May 09, 2008

Olbermann Wonders If It Is Time For Clinton To Support Obama

Sorry for being MIA - it's been a busy week.....

...and in the meantime, I <3 Keith Olbermann.

I don't know what else it's going to take to wrap up the Democratic nomination, and move on to the fight between Obama (the Democratic Front Runner) and McCain. It's time.

Posted by saga_30311 at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 30, 2008

Obama Outraged by Rev. Wright

And this is a surprise?

I may be the dissenting voice in the Black Blogosphere, but not only am I not surprised and not disappointed - I can honestly say I expected this a couple of weeks ago.

I know a lot of people think Obama left Rev. Wright out to dry. Eh. They're grown, they're both in familiar waters, and they both have very different agendas. But this - this is politics.

We know Billary wouldn't just leave their friend hanging - they'd make his plane crash, yanno?

I may be jaded, but I'm trying to keep the bigger goal in mind. In my circle of colleagues, coworkers, friends, church members and listening audiences (Steve Harvey, Michael Baisden, Al Sharpton, Warren Ballentine and other talk radio listeners) - we agree with Wright....but what Rev. Wright said is Wright's (and a whole lotta other folks') battle. Obama has his own battle at the forefront now...and that is as it should be.

As Don Frederick of the LA Times said: "Obama really had no choice but to take this step.....And, more importantly, to what degree will the Wright controversy, given Obama's link to him, undercut his presidential bid?"

I hope this allows the campaign and conversations regarding the campaign, to return to the issues, and what's important for this country. The jaded in me has other thoughts....and I'm refusing to entertain them right now.

Posted by saga_30311 at 08:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 23, 2008

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

obama-clinton-cropped-small.jpgor 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

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.

tata_landrover.jpgThe 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 28, 2008

The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall - Reverend Jeremiah Wright

I heard this on 3/25/08 on the Michael Baisden show. Apparently, Roland Martin made this available, and Michael Baisden played most of it in context, so people would understand exactly what Pastor Wright was saying. On the Michael Baisden show, the point was also made that the media's use of the sermon out-of-context was a targeted attempt to make the democratic campaigns about race.

I'm also ecstatic that it's posted on Roland Martin's website, and Anderson Cooper's CNN Blog . You can listen to the sermon below.


powered by ODEO

My thoughts: he's stating what many people felt, both immediately after 9/11, and now. America's foreign policy, particularly in areas were there are violent conflicts and American soldiers are deployed to protect American economic interests (not the "freedom" which we keep seeing raised and bandied about like the American Flag, every time patriotism is used to justify some shady military interference) is questionable at best. This isn't a revelation, and I'm glad someone intelligent, articulate and with enough clout to pull the listening ears of some masses said it. What is even MORE interesting to me (and this is a whole 'nother blog post) is that whenever an entity, with any social capital/clout, questions the American government, American military actions, or the validity of America's foreign policy, et. al. - they're tarred and feathered as Anti-American and un-patriotic.

I keep wondering when the 187th Amendment was added to the Constitution: Thou Shalt Not Question American Authority?

Posted by saga_30311 at 10:48 AM | Comments (0) | 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 20, 2008

Counting the Campaign Cash?

Wanna know where your hard earned political contributions are going?

AND

more importantly - where they're coming from? Check out:

opensecrets.jpg

Click the graphic to head to Open Secrets website. Interesting contributors.....

Posted by saga_30311 at 03:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 19, 2008

The Marriage Cure

wedding_cure.jpgIn 2003, The New Yorker published an article from Katherine Boo (of New America), which discussed "The Marriage Cure", as a possible cure for poverty. You can read the full article here: "The Marriage Cure". A warning that this post is Panama-length, but it's worth it. Trust me.


