Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Monday, September 1st 2008

6:55 PM

SARAH PALIN DAUGHTER'S PREGNANCY AND TANGLED WEBS

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.  Sir Walter Scott

I applaud Obama's position on the matter of Sara Palin's daughter, telling us we should let it go because it is a private family matter and has nothing to do with the election. Before I let it go, I have to say this: This is really not about Palin's poor daughter's now very public pregnancy. Palin's announcement today told us everything about who Palin is. She did not immediately disclose the pregnancy of her seventeen year old daughter to the public and probably not to McCain's camp. Lying by omission is still deceit. IF McCain did have that knowledge, then they are both guilty of deceiving the public. If it was a non-issue why not fully disclose it at the very beginning? Palin has clearly demonstrated that she is willing to be deceitful to gain power. George Bush deceived us and we went to war over oil and money. AGAIN, is this what we want for our country? Is this the example we want for our youth? 

One more thing:   Laura Bush has admonished us all to treat Palin nicely. Subsequently, I have noticed today that anyone of the Republicans interviewed by the media, or in a discussion on the corporate media channels, when asked even the most reasonable question that, frankly, THEY should have asked about Palin, if they don't like the question OR don't have an answer, they immediately say "I am offended by that question." Really? Is this how it's going to be? Can't ask any questions because Palin is too sensitive or any questioning of her abilities is sexist? As a woman, I take issue with that. You can't have it both ways. You cannot be a part of the most important political decision we citizens have to make, yet hide behind your gender when hard questions are asked.

I say again that each of us has an individual responsibility to know where both candidates stand on the important issues.  I have done the reading, I encourage each person to do the same.  Then you need to take one person who isn't registered  to vote and get them registered and then on November 4, 2008, take one person with you to the voting location so they can vote.  This country, your country's future depends on it.  Four more years of the same is going to destroy US.

 

 

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Sunday, August 31st 2008

10:25 AM

ALASKAN GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN: MUCH ADO ABOUT...?

I needed a minute to mull over the matter of the Republican VP selection.  You know, Palin is nothing more than a willing pawn in the political game McCain is playing.  The selection of Palin says more about McCain than anything else.  It tells me that he is more focused on winning than on what is best for this country.  He is betting on the shallow perspective  I know for a fact that Republican Senator Richard Lugar thinks very highly of Senator Obama, who worked with him on international matters.  I am betting that but for the issue of party ties, more of the politicians in McCain's party would come out in endorsement of Obama.    Here's the thing:  I learned a long time ago, that the true definition of a true  leader is a person with both character and vision as his/her strengths who is smart enough, humble enough to surround him/herself with a team that brings other needed strengths to the table, more strategies, willing to push back when needed, yet share the same vision as the leader. Someone who truly listens and makes decisions based on what's best for those s/he represents.  I haven't seen any of that in McCain.   When asked about Palin's national security experience, Cindy McCain could not come up with anything beyond the fact that, after all, her state is right next to Russia. "You know, the experience that she comes from is, what she has done in government -- and remember that Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia." (ABC Today)  Palin's mother-in-law, Faye Palin, told a New York Daily News reporter that she didn't agree with Sarah on everything and hadn't yet decided how she would vote. She added: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh.
And then there is the more realistic view of those who really know who she is, back at home in Alaska.  Gregg Erickson, reporter for the Anchorage Daily, did an online chat with the Washington Post, in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80%, but 65% and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president.... I expect her to stick with simple truths. When asked about continued American troop presence in Iraq, she said she knows only one thing about that (paraphrased): no one has attacked the American homeland since George Bush took the war to Iraq." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/2-top-alaska-newspapers-q_b_122625.html) Huh?
Meanwhile, the GOP promoters and pundits are, as I write, actually using Hurricane Gustav as a talking point for Senator McCain,  a thinly veiled attempt to parrot the words of Senator Obama in the speech he gave during the Democratic National Convention. But I am more interested in the deafening silence of women and GOP leaders across the country, who, unless they are caught in the headlights of a media camera, haven't made a carefully worded sound in praise of McCain's choice.  Hillary Clinton had and has far more substance; just being a woman should not be enough for the thinking voter.  It is my sincere belief that the citizens of the United States are not so shallow as to base their decisions upon looks, gender and a penchant for being perceived as one of the boys.  But then, I have been wrong before. 
I called my brother, the sports fanatic, and asked him to define what a "Hail Mary" is, given that is what several in corporate media called this decision when discussing McCain's selection for Vice President.  Turns out a "Hail Mary" is the last desperate play made to win a game and ninety five percent of the time it doesn't work.  Perhaps the poll that came out today (Sunday) says it all -- not that I have any faith in polls -- Senator Obama is now eight points ahead.
 
0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Friday, August 29th 2008

11:14 AM

BARACK OBAMA: NOT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, BUT A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO IS AFRICAN AMERICAN

The Democratic National Convention hit its crescendo Thursday night, with the acceptance speech of Senator Barack Obama before a stadium of over 85000 people in Denver and millions via televisions worldwide, I reflect on the gamut of emotions I felt this week, as I watched history being written right before my eyes.  Elation, enthusiasm, empathy resulting from the inspiring speeches, annoyance with the childish and pouting media, that seemed to be disappointed by the drama and disunity they couldn't seem to instigate – well, except among themselves.  Both he and the media became the tail of the dog this week and Obama and the DNC is wagging it.    As Obama spoke last night, the McCain camp was actually running around to surrounding states, renting buses, trying to scrape together 10000 people to witness his speech in Ohio today, where he's announcing his running mate. We have broken ground into a new era for this country.  In his speech, Presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out the blueprint for his plan of action, the details of which can be found at the click of a button on www.barackobama.com/issues.  He addressed every concern and missive raised by the GOP and the corporate media.  He issued the call to the McCain camp to “bring it” in the form of debates, he was ready.  And if you don’t know who Barack Obama is after this week, then it’s because you don’t want to know who he is and prefer to hold on to your personal perceptions and prejudices, unwilling to acknowledge you might be wrong.

 

I just received a call infirming me that Senator McCain has chosen a woman as his running mate, Sarah Palin, a former beauty queen – McCain is consistent – who is currently under investigation for abuse of power in the state of Alaska http://www.ktva.com/ci_10026165 .  She has no major experience foreign, military or otherwise, so we are supposed to believe that if something happens to McCain, she is qualified to answer that 3 a.m. call?  McCain is getting some really bad advice from someone, or he is so desperate and so shallow that he believes 18 million Clinton supporters will chose him over Barack Obama just because he chose a vice presidential candidate who is female, cute and Catholic?  I hope they understand what an insult that is to their intelligence and see the situation for what it transparently is.  And one more thing: This is for the Hillary Clinton supporters:  I would like to suggest, in light of Hillary Clinton’s sincere efforts during the National Convention to bring unity to the party, that her millions of supporters each send a dollar bill to her campaign headquarters to pay off the campaign debt she has hanging over her head.  

 

Barack Obama is an African American.  Barack Obama is not an African American Democratic Presidential candidate.  Barack Obama is a Democratic Presidential Candidate who is African American. This is not my original thought  -- well actually, I have been thinking about it but could not articulate it.  This is a quote from Congressman Lewis during an interview on CNN.  If we pay close attention to what this statement means, then perhaps we are on our way to dismantling the notion of what race is in a country that should be defined by its ability to embrace global diversity.  Race and gender neither masks nor defines the character of a person, their ability to lead and their vision of what is the best direction for a country.  Die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters should recognize their role in change; it’s not about Hillary Clinton at all, this is bigger than her, bigger than Barack Obama, it is about you and I understanding that our individual decisions on November 4, 2008 will collectively decide the direction this country takes. 

