sagaciously is...

April 23, 2008

NY Times to Hilary Clinton: "The Low Road to Victory"

or what should be more aptly subtitled: "Time to Call Off the Dogs".

The article can be found here: Low Road to Victory. Excerpt below:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

my thoughts:: the thought has occurred to me repeatedly in the last few weeks, that if Clinton wins the Democratic Nomination - I'd rather throw away my vote by abstaining, or voting for an independent candidate, than support what's going on in the Democratic party right now. However, I definitely don't want to inadvertently support McCain in the process. But as the article states, I'm tired of the negativity, and unhappy about the direction the campaign has taken in the last few weeks.

The bright shining light of hope that seemed to color the campaign late in 2007 and early 2008 has turned into mudslinging, and everyone's getting dirty. It's time to clean things up, and stop providing fuel for the Republican general election fire.

Posted by saga_30311 at 08:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 22, 2008

the belt is slowly tightening....

I noticed it a couple of weeks ago, when some hot coffee I was carrying back to my desk burned my hand.

As I continued pulling the cup out of the coffee machine, while I looked around for a lid...
my coworker glibly responded:: they're all gone, and I don't think the vendor's coming back for a coupla days. I did the same thing. The cups are smaller.
me: wha?

coworker:: You burned your hand, right? Yeah - I did the same thing. They replaced the large cups with a cup slightly smaller, I guess to save money. Problem is - they didn't reset the machine - so it's dispensing the same amount of coffee.

So I looked, and yes - the cup is about 2oz. smaller - so that the coffee spilled over. By the time the vendor came in with the lids, the machine was properly reset, and our 16 oz cup is now 14. Nice.

this isn't how it begins:: but this is how we begin to notice the inevitable tightening belt. With smaller cup sizes, and a lack of free feminine hygiene products in our bathrooms. And removal of the lotion dispensers in our fitness center. And smaller, thinner napkins and toilet paper in our restrooms. Yes, I know those are all wonderfully expensive amenities that I shouldn't necessarily expect. But these are all signs, of a much bigger, more pervasive economic reality. Companies are going to cut costs by any means necessary.

Don't get it twisted. I work for a very large multinational company, that has been in the Fortune 500, longer than the Fortune 500 has actually existed. And while the profits decline for the top US companies in the Fortune 500 list, $10-Trillion dollars is nothing to sneeze at. These companies are making money hand over foot. And yes, fuel prices are killing mid size companies, who either have to pass those costs on to consumer - or bear them and face financial insolvency. But big a$$ companies like mine keep reserves, and invest in fuel futures, and foreign currencies - to offset fuel price fluctuations. So the problem isn't just that fuel prices are rising, and the problem won't be resolved if fuel prices drop.

I told y'all a long time ago:

Greed isn't just good. Greed is inevitable

Global economic growth is predicted to slow (what with the cost of capital)...but it's not decreasing. It's decelerating. And there's a definitive shift away from the declining US dollar, to more attractive markets and currencies (emerging economies, anyone). So large multinationals are doing what they gotta do, to ensure that shareholder value is preserved. What is it about again class?

Profit.

Net Income (Profits) = Sales - Cost of Goods/Services. Simple math....if you decrease the cost of goods/services, you can increase profits. EVEN IF SALES DECREASE, you can still increase/maintain profits by cutting costs MORE than the sales decrease.

Hence my lil a$$ cup o' joe. And the missing tampons. And some marginally necessary positions at my organization not being refilled. And contractors being laid off. And changes to my company's retirement plan. And increases in my out-of-pocket health care costs.

fire sale:: I'm having a yard sale at my house, within the next few weeks. Whatever is at my house that I'm not currently using will either be in my front yard, or on eBay. Expect a whole lotta wonderfully cheap, new/slightly used plus size fashions, Nine West/Via Spiga shoes, decor from Pier 1, Crate and Barrel, West Elm and Target, and random stuff (manual treadmill, other fitness equipment, and lots of random "stuff" that needs to go). I need to simplify - and replenish my savings account. F*ck an economic stimulus package. Stakes is high.

The lil a$$ cup o' joe isn't the big problem here, it's a symptom of a much bigger problem. What happens when my job becomes one of those marginally necessary positions?

Posted by saga_30311 at 09:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ford agrees to sell Jaguar, Land Rover

I added a new category - Economics - because there's some things going on in this country, and the world, that are scaring me. This is just the writing on the wall.

The full story is here, but I'm including the relevant portion below:

After spending billions of dollars on Jaguar and Land Rover, Ford Motor Co. gave up on the storied British automakers Wednesday and unloaded them to India's Tata Motors Ltd. for a mere third of the original purchase price.

The deal is another sign of the growing economic muscle of India and something of an economic role reversal, with two icons of British industrial might expanding the global reach of a premier conglomerate in the former British colony.

Ford nets about $1.7 billion, a far cry from what it paid for the properties -- $2.5 billion for Jaguar in 1989 and $2.7 billion for Land Rover in 2000. Counting losses and product development, analysts figure Ford spent more than $10 billion on the brands.

Those acquisitions, like General Motors' purchase of Saab and Chrysler's entanglement with Mitsubishi, came when cash was rolling in at the U.S. automakers as drivers snapped up cars and pricey pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.

But Ford's fortunes have changed, with slumping U.S. sales and billions in losses. The fire-sale price comes as the Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker concentrates on its main brands.

Now let me say this, first off - I'm not an economist, and I'm not going to front here like I'll become one. I could do a detailed financial analysis of this deal, and provide you with some historical information about Tata Motors - but you have Google & Wikipedia for that. Suffice it to say that Tata Motors is part of a much larger Indian multinational conglomerate - the Tata Group, and they've been doing big things, for years. This IMHO is just a sign that US economic dominance is slipping, as the BRIC's (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are positioned to fully take advantage of our economic woes, and move from "developing" status, into major economic powerhouse. They've been "creeping on the come up" for the last, say 20 years. Now - time to cash in.

Hmph...I've been sorta easing by a lot of the things I've learned about the global economy in the last 2-3 years - focused outside this space (B-school, for the MBA) but lightly brushing over them. Time to tie some things up, and bring them home.