Some background:

Oklahoma has rarely found itself in the vanguard of antipoverty thinking, but the class to which the two women were heading embodies a vigorous new idea -- something known locally as "the marriage cure." Traditionally, singleness has been viewed as a symptom of poverty. Today, however, a politically heterodox cadre of academics is arguing that singleness -- and particularly, single parenthood -- is one of poverty's primary causes, for which matrimony might be a plausible tonic. For the past few years, the state of Oklahoma has been converting this premise into policy. In an initiative praised by the Bush Administration, which aims to seed marriage-promotion programs nationwide, the state has deputized public-relations firms, community leaders, and preachers (among them the pastor at Holy Temple Baptist Church) to take matrimony's benefits to the people. Last summer, that marriage drive reached Sooner Haven. "Come learn about relationships!" said the recruiter who knocked on the housing project's beat-up doors.

And more (a passage that hits way too close to home):

Her husband had remarried six months after the divorce; Corean had had one second date in twelve years...One unacknowledged consolation of struggling in the inner city is the lack of time one has to indulge romantic discontent. It was letting go of her children, more than losing her husband, that had caused the Reverend Doctor Mom to notice that she was alone.

and more:

As Orlando Patterson, of Harvard, a scholar of black marriage patterns, recently observed, African-Americans remain "among the most un-partnered and estranged individuals in the world."

and even more:

From this counseling, Pastor Young has come to share the belief of many marriage-initiative advocates: that men more than women need convincing on this point. Thus he sees it as an unhappy but unavoidable fact that women are this social policy's beasts of burden. Having already complied with social and economic pressures to work, poor women were now being asked to do something that their government had so far failed at: push their male counterparts into the cultural and economic mainstream.

whew. Ok, the background is set, so I can delve into my thoughts. Meanwhile, you really should read the entire article. Katherine Boo's writing really illustrates not only what is right and wrong with these programs, but a robust portrait of what poverty in post-welfare reform affected areas (Oklahoma, South Georgia, etc.) really looks and feels like.
My thoughts after the jump...

I came through the door, and said it before:: It's imperative to our community to fix our relationship issues. The marriage-initiatives provide another reason why: to combat poverty. And whether you think it's a holdover from an organized plot formulated and executed by the government, or a symptom of a shift in overall societal values that hit the African-American community a bit harder, it's beyond dispute: we as a people aren't getting married. Hit the archives above if you want more info. But the article either explicitly or implicitly states some important points that I'd like to revisit:

Black Men & Marriage:: getting women to the table for this discussion is the easy part. It's the menfolk that need convincing. After all, "Marriage is for White People". Ask black men why they aren't getting married, and they'll say having grown up in single parent households, they have no examples of the benefits of marriage, the don't understand the spiritual significance of marriage, it's impact on raising children and they fear that one woman can't satisfy all their needs.

Don't get me wrong. Marriage definitely isn't a cure-all.

economics, the Chicken or the Egg?:: The article illustrates other reasons, that fall under one umbrella: economics. If you're at a bus stop, and a guy is hitting on you, the two of you getting hitched ain't gonna put the two of you in a Lexus. We need jobs, we need an education, we need equal access to reasonable credit instruments, we need...a whole lot of other economic "things" to get us back treading water. But did we get swept away by economic forces that forced us to not get married, or did we not get married, so that economic forces hit us harder than most? Steven Ruggles and Catherine Fitch, of the Minnesota Population Center, completed a 2005 study that discusses part of this paradox. The results weren't conclusive, and more investigation was suggested - the chicken vs. egg paradox remains. Their study includes some graphics that show how dramatic the marriage decline in our community really was/is, and also how women were hit a bit harder (interracial marriage). I uploaded an abbreviated version of their presentation for those with a short attention span.

marriage as a panacea:: that's cure-all in laymen's terms. On first, second and third readings, it sounds like the equivalent of putting Neosporin on a broken arm with an infection. Maybe it'll cure some of the infection. Maybe it'll make some of the pain dissipate. But it won't set the arm, and it won't heal the arm, and it won't get rid of all the problems associated with said arm. Marriage won't "fix what's broke". So when reading about healthy marriage initiatives, and govenment progams/policies to promote them, I have an eye out on what other programs or policies are also being implemented to "fix what's broke". Our community needs economic programs in tandem with this.

