scornfully (and yes, I was perhaps a little bitter as well). I became the antithesis of Obama’s campaign, and I encouraged my fellow supporters to do the same. I wasn’t concerned about finding a time to love; I was all about promoting hate, division, and cynicism—at least when it came to the Clinton campaign. And while I may have gotten the desired effect at the time, it’s also taken a negative toll on me.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not absolving Clinton of her mistakes or the way she’s run her campaign, I’m simply saying my reactions to her weren’t helping.

As I listened to the lyrics of “A Time to Love” repeatedly, and sang along, I realized that every single verse is exactly what’s going on right now.

Because of the historical nature of this campaign, I have seen more racism in a few short months than I’ve probably seen in the rest of my life combined (mind you I’m only 24.7 years old). I have seen a candidate that was all about “hope” and “change” be criticized at embarrassing levels for every little thing he did or didn’t do. I’ve seen a candidate being afflicted with sexism that was ignored (although there wasn’t nearly as much as she claims). We are held bondage by our isms. We want everyone to fit into the box we create for them. Yes, Hillary is a shrewd politician, but she’s also a mother, a daughter, a friend. Yes, Obama can be rather grouchy sometimes, but he’s also a father, a son, a friend.

This election, thanks to Rev. Wright and Rev. Hagee, has also been about religion. “Is Obama a Muslim?” is still a question widely circulated that for some reason remains unanswered for so many. “Why did he stay in that church for 20 years?” “What did Hagee say about Jews and Catholics?” We aren’t asking intelligent questions to elevate the dialogue; we are using religion to further divide us all. What’s so wrong with the Nation of Islam? Not all of them are extremists, and every religion does have its own extremists (Christians once used the Bible to keep an entire race enslaved, and still use it today as a reason to “hate” people of other religions). Why is everyone concentrating on 20 second clips of a man who had a career that spanned decades and built a church that has been a pillar of the Chicago community? Yes, Hagee may be controversial, but what is he saying that keeps people going to his church? He’s a huge supporter of Israel, what’s his real message outside of “Hitler was a hunter sent by God”?

Bills and resolutions are passed daily that have huge effects on our lives, but we don’t even know about them. We don’t care enough to pay attention and see what our elected officials are doing.

A prison is more likely to be built than a school.

Generally, Americans are far more focused on making money—by any means necessary—than helping others. And we all pass judgment on people regularly. I bet someone is passing judgment on what I’m writing right now, but what good is passing judgment on others? He or she who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. We, as a nation, judge the world by our standards as if imposing the “American” way of doing things is helping them. Maybe they don’t want our help. Not everyone who doesn’t think like we do is a savage.

At this point in history, we do have a choice to make. We can choose to come together to repair this country that we all love, or we can continue to allow our “isms” and other factors to divide us.

We still pollute, every day I see people leave their trash at the bus stop instead of throwing it away in the trashcan that is all of two feet away.

This election is all about keeping people confused. The spin coming out of certain campaigns has left my mind reeling at times.

We all have our own illusions about what we are and what we aren’t. More often than not, the lie is easier to believe to than the truth.

“We have time to conquer nations”—what do you think Iraq was all about? Especially with the news of Scott McClellan’s new book, we didn’t go to help anyone but ourselves. And why did we go? . . . For oil, and simply because we could as no one would stop or question the government. “Hatred, violence and terrorism” is running rampant right here in our own back yards, we didn’t need to go half-way around the world to find it. This election has shown just how much hate we do have in America for people who are different than us. We don’t have money to fix our schools and help the poor, yet we keep managing to find money to fund this war.