Meanwhile, you may want to go back and check out some old posts I put in the category of Economics.....it may show you where I'm headed.

Posted by saga_30311 at 08:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 29, 2008

Hannity & Colmes defend Obama against Pastor Manning

I really was avoiding giving Pastor James David Manning any airtime, because I think his a$$ is batshyt crazy. And it's far from my intent to promote the carefully crafted YouTube rantings of someone so obviously trying to get their meager Internet shine on.

HOWEVER.

This dude went on Hannity & Colmes to defend his series of YouTube attacks on Obama. You can Google Pastor James David Manning to find his videos, and Hannity & Colmes have their own site on Fox (you already know how I feel about Fox). Bottom line is, I never thought I'd see the day that Hannity would defend Obama. Oh, and now - I know that mainstream America has seen that dude is batshyt crazy. Thanks H&C and Fox for showing the world this kid is a loon.

Shouts to Bossip.com and LiveSteez for the video below. FoxNews also has both Part 1 and 2 available.

Posted by saga_30311 at 04:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 21, 2008

Fox on Fox: the Obama bashing should stop

I'm glad another Fox newscaster called Fox & Friends on this.

Watch Brian Kilmeade walk off the set of Fox & Friends in frustration as his co-hosts Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy pick apart Obama's speech, and repeatedly rerun the "typical white person" comment from that speech, out of context:





Then, Chris Wallace calls them on the "excessiveness" of them rerunning that portion of the speech, and talks about how they keep clipping it out of context. Read the sound bite 3 times? Come on....when your fellow newscaster chides you about being unfair ON AIR and ignoring more newsworthy, relevant stories - you know you've not only crossed a line...you erased it.

Posted by saga_30311 at 11:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 15, 2008

crazy as a Fox...news, that is.

what qualifies "news" outlets as legitimate? and who decides?

Up front & center:: I've got serious problems with Fox News. I always have. The fact that my employer keeps our TV's at work tuned to them 24X7 is only part of it.

I just don't understand how a news outlet, that has Geraldo Rivera as a political analyst, and features stories on babies with two faces, streams live coverage of Paris Hilton's prison release and analyzes the legitimacy of lawsuits by whether the plaintiffs are "hot" as a news outlet. I'm sorry - I just can't. But please tell me I'm not the only one.

My problem is that outlets such as Fox have created a slippery slope, spiraling downward to the lowest common denominator, and providing us with stories that appeal to our basest instincts. Fear, gossip, rumor, drama, sex, etc...etc...ad nauseum. And they're dragging "legitimate" outlets down with them....

This would be fine, were it not for their exhaustive coverage of real news topics, such as politics, the elections, major trials, etc. Political Bias aside (although it's REALLY HARD TO SWEEP THAT ASIDE) I have a really hard time stomaching their reporters cover legitimate stories, such as the Elliott Spitzer story, the Ferraro-Clinton fiasco and the Obama-Wright drama. Hell, IMHO, their "reporters" are less reporters, and more "television personalities", no more fit to report on the news or opine on current events than you or I. So is ratings the goal, the ultimate name of the game, and the watching/listening public gets to be bombarded with sensationalized BS for the sake of profits? Yes, in Fox's case, it seems so.

Their reasoning? We report....you decide.
GTFOHWTBS.
"Baby Girl Born With Two Faces Worshipped as Reincarnated God." <<< I've decided...that shyt is real National Enquirer-ish.

Posted by saga_30311 at 07:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 13, 2008

Keith Olbermann on Hilary Clinton & Geraldine Ferraro

W.O.W. I have no words [/endGlee]

ok, I do have one. DAAAAAAMMMMMMNNNNNN.

Posted by saga_30311 at 07:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 12, 2008

this chick here....

.....and to think I voted for Geraldine Ferraro back in the '80's. For the record, they are two different videos.

The relevant piece starts around 3:00 minutes in, although the whole video is worth a listen. I want this campaign...hell this country....to get beyond this.

aside:: isn't being on the Clinton Campaign finance committee a direct conflict of interest with being a Fox Political Analyst?

another aside:: does this smell remotely of Wag the Dog to anyone? It smells like bait to me....glad it didn't take Mississippi off-track. But did it take some shine off the results of the Texas caucus? Hm......

I do like the response from Obama's camp. However, Ferarro's backpedaling explanation isn't convincing.

Ok, I'm not about to start becoming a political blog. I have colleagues, like Inkognegro, who do that much better than I. I'm just saying...

Posted by saga_30311 at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 11, 2008

sheesh, this campaign...

I should probably have picked a photo of dueling pundits for this post, but I'd be damned to limit it to just two of them.
I've (still) got real issues with how/why we (as individuals) select candidates that are qualified. Not with the voting process, but the basis on which we determine which candidate to support.

part of the reason I hate punditry::I was listening to Talk Radio - the Michael Baisden show to be exact, and he was taking calls from Mississippians regarding who they were casting votes for in today's primary. A caller from MI, let's call her Mary, called in to declare that she was 'black, female, in her 40's, and casting her vote for John McCain" primarily because of his position on same-sex marriages, Abortion and homosexuality. *sighs* Fortunately, Al Sharpton was on to respond to her and any listeners, clarifying that the Executive branch is no more responsible for the laws related to any of those issues, than you, I, or the monkey standing behind me.

BTW, ignore that monkey - he's potty-trained.

Aside:: I'm a fan of Al Sharpton as a talk show host and guest, because he knows his stuff, and he's not condescending or pandering in talking to his guests or callers, and he does it in the language of the common man. Sweet.

I'll just go ahead and admit it - I'm an elitist. And most callers (and some hosts) on talk radio drive me up a wall, because of the condescension, the pandering, the (un) qualified yet overinflated opinions, and the adamant conviction not based on fact, but other pundit's opinion. I guess I shouldn't limit my disdain for talk radio - there's enough punditry for every possible news and non-news medium. But I digress...

da point is...::This campaign is sparking some interesting debates about how we choose our elected officials - how we as individuals choose which candidates to support, and what makes a candidate "qualified". Which (IMHO) should really be taught in high school, instead of our revisionist history classes. My first American government class was in college, and (fortunately) it was taught by a black lawyer jaded enough with our systems (all 3 - executive, judiciary and legislature) to provoke us into questioning EVERYTHING. Most people look at these campaigns as a popularity contest, through the lens of their own priorities, values, morals, religious beliefs, social issues, et. al. without thoroughly and objectively questioning whether the candidate can actually do the job.