Hows-n-ever - I've had numerous professors, both of the Social Sciences departments and even in B-school, profess the benefits of marriage. Most recently, a professor tied the success of entrepreneurs, particularly the truly "wealthy", to their marital status. The hypothesis there is simple (and a lil "hood"): "chasing p*ssy is expensive and time-consuming...and the cash/time you save as a married entrepreneur can be better invested in your budding business". No empirical data here, but it sounds like common sense. And that's where I stand as far as marriage is concerned....I don't think it's a cure all, but when applied properly...it helps.

A recommendation: If you want reasons why you should get married, the Institute for American Values provided a report on "The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans" (including a pseudo top ten list), which is detailed here. But I'll give you just the list (sans details):

  1. Marriage clearly appears to promote the economic, social, familial, and psychological well-being of African American men and women.
  2. While both Black men and Black women receive a marriage premium, this premium in most cases appears to be larger for men.
  3. Economically, marriage appears to benefit Blacks more than Whites.
  4. Overall, Black women appear to benefit from marriage substantially less than do White women.
  5. Black-White differences in marital quality seem to constitute an important reason why Black adults, and particularly Black women, typically benefit less from marriage than do Whites.
  6. Parental marriage produces important benefits for African American children.
  7. Parental marriage appears to be especially important for the well-being of young African American males.
  8. # In some areas, Black children seem to benefit more from parental marriage than do White children, whereas in other areas, the reverse is true.
  9. The reasons for some apparent racial differences in the consequences of marriage for children are not clear, and further research in this area is needed.
  10. For policy makers who care about Black America, marriage matters.

Posted by saga_30311 at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | 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.
clinton-obama-tradeing-jabs.jpgI'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?

claycoboard219.jpgClayCo 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.


kwame_and_wife.jpgand 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.

Barack_and_Michelle_Obama_sepia_small.jpgback 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

March 02, 2007

the anti-devaluation rant

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

me_03022007v3.jpgLMAO - 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

August 14, 2006

the thick line between activist and anarchist

*sighs & winces* Cynthia McKinney's in the news, again. Apparently she's not conceding her defeat, and she's challenging the election results, suggesting fraud. She's also cleaned house, firing her media staff at her Georgia office, and letting other staffers go both here and in Washington. Not really surprising, considering the recent media coverage associated with both her, and her campaign (see clip below):



*shakes head* Fox News coverage aside (we now which side butters their bread, right?) this is decidely unwise. Now, to be fair, these gentleman are volunteers, not paid McKinney staffers. Volunteers who are also members of the New Black Panther Party, and are familiar with the spotlight, as well as controversy. And the fired communications director said he advised her to "do some things" (such as distancing herself from some individuals perhaps?) and avoid some others...and she didn't take all of his advice.

HOWS-N-EVER, there is a point at which Ms. McKinney's rebelliousness (note: I did not say revolutionary-ness) has crossed the line of effectiveness. It was probably right after the security guard scuffle, but the actions afterward just keep pushing her further and further toward ineffective. I can't imagine how she'd get anything possibly done, while handling all these media "scandals", "attacks" or whatever she's calling them this week. I don't live in the 4th district, so I'm not directly affected by her defeat. But I somehow find myself cringing every time her name is mentioned in the news...thinking, "oh dayum, what now?!"

As a black women, allegedly conscious, politically aware, and sensitive to issues involving racism, and the machinations of politricks....based on her recent publicity, both her actions with the security guard on capitol hill, her response to those charges, the actions of her staff and physical altercations with the press, her attributing all of this to the "plight of the political black everywoman" and then, on top of everything else - her Non-conceding concession speech (where she spends more time attacking her opponents & George Bush, than actually supporting the new Democratic candidate), then this latest ...I really want McKinney to go sit down. Seriously. For a while. And think about how any of this serves her district (vs. being very self-serving).

In this instance, a political time-out is long overdue.

Posted by saga_30311 at 06:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 28, 2006

A Political Wedge Added to the Divide?