 

Go back and listen to Barack Obama www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/28/b., his wife Michelle, Joe Biden, Hillary and Bill Clinton, even if you are still determined to not know who the Democratic Presidential candidate is, what he stands for and how his vision and actions measure up to what must happen for  this country to survive. Then compare it to the actions, character and point of views of John McCain,   Then make your choice, but choose, because to not vote at all is the greater blunder.  And you will regret it.

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Monday, August 25th 2008

9:14 PM

TWO WIVES: WHICH IS BETTER VALUED?

Michelle Obama gave an exceptional speech.  It was both genuine and moving.  I think that those who continue to say that they don't know Michelle Obama and Barack Obama have made a deliberate choice not to see who they really are and are upset because the truth does not match their deliberate perceptions.  I am proud of her as a woman, as a mother and wife, as an American.  Many were in tears, how telling that was for all of us.  The spontaneity of the family dynamic at the end, said it all.  The genuine feeling of father to daughters, wife to husband, husband to wife could not have been scripted.
 
Meanwhile, Senator McCain has dispatched his wife Cindy, of all people, to Georgia.  I find this to be grossly inappropriate from the perspective of protocol and frankly just looks completely desperate.  Why on earth would you send your wife to an area of war, what exactly is she supposed to do there?  But it does speak volumes doesn't it?
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/e-joyce-moore/mccain-supportive-of-wome_b_113503.html
0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Wednesday, August 20th 2008

2:41 PM

ON AN E-MAIL FROM TYLER PERRY

I receive the e-mails from Tyler Perry's website, which I like because they are interesting and seem to be  personal and authentic.  I wanted to comment, however, on the one I just received and since they are posted online, I am sharing it here, along with my response:

Hi there,

We're getting close to the THE FAMILY THAT PREYS. Are you ready? September 12th can't get here fast enough.  Not to mention on that weekend I'll be 39 (smile). I still don't know what I'm going to do for my birthday...besides going to see THE FAMILY THAT PREYS, that is...LOL.

I got to thinking about something that I wanted to share with you. My new studio is going to be opening soon and I haven't really told this story, I don't think. If you've heard this then stop me, or just jump past it (smile). This is a long one, so hear me. If you're reading this at work, don't get in no trouble, read this later....

About two years ago, I bought a 75 thousand square foot building in
Atlanta. The building was in pretty bad shape, so I was in the middle of renovating it when everything went crazy! I had major contractor issues, permit issues, and even though the building had been a studio for 15 years, when I moved into it the regentrified neighbors went crazy. They did not want me there. Not to mention, even before we had finished the renovations we had outgrown the place. It was pretty ugly at the time. Nonetheless, it was my intention to finish this building.

Around this same time Bishop Paul Morton was trying to start a church in Atlanta after losing his in Hurricane Katrina. He was my childhood pastor, so of course, I helped out.  Anyway, I was met with so many roadblocks.  I was angry.  Then it hit me. Could this be God trying to tell me something?  At that moment I called one of my lawyers and told him to stop fighting the neighborhood, and let me just pray about it. He agreed. The next day he called me and told me to take a drive to this place. So, I drove out toa building that was once Delta Airlines' world headquarters, nearGreenbriar Mall in Atlanta.  If you're from Atlanta you know that this area ain't been regentrified...LOL.

I drove up to the gate looked at it and drove away. The place was run down. It had been vacant for 38 years (my age).I said,"No way, no way. I'm going to finish the building I'm in...no matter what!" I wasn't about to take on another project. I went to sleep that night but I couldn't sleep then, or even the next few nights for that matter. I said,"What is it God, what is it?" So, I got out of bed and drove back to the building and stood in front of the gates and said a simple prayer, "God am I supposed to leave where I am and come here?"

Sometimes we get so comfortable with where we are that we don't want to move. I said,"God make it plain." I started looking at the gates and there taped to the gates were hundreds of scriptures. I kid you not.  I got a chill up my spine and my eyes filled with water.  It could not have been more clear to me. The next day I called the realtor to buy the place and they said I was too late.  A pastor wanted to buy the entire 60 acres. I got off the phone and called Bishop Morton. I told him that I had looked at the place. He said, "I just looked at it yesterday, this has GOT to be God."  He then went on to tell me that they didn't want the entire 60 acres. They only wanted 30 and that they had planned to sell the 30 acres that I was interested in.   We had a good laugh, said a prayer and went on
from there.  Needless to say, we split the property. By me buying my
portion it was a huge blessing to them buying their portion.  When I tell you that I have not had one issue trying to get this new building
finished. The neighbors have not complained once. They have encouraged me all the way. They welcomed me with open arms. It's across the street from two senior citizens homes that I have adopted (I love me some seniors). I built 5 new soundstages, a 400-seat theater and a ballroom. I said all of that to say this, all of my life I have had things happen to me that I know it could not have been anything but God that did it. I know it.

I am a dreamer and sometimes when you have dreams you are met with obstacles, and your dreams will start to fade. But what I've found is that when God has given you a dream, no matter what it is, when you want to give up and believing becomes hard, and when you can't go any further, the dream itself will start to believe for you. The dream itself will start to carry you through with visions and hope and encouragement.

So, the new mantra for Tyler Perry Studios is "A Place Where Even Dreams Believe." Don't worry if you're met with opposition on your path to your goals. When you've done all you can, stand and surrender.  God will allow your dream to motivate you.

If you don't take away anything else from this LONG email take this,
PLEASE TAKE THIS. Protect your dreams, get away from negative thinking dark seekers. Keep your mind and spirit clean of the naysayers. Just believe. Only believe and it will come to pass.

Be Blessed,

Yo Boy
Tyler P.



I felt compelled to respond, in part because I have family and close friends who take this concept seriously, yet they use it to justify doing what they've always done without achieving different results.  Anyway, here are my thoughts:

I am a firm believer in Proverbs 3:5-6.  With all due respect, I do get concerned when those who are as successful as you are, make powerful statements that are true, but one size does not fit all.  And many people listen to you.  There has to be some reality checks included.  Because sometimes God says NO to what we want and we discover later that His NO a blessing.   My dreams are huge.  Some think that I ought to downsize my dreams. I will believe in my dreams as long as I know and remember that God is in charge of what they become.  How do I know when I'm on the wrong path?  When the obstacles become more than difficulties; they become huge STOP signs letting me know that I need to stop and find out if God is trying to tell me something.  Because if what I want is not God's will, it's just me trying to make something work that shouldn't -- AND God's not in it.  
Example: If you decide to marry someone, when all the signs tell you that s/he is controlling, abusive, in trouble financially, etc. -- and family and friends are trying to tell you that there's something wrong -- but it's your dream to have a wedding and you think God's gonna fix him/her, look at the fruits and ask yourself where God is in all this.  Anything God is not in will come to nothing,  at least that's my experience.  And this isn't negativity; this is about balancing faith with reality.  I stand in awe of Godly intercession and intervention.  But everything we want is not always for us and we need to realize that sometimes God is blessing us when He's saying that this is not the path

1 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Saturday, July 19th 2008

8:50 PM

MCCAIN ARTICLE ON HUFFINGTON POST

I wrote a blog piece on John McCain and it's been picked up by Huffington Post and  was published Friday, which is why it's not here.  Please go to their site, read and leave a comment:

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/e-joyce-moore/mccain-supportive-of-wome_b_113503.html

If you want to take the time to do so, share the piece with your colleagues.  I am interested in the impact on watercooler political discussions, so please come back and let me know.