Another dissatisfied Clinton supporter (methinks, anyway):: under the jump

Another dissatisfied Clinton supporter (methinks, anyway):: Quinden on being "Still Stuck in Second":

I've been flashing back to that episode the last few months, considering how, even with the best intentions, male is still the universal default setting. Here's the drumbeat—Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strange test case for a what-if we women have been rehearsing for decades. What would be the chances that the most significant run for the presidency by a woman would be made by someone with more baggage than a ball team headed to an away game: a former First Lady, married to one of the most polarizing political figures in modern American history, who had suffered the public humiliation of his sexual perfidy? What would be the chances that she would survive all that to enter the Senate, then to mount what all believed would be a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination, only to be parried, not by the right wing or entrenched bigotry but by youth and eloquence and a colleague who symbolized a newer new America than she did?

But just because all this makes it difficult to parse the double standard surrounding Senator Clinton's candidacy doesn't mean the double standard no longer exists, or shouldn't be acknowledged. There may be many reasons apart from her gender—past, positions, personality—that have led people to turn away. But there has also been an inescapable undercurrent of bias. It's summed up in the word "calculating," which is often used to describe the senator in as witchy a way possible. There is no male politico equivalent for "calculating," except perhaps "business as usual."

my thoughts:: and all that to say, what exactly? I hate that Obama's at the other end of this, because I like him a lot as a candidate. But really -the playing field (once again) has never been level, has always been biased, and it's biased against anyone who doesn't fit the typical paradigm of a presidential hopeful which strongly resembles that of our former presidents: white, male, Protestant, Ivy League schools, etc. ANYONE who isn't cut from that cloth would face bias...hell, Obama's been fighting silliness such as his "islamic" leanings, ties to Al Qaeda, substance-less campaign and lack of real qualifications (which I could make a case for some anti-affirmative action backlash, if I was so inclined) since the beginning of the primaries.

Ok, this is beginning to sound as whiny as the Newsweek article. Moving on...

I find an almost-past child-bearing-years heterosexual Black women selecting a candidate based on the party's Abortion and Same Sex marriage stance almost scarier than a pundit basing their selection on women's rights or lack thereof. Why? Because the former represents the rampant ignorance and idiocy with which most people approach their voting decisions and it's the common man, the voter, albeit swayed by popular opinion, that will elect the next president.

What makes a good candidate to run our country? What qualifications would they need? Does the "party" make the candidate, or vice versa? Sheesh....these m****-f***'s here need to think before they vote, seriously....

Posted by saga_30311 at 01:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 25, 2008

my people {we got to do better}

shouts to jam Donaldson at HGM for the {we got to do better} line....

ok, here it is in a nutshell: yes, we are (still) a Hot Ghetto Mess. But what are we gonna do about it?

campaign2008 & our reasons for our choices:: I've got real issues with people's anti-intellectual reasons for picking their candidate. And I'm putting myself on blast. Prior to me doing my election "homework", I was entertaining Clinton. I originally thought, given our current state of race relations, that Americans would turn out in droves to vote against Obama, hence not wanting to throw away my vote. Silly me. I've since read their platforms, watched the primaries (starting with NH and IA), watched the debates, and decided based on the issues, to support Obama.

Now, it's a long minute later - and I still hear my people saying ig'nant things like: "I don't want to vote for Obama 'cause they'll shoot him in office, and I don't want him to get killed", "I think he's related to Sadam Hussein", "I'm voting for Obama 'cause he's black", "I'm voting for Hilary because she's a woman", or "I'm voting for ______ because __________ endorsed them (insert pundit/so-called-leader's name there)". Ok, seriously - it's time for us to get off our collective a$$es, do some homework, and make our own decisions, for real. It's 2008 - we're well into the information age - the platforms, senatorial voting records and their stances are readily available. We need to stop being quite so sheep-like, so that all parties (Repub, Dem, Libertarian, Green, etc - and the pundits who love them), and the non-parties (random pundits who won't commit to a "party"), all take our votes more seriously.

aside:: I'm really tired of candidates being able to pander to the "urban voter" in general by either appealing to, or by manipulating, their emotions.

punditry beef:: Baisden v. Frank Ski? Tavis Smiley vs. Obama? We barely got pundits and access to airwaves, and they're already going at each other, or our "leaders", not over issues or opinions, but because they got "snubbed" or "shouted someone out" or forgot to "shout someone out". Are you friggin kidding me?

ClayCo Board of Ed & Kwame Kilpatrick:: or when keeping it black goes wrong. If you haven't heard about Clayton County's Board of Education, the quick & dirty is that the entire school system is facing a potential loss of accreditation, due to corruption ethics violations, ineptitude, and policy violations. You can click here for more information. This means students and teachers, as well as administrators records would be "wiped clean". Students wouldn't be eligible for scholarships, and their acceptance into colleges would be in jeopardy. Staff would lose their certifications and employment history, of the timeframe of the board's tenure.


and Kwame?:: Well - the "hip-hop" mayor, amongst other things, is accused of: "allegations of marital infidelity involving his chief of staff, lawsuits, and an investigation of perjury. Kilpatrick could could be disbarred, sentenced up to 15 years in prison, and forced to resign as mayor. The controversies have prompted an ethics probe investigation, and a recall election campaign to have Kilpatrick removed from office." Excerpts of his text exchanges with his chief of staff are all over the 'Net, and his wife's leased Navigator is appearing as the Red Flag & last straw for his frustrated constituency. Read more here.


the talented tenth:: It's not enough, in 2008, that we should want black representation in all areas of life: media, politics, government - both local and national, industry, etc. We should want our leaders, the "talented tenth" of which DuBois so elegantly wrote, to be not only influential leaders throughout the world, but also beyond reproach. Or at least approaching moral excellence.