From the NY Times article In Shirley Chisholm's Brooklyn, Rancor Over White Candidacy, an excerpt:


...But now, in a district whose boundaries were drawn to strengthen black voting power, residents are locked in a wrenching, racially charged debate over a white politician's campaign for Congress....The candidacy of that politician, David Yassky — who has built a reputation as an accomplished, independent-minded councilman — has led to angry accusations of racial carpetbagging....A Brooklyn Heights resident who was elected to the City Council in 2001, Mr. Yassky emerged as a key voice in pushing the Bloomberg administration to include subsidized housing in the gigantic waterfront rezoning in Williamsburg and Greenpoint and banning soda and candy in vending machines in public schools....Mr. Yassky's critics say that he is calculating that the other (three) candidates will splinter the black vote, allowing him to win by capturing whites, who make up 21.4 percent of the district, according to the 2004 Almanac of American Politics, which used 2000 census figures. Blacks make up 58.5 percent. Last year, Mr. Yassky had planned to run for Brooklyn district attorney but abandoned the effort. Mr. Yassky only recently moved into the Congressional district — he had lived three blocks outside it — as he began to campaign in earnest.

Oh yeah, a couple of buzzwords from the article: "gentrifying neighborhoods", "rezoning" and "steady influx of whites".

My feeling:: I'm so torn about these issues, because it widens the divide (class, not just race). On the one hand, we all should want the most engaged, qualified and passionate candidate to represent all of us. I'm not claiming Yassky is/isn't that guy, but theoretically - he should be allowed to run, in order to determine whether/not he is. But that's the best case scenario talking. The reality is that:

a) a lot of voters are not just under-represented, but also under-informed. They don't know/care who they vote for, or the issues the candidate actually embraces, as long as that person "sounds good" or "looks like them"
b) these same voters put far too much faith in party representation
c) Party-men, and the political parties themselves, bank on that, during every primary & election

On the other hand, the district was redrawn (albeit in the 1960's) to increase Congressional representation for black people, in this district. The Park Slope residents, as well as the Crown Heights residents. Is it soon enough to say, they've accomplished that?

And I'm so sure this issue is coming to a political infight near you. And me ;-)

Posted by saga_30311 at 05:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 20, 2006

World Refugee Day

Words cannot begin to express my thoughts, so I'll just leave you with this:

_40321829_darfur203.jpeg
Note: this is one of the least appalling images I could find.

help-donate.gif

For More Information:
CNN Coverage of World Refugee Day 2006
BBC Coverage of the Crisis in Darfur
Human Rights Watch on the Crisis in Darfur
Amnesty Intl. on World Refugee Day 2006
And if you just must see what I saw: Yahoo Image Search on Darfur.

I'll be back tomorrow, to talk about my being an Ugly American.

Posted by saga_30311 at 02:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 16, 2006

the divide widens

map_county_fulton.gif I saw this coming...

Yet, why were the words of Mr. Burns commenting on the sad state of hip-hop running through my head when I read the following? Maybe because he happens to live in a "Have" sector:

Court upholds law dividing Fulton tax base

The gist: my county's tax base is now legally, neatly divided into two parts: the "Have's" (N. Fulton) and the "Have-Nots" (S. Fulton). They're absotively right, most of Atlanta's Fortune 500 companies, larger corporations, large portion of the business sector, etc. happen to be located in the Have sector. And as for me - I happen to be a Have-Not.

Now, this doesn't surprise me, given the attitudes of some of my colleagues who live in N. Fulton, where I work. Their attitudes aren't far from Mr. Burns either. What does bother me is that this was "tacked ... on during a last-second meeting on the bill".

And where, exactly, do you think Shafer will want to draw the line between Have's and Have-Nots? Probably right about, uh -> there, just below that Star in the "crown" that is N. Fulton county perhaps? Or maybe not - leave Atlanta, even with all its new development, to the tax-draining Have-Nots, with their "unfettered welfare, bad schools, and disrespect for authority".

Yes, I could have bought in N. Fulton, but there's economic development happening in S. Fulton, with additional projects being proposed and developed, and I wanted my home to build value as these developments unfolded.