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Sunday, June 29th 2008

5:59 PM

POLITICAL MUSINGS: SENATOR CLINTON IS THE WRONG CHOICE FOR VICE PRESIDENT

Anyone remember Randal Pinkett? Randal Pinkett was an exceptional, highly talented and extremely well educated candidate who won on the Apprentice reality show two years ago. There were two things that made this particular season’s show a stand out. First, Pinkett was an African American. Second, the week-long controversy that resulted from his response to Trump’s public request that he share his win with the woman who was the runner up. I wrote about this at the time and my perspective on it is still posted  here in the archives. The bottom line was that Randal absolutely made the right decision when he refused to hire the runner up. It was a good business decision. Trump himself said that many high level corporate heads had called him to say that Randal had indeed made the right decision. Why? Both were competing for the one position. To bring the person who didn’t win back into the picture as your peer would only continue the competition. That would be bad for the business because the focus is on the continued competition and not the job at hand.

 

Here we are today with history being made with Senator Barack Obama winning the Democratic primary and ultimately he will win the general election. His choice for vice president is an important one, as will be his decisions on his cabinet appointments. With Bob Johnson, and other supporters of Hillary Clinton, making overtures to Democratic members of Congress, in hopes of her becoming the choice for vice president, it is imperative that we all step back and take a second look.  Senator Obama and his advisors should not give in to any real or implied pressures concerning Senator Clinton. She is absolutely the wrong choice. Even before the end of the primaries, when she playfully suggested that Obama would make a good vice-president, I did not believe that she would make a good vice president, nor did I believe that she would even consider it.

 

Surprisingly enough, she has been overtly and covertly attempting to position herself and it's not just because she needs some help settling her primary debts. But here’s the thing: she is not a good fit fora secondary role. She is a very strong-minded woman who was certain that she would be the presumptive nominee and has had a very hard time letting go of her dream, even when it was clear she had lost. The person who showed up in the last two weeks of her campaign defined for me who she really is.

 

I am a firm believer that true success in business, government, requires a leader who surrounds him or herself with people who are more talented, intelligent, strategic, even more experienced than he or she is and, most importantly, are on the same page as she or he is as the leader. Their only agenda is to work as a team, becoming successful in their own right by working as a team, adding depth and value through the skill sets, experience and talents they were chosen for, and following the vision of the leader. In a role as important as Presidency of the United States, one does not have the time or should take the time and energy to have to continually manage someone who really just wants your job. Hillary Clinton would never be happy in a second position, and has the ultimate potential of derailing Obama’s presidency with constant instigation of controversy.The baggage of entitlement that the Clinton's bring with them is an issue that overshadows any benefit she brings to the party.  She is better suited for and deserving of a cabinet position where she could devote her energies to the success of a specific vision she has always wanted to develop.

 

There is the socio-psychological aspect of what happens when a person of color is selected for a position. As Randal said himself : It would be the same as if I had won a gold medal in the Olympics and I was then required to share it with the bronze medal winner. He didn’t win because there was a quota to fill; Trump’s executive staff looks exactly as Trump wants it to because he chooses who he wants. Randal won because he consistently exhibited the leadership, talent, experience and strategic savvy required to make him a winner. It was, in fact, not as close a decision, as many have been lead to believe. So, why the “controversy”? What is the real issue that no one wanted to address directly? Larry King, in his interview of Pinkett, made a feeble effort to get to the heart of it, but he missed the mark because he came into the conversation with bias. When the Media approaches a subject with bias, they are simply stating a story according to their opinion and that is not objective journalism. King believed that she should have been hired and simply went through his show trying to convince Randal and Trump that Randal was wrong. While Trump may have genuinely, albeit naively, felt that race was not a factor, it, in fact, was on so many levels. In the executive world, genuinely capable, highly intelligent African American executives and managers can share one anecdotal story after another -- After all , one is told, you won’t mind taking one for the team? Or…you and I know that you are the better choice, but I need to reward Joe or Sally Sue because … -- about how they have been asked to share, diminish, even relinquish their awards, rewards, promotions, acknowledgements so that the other person, usually white, would feel better about not getting what they believe they were entitled to. Thus, Clinton supporters will likely dive into a fresh dish of anger when the decision about who should be vice president is made and if it’s not Clinton. It won’t matter to them that Obama made his choice based upon who is best for the position, not based upon making her – or anyone else – feel better about not getting what they believe they were entitled to. I am still interested in having a competent woman as vice president, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for example. Someone who has the ability to work well with Congress and with the president – neither of which I believe Senator Clinton would be effective or – at the end of the day – happy with doing. (I would even like to see Donna Brazile as White House press secretary, but I am perhaps dreaming a little too much?)

The bottom line is that choosing Hillary Clinton as vice president for any reasons other than talent and capability is simply more of the same in politics. As a candidate for change, Senator Obama has the power to truly be the different politician that we need and make a different and wiser decision.

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Sunday, June 29th 2008

5:52 PM

POLITICAL MUSINGS: MICHELLE OBAMA - PURE CLASS

In the media cacophony that has been ringing in our ears since Senator Barack Obama announced that he was running for President of the United States, the women have finally become the voices of reason. Michelle Obama is a smart woman. While all the pundits were greedily pouring over their sources looking for some hiccup in the very smart appearance of Michelle Obama on ABC’s The View http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/inf o?pn= news as guest host on Wednesday, she already knows that she won that particular battle. Every host, from Barbara to Whoopi, seemed mesmerized by the down to earth, straight-forwardness of Michelle Obama, who seemed very at ease with just being herself and letting the viewing audience know who Michelle Obama is. The fist bump issue was diffused and disposed of with grace and humor. She was especially appreciative of the support she had received from Laura Bush when the media had its feeding frenzy over her comment “For the first time, I am [really] proud of being an American.” Laura Bush understood what she was trying to say, and coached her in being a better steward of her words. She used this opportunity to show humility and gratitude and to let us all know that she was in a learning curve, but was gaining a clear understanding of the lay of the political land, even for the wife of the future President of the US .She was even brilliant in the nutrition portion of the show, admitting that hers was a bacon-loving family. Not turkey bacon, the real thing. A food that a true Muslim would never eat. (I still don’t get it; there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, or a Catholic or a Baptist or…) Even the special guest Matthew Broderick was nervously in awe, speaking of how his son was an Obama fan. That very evening after the show, The View’s Republican right-winger, Elisabeth Hasselback was hustled onto FOX’s Hannity and Colmes, while the outspoken Joy Behar was the guest of Larry King on CNN. Hannity, Colmes and King were all salivating as they opened their respective shows, looking forward to new kill. They were disappointed. Elisabeth Hasselback http://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolm es/ in her interview was very clear about one thing: she was not going to bad-mouth Michelle Obama. She was following Michelle’s lead. Michelle had grabbed her hand, congratulated her on being who she was, being a fine mother and said that she could get along with and respect her, even though they had very different political views. Although the pundit team went after Michelle from different angles, dredging up tired drama that had died months ago, Elisabeth, to her credit – and quite honestly, my surprise – made a conscious decision not to enable their need for new mud to sling. Joy Behar was an equally disappointing guest on Larry King, and did not provide Larry with the exclusive nugget of information he had hoped for. She was dismissed with dispatch. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/best oftv/ 2008/06/19/lkl.joy.behar.cnn But she too was not going to bad-mouth Michelle Obama. On Thursday, Cindy McCain, who was in Vietnam, at the time, doing her own work, was approached to comment about Michelle Obama, both by ABC and by CNN http://www.videospider.tv/Videos/Deta il/33 34243702.aspx . When asked to comment, yet again, about the now four-month old statement Michelle Obama had made, she said: I really don’t know exactly what she meant. Finally, she too, is following Michelle Obama’s lead. Cindy McCain also said: She is a fine woman, a good mother and we are both in an interesting line of work right now.

As you will note, when viewing her CNN interview, she too believes that family should be off limits and that the media should be focused on the two men and the issues. The women seem to be uniting in what seems to be a good idea. Stop focusing on rumor, innuendo and statements taken out of context. Focus on the facts and issues at hand. I believe the women took the lead, following the example Michelle Obama set, as though making a silent pact ,and decided to not actively or passively participate in any further mud-slinging fests.