it's not enough that our leaders should be black. They should be qualified to lead, and possessing character traits that can inspire us as a people: honesty, integrity, fortitude

Too often, we're so desperate to see ourselves duly and dutifully represented, that we let shyt slide.

they do it, so why...?:: should we be held to a higher standard, you ask? Because the playing field has never been level, and will not be getting flat any time soon. Because the bar is higher for us. Because there is a black tax, and because we are all well aware of it. Because we are well aware that when we "do what they do", the scrutiny is much more intense. Because our two steps back takes not only us (as individuals) back, but also us (as a people). Because there is backlash. And because we deserve, like any other race, to prove our merit. To show we can be qualified, and can do a good job, and be considered based on merit. Not just because we're black. And because the exceptions (like the ClayCo commission or Kwame) shouldn't be the measure of those that are performing to or outperforming expectations. We're not shooting for mediocrity here - the goal isn't the best of the average. We should want to excel. All of us. We should want to do better.

back to campaign2008:: which is what I find so fascinating about the Obamas. So far, they are those people. "Grace under fire", "eloquence", "elegant', "of outstanding character", "grace under pressure" have become so clichéd, that they're more likely to appear in the title of a sitcom, than a description of a political candidate. But the Obamas are that. As i watch Michelle withstand attacks about her patriotism, which I'm sure is very personal to her, and Barack address charges of plagiarism, rumors about his religious beliefs, shallowness and the transparency of his platform - these phrases are the ones that come to mind.

Yeah, I'm gushing a lil, but not trying to sway your vote. Look at them as black people, as African-Americans, as leaders, as icons. That, my friend - is what I find inspiring. Columbia U., Princeton U. and Harvard Law. Community activists. {apparently} Happily married and raising their children, together. And supporting their people the best way they know how, by setting an example.

You can find your own examples, but please - find them. My people... {we got to do better}

Posted by saga_30311 at 05:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 17, 2007

Don Imus & Rap in the Crosshairs

*sighs*

I'm going to try to tackle this one briefly, but I just can't keep ignoring this.

I don't care to comment on Dom Imus' comments, the response, his firing, etc. It's been overexposed, and as of today, it's a done deal. He was wrong, and he's suffered the consequences. My problem was never the word, but the feelings & emotions underlying it, and the fact that he felt as empowered to use that word, as Michael Richards did using the *N* words. Moving on...

What is this other deep-fried madness surrounding this issue? It's the rapper's fault? Are you f*cking kidding me?

Don't get me wrong - I have my own issues with the current state of hip hop. And I do understand that in lieu of our parents and our community raising and nurturing our children, the streets, the music and the sub-culture(s) are having their way with them, no doubt.

But you cannot convince me that Don Imus listened to Mims, and suddenly felt like he could use that phrase, and feel empowered doing it. GTFOHWTBS.

racial fundamentalismm:: as I alluded to before, was introduced to me by Dr. Michael Eric Dyson on his show, when discussing the Banning of the N-word as a result of the Michael Richards incident. The idea, is that we (black people, collectively) have/are allowed one fundamental "right" viewpoint, that we're supposed to adopt, support, and promote when it comes to the issues of race in this society - or face questions aboout race loyalty, and the desire for the betterment of our people. We should ALL want to ban the use of the *N* word. We should ALL want to ban the use of the *B* or *H* word. Yeah, right. The idea inhibits healthy debate of the issues that hit closest to home, and prevents creating viable solutions as a result of the forgone discussions.

I've heard Rev. Al Sharpton, Stanley Crouch, Steve Harvey, Rev. Jesse Jackson, NY Post columnist Michelle Malkins, Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock, Bryan Monroe of the National Association of Black Journalists and Carol Swain of Vanderbilt University recently speak on the controversy, blaming the rappers for their derogatory language and creating an environment or culture that basically empowered/allowed the Imus incident to occur.

Again, GTFOHWTBS.

Can I go in a meeting, and tell my boss, that the spic faggot*** that is testing my application is a lazy beaner a$$hole***, and that if it weren't for my subscription to digital cable and the Comedy Channel or Sirius Radio I wouldn't feel like I could use that language? Right.

Don Imus knew better, just like Michael Richards knew better. But I don't even care to address the overall culture (at a societal level, outside the black community) that empowers anyone to say such things about people of color. My focus is on rap, and these "crosshairs' it appears to be in.

When Essence started Take Back the Music, and when Ebony ran articles also charging the industry to become more responsible, where was the punditry? When Spelman was protesting Nelly's appearance because of Tip Drill, despite the charitable nature of the event, where was the punditry. Right.

We need to clean up our act, not by banning words or blaming whomever. We need to educate and enlighten the musicians to make them want to become more creative, and lteach them the power and influence their words hold.

A a lover of un-censored hip hop and a proponent of creative empowerment, I have to play Devil's Advocate. Sure, go give Mims a hug, talk directly to Snoop, teach the brethren that the ripple the words are to them can/has caused a tidal wave. But do it because our community needs it, not to get a byline or press. And not to provide justification for Imus' behavior. Do it because that's the right thing to do, not because it's becoming popular to do so. Teach the listeners to demand more creativity, and less derogatory references to women. Demand that the entire industry (not just artists) portray women in a more responsible manner. And like Mapplethorpe's Piss Christ, let the viewer of the work, the audience, decide whether/not it has merit.

***ETA: I HATE that kind of language, but it was added to illustrate a satirical point. It truly wasn't meant to be offensive.

Posted by saga_30311 at 09:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 02, 2007

the anti-devaluation rant

You know who it is...it's me, bitches!

LMAO - yes, I'm back. I want to drop a quick thank you to all those folks that emailed me, and checked on me - 'cause I really appreciate the support. I'm gonna thank y'all properly later, along with catch-up on what I've been up to, but first I've gotta get something off my formidable chest.

I've been reading a lot, to overcome some writer's block, and to find some inspiration. Normally, my hiatuses are for one of two reasons: I'm too busy to post, or I'm too overwhelmed with stuff to come up with something decent to post about. So, when the blogger's block hits, I tend to read - anything I can come across. This hiatus, I've been overwhelmed and uninspired, so I figured I'd read about some things I'm passionate about: fashion and relationships. No books...well, there was The Pocket Stylist, which does come in handy...but mostly message boards, popular articles, Blackplanet's forums, etc. I've also been swallowing a whole lot of bullshyt at work and in dating, which relates to my rant topic as well.

about this whole, black women are too _______, thing:: I know, I've probably belabored this topic, but I just don't understand this one, so I really need someone to break this down for me like I'm 5 years old, and it's the first day of school. The premise is that Black men are complaining that black women are too: independent, stanch, aggressive, bossy, demanding, self-sufficient, stubborn, argumentative, adamant, challenging, assertive, forceful, unyielding, domineering, smart-for-their-own-good, ________ (fill-in-the-blank with whatever adjective you can come up with to describe the stereotypical Sapphire black woman). And subsequently, emasculating. And so, because the black woman is just TOO, some of them (not all, by far) are turning to Becky. Or Kim Lee. Or Micaela. Or Mali. You get the idea.

The part I don't get is, when did _______ become a bad thing? I'll admit up front, that stubborn, argumentative, unyielding and domineering, ain't exactly sexy. Hows-n-ever, black women in America have historically been valued by their assertiveness, their tenacity, their aggressiveness, their self-sufficiency, their strength. When did that strength become a bad word? When the dollars showed up alongside it? No doubt imbalance is problematic in all people, regardless of color, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender. But there's an underlying assumption in this situation that if a black woman possesses any typically Sapphire traits, that the imbalance is present (based on the brother's past experiences, or whatever), and he proceeds/behaves accordingly. Whether that imbalance it truly present is kind of an aside.

You're stupid, therefore I'm smart:: Auuugh, I run into this one at work, and at school. As I told a good friend of mine who thinks I'm a Mensa candidate, smart is relative (just like speed, but ah - another post). I love that I'm semi-intelligent. Love it, so please do not get that twisted. But I'm also (as my graying hairs like to scream) old and wise enough to know, that I really don't know shyt. Really doe. In the grand scheme of knowledge, knowledge is much like the ocean, deep and endlessly expansive, evolving dynamically and sometimes overwhelming. And I'm just one lil miniscule atom of water (not even a whole drop) in that ocean. I really ain't all that friggin smart, ya dig?

But damnit, that doesn't stop my smart-ass colleagues, classmates, compatriots, coworkers, and collaborators en masse from trying to humiliate each other (and subsequently themselves) in order to make themselves appear smarter. In meetings, in one-on-one conversations, in class, in casual conversation, people love to expound on some shyt they think they know a thing or two about (bloggers too...as I'm doing rightch now). That part isn't the problem. The problem is that when these folks are challenged (or sometimes just to make themselves look smarter), they've got to enter "ChallengeLand", and pull out all the stops to mentally vanquish their perceived "opponent", to win the argument, prove their point, and subsequently prove themselves smart. Well, damn. I've been labeled "smart" for a while, so I've seen this happen for a while, but my "anti-smart-people" epiphany was in a Psych101 class, in watching a fellow student, a B+ student at that, literally murmer "under her breath", loud enough so that anyone else could hear, how "stupid" another classmate was for asking a question. Silly B+ student, isn't that why we're all there? And didn't you just make yourself a Psych101 example? (motivation: self-gratification, acceptance and validation. Now hand me my A+).

in all their ghetto-fabulous glory:: which may be a misnomer, but let's work with it for a bit. I live in the SWATS (South West Atlanta), the burbs of the SWATS (hallelujah, holla back - I LOVE John Brown), but the SWATS nevertheless. Ghetto Revival, y'all! (Ok, I'm back from my White Rapper moment). Anty-ways, regardless of me being in the burbs, I'm surrounded by my colored folks, which IMHO is as it should be. But my colored folks in my 'burbian hood, are er - semi-affluent. They got a lil sumthin', sumthin'. And some of them, look down at some of us, look down at some of them other ghetto-folks, who look down at the most fabulous of them, in all their ghetto-fabulous glory. (shouts to Hotghettomess.com for ghetto-inspiration).

But add on to all that, the NFATS (North Fulton Atliens), trying to divorce the SWATS. And Sandy Springs, Milton, Johns Creek et. al. trying to divorce Fulton County. And US Citizens trying to divorce immigrants, as well as terrorists, and racists trying to divorce anyone that's different, and it all begins to be just a bit much...

I know you're thinking: WTF does black men saying black women are emasculating have to do with N. Fulton kicking the SWATS to the curb, or smart people for that matter. Stay with me now, there is a common thread....and here it is....

devaluing me doesn't prove your value...:: ...or validate your value, or prove your worth, or (better yet) make you worthier. This is not a 0-sum game people. If I, a black woman, am aggressive as hell, and you, as a black man, state that isn't desirable, or that I'm less desirable as a result - that doesn't make you more desirable. So for the life of me, I can't figure out how me being aggressive is emasculating? How does making me more (or different) make you less? And how can I, as a US Citizen, (ultimately somewhere in my bloodline) borne of immigrants, say that Joe Immigrant is less, so therefore I deserve more, and he less? If I say you're dumb, that doesn't make me smart. If I say you're classless (or broke, or g-hetto), that doesn't make me sophisticated, rich or classy. Etc....etc...ad nauseum.

for now, the brethren:: LMAO - I had a little, er - incident with a brother lately. We went out, things were cool, I got busy, stopped returning his calls, he got a lil PO'ed, etc. Par for the course. Where things really went south, was the ending. I blew him off (he was a little indecisive and passive for me) without explanation, he left me a tart voicemail, I responded with a tart email. Which should've been the end of story - us agreeing to disagree.

But no, homeboy subsequently responded with some 8th grade BS. He literally went from age 48 to age 11 in 0.06 seconds - via an email laced with vulgarities which was really over-the-top insulting. I can take a punch, but he tried to f*ck me with no vaseline, and that just ain't happening. So I told the principle (adminstrators for the site where his email address was registered - the abuse line). What I needed him, and those brethren of his ilk to understand, is that saying we're too ___________ or less _________ doesn't make you look shiny and new, so that the next chick will line up to get at you. You're really playing yourself, and any chick worth her salt knows that, no matter what color she is.

Posted by saga_30311 at 05:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 29, 2006

on panama length posts, police shootings, etc....

Damnit.

A) I wrote this panama-length post about the police shootings in Atlanta, NYC, and how ridiculous it was that people are being picked off by the police like we're all starring in Magnum Force, and the police have an Uzis {Where is Clint Eastwood when you need him anyway?}. However, it's disappeared into thin air. Suffice it to say that I need to watch where (and when) I post.

B) The gist was: this is f*cking riduclous, as is this And if you're not trying to be the next victim, you may want to read this article, and this article. And maybe this article as well.

*begins rant that lost the post in the first place* Not that any of that will protect you from 50 bullets....and why do we already know that drugs were sold from her home, as well as how many times the officers were shot, but not how many times exactly did the police shoot the 92 year old grandmother? See, these are the kinds of questions that keep me up at night....

Posted by saga_30311 at 11:39 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 28, 2006

thoughts on the passing of an icon...

I ran into Pearl Cleage one day in the grocery store, and was pretty much dumbfounded. See, I always admired Pearl for her work. However, the minute I came across the actuality of her, I couldn't remember one dayum thing I'd read of hers. I went home that night, kicking myself - and ordered "What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day". I still have the intent to read it....

My knowledge of Pearl Cleage is not unlike my knowledge of Bebe Moore Campbell. Like so many authors that I stumble across, I'm always encouraged to read more of their stuff. See, I've been an off-again, on-again subscriber of Essence and Ebony since I was 15 years old, and there was a time (pre-MBA) when they were a monthly must-read. I still buy them, mostly for the gear & pics...but I loved many of their (sometimes) infrequent contributors, like Dr Brenda Wade, Sonia Sanchez, Nikki Giovanni, Amiri Baraka, bell hooks, Kevin Powell, etc. And Bebe as well.

However, it was Bebe Moore Campbell's essay "To Be Gifted, Black and Alone" hitting way too close to home, that helped gel in my mind that our (yes, us sistren) common experiences is what I enjoy reading most about, and what I strive to write about. Yes Virginia, there is an underlying method to my madness, and it's to just allow my stories (posts, blogs, experiences, voice, what-have-you) to add to the diaspora. Bebe did that so well....it's just surreal that she's gone.

No, I didn't know her - but had I run into Bebe in the grocery store, I would've liked to say: "you know that article you wrote about Leanita McClain? It touched me in ways I can hardly express. Thank you for inspiring me to be above my circumstances. And to write better than my immediacy."

I miss her already.

Posted by saga_30311 at 06:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 25, 2006

"Lynched" video banned from YouTube

Let me preface this by saying that YouTube has torn at the very fabric of my personal consciousness. I believe that a great deal of videos on YouTube are of da debil, even as I enjoy a lot of YouTube content on the regular...lol. I just hope the Google purchase doesn't end up equating to corporate censorship.

And on that note, you wanna get some background on the video, the ban, and the Artist - NYOIL:
Video for "Yall Should All Get Lynched
Interview with the Artist, NYOIL

My thoughts:
On the one hand, I can remember a time when this could easily have been a real song/video - released by a controversial hip-hop group (like Public Enemy / BDP, etc.) willing to spark controversy about a subject that NEEDS to be addressed. It's interesting yet sad that social protests in hip hop music aren't allowed air time anymore (appropriate or inappropriate). Seems that there's too much $$ on the line to give any consideration to music with a message. But yes, some of these hip-hop artists need a beat down, to get hemmed up by the "Drop Squad", and taught a hard lesson about the images and messages they're putting out, fa sho'.

On the other hand - NO WAY THAT ANY OF THOSE GROUPS I MENTIONED WOULD'VE CONDONED USING THOSE IMAGES OR THE REFERENCES TO LYNCHINGS. Pics of actual lynchings / references to them being lynched? To highlight the sad state of hip-hop? It's demeaning to the suffering associated with lynching, the ideas behind lynching, etc. Not that the misogyny/commercialism/violence/sel f-hatred in hip-hop isn't serious, but equating it with lynching? It's too much.

And yeah - I can't help but be skeptical about why NYOil may have released this - like controversy breeds publicity - which breeds interest. I could care less whether he shows his face or not, but this screams of hype regardless. I want to believe his reason are complete selfless, and altruistic, but....I'm jaded. Real jaded. Too many hip-hop kids have shed their conscious for the almighty $. Hell, I thought 50 Cent was gonna save hip-hop when he did a guest on "How To Rob" - da hell was I thinking?

Posted by saga_30311 at 02:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 20, 2006

Afterthoughts: The Southwest Community Festival

Ok, I have a few afterthoughts from the festival:

no pics???:: Nah, I was too busy working and enjoying myself to snap anything. Sowwy.

Learning, Scale & Volunteering:: Let me say that I've never participated in a volunteer event of this scale or magnitude (impact). But in participating I learned a WHOLE LOT about the efforts required to put together an event of this scale, and the whole Concert/Festival/Event planning thing. I have a lot more respect about the process, and I have a great deal of respect for the genre. And I'd love to learn more (HINT: this is why people say they get MORE out of volunteering than they put in. The fringe benefits).

We Gots to Do BETTER:: my people, I swear...even though the event went off well, there were some hiccups:

• lost children/parents? - tbere were 5+ lost kids that turned up, or parents that reported losing their children. Now don't get me wrong, these things happen, but for hours??? One toddler (about 2) was missing her parents for 2+ hours. I'm just saying....


• drunken/wanton behavior - it's a Community Festival meaning a family event. Why are adults engaging in drunken/wanton behavior so that they'd lose their kids in the first place? For that matter, sipping a lil something in front of your kids? Ok, maybe - but getting drunk? Hells naw.


• g-hetto shyt - I ain't even going there. It would take me too long to cover it.


• beef - can we have one community day without a fight?


• dramatic cunty-ism is so OVA:: have I mentioned lately how much I love that phrase? Anyway, again, it's a community festival for c-h-a-r-i-t-y. We can all do without excessive demands for freebies and attitudes. From everyone involved. For real.

the Artists:: overall, the talent was nice, although there were a few independent artists that definitely needed a "Hoe, Siddown" check. See g-hetto shyt, above. Alls I'm saying is, have ur stuff together before you perform in front of an audience, particularly an audience of ur folks, because ur folks are merciless. And keep ur thong in ur pants....lol.

Generally, the talent was good, particularly for this being a benefit concert. They were on time, professional, and the performances were excellent. Shoot, I caught the sound check, and felt like I could skip the show....lol.

the real "regular" dude:: the highlight of the day (for me) was Raheem DeVaughn, who I just want to show a WHOLE lot of love to. Now, when I say he was regular, I mean he was down to earth, like from up the block. He even ate our homemade chicken & grits with us for breakfast.....lol.

But the performance?! Off the damn chain, I mean dude had energy! I love artists who are still hungry, and who still have a connection to his fans/peoples, because they feed off the crowd's energy, and put that into the performance. He performed most of his album, and a few cuts I hadn't heard, and it was live (better than the album). Even interrupted the performance to quell a squabble in the crowd - talked to them brothers about unnecessary beef, like they were his mentees - then finished his set. It was excellent, and yet real - "regular". Diddle, diddy, er diddee dee, (what's his name this week?) 'ya heard? Regular ain't always a bad thing.

Posted by saga_30311 at 05:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 08, 2006

Southwest Community Festival

REMINDER: The Festival is this weekend. Tentative showtimes have been added, and the lineup of artists has changed (see schedule below). Please come out and support it!

This is both a PSA and a solicitation for Volunteers. Please, if you're interested in volunteering - email me asap and I'll forward you details.

Posted by saga_30311 at 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 06, 2006

South Fulton Tour de 29: A Festival of Cities

Have I mentioned lately how much I love my neighborhood? I truly do, cause there's ALWAYS some civic/community activity going on. And they're geared towards ma peoples (brakka people for those of you wondering...)

So, if you happen to be in Atlanta over the next few weeks, or live here and want to check out my 'hood, the 'SWATs'
(you know, that "rough' section of Atlanta as typically characterized by N. Fulton County residents and the media) come check out:

The second annual South Fulton Tour de 29: A Festival of Cities takes off Friday and continues throughout October, coasting through six cities along and around U.S. 29. Hapeville, East Point, College Park, Union City and Palmetto got together with the Fulton County Arts Council to plan one of the biggest arts-related events in the area.

You can view the schedule by clicking here.

* I'll make a prettier version of their schedule after my org's community fest...lol *

Posted by saga_30311 at 09:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 31, 2006

They, Themselves and Them

Sometimes I ramble on in the codeified language that only exists in my head for my personal use, to someone else; then wonder whether that someone else understands what the hell I'm rambling on about. Like a joke, with a long fuse, it takes a minute to "get" it. And maybe it never actually detonates. My references to "them" may be one of those jokes...

If we make sweeping generalizations about "us" and "them", my guess is we should know exactly who we're referring to, right? So I went into detail about "us", but I kinda skimmed over talking about "them". Well, this being the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and all, let's talk about "them", what "they're" doing, and what we should expect of "them", shall we?

"THEM":: growing up black in a white suburb, with black relatives scattered to the four winds, and from all socio-economic levels ('cept rich ;-), I heard a lot about "them". "Them" being "the man", "the system" and "the government"; "them" being designed to hold black men (at the time, the leaders of our community) down, and prevent people of color (in general, brown, yellow and red) from gaining any type of success in "their" environments (work, school, etc.). Forgive the verbiage, but it was the 70's y'all, and I was taught that an ingrained level of distrust was essential for my survival in their environments. "They" made it that way. "They" would keep our neck pressed to the ground, as long as "we" let "them".

"They" looked out for "themselves" (those other selves, being others that looked like "them") and made sure "they" were presented with opportunities to achieve...whatever "they" wanted. As a collective being "they" took care of "their" own. And anyone else was left to their own devices, proverbially hung out to dry. In the case of Katrina, this analogy may be used, literally (more on that later).

Hung out to Dry? - Institutions, revisited:: I watched "When the Levees Broke", and made a comment about "them". An offhand, un-politically correct comment. And I really didn't expect much of a stir behind it. But them I watched it again, and listened to radio stations here in Atlanta discuss the movie, and listened as people called in to talk about it, and as they got upset about it all over again, I got upset about it all over again. Because there was repetitive comments (and a consensus) about "them leaving "us" hanging. The government not intervening sooner, the recovery efforts taking too long, the nomadic experience, etc. Those "institutions" failing "us" once again.

And because the shyt that I don't get, is why people still expect those "institutions" to help "us". **ok, f*ck it, I'm being PC again, here's the way I really reacted:** I literally screamed at the radio "WHAT THE F*CK DO YOU REALLY EXPECT "THEM" TO DO? THEY ALREADY SHOWED YOU THEY DON'T GIVE A F*CK ABOUT YOU?! NOW WHAT?!

[aside:] one of "them" gave me a side-eye right about then. I was stuck in rush hour traffic at the time. I'm sure the words "dramatic cunt" came to their mind. Shouts to crunktastical for allowing me to borrow some verbiage. [/aside:]

To Quote Spike:: Wake up people, for real. WAKE UUUUUUUUP! The day that you stop expecting shyt from "them", is the day you become truly free.

I see that people are rebuilding their homes, their dayum selves. They're rebuilding their lives, by their dayum selves. "Us" ain't waiting for "them" to rescue them, just as a whole lot of "us" didn't during the initial disaster. And that's as it should be. And as for the rest of "us", do we really have time to waste pointing fingers, and laying blame? F*ck "them".

Posted by saga_30311 at 11:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 25, 2006

Out of Control: AIDS in Black America

* kicks dust bunnies * I really need to clean up the dust around here....

Sorry I've been MIA y'all...between the pseudo-"new" gig, school, family, etc. I've been completely hemmed up mentally. When my brain gets busy, the thoughts get negative, and I've been trying to be the "kinder, gentler" saga. Yanno, the one who thinks "if I have nothing nice to write, I won't write anything at all"? Yeah, her. I started to drop a Top 10 list of things that are irritating me, but it was repetitive. I need a kick start, so bear with me as I get my bloggin' groove back. It'll take a sec, and may be a lil bumpy....

So did y'all catch the Primetime Special last night on AIDS in the Black Community?
You can See the Video here
or Read the Overview here

I caught the beginning, and tail end (being 40 has its drawbacks, like falling asleep when you're idle more than 2 seconds). I have a question before I share my thoughts. Did most folks hear/know about this before it aired? See, I'm not much of an ABC viewer, being a Project Runway, House of Boateng, obsessed with everything fashion/design-related geek chick. Matter of fact, I read about it on Crunktastical, at the 25th hour (after 9PM). I hope ABC did as good a job promoting it, as they did their medical mysteries series, but frankly I don't believe it. (I'm also a GMA addict, and [unsurprisingly] I haven't seen any ads).

My thoughts: I was slightly surprised by some things (spread of AIDS in the prison population, and how former inmates are bringing AIDS home when they're release) and unsurprised by others (infection rates in black women ages 18-44, the lack of government response). From what I saw, the emphasis was less on the DL, and more on promiscuity and ignorance (lack of AIDS education). And while I'm glad they covered it, with the infection rates being so HIGH in the black community, I wish it was at 8PM, not 10PM, with coverage on all three stations, and national print ads, radio spots, etc. It's an epidemic in our community, and even ABC admitted it hasn't warranted any media coverage. Props to them for showing it, but it seemed like an aside. Can I get the media to ACT like it's an epidemic? Oh, and no I haven't smoked anything this morning.

Posted by saga_30311 at 08:42 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 16, 2006

EJ's Birthday Brunch

The Details (click the graphic to view the evite):

Host: saga
Location: Chequer's Seafood Grill
236 Perimeter Pkwy NE, Atlanta, GA
When: Sunday, July 23, 11:00am
Phone: 770-391-9383
It's that time, time to celebrate the birth of your favorite DJ, the one, the only EJ. Please join us in lifting our glasses (and forks) to honor Mr. Flavors.

note: EJ will NOT be providing the music for a change ;)

If I missed ya, it was purely an oversite - holla at me and I'll add you!

Posted by saga_30311 at 07:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 15, 2006

The Myth of the Angry Black Woman

don't believe the hype?:: Somehow, I missed the memo that this was a hot topic. Apparently, that memo went out to many major media outlets, and particularly the blogosphere. I googled the words "Angry Black Woman" and got back 35,700 hits. Not a lot, but definitely not a little. You can see some of the results here. Some are a little dated, but the perception/stereotype still persists.

ok, technically I got the memo, but I ignored it. Being an admitted Strong Black Woman, from a lineage of SBW's, I knew there was a connotation signifying also being an Angry Black Woman, but I chose to not take on that role. However, for many reasons (including DP's prodding me into reading some things that pissed me completely off), it seems I have to visit this subject again.

Yes, I said again. I skirted this subject a while back, but I apparently need to look at it from a different angle.

Angry Black Woman - the definition:: there are as many, as there are opinions about the subject. I guess the best I can do is try to create an accurate characterization: it's a woman, who through self-definition or circumstance deems herself to be independent and/or self-reliant, who admittedly will not tolerate any bullshyt, and who voices her opinions (according to some, whether she's qualified to, or not) about black men to anyone willing to listen. She's attitudinal, and negative, and happy to voice both at the drop of a topic. And she's got a network of sisterfriends validating her feelings, further fueling the negativity. She's bitter and fearful, and the two are a lethal combination both on a micro scale (for her potential to meet a suitable mate) and a macro scale (destroying the black family and subsequently the black community).

Alrighty then.

yeah, I qualify:: on many counts, not the least of which is my self-reliance or willingness to declare the sweeping generalization to anyone that listens an opinion which restates the obvious: black men have issues. Now, having said that, let me drop a huge caveat here: that opinion doesn't exempt anyone else (black, white, other, man, woman, other) from also having the aforementioned issues/opinions. So, I'm guessing that white women, and black men are also Angry Black Women (as well as Kathy Griffin). But those of you who read this site regularly know that I have made that statement before, so I'd be foolish to deny it.

so, what now?:: ugh, it's this: I'm running across these intellectually "strong black men" and they're finding me to be, er - too much of a "challenge". Or too "complicated". Or too "masculine". Or too "aggressive". Or not ___ enough. And no, it's not just me, it's my cohorts, my contemporaries, my sisterfriends both online and offline. We're having encounters with brothas who basically find us to be "too" much or not enough, and are moving on to easier conquests or suitable mates. Or something along those lines.

It's almost as if, this Myth was just that at the time of it's re-emergence: a myth. A re-invention of the Sapphire stereotype, retooled to "fit" into a modern context, and promoted as a viable answer to the many questions of why black women and men cannot "get along". HOWS-N-EVER, it has now seeped surreptitiously into popular consciousness, so intrinsic that those that toss out the stereotype don't even realize what the original sterotype referred to. It's easy to chalk up a woman's contrary opinions to her 'negativity" and dismiss her as one of "those" chicks, the black b*tch, a certified member of the She-Woman Man Haterz club. So now, folks just toss it out there, and it seemingly sticks.

breakin' it down, so it can forever and consistently be broke:: DP put me on to this article, by an author who apparently has written a book related to this very subject. The original incensifier (fyi - I know that's not a word, it's a joke). Now, let me break down my problem with this article, and others similar to this:

• the Esteemed Authors references - it pains me when writers just throw out the name of someone "esteemed" to legitimize their opinion. I'm guessing that Zora Neale Hurston probably would've been characterized (unfairly) as an angry black woman, had she been born into this generation.


• the proverbial breakin' me down, first - is it necessary to insult my achievements, in order for us