Point is, I'm asking myself, isn't this all One County (City, State, Nation)?

Apparently not.

I'll go on about this later...

Posted by saga_30311 at 11:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 24, 2005

the Framework

So, I'm watching the Rita evacuations, with my professor's words still ringing in my ears:

"...between those who believe in institutions, and those who do not..."

E calls, to talk about some mini-drama at his gig, and we get into a long discussion about the potential for success in Corporate America. What it boiled down to is The Framework:

Beginning: our capitalist-agricultural society whose goal was the success of the individual farms (plantations) based on indentured labor, and leading to growth of society as a whole.

Evolution: mutated into a capitalist-industrialist society whose goal was the success of individual firms, based upon cheap labor, leading to the growth of the nation as a whole.

Now: our capitalist-technological society whose goal is the success of corporations (read: multinational conglomerates) based upon cheap resources, leading to the growth & viral spread of the capitalist market as a whole - to the world.

Now, given that framework, where do you "fit"? Where are your interests served? Who is looking out for you? Not you! ...you're working towards the success of the corporation, silly! And of course, the corporation definitely doesn't give a flying f&*% about you.

How do you then "succeed" within that framework? Hell, what is success within that framework?

As an employee, of a Fortune 100, I observe the machinations of the Corporation and its lower, middle and upper level managers, subjectively. I whine when my boss cuts my bonuses, or decreases my raise percentage, and I whine when "the Corporation" increases my health-care costs. However, as a business person, and an MBA student, I observe those same machinations, objectively. I understand why the Corporation does what it does, to preserve itself, and to increase its value. The machinations of its managers thus becomes amusing, because they do what they do to preserve their individual value, and to achieve some modicum of "success", even though it appears that within the Framework, their idea of individual success is impossible. We're all just slugs baby...a paperclip, a nut, a bolt, a screw. The Corporation views us all as resources, to be equally distributed to achieve its goals. Given that, it's not worth the cost of political manipulations, to "sell your soul", to achieve your individual goal.

With one eye on Fox News, E & I validate the Framework, testing one another's ears with examples:
his struggle with a back injury and his managers attempts to get him fired to save paying out disability as well as unemployment, GM's struggling with a pension plan that may undermine the company's long-term goals. Delta's (at the time) impending bankruptcy, China's regrowth as a super-power. We struggle to find an example that disproves the Framework, and in watching Rita's evacuees that also fled Katrina, understand that: yes & no, it is/isn't just about race and/or class.

For the sake of our discussion, our examples prove the simple truth - as individuals, no matter where you stand within that framework, your value to the Framework is only in what it can get out of you. Nothing whatsoever else matters. Parity, fairness, equality, diversity, social justice, empathy, corporate responsibility, integrity...they're pretty words that evoke emotion but have nothing whatsoever to do with the Framework. Here in America, that Framework has been extended outside the four walls of Business. That Framework has become our culture. Given all that, as an individual - you'd best do whatever really & truly makes you happy and serves you well.

Posted by saga_30311 at 01:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 03, 2005

Hurricane Katrina & What You Can Do...

Keepin' it brief...there are local things you can do, here in Atlanta, to help the storm victims. We know the Red Cross and Salvation Army are involved, but here are a few others...

There are families, currently staying at local hotels, in need of food, clothes, water, etc... a few not a few, a few busloads at:
Comfort Inn at Six Flags (GA731)
4330 Fulton Ind. Blvd. , Atlanta, GA, US, 30336
Phone: (404) 505-8880 Fax: (404) 505-9660 ask for Jod... tell her Ali sent you
I'm heading out that way this evening...
UPDATE: as of 9/2/05 AM, these are the items that are needed
~ LARGE BOXES
~ Underwear, for men, women (particularly bra's, all sizes) and children
~ Socks for men, women and children
~ Bookbags
~ School Supplies
~ Children's cold medicine (particularly for children under age 6)
~ Headache Medicine - all ages
~ Alcohol (OTC, not to drink)
~ Peroxide
~ Baby Wipes
~ Baby Formula
~ Towels
~ Laundry detergent
~ Women's Plus Size clothing (particularly sizes 3X-4X)

YOUR LOCAL: apartment complexes & landlords - I checked with mine to see if I can house a family, and I can't (lease restrictions) but my complex is making their empty apartments available to any family of evacuees who needs shelter. They're doing it on a first-come basis, but I'm sure they're not the only one. They already have a short waiting list, but check your local complexes (and if you know of a family looking for shelter, I can provide a referral to get put on the list).