This seems to disappoint the various news entities who took a hot minute to reflect on the legacy of Tim Russert, before they went on with business as usual. But then, in all fairness, maybe there are a few who are, perhaps, checking their yellow journalism hats at the door. Dan Abrams had a panel of media and politicals at the top of his show, discussing an important point that will hopefully, finally, put to bed the Michelle Obama “ American” statement. He wanted to know what the difference was between what Michelle Obama said and John McCain’s repeated comment: I really didn't love America until I was deprived of her company. In or out of context, those are some interesting words. I was not in love with America until I was deprived of her company," McCain said again, at a recent town meeting here when asked to describe the impact of being a POW. Lars Larson, radio talk show host, when questioned by Dan Abrams about his consistent spewing of hate-filled innuendos, and direct assaults on Michelle Obama, http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=sbM WdTx7uYY called the Obamas terrorist affiliated and dangerous when asked how Michelle Obama's comment about love for America was any different from John McCain's comment that he's used more than once: The bullying, commando, over-talking Larson could not respond with any reasonable discourse and was obviously missing from the next segment of the show, but not before he was dressed down by Abrams for his rumor mongering, stereotyping and Abrams even suggested that his were the actions of a racist.. It is fascinating to note that for all of his hate-filled diatribe, he has never met or talked to Michelle Obama, yet he purports to know who she is.

So maybe, just maybe, the sad event of the passing of Tim Russert, combined with what suddenly seems to be a uniting front between wives of the politicians and a few women in the media -- who are consciously choosing to take that higher road -- will become a new paradigm that all of those with the power of the microphone, the keyboard or the internet blogs will begin to buy into. Maybe, just maybe, the media will begin to check each other and themselves and get back on the road to quality journalism. Regardless of the spin according to the various media mongers, Michelle Obama won this particular battle. If you missed your chance to get to know who she is, do take the time to view it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59twO1 fJwtQ . She stepped out as a woman, a leader, a peacemaker and did it without sacrificing who she truly is. Take note, ladies and gentlemen, she has already set the standard for how the upcoming First Lady in the 21 st century should be defined.

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Sunday, June 29th 2008

5:47 PM

MUSINGS ON POLITICS: JAMES DOBSON: WRONG...TWICE

I guess every one has to get their fifteen minutes from somewhere during this very visible presidential campaign. Apparently James Dobson is looking for his. Let me introduce you, in case you never heard of this man or his organization: James Dobson, a religious power and head of the conservative religious group, Focus on the Family that is headquartered in Colorado. He and Tom Minnery, senior vice president of this group, accuse Senator Barack Obama of “ distorting” the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution, in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group, Call to Renewal http://www.calltorenewal.com/ . Obama mentions Dobson in this speech and Al Sharpton as well.

Dobson’s criticism was aired on his organization’s radio show, Tuesday, June 24, 2008, and of course, the organization provided The Asso ciated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment. Dobson, who is a minister, criticizes examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy - chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said. Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

The problem is Dobson is wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament indicating that Jesus removed any of the commandments, any of the Holy Days identified in Leviticus 23, or for that matter, any of the dietary health laws that are identified in the New Testament. Yes, I am going there, hope you will follow. Yes, I read the Bible, even did a thirteen page research article on Is Church Your Religion ? And, Yes, I am going to give you something to take a look at as proof that he’s wrong:

Jesus Christ said in John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments. And His commandments did not die with Him: John 14:19-21 After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." Christ added a new commandment to re-emphasize His expectations, although it is also a verse in the Old Testament: Leviticus 19:18.

The purpose of Jesus Christ’s becoming a human for a short period, was to give humanity another chance at eternal life through His physical death and to teach the teachers of his doctrines. Christ did not come to give us a free pass to do whatever we want to do and just pray, or do penance, to negate whatever we’ve done. Christ never said to throw out the baby with the bathwater. His sacrifice was the supreme sacrifice and thus the physical sacrifices were eliminated. His objective was to take humanity to a new level in making the physical keeping of His Law a spiritual matter, on another level not required in the Old Testament. Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord; I do not change The health laws never changed: pigs are still intended to be the natural garbage disposals, which is why they eat their own waste, just as shrimp, catfish, lobsters, all shellfish are bottom feeders that keep the oceans and lakes clean, even when they are “farm raised”, they as other animals and sea creatures, have a specific purpose and, according to the Bible, being eaten by humans is not one of them. There are some whose religious beliefs tell them that Romans 14 eliminates the health laws of the Old Testament, when, in fact, the reference to unclean meats simply refers to meat offered to idols as sacrifices: see I Corinthians 8: 4-13 where it is put into context. Now I just explained to you what I believe. You, as an individual, have the right to refute or pushback on my beliefs (but if you bring it, come with support for your point of view), find it interesting but not applicable to your beliefs or just ignore it and move on. In other words, beleve it or not. Here is the interesting thing: Churches and religions alike, Christians of all faiths, humans in general, have had the amazing propensity since Adam and Eve, to take God’s words – be they verbal or in writing – and find a way to use them to justify whatever it is they want to do or not do. This has been the case since the beginning of time, even during the time when Jesus Himself was on the earth.  Note his view concerning the commandments and mankind: Matthew 15: 5 - 9 But you say 'Whoever tells his father or his mother, "Whatever support you might have received from me has been given to God,"  does not have to honor his father.' Because of your tradition, then, you have disregarded the authority of God's word.You hypocrites! How well did Isaiah prophesy of you when he said,'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  And just as corporate media, political parties and so-called religious entities are doing today – Jesus Christ’s and his apostles words are taken out of context and touted as being a truth that should be accepted without contest, simply because a person has control of the microphone. Distortion of the Bible by Barack Obama? I don’t think so. And if this is the way he understands the Bible, how is it a distortion? In this country, we still have the right to understand Christianity the way we understand it. What we don’t have the right to do is tell someone else that what they believe is distorted or not true because it doesn’t look like what we believe. Proverbs 21:2 All a man's ways seem right to him, but the Lord weighs the heart .

The reality is that Dobson has an agenda: his far right conservative organization does not like abortion rights and he doesn’t like Obama…or McCain. Dobson said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." Ah yes, the Constitution. The Constitution does give Dobson the right to get on his religious radio show and take a two-year old speech, slice it up so that it’s taken out of context and use the power of the microphone to distort its meaning. And here is where he is wrong again: There is a pervasive power that comes from being a religious leader. People tend to believe whatever you say if you are their minister or their religious leader even if you are wrong. Most don’t have the courage, as the Obamas did, to speak up and then to walk away, no matter how personally painful that separation is. As I have said before in other blogs, I know exactly what they experienced, having been there myself. I think Dobson is deliberately distorting the Bible to fit his own agenda and using his power as a religious leader to get people to think as he does.  It is not only an issue of separation of church and state, because churches are non-profit entities, it’s an ethical issue of misuse of power to serve one’s own agenda. His justification for delving into politics is that the radio program was paid for by a Focus on the Family affiliate whose donations are taxed, Dobson said, so it's legal for that group to get more involved in politics. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/ja mes-dobson-accuses-obam_n_108851.htm   So, it’s OK to justify use of one’s religious clout to sway followers in a political matter. To sow discord so that people will follow your lead. To bear false witness against your neighbor by attempting to create a perception of who he is even when it's not reality. How hypocritical. And it’s just plain wrong.

 

 

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Wednesday, June 18th 2008

9:30 PM

POLLY-TICKED-CALLED SPIN

Media noise
Played by the boys
Planning the next move
All this is new.
And not expected.
How did a man who don't think like us
Won't do like us
Don't look like us
Get past the door.
He wasn't invited to our party.
No need to worry
This is the plan
They're all suspect
So we'll just fan
The fire.
It didn't work.
What's that you hear?
I hear it too.
The roar of a crowd
For someone who
Don't look like you?
Walked through the fire did he?
Don't understand.
They're just emotional
Who knows the man?
Can't find a fault
We can make stick
Nothing important
Let's call him slick
Say he's a muslim(what's wrong with that?)
Say he's a terrorist
Say he's a secret
Say something's amiss.
Say it's his fault
The actions of others
Cast doubt in the minds
Of all our brothers,
And sisters and mothers
And fathers like us.
I don't understand
What's the big fuss?
A gaffe, innuendo,
An outright lie,
If we get caught
Just apologize
Say we misspoke.

Still can't stop him.

New plan in play?
What can it be
Perhaps a bait and switch
We'll see?
Put someone else
Better able than cain
In place so that
We can remain
In power.
It's not about Wright
Or wrong you see
Or gaffes
Or even policies.
It's about the courage
To see the truth
That the color of skin
Is not the proof
Of what makes a leader
What makes him right
Can you get past
His skin, not white?
Cause if you can
And if you do
Then change will come
For me, for you.
And it will be good.

(c) 2008


0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Thursday, May 22nd 2008

11:27 PM

MUSINGS ON POLITICS: OBSERVATIONS, REPRESENTATION, SOLUTIONS

This blog may be a tad long, but  is worth the read because the second part explains all the confusion and media noise about the Michigan and Florida Democratic delegates  AND a solution to the problem.  The timeline took more than a minute to research, but now I understand what happened to get us to here in the process.

Jonathon Rieder,author, The Word of the Lord is Upon Me, a book about Martin Luther King, was Tavis' guest tonight on a pre-recorded show.  Tavis Smiley  brought up what I would suppose is his primary issue with Senator Obama: to him, Senator Obama is "not Black enough."   Within a question posed to Rieder was a poorly disguised jab at Senator Obama, because he, unlike Martin Luther King, does not call African Americans "my people."    Rieder pointed out to Tavis that both Obama and King were/are approaching race in this country from two very different points of view, but that they were both on the same page, having the same ideologies.  But from my perspective this response did not sit well with Tavis, and Rieder was efficient in moving the conversation back to his book.  I am still trying to understand why there is this mentality that people must somehow meet this undefined standard of being "black enough?"   Would it not make more sense for us all to consider the concept of simply being human enough?  Look, Senator Obama has overcome some major obstacles in his bid to become President of this country..none having to do with the actual issues affecting all of us.    Ask yourself, what would Martin Luther King do?  Would he be supportive of the greater common goal or continue to pick away at someone because of some intangible standard set by a person or persons who keep moving the bar according to their own personal agenda?  Holding a grudge, because someone did not come to your party is not the direction one should go in and frankly it's childisn and petty. The Bible says that the greatest leader is one who knows how to serve the most, and I would add, who doesn't care who gets the credit.   Tavis has in many ways, become a leader within the African American community. I would expect that after a diligent review of Senator Obama's position on the critical issues facing this country, unless he can clearly identify tangible reasons to not support Senator Obama as diligently as he has supported Senator Clinton, who by the way has taken a dangerously desperate path by equating the issues surrounding the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates (a DNC problem, not an Obama problem, which the DNC needs to take care of immediately..but more on that in a moment) with what is happening in Zimbabwe.  Not only do I find this comparison a gross overstatement and equally offensive, I find it incredibly sad.  After all Senator Clinton has done for women by staying in the game and not giving up, as a leader, she too has to figure out a way to win by losing out on the opportunity to be President this time.    She cannot allow desperate wailings, when she knew what the rules of the game were when she decided to play, to become the legacy she leaves behind in this historic political experience.  I do hope she will gather herself and look for the opportunity she can live with and negotiate to get it.  No I don't think she is the right choice for vice president, as too much acrimonious water had gone under the bridge.  I am interested in knowing more about Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and what potential she has to bring to the vice presidency. 
 
But before we can start talking about a vice president, the whole delegate issue needs a speedy and proactive resolution.  According to the DNC website, 2025 delegate votes are required for a given presidential candidate towin their candidacy.  This number does not include delegates from Florida and Michigan, the delegations of which were reduced by 100% by action of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, pursuant to the Party’s Delegate Selection Rules, because the State Parties in these states submitted plans for holding binding events prior to the earliest date allowed (February 5th, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) by the Rules. 
 
What happened to get Florida, Michigan, the DNC, Senators Clinton and Obama to this point of contention?
Check out the Timeline:
 
  August 19, 2006   Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the DNC,
 
December 2, 2006  Regulations for the Convention adopted by the Rules and Bylaws Committee
 
Prior to  August 25, 2007  Florida's Republican governor and Republican controlled legislature enact a  state law moving the primaries to January 29th. The Florida DNC chose to comply.
 
August 25, 2007    DNC gives Florida thirty days to submit a new plan for a Primary or Caucus or lose all of its delegates to the nominating convention, as a direct result of the adoption of a resolution from committee person Ralph Dawson from NY to strip FL of all of its delegates and Presidential candidates that campaign in a state in violation would lose any delegates they win in that state. But committee co-chairman Jim Roosevelt said after the vote that in this case, there would be “no sanction on the campaigns since there would be no delegates at stake. In adopting the harsh penalties, the rules committee appeared to be sending a message to other state parties and legislatures such as Michigan, that any moves ahead of the Feb. 5 window would be met with stiff penalties and little to no leniency.
 
November 19, 2007  Michigan Appeals Primary Date Decision To State Supreme Court.   The state's attorney general asked the state supreme court to let the state, for heaven's sake, keep its Jan. 15 primary law. A lower-court judge invalidated the primary because the state parties wouldn't have share information about who voted and in what primary.  Republican legislators seem more willing than Democratic legislators to try their hand at a new law. Why? Democrats, in particular, worry that the elections will be used to collect signatures for recall petitions in light of the state's historic tax hike. If, say, 2 million Michiganders show up on Jan. 15, it'll be much easier to collect recall signatures by district. Once the petititon is initiated, the collectors need 10,000 signatures per district and have 90 days to complete the task.  So this was all about local state politics versus the Presidential primary.
 
December 1, 2007   Democratic leaders voted to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.  Candidates signed a pledge stating that they would not campaign  or spend money in Florida or Michigan because the DNC rules were broken.  Four candidates removed their names from Michigan and Florida ballots a fifth did not do so by the deadline.  Michigan Democrats moved their state's primary date to January in an effort to increase the state's influence in the nominee selection process, arguing Iowa and New Hampshire unfairly dominate the process.  Obama's campaign chose not to place his name on the Michigan ballot so as not to violate national Democratic Party rules.
 
Democrats in Michigan were told that they could not write in votes for candidates whose names were not on the ballot, but they could vote uncommitted if they were voting for Senator Obama or other candidates.  Radio and other media was paid for by Michigan Congressman and Councilwoman Conyers, in an attempt to get people to vote regardless, even if they voted uncommitted. If at least 15 percent of the people vote "uncommitted," the state Democratic Party must send that percentage of delegates to the national convention uncommitted. Forty percent of the votes received were uncommitted.
 
My conclusion: In spite of allegations to the contrary, Senator Obama had nothing to do with the exclusion of Florida and Michigan delegates. This insidious mess was created by the DNC, although the Republicans of Florida, and both the Democrats and Republicans in office or on committee also got their hands dirty in creating this problem for the true victims: the actual voters.  It would appear to me that the DNC need only create a new plan for the future that would hold the state primaries  by quadrant regions , and each schedule each quadrant by lottery.  In other words, pick number 1 - 4 out of a bag.  How hard could that be?  And then no one state would matter over another.  Equal opportunity with no more of this nonsense.  That said, I would encourage the DNC -- because this is, after all, their responsibility to resolve, no matter who is to blame, -- to seat fifty percent of the "committed delegates" from both Michigan and Florida and split those delegates between Senators Obama and Clinton AND then seat all of the "uncommitted delegates" from both Michigan and Florida (if there were any uncommitted in Florida) and let them decide who to cast their votes for. And add those delegate numbers to the delegate vote requirement.  No one will see this as being fair, but everyone will grudgingly agree that this is right.
0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Friday, May 16th 2008

5:50 PM

MUSINGS IN POLITICS: FACTS BEAT PERCEPTION ANY DAY

I had a moment today, when I took information about a project from an extremely reliable source thus did not double check the information.  The information was wrong, and by the time I decided to double check, I had called people and hmmm, damaged my credibility.
 
It seems that Congress has had enough of the insanity and the continual demise of the media. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who introduced the rarely used "resolution of disapproval,"  to reverse the FCC's decision allowing media companies own both a major TV or radio station and a major daily newspaper in the same city.   Senator Barack Obama, who co-sponsored the bill, added his support to the resolution saying, "I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation."

The Senate vote is good news for everyone who is fed up with a media system, that, in the words of Jon Stewart, is "hurting America" with propaganda pundits, embedded journalists, horse-race election coverage, and celebrity gossip posing as news. It reflects growing awareness -- in Congress and with average Americans -- of the perils of concentrated media ownership. Namely, insatiable profit pressures that gut newsrooms, replace labor-intensive investigative news with salacious, cheap-to-cover stories, and encourage the dumbing-down of the most pressing issues into 30-second sound bites and partisan shout-fests. (huffingtonpost.com)

It's about time.  In the midst of an incredible history-making presidential election, we have absolutely the worst resources of news information.  As I type this I flip back and forth through the news channels to compare and see if I can find a collective truth, since I hear more opinion and second guessing than actual fact.   I have consistently said that the corporate media, ergo the corporate lobbyists, have had a lot to do with a lot of the nonsense that we've seen pass as news, especially when it comes to the primaries and now, the presidential election.  My point is best articulated by this quote: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance . . . it is the illusion of knowledge."  A great and timely quote by Stephen Hawking that I found on the website of Terry Howcott a writer and blogger of news, history great information (www.terryhowcott.com).  We are all weary of the media noise, even some of the media is weary of the media noise.  Hardball host Chris Matthews took the bullying right-wing radio host Kevin James to task, telling him to stop screaming and stop talking about when he doesn't know what he is talking about. (Visit here for the video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball-shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html

While you will hear a lot of perception attempting to become reality as the pundits, parties, and such attempt to plant doubt in your mind concerning who is your best choice for U.S. president, remind yourselves not to react to everything that is put out there by the various media sources, because their credibility is sorely lacking right now.  Try not to react before you can verify the source of information and then respond accordingly.  I fully believe that whoever your choice is, you have taken the time to consider what the person stands for and what his/her character genuinely purports.  Because you are smart enough to make your decisions based on facts, not agendas and innuendos.  Final note: this is a great video on YouTube for those who support Senator Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoKPnhdv8Yo
Until next time...

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Monday, May 12th 2008

4:40 PM

POLITICAL MUSINGS: SENATOR BARACK OBAMA'S EFFECT ON RACIAL INVISIBILITY

In one of my earlier blogs, I wrote about how my choice, your choice can and should be an individual decision (See Obama Or Clinton: My Choice Doesn't Have To Be Yours).  I did see a post on another site that got me to thinking.  I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

I was in corporate for many years, before I decided to pursue my passion for writing.   I learned a lot about people and behavior during that period.  So let me tell you about one of my bosses.  Had him for all of three months, but what an education.  He was an extremely handsome man, impeccably dressed, right down to the suspenders he wore over crisp, white shirts.  He had the perfect looking wife in the well-placed photo on his desk.  But something about him was, well I couldn’t figure it out, but there was …something.  I had been there a week, and one of the other managers in the group, very tall African American guy, nice, personable.  I had just come from meeting with my new boss and that little…something was beginning to bug me.  So I asked the other manager what he thought of our boss.  He turned to me and said, “Let me tell you about the conversation he had with me, two days after I got here.  He called me into his office and closed the door.  He then said: You and I are not brothers.  We will not be going to lunch with each other and we will not become friends.  I do not associate with you people, as I have a specific plan to get myself to a certain place in this company.  Do you understand me?   I can’t stand him.   You need to watch your back.”   You see, my new boss was African American.  And, upon reflection, he was so caught up in racial invisibility that he was willing to dismember his own team in order to maintain the strategy he thought was key to his success.   Racial invisibility is a part of the many effects of corporate culture.  It has in fact, bled over into our societal structure.  We got that new job based upon our qualifications and the usual need to work twice as hard.  But it soon dawns upon us that we are the “only raisin in the rice.”    And as we sit in those conference room meetings, as we sit in the office or cubicle, we hear those jokes told, the comment slip, then as though they suddenly remember you are within earshot , “Oh, man, I didn’t mean anything by that, you know what I mean, that didn’t offend you did it? My bad…”    And as an upwardly mobile person of color, that dreaded day comes when you will have to interview that potential candidate for your team, or that consultant who the company wanted you to interview before they make the final decision.  S/he reminds you of you.  Great ideas, thinks outside of the box, has something to offer.  So you do exactly what your company expects, which is why they had you do the interview: you make sure they don’t get hired.  You tell yourself that they didn’t fit the need, but in reality you believe that one more black person would make your peers realize that you are black too.  One more competent black person would probably cause your boss to start comparing you with each other, versus comparing you with your existing peers.  Then there is the historically-based myth that two or more people of color in an organization represents the potential for collusion, especially if you begin to socialize with each other, even if it’s just on a professional basis.  (Believe me, this still happens in the twenty-first century)

 

So what has this got to do with the upcoming election, with the primaries, with Senator Barack Obama?   Just as the OJ murder trial created a very negative hypersensitivity to race in every part of this country, from the board room to the bedroom, even movie attendance -- one of Denzel Washington’s movies was poorly attended because it came out exactly when the trial was either ending or was in process.   Senator Obama has, just because he is who he is and happens to be a person of color, created a new consciousness of race, but in a different way.   Senator Obama has inadvertently caused the country to look itself in the mirror.  And some don’t like what they see, so they are still trying to shoot the messenger.   Since it has been impossible to find any really tangible evidence that Senator Obama is the same as any other politician, the next step was/is the usual guilt by real or perceived association, which somehow only works if you are a person of color.  Because for us one size fits all, right?  We are all painted with the same broad brush of stereotypical behavior, reasoning, likes, dislikes, etc. as it suits those who are doing the painting.   And those whose careers have been built on their ability to be invisible?  Your boss, your peers, your neighbors, even the security guard at the front desk  are reawakened to the fact that you too are a person of color.  You too, are intelligent and talented.  Wonder what aspirations you have; do you want to be president, CEO?  Are you a closet Democrat?  Where do your loyalties lie?  Are you one of those “emotional Negroes” supporting this Barack Obama?”   You make the decision to back Senator Cinton or John McCain, believing that you are justified in your choice as an individual and that their message and policies resonate with you as an informed voter.  And to be perfectly honest, it takes you out of the spotlight, allowing you reaffirm and assume your position.  So what happens to black men everywhere in this country, should Senator Obama become president?  If people continue to paint us with the same broad brush – and they will – will there be some new, covert strategy to use his presidency as new standard to measure, compare, eliminate people of color and African descent?  To assume that if Senator Obama can make it to the White House, with a background similar to yours, mine, ours, then there is no reason/excuse for you not to succeed?  Or is this just the way we feel, what we think may happen, specifically our men of color?   You see, those I hear from the most, those who are wary of a presidency held by a man of color and African descent, are men.    The election of Senator Obama will be, for each of us, what we choose to make it.  For some it will be an inspiration, for others it will be an opportunity to look in the mirror and see how we are reflected as a person biased against others because of the color of their skin or biased against ourselves because of the color of our skin.  His presidency will not eliminate racism, it may, however, set a different tone for how we treat each other; how each of us – if we are ever to evolve into a better nation of people – learns how to see each person as an individual, not as a cookie cut from the paradigm we have permanently affixed to our truth, nor as an someone we have made invisible under the premise of our own personal comfort level of dismissiveness.   For people of color and African descent, perhaps Senator Obama’s ability to withstand the storm -- in order that we may set sail on the winds of change in a way that will benefit us all -- will be a catalyst for a change our own paradigms from that of sameness and invisibility,  to claiming our unique contributions to business and society as individuals.   Race and gender is always going to matter.  Leveling is inherent to human behavior.  (Don’t know what that is?  See below.)  How we allow those human conditions to affect or infect us, well, who’s in control of that?

 

RAMBLINGS THROUGH THE ATTIC OF THOUGHT

 

Leveling.

a term describing

my excuse for diss - missal

of what defines you.

giving me power to

denigrate

obliviate

obliterate

manipulate

and generally make you invisible to the naked eye.

I pretend to see through you...

but I'm not lookin', really.

I'm not tryin' to reach

back for you.

you don't see things

the way I do.

and without sameness

I am weak

I cannot speak

and I was told my voice won't be heard anyway.

I was not informed:

perfection is not required

because it does not exist

in this human realm.

it becomes an oxymoron just by definition.

Much easier to

minimize

criticize

won't realize

that we just might be wrong this time?

no one showed me:

how to stop labeling

that one mixed

this one white

that one wrong

being black as night.

How did we become

defined by what houses us all the same?

since none can choose his race, her color

exactly who is it we should blame?

and in the bliss of my ignore - ance

I never asked if

a sun-baked tan changes who I am.

do dreads,

and nose rings

and my talk

of "bling"

make me an undercover brother or an unoriginal imitation of life?

when I call you " my sista"

is it because we connect

when I call you "my brotha"

am I showing respect?

or part of my hypocritical scam based on need or want?

 

© 2007 From “Ramblings Through the Attic of Thought 

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Thursday, May 8th 2008

7:44 PM

MUSINGS ON POLITICS: POLLS, SPIN, COUNTING AFRICAN AMERICANS

This is a post I made on the TJMS Black America Web blog, in response to some of the thinking people choose to post.  It's kind of a three for one post, addressing some of the questions and concerns posted.  But there is a more compelling subject I will attempt to approach, once I think it through and can post it in a way that will make people think, even if they choose to get mad.  In the meantime...
 
Have you ever wondered about the polls, how they acquire their info and are asserted as fact into the media spin? I made a cursory attempt to understand how they get their numbers, which have been wrong most of the time lately. So I went to pollster.com which looks at polls from all the various companies. I was totally confused, until I remembered an important experience I had sometime ago. I was invited to participate in a paid survey where you come in and look at commercials and rate them. What I learned in that experience is that the questions are asked in a manner that would give them the answers their client wanted to receive. Just like a push poll. Push polls are the primary resource (pardon the pun) being used during the primaries, for the poll info you hear from the pundits on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al. They call and ask a certain set of questions to elicit the answer their client wants to hear. So when you see them using the polls -- as I did yesterday morning -- only to have reality demonstrate the opposite effect, you have to wonder, don't you? My point is, if there is not a source provided, a total number of people polled given (I was told any survey not using at least 463 people is not a legitimate survey). I would not put too much confidence in the numbers. Here in Indiana, if they only called certain areas of the state to create the poll data, I would not believe it at all.
CNN political analyst and uncommitted "super delegate" Donna Brazile, continues to be one of the few voices of common sense on that network and she pointed out a fact to her peers, who were frantically wringing their hands as the Indiana results brought the candidates closer: African Americans make up only 12% of the total US population. And if it's true that, at the most, only 39% of eligible voters actually vote, what is the hysteria over who Blacks are voting for all about? Look, the highest percentage of African Americans in a single state is in North Carolina. They represent 21% of the population there and 32% of its electorate. In Indiana, we are approximately 12% of the population. I am a Hoosier, just like Tavis miley. While it's flattering to hear the media label us as the lone force behind Senator Obama's success, again look at the numbers and reality sets in. While it's great that we are there and supporting we aren't the only ones. So if we "emotional Negroes" are voting for Senator Obama without merit to our choice, I am interested in hearing what the reasoning might be for the votes of the majority. Are those votes emotional as well? I think we need to stop the labeling. I think we need to respect the right of every individual to make their choices based upon their own reasoning. I think that the notion of your ideology being the more superior, just because you have bought into what media, societal norm, etc. has said, is a bad one. I don't subscribe to the idea that one must be on the winning side therefore it's just easier to choose the person that white folks may agree with. I cannot buy into that mentality. If you believe in who Hillary Clinton is, buy in to her point of view, can get behind how she would handle the presidency go for it, you support her. But don't be so dismissive of my point of view just because I don't choose to follow your lead. No one ever said that this process was going to be easy, good things don't come easily, or so they say. My question for you is what will you do if Senator Obama gets the democratic candidacy? Are you going to take your marbles and go home, or are you going to support the candidate that has the best view on how to lead this country? If you do not vote, then it's you that will be the one helping McCain to win, not me. In all of the blogs from Clinton supporters on this site, none ever come to the table with actual talking points as to why Senator Clinton is the better candidate. Nostalgia over the Bill Clinton days -- by the way, I never thought of him as being a "Black president" -- is just not enough to convince me, nor should it. What I remember is that his hot mess with Monica and company took precedence, overshadowing anything that he would have affected as a president. And to be fair, I also want to point out that the rumor circulating about Clintons' pastor are false. The man who abused the child was a pastor in Clinton, NJ.
One more thing: I want to clear something up, as I have seen more media spin on the subject of Lake County. As I said, I am in Indiana and, as usual, people take whatever is said in some article and run with it, according to preconceived ideas or prejudices. What Mayor Clay conveyed to CNN and it was a live conversation around 12 midnight that I personally witnessed, was that they received 11000 mail-in votes and just like Indianapolis, who received 15000. These have to be counted and recounted MANUALLY. It took Indianapolis until 9 pm with a large staff to finish. The difference is that Gary is much smaller than Indianapolis and did not have the STAFF that Indianapolis had to do the counting. Because of the issue of trying to be above board, the mayor wanted to make sure everything was done right, and he wanted the final count to be all inclusive of the community AND there were both Democrats and Republicans doing the counting and recounting. BTW, the media was doing the speculating and instigating of the idea that there was wrong doing. They allowed the pro-Clinton mayor of Hammond, McDermott, to spout a lot of misinformation and suggest something was going on, despite Mayor Clay's repeated response that they were almost done and that the figures would be provided within minutes.(shame on him) I can only imagine what would have been speculated, had the numbers put Senator Obama over the top. Just another indication that truth doesn't matter when people don't want to believe it.

I got a chance to experience the Obama rally this past Monday night. I will post pictures later. What an experience!

0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Thursday, May 1st 2008

7:52 AM

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: NEWS HE WON'T USE

I saw a portion of  the interview this morning of Senator Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. (You can watch online:  http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24402983/)  What a beautiful interview and to me spoke volumes about who they are as partners, as a team.  But what I found out last night made me recognize who Barack Obama really is and I am filled with a respect that I cannot describe.  Someone sent me a piece of news that has been floating out in cyberspace for at least a month or more,  I thought it was contrived so I researched it and it's true.  I shared it with a person I know who used to be in the media and she told me that the Clintons have been pressuring the media lately and this was probably why.  But that's not what I am writing about.  I am writing to say how much I admire and respect Barack Obama because he has NOT ALLOWED his campaign to focus on the personal or perceptively damaging matters of other candidates.  He has got to know about some of these matters yet even in the firestorm over Minister Wright, he has not swayed from his focus on getting back to the real issues of the nation.  And you know what?  My first inclination was to let folks know what he hasn't discussed but I decided I am going to follow his lead and not talk about them either.  I am even sorry I sent the resources to those I sent it to.  Even if the information does reach daylight, I hope each person reading this remembers that Barack Obama chose not to run his campaign using guilt by association and sees the information for what it is, remembering how it affected him when they used Minister Wright.
 
Here in Indiana the tide is turning.  In the last twenty-four hours, two of the major Indiana Super Delegates have endorsed Barack Obama.  Perhaps they have discovered, as I have, the depth of character this man has.  You can't create character for an interview or a photo op. I just hope more will look at the bigger picture of what will be good for us as individuals, as a nation.  I am proud of you Senator Obama.
 

1 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Tuesday, April 29th 2008

8:20 PM

PART II: WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, SENATOR OBAMA OR THE MEDIA?

I just received a bunch of e-mails discussing Senator Obama and Minister Wright. There is so much to say, but I want to keep this message as simple and clear as possible. America, no matter your ethnic background, you are getting played.  As Blacks, we are so wrapped up in the emotion of a perceived attack on our religion and race that we are paying absolutely no attention to the man behind the curtain, pulling the strings.  As Anglos, we are so wrapped up in the doubt of our original decisions to vote for Senator Obama, because of the consistent bombardment of around-the-clock, looped snippets of the Wright sermon. Senator Obama is being lynched electronically by the media (aka corporate media) and with the usual nonsense from Hillary and John.  No I didn't stutter, I use first names for those whom I have no respect.
 
Let's not get this twisted: No matter what Senator Obama does or doesn't say about Minister Wright, it will never be enough for any of you.  If Minister Wright was the real issue, wouldn't Hillary also be on the same hot seat?  People, Wright was a Clinton friend when Bill was in the White House. Wright was a White House guest.  Did you forget?  His performance before the journalists yesterday was a pure set up: no more, no less.   I watched closely to make sure I saw what I thought I saw.  Find the video online and take an objective second look, see if you see what I mean.
 
Guilt by association is what has done us in since we have been in this country.  The same game that was played back in slavery, pitting the house Negroes against the field Negroes, seeing to it that you didn't group together because you must be planning something.  And here we are in the 21st century actually discussing elitism, "who he think he is?", he isn't Black enough, he's too black for us...Really?  Really? 
 
Senator Obama is one man.  One.  While I realize we haven't had any Black leadership in this country for quite some time, we have to set more realistic expectations.  NO ONE can do anything for any of us until he is in the position to do it.  Senator Obama is not only of African descent, he is equally of Anglo descent.  Think about it; he has to not only deal with Anglo racism, he has to deal with attacks from our side of the fence and I have yet to see a valid argument for any of it.  What exactly has he done or not done any worse than Hillary or John?  Are his platforms wrong, does he not really want change, is he secretly connected to Haliburton?  Be real, isn't a lot of this just our good old hatin', crabs-in-the-barrel, closeted jealousy from our side of the house?  Jesse, Al, you both love to pontificate, why so silent now?  Where's the support of one of yours?  Where's that leadership?  And let me really make you mad.  If Senator Obama was half Latino, half Anglo, we would not even be having this conversation.  Latinos know how to be both informed and loyal.  Even if they chose to vote for the other guy, they would not be doing what we do; say that he's not good enough, he's not Latino enough.  They know how to be supportive, even when they don't agree.  Which is why they have such strong positioning in cities across this nation and we, as Blacks, still haven't made much progress.  We are still fighting over the scraps.
 
If you are Anglo, listen, you are being played equally and badly. The game is called perception is reality; I know, I played it in corporate life. The media has found a way to use psychology on the average American. Think about it, the primary market for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, Meet the Press, etc.,  is Anglo, male, 29 - 65. To one degree or another, you have bought into the stereotyping of Black America: We aren't to be trusted, we have some sinister agenda, we are inherently bad, Blacks will take over if you let them, and so on.   If you continually bombard the airwaves with sound bytes taken out of context, then the listening/viewing audience begins to absorb it, and  begin to believe whatever is said as being the truth – after all, aren't those who are behind the microphone supposed to be telling us the truth --as responsible journalists?  Could it be that those with the power of the microphone have an actual agenda? Yes, an agenda here in the land of the free.  That agenda is creating doubt by inference and inference of association BECAUSE these media outlets are owned by corporations who stand to lose millions and millions if the lobbyists lose their power over the White House and Congress.  But don't take my word for it, although I have done the research, believe Phil Donahue, who, ironically, was on Tavis Smiley's show last week.  You should check out the documentary he has done on the war.  Senator Obama is as Anglo as he is African, if race is an issue for you, doesn't his very heritage make it a moot point?  
 
 Senator Obama is getting bombarded from every possible faction, Black and White alike, by his competition, by corporate media.  Not for anything having to do with policy, not for anything having to do with morals, not for anything having to do with what this country really needs, but for reasons that do not have a damn thing to do with being President of this country. Frankly if he gets the nomination he deserves to be President, because he has demonstrated that he can rise about the most insurmountable of innuendoes about social, class, religious and race matters put before him. Because all of this nonsense is really just about the power of corporate media to manipulate and at the end of the day, it's about money.  Senator Obama can only make good on what he has promised to do when he becomes President.  And if he doesn't we know what to do next election.  With John and Hillary, it is clear -- at least to me -- that we will just have business as usual; Hillary has clearly demonstrated that she is, after all, a good ole' boy.  
 
They say that when you take a test, never change your first choice because a majority of the time, that answer is the right one.  Your choice should not be an emotional one, but an informed one.  No one speaks for me; I don't need anyone's permission for the choices I make.  Whatever your choices are, make them for the right reasons.  The future of this country depends on it and the world is watching.
0 user comments / YOUR THOUGHTS

Tuesday, April 29th 2008

10:32 AM

WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? SENATOR OBAMA OR THE MEDIA?

Have we forgotten what this presidential campaign is about and who is running?  Minister Wright is not running for president. Senator Obama is.  Yet, once again, we have one African/Anglo American who is being held responsible for the actions and words of other people.   We don’t hold Hillary Clinton’s feet to the same fire for her husband’s words, for her staff’s words or for any other people she has been associated with.  We don’t hear CNN, MSNBC or Fox News looping images of Pastor John Hagee, an influential minister who has endorsed McCain and his anti-Catholic comments, nor do we see McCain’s embracing of this endorsement repeatedly looped, analyzed and discussed.   Isn’t the goal of corporate media to do what neither McCain nor Clinton are able to do: stop his rise to presidency? 

 

Watching all of this from the sidelines, I have reached the conclusion that the media has found a way to use psychology on the average American.  If you continually bombard the airwaves with sound bytes taken out of context, then the listening/viewing audience begins to absorb it, and  begin to believe whatever is said as being the truth – after all, aren’t those who are behind the microphone supposed to be telling us the truth? -- not understanding that those with the power of the microphone have an actual agenda. Yes, an agenda here in the land of the free.  That agenda is creating doubt by inference and inference of association. 

 

Minister Wright finally got his fifteen minutes of fame yesterday, when a Clinton supporter arranged to have him speak to the National Press Club.  After rambling on for a time, there was a staged Q and A where Wright basically threw Senator Obama under the bus.  Do