All of this is going on right under our noses, but we are too busy buying into the hype. Those who are different from me don’t matter. If they don’t agree with me, they don’t matter. We can’t even have intelligent conversations between blogs and groups on Facebook because no one wants to be wrong. No one is willing to compromise. It’s always “my way or the highway” and if you don’t agree with me? Well “hit the road Jack (or Jill, don’t want be sexist here)” We can’t even talk about the problems discussed in the song because we are too afraid to find out our view is wrong. We can’t even talk to Clinton supporters because we are too afraid we may start to feel some empathy for them or their candidate. They can’t even talk to us because they are afraid we will ignore their claims of sexism while saying racism was a bigger factor in this campaign. That’s what we’ve been reduced to, arguing whether sexism or racism is a bigger problem. Shouldn’t we all be above that? Both are wrong, and neither should even be an issue in today’s society.

I’m not writing this to necessarily advocate for “unity” (I still think Clinton would be terrible on an Obama ticket and vice versa), I’m writing this because we are losing our focus. We are so busy finding reasons to hate, that we have not found the time to love. I can love you without agreeing with you. I can disagree with you without being disagreeable. We all need to work together to fix the problems and get past the wounds, both racial and gender related, that afflict this country still. This you’re either “with us” or “against” us combative mentality will not get us anywhere.

So I ask you, we find time for the division, when will there be a time to love?

Thanks for reading this if you did (as I type this in MicrosoftWord, I realize it’s 5 pages single spaced).

Here's a pretty good video I found on YouTube that someone made:

Ain't I A Woman?

2008-05-29T10:58:00.000-04:00

"Ain't I A Woman?"

As a young African American woman I find this election to be very disheartening, and the way things have been handled the past couple of weeks leads me to believe Obama isn't only the one this country WANTS, but he is the one this country NEEDS.

Right now a lot of Hillary's women supporters are up in arms because they feel that she is being passed over for the younger man who isn't as experienced. First of all, Obama actually has MORE elected experience than Hillary. I don't know why pundits and others like to act like he didn't spend his years in the Illinois State Senate, but he did. Seven of them. He's been in the U.S. Senate for 4 now. Hillary has only been in elected office since 2001. But the media seems to only be focusing on white women. You don't see polls of Black Women anymore. Are we no longer important? I remember before South Carolina, we had our moment in the sun, everyone wanted to know what Black Women were going to do. Were we going to be torn between allegiance to our race and allegiance to our gender? Would we be willing to back up Obama when we can have another Clinton? What will we do?!?! Never mind the fact that the narrative that suggests we can't make intelligent reasoned decisions on things other than race or gender, we were supposed to have it tough. Then Obama started winning 80-90% of the African American vote and we were no longer important.

Well, aren't we still women?

Sojourner Truth once said:

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

I think I have an interest in seeing a female president just as much as I have an interest in seeing an African American president. As I am relatively young, I suppose I'm not as worried about never seeing either in my lifetime, so I can perhaps cut a bit of slack to older women on that front. I haven't had to deal with a lot of the sexism that my female ancestors have and I thank them for that. Just the same, I haven't had to deal with a lot of the racism that my African American ancestors have dealt with and I thank them for that. When I read things like this from Hilary Rosen:

Hillary has found her voice and she is using it to speak to a group of people often ignored in politics. Women who have felt powerless to change or even complain about their own lives because they are just too damn busy keeping it together for everyone around them. And they certainly haven't had time for politics.

From the waitress in the diner to the school teacher to the executive on wall street, women feel the daily slights that are often invisible to others. Yes, many of her supporters need real and immediate help from the government, but so many more are just grateful to be noticed.

[snip]

But Hillary's campaign is still going for every woman who has spoken up in a meeting and was greeted with silence only to have a man say the same thing and be praised. It endures for the mothers who are taking care of their children and their parents and their home and has no time to take care of herself. It endures for women who are so scared to see her fail because of what it may say about their chances in life. And yes folks, it resonates for all the women who have seen the younger guy come along and get the promotion even though she has worked in the company loyally for years.

Really? She's found her voice and is speaking up for people often ignored? Well Black women and young women are still being ignored in this election, and honestly I don't think she's speaking for me at all. Reading what Ms. Rosen wrote, I honestly feel like Hillary is only attempting to reach out to older white women.

Perhaps it's just the way I was raised (by other strong and strong-willed African American women) but I've never been afraid to voice my opinion when I felt I wasn't being treated fairly. Even last summer when I worked at a firm where I was the only African American woman and the only African American clerk, I wasn't afraid to talk to one of the partners (the only African American attorney at the time who happened to be a partner) about how I felt as a double minority working there. Did it really do much for me? No. I wasn't expecting special treatment, I just wanted to get it off of my chest and get some insight. His advice to me? "Get over yourself." I can't recall feeling any "slights" that are only due to my gender, ever but that may be more a product of my age and being brought up in a relatively politically correct society. Again, the only time I really didn't feel like I was even being noticed/acknowledged was last summer, but I don't see how Clinton's candidacy would change that. I don't really know if my lack of comfort in the "real world" of working in a law firm was from being African American or from being a woman, I think it may have been from being a combination of both (there was a woman partner, there was an African American partner, but there was no African American woman who was a partner).

As far as the meeting example, I admit that has never happened to me. Granted, I haven't been in a situation where I was the only woman or one of a couple of women surrounded by men and I voiced my opinion only to have it ignored while someone else said the same thing a couple of minutes later and it was praised. That HAS happened to be before, but that was in sorority meetings which was a group of African American women. I'd voice my opinion, it would be ignored, then someone who had been in the sorority said it a couple minutes later and it would be praised. I admit it pissed me off. I was told it was because I was a younger member, and again that I should "get over [myself]". If I'd felt someone treated me like that for my gender I'd be no less offended. Yet I fail to see what HRC's candidacy has done to advance my cause.

While the media is so focused on the older White Women, they are ignoring the younger women like myself that don't take every criticism as an attack because of gender. We are a generation that has been raised to know that we can do anything a man can do, and most of the times we can do it better. I've fantasized about having a female president because I was of the mindset that we'd have LESS wars (not talk of obliterating entire countries that didn’t' even attack US). As a young African American woman preparing to enter a field where both women and minorities are STILL not great in numbers, I fail to see how Clinton's candidacy this year has helped me. If anything, I feel that she has played into every negative stereotype about women. The woman who can't get ahead on her own, but has to ride on the coattails of her husband. The woman who can't take responsibility for her own mistakes because she didn't know better. The woman who has to have men come out and defend her because she can't defend herself. The woman that tries to act like a man (testicular fortitude?) to get ahead. The woman who cries "sexism" instead of being accountable for her actions at every corner de-legitimizing the legitimate sexism that women face every day.

No one is asking about how younger women feel about this election. All of the focus is on older women who probably won't be around long enough to feel the true negative effect HRC is having on gender.

So again I ask, ain't I a woman?

A Change is NOT Going to Come

2008-04-28T12:52:00.000-04:00

After hearing Rev. Wright speak to the NAACP last night via CNN, I was feeling hopeful, that maybe just maybe a change is going to come. Even here on the Kos everyone was duly impressed by the man’s words. I am different, but I am not deficient. Simply thinking a different way makes no one man or woman any better than the other. We are all equal in God’s eyes, and as such we are all entitled to the same respects and courtesies.

I thought maybe, just maybe the media would have learned their lesson. Even showing his entire speech uncut two or three times allowed me to think that maybe the media would stop with the character assassination of Rev. Wright and of Barack Obama by proxy. I thought I would wake up this morning feeling that sense of hope that I’m losing the longer this primary season goes on. America is ready for change… or so we thought.

America is not ready for change, at least if you let the corporate media tell it. Yesterday on FOX news, Barack Obama, instead of taking the “opportunity” to “stick it” to FOX chose to live out the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is a rule that was probably taught to most of us in some way, shape, form, or fashion as soon as we were old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. I believe Barack went on FOX not to delegitimize them, but to take his message to a different audience. Some say “well, the people watching FOX voted 88% for George W. Bush in 2004, and they wouldn’t vote for a Barack Obama no matter what he did/said.” That may be so, but why deny them the opportunity to get to know the Barack that his supporters have rallied behind?

Instead of discussing the very relevant policy arguments that he put out, we are busy discussing whether he should have gone on FOX in the first place, and why, since he did decide to go, didn’t be “put them in their place.” It’s a sad sad day in America when a politician can’t even be civil to a news channel or program who hasn’t been all that civil to him. It’s a sad sad day in America when a politician cannot simply turn the other cheek and be as respectful as possible to those who are doing everything within their power to destroy who they themselves consider to be “a good man.” It’s a sad sad day in America when we are so focused on the NEGATIVE that we fail to see the positive. It’s a sad sad day in American when a pastor and an entire church who does so much good for their community can be demonized in the media to the point where the church is getting bomb threats and the pastor is getting death threats.

As if the FOX news interview wasn’t “bad enough” Rev. Wright finally decided it was time to defend himself and his church against the smears that have taken root against them. Instead of listening to the man’s message and the man himself objectively, we are instead subjected to numerous “analysis” about the political implications for Barack Obama. Granted, the man is running for President of the United States, but nothing in the man’s message has come even remotely close to anything like the distorted cherry picked comments of his former pastor. But none of that matters because Barack Obama went to the church for 20 years. As I listened to Rev. Wright speak last night, I could see how Barack would find that particular church attractive. As a person that spent much of his life before joining Trinity United Church in Christ trying to figure out his place in the world, why wouldn’t someone who preaches the idea that we are all DIFFERENT but not DEFICIENT attractive? While we crucify Obama for attending a church with a controversial pastor, we aren’t even looking at the fact that neither of the other candidates appear to go to church at all. The media consistently ignores John McCain’s own personal pastor problems (but I guess his don’t matter since he didn’t actually ATTEND the church). The media completely ignores Hillary Clinton’s “spiritual connections” and merely take her at her word that she even attends church.

Today, Rev. Wright spoke out again at a press event. I didn’t think what he said was that bad. I didn’t think his demeanor was “cocky” or “arrogant.” I saw a man that is tired f the bullshit. He’s tired of his work being boiled down into two out of context soundbites. He is tired of the Black church, and specifically the one he was Pastor of, get treated like dirt in the media. The questions that were being asked to him in this press conference were more than a bit ridiculous. They were asking him questions about politics as if HE were the one running for President. No matter how many times he stated that he was simply the man’s Pastor, he continued to get questions about his view on the world, and his controversial statements. If everyone and their mama (other than the corporate media) acknowledges that Barack Obama does not share the views of Jeremiah Wright, why does it matter what he thinks?

Barack Obama is being unfairly mischaracterized as some sort of Messiah. He is not, and will not be, all things to all people. He is just a man. He is a politician. He is HUMAN. He will make his OWN mistakes, there’s no need to push the mistakes of his friends, family, and acquaintances upon him. This entire primary the media has been doing everything in its power to define Obama as an inexperienced elitist Black man who knows nothing and will do nothing to change this country. They blissfully ignore all of the positive change he has ALREADY brought to this country by getting people of my generation, and even those much older than me, who have not previously been involved in politics and their own futures involved. He has ALREADY caused America to take a good look at its race relations (and I must say, I’m not liking what I’m seeing). He has already caused America to look beyond all of the hype and the spin to see what is really going on (although he’s been less effective at this lately). He has already given some cynical people a reason to hope that this country will not continue in this downward spiral.

I am tired of the media and the people who are more cynical than me trying to steal my joy over this election. I am tired of being told that my vote is not as important as that of some white person living in rural America who probably isn’t even REALLY paying attention to this primary season anyway but will go out and vote regardless. I am tired of fellow Obama supporters freaking out every time something happens like the Rev. Wright controversy. I am tired of the lies. I am tired of the deceit. I am tired of being told I can’t respect someone whose opinion may differ from mine. I am tired of being told to “stay in my place.” I am tired of being told it’s Hillary’s “turn.” I am tired of being told Superdelegates know what’s best for me better than I do. I am tired of being told that Black people who are supporting Barack Obama are only doing it because he is Black, I am tired of being told White people who support Barack Obama are only doing it because they feel it will somehow ease whatever pseudo-guilt they may have over slavery. I am tired of being told that I don’t matter in this country. I am tired of being told “no, you can’t” when I say “yes, we can.” I am tired of being afraid. I am tired of not being hopeful. I am tired of the bullshit and the spin and the pseudo-straight-talk.

I am tired of this damn primary season.

I am tired of the unnecessary drama.

I am tired of the hypocrisy.

So no, looking at what’s going on right now, a change is not going to come. When sociologists can perform the “doll test” more than 50 years after it was initially conducted, and get the SAME result, a change is not going to come. When a man can be shot the night before his wedding 50 times by NYPD officers, and his murders are acquitted, a change is not going to come. When a man cannot even go to CHURCH without being drug through the mud for being there because his Pastor has some controversial-and arguably radical- views, a change is not going to come. When someone tells you the TRUTH and you get mad at them for telling it, a change is not going to come. When minority and impoverished children STILL can’t get a fair shake in the education system and later in society, a change is not going to come. When the color of a man’s skin STILL matters more than the content of his character, a change is not going to come.

A change is NOT going to come in America until WE are ready to claim it and fight for it. We cannot expect a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton or even a John McCain to change America, WE have to change America. WE are the ones that we have been waiting for. Why should we WAIT for someone to tell us it’s okay to be outraged? Why should we WAIT for someone to tell us “you can do it”? Why should we WAIT until some bigot in a rural community is ready for a Black or Female President? Why should we WAIT to get approval by the rich corporate media?

Barack said it best: Not this time. This time we will focus on the issues. This time we will fight for change, real change, in America. This time we will not GIVE UP because we got knocked down. In a Diary posted by KiKu, she mentioned some advice that Barack once wrote to a 7 year old boy:

I leave you with three bits of advice that will make your life more fufilling: Look out for other people, even when it does not directly benefit you; strive to make a difference everywhere you go; and get back up every time you are knocked down."

Until America can truly learn to do those 3 things, and even more, a change is NOT going to come. Until Americans can get over ourselves and try to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, someone who isn't like us, nothing at all will change.

Axelrod: "There are going to be no assholes in this campaign."

2008-04-27T12:24:00.000-04:00

This is actually a pretty interesting article from Politico that gives a look inside the Obama campaign and the relationships among its members.

Here's the question that has been boggling minds this entire campaign:

How has the Obama campaign managed to maintain an island of comparative calm?

This question is asked in the face of the repeated shakeups within the Clinton campaign, a campaign that was supposed to be vastly superior to the Obama campaign.

The answer:

Now, the Obama Team probably has disagreements, anytime you get a bunch of highly qualified people together, they will clash on some issues. The key is to keep "in house" business out of the media, which is something that other campaigns have not be quite as successful at:

There are certainly disagreements and strains — Obama advisers acknowledge as much, without admitting the details — but rule No. 1 is no fratricidal behavior, which includes unauthorized disclosures to the media. Obama himself on Friday acknowledged the need for the campaign to continually “fine-tune itself.”

Of course, the article goes on to blame Mark Penn for Clinton's woes. I have a problem with this, and here's why. Who hired Penn? Who kept Penn on even when his strategy clearly wasn't working?

Strategist Mark Penn, a veteran of the toughest White House battles of the 1990s, was deeply unpopular and a divisive presence within the Clinton campaign. Obama strategist David Axelrod is the anti-Penn. In the midst of Penn’s demotion earlier this month, one Obama aide in Chicago remarked to his colleagues about the low-key and well-liked Axelrod: “Do you know how lucky we are that he is our Mark Penn?”

I'm guessing the Clinton campaign knew Penn was divisive when they hired him. That's what they WANTED because it apparently worked in the 90s. Unfortunately for Penn, he was blindsided by Obama and Axelrod who decided they wanted to run a campaign that was not based on tearing people apart, but instead on bringing people together.

Also, members of the O-Team were friends and colleagues before they jumped on the Train:

Unlike Clinton’s team, the Obama campaign did not start with pre-existing rivalries. Axelrod and campaign manager David Plouffe were business partners, while Plouffe and Robert Gibbs, the communications director, share season tickets to the Washington Nationals. The staff, many of whom left family and lives behind to work in Chicago, have only each other to rely on in a place far from home.

“We would go to a basketball or baseball game together if we weren’t doing this right now,” Gibbs said. “We are all both friends and colleagues, and I think that is important. We feel we are a cohesive type of unit, not a group of individuals.”

The thing that I, personally, find so impressive about the Obama campaign is the fact that it hasn't changed it's CORE message at all since he started. There was no shuffling of campaign themes to figure out what would and wouldn't work. They don't change the theme with each new state and demographic. This to me also shows that they really believe in their premise that the country is not divided as our politics may suggest, and that people generally want the same things out of life. Obama's campaign, in my opinion, figured out what everyone wanted, and that's a sense of "hope."

And let's not forget the great David Plouffe:

Bad stories annoy Plouffe, but they don’t affect strategy or goals, aides said.

In Plouffe’s world, there should be only intentional leaks, and disputes must be dealt with in-house. Aides say that, from the beginning, the campaign declined to confirm even routine stories by Washington standards, such as personnel moves, because they wanted to release information on their terms — and have prided themselves on following the edict ever since.

Plouffe barely hid his disdain for the individual who stepped out of line when he disputed a Washington Post report last week quoting a Democratic strategist “familiar with the Obama campaign” who said “aides are likely to turn to the controversies” of the Clinton years to hasten an end to the nomination fight.

“That was, I think, an unnamed strategist claiming to have some relationship with us,” Plouffe said on a conference call with reporters. “I can assure [that] whoever was, in an act of puffery, suggesting they had some knowledge of what we're doing, is incorrect.”

Yep, so Obama is not only the coolest candidate, but he has the coolest campaign. They don't melt down at the smallest misstep or "negative press" or anything really.

Less than 24 hours after Pennsylvania voters dealt Obama a sound defeat, Gibbs dismissed any suggestion that a fresh wave of critical analysis would take a toll on the campaign.

“I don’t think so,” Gibbs said, eating mashed potatoes in the lobby of an Indiana University Southeast building, where his candidate just held an event. “I’m sure it is easier to sit elsewhere and say ‘I would do this differently.’ But we feel confident in the plan and we are still ahead, so it is hard to quibble.”

Now, personally, I'm really sensitive about anything said about the Obama campaign because I feel like it's MY campaign, and I'd wager I'm not alone. It's really hard not to freak out about every little thing. One thing I've noticed is that America is already looking to Barack to lead, whether the traditional media wants to admit it or not.

That's why every little thing he does is under such scrutiny.

That's why every time someone does or says something stupid people say "well Obama should give a major speech on this" (personally, I don't want to hear anymore major speeches until he's accepting the nomination in August).

People, I think, really are tired of focusing on the NEGATIVES and want to see the POSITIVES. People want the leader that calls to their "better angels" instead of our evil sides.

Looking at the campaign staff he's put together, I'm excited to see his cabinet who I'm sure will also be full of people that know how to disagree without being disagreeable, and focus on the goals at hand rather than all of the distractions that can divert attention from the real issues.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if people really were paying attention to these campaigns it would be no contest. Hillary says she wants people to look at it like a job interview, if that's the case she would not get the job. She's embellished her resume, lied to the interviewing panel, and her project (i.e., her campaign) has taken a candidate that was once inevitable and made her practically unelectable.

The Obama campaign has worked it's ASS off to be where it is right now, and that says a lot about a President Obama's leadership capabilities. He's getting things done while playing by the rules. So given the choices, if I were the final decision over who to "hire" it would definitely be Barack Obama. . .

Welcome

2008-04-26T18:08:00.000-04:00

Well, I don't really have time right now to write some long profound blog, just want to post something quick to say WELCOME to anyone who may be reading this right now, and I hope you look forward to my posts

~Muzikal203