V103 is accepting donation to help put up additional families here locally in Atlanta.
The V103 DJ's will be at The Galleria @ South Dekalb Mall all day today 9/1/2005 until this evening, accepting donations.
They haven't posted the information on their site, but hopefully they'll update it later. You can go to:
http://www.wvee.com later for more information, or just meet them at the mall.

I'll post more information as I come across it.

Just want to put this out there....we know that some of the victims that have been impacted don't have a voice, news coverage, or access to resources...Let's give them at least a voice, ya'll heard?

ETA:: I've been unable to turn off the news reports, and I hate to sound redundant, but it's horrifying. I simply don't understand why, if the media can get in to show people suffering and "looting", if Harry Connick Jr. can get in and talk to people, and try to give them a voice and highlight what's going on there, why can't they take in food, water & medicine? Why can't they get the people out?

I'm also sickened by the absolute callousness and lack of compassion by the critics who have been suggesting that the people stranded should have left before the storm hit, and implying that since they refused to leave, they're getting what they deserved. These people are so far below the poverty line, they have no cars, rely on public transportation, and the money to "get a bus ticket out of New Orleans" was probably more than they could afford. These are people, human beings, not just "looters" and "thugs" and "rapists" and "gangsters". They're people, that are suffering. Hindsight is a mutha, but not enough to throw stones at people who are already dying. I love this country, but .... < sigh > this pisses me the f&*% off. Where are the critics' alleged compassion and values now?


ETA:: Oops Xquizzyt, I deleted your comment! I really didn't mean to, but I had to repost. Sorry!

Posted by saga_30311 at 04:13 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 02, 2005

the Katrina response: a matter of race/class?

Some interesting reads:

Excerpt from Michael Moore's Open letter to Bush:: Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.

From Margins of Society to Center of the Tragedy By DAVID GONZALEZ::
The scenes of floating corpses, scavengers fighting for food and desperate throngs seeking any way out of New Orleans have been tragic enough. But for many African-American leaders, there is a growing outrage that many of those still stuck at the center of this tragedy were people who for generations had been pushed to the margins of society.

The victims, they note, were largely black and poor, those who toiled in the background of the tourist havens, living in tumbledown neighborhoods that were long known to be vulnerable to disaster if the levees failed. Without so much as a car or bus fare to escape ahead of time, they found themselves left behind by a failure to plan for their rescue should the dreaded day ever arrive.

FEMA chief: Victims bear some responsibility from CNN.com:
The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday those New Orleans residents who chose not to heed warnings to evacuate before Hurricane Katrina bear some responsibility for their fates.

Michael Brown also agreed with other public officials that the death toll in the city could reach into the thousands.

"Unfortunately, that's going to be attributable a lot to people who did not heed the advance warnings," Brown told CNN.

"I don't make judgments about why people chose not to leave but, you know, there was a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans," he said.

Posted by saga_30311 at 01:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 13, 2005

the categories:: saga's got some 'splainin' to do...

yeah, there's a method to my madness. so to make the whole thing clear as fog:

A few more caveats - even though I'm a displaced Yankee, living in the hottness - Atlanta is all over this biyotch. I'm amazed sometimes how things go down, down hea - but that sentiment hits all categories, hence no one thang for Hotlanta. And yes, being African-American colors my perception of everything. So, all categories are painted in shades of blackness - some things more obviously than others.

Now that you've read the primer - go forth, and blogtiply. (Maybe I shoulda had a category for corn?)

Posted by saga_30311 at 10:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack