I'm going to let you in on a little secret:
Sometimes, I think God talks to me.
No. Really. Like when I heard a little voice tell me, "Put away some money. You're going to need it." I did. The next month? BAM! Hit with major car repairs.
Or when Black Man Not Blogging and I were coming back from a day trip and stopped in a McDonald's in a South Stockton neighborhood. He went in, I stayed in the car. A little voice told me, "You need to get out of here." I called him on his cell phone to tell him to get out of the McDonald's, that we needed to get ghost. He did, and we did. The neighborhood just felt unsafe. If I recall correctly, the next day there was news of shootings that occurred in South Stockton.
When the Charleston shooting occurred, I was at a loss for words. I couldn't believe that someone would gun down church members at a prayer meeting. A PRAYER MEETING! Could there be anything more demonic?
Then, in an act of what can only be called amazing grace, the victims' families started to forgive the shooter.
And that's when I heard the little voice: "If you wait long enough, good things will happen." I smiled.
In what appeared to be a whirlwind of good things happening, people began calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state house and other government buildings. Ebay, Amazon, Sears, and Wal-Mart pulled Confederate flag merchandise from their shelves or stopped selling them online. Given Wal-Mart's southern roots, that's huge. The cynic in me says that it was the fact that black people were killed in a church by a racist who literally wrapped himself in the Confederate flag that moved people to reconsider the flag, but I'll take this reconsideration no matter how it comes, even if I think it would not have happened but for the murders taking place in a church. It forced white Southerners to choose between heritage and faith. They chose faith.
The Affordable Care Act was upheld, as well as disparate impact analysis for housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
The President found his voice on race, using the n-word to explain that this country's racial atrocities hundreds of years ago are not yet forgotten, the wounds not yet healed. In the eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pinkney, President Obama found his voice on race once again, saying that although those who fought for the Confederacy may have been honorable, the cause for which they fought was not. He then raised his voice in a rousing rendition of "Amazing Grace." And the church said, "Amen."
To top it all off, the Supreme Court declared bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. To some, this may not be a good thing. I don't see how equality under the law can't be. The southern states, and the Ted Cruzes of the nation, will stand in opposition, just as George Wallace stood in the door of the University of Alabama declaring, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education. Ted Cruz will be remembered in much the same way as Governor Wallace would have been had he not had a racial epiphany. The work of the LGBT community is not done, but there's just a little less of it to be done.
If you wait long enough, good things will happen. Sometimes you have to wait centuries, sometimes a generation, sometimes a decade. But if you wait long enough, good things will happen.
Amen.
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Time for President Obama to Return the Favor (Black Folks Ridin' Hard for POTUS)
Dear President Obama,
I listened to your comments on the looting going on in Baltimore yesterday. All I could think was, "Here we go again."
Let me get to the point: You're quick to criticize black folks when we don't live up to your standards, but you're slow to criticize non-black folks when their failure to live up to any standard of decency leads to the murder of black folks.
As one reporter noted, you did not walk the streets of Ferguson. You were silent about Eric Garner. I've not heard you utter the phrase "Black Lives Mater."
But the minute that black folks -- young black folks at that -- begin to loot and riot in response to the racial transgressions you barely acknowledge? Then it's on. You jump on the obvious bandwagon and, despite your race, fail to add anything to the conversation that non-blacks don't already think and say. You fail to add the context that your experience as a black man in America would cause to come to you naturally. Or at least it should.
Sure, it's easy to call young black people "thugs." It's easy to confirm the pre-existing stereotypes. But you have a higher calling and a greater debt to the very people you condemn so easily.
You have a higher calling because you know better and you were put into office in part because you were expected to lift your voice for black people at most, or at least to make sure that black people are treated equally under the law. Make no mistake -- many black folks had their doubts about you. I know for certain that many black women would not have voted for you but for the fact that you are married to Mrs. Obama, enabling you to wear her "race rank," for lack of a better phrase. The idea behind black folks putting a black man in the White House was that he -- you -- would bring your life experience with you and deploy it for our equal treatment and everyone else's education. For many of us, the reason to vote you in for a second term was to give you the political freedom to speak to the uneasy issue of race that you didn't have in your first term. The idea was that you'd have nothing to lose and you'd expend some political capital on the uneasy issue of race. Instead, you chose to use Eric Holder as your proxy.
To make matters worse, your comments on Baltimore embodied Professor Derrick Bell''s Third Rule of Racial Standing from his book, "Faces at the Bottom of the Well, " to wit:
Few blacks avoid diminishment of racial standing, most of their statements about racial conditions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The usual exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted 'enhanced standing' even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing. (emphasis added).
And when the President of the United States disparages black people, without adding the context to their actions that he knows or should knows, this exception to the rule of racial standing becomes all the more stronger.
But you knew that.
You chose to call them thugs when you could have quoted Dr. King about the nature of rioting: "Riot is the language of the unheard." You didn't put their actions into context, You simply brushed all of those who looted with a broad brushstroke, with an easy sound bite, knowing that you wouldn't have to bear the consequences of the condemnation you heaped upon them and those who look like them.
Enough. Is. Enough.
To borrow a turn of phrase from your girl Ms. Bey, black folks have been ridin' hard for you, Mr. President. Ridin' hard, even when you've done things that, quite frankly, we and most of the free world didn't understand (like that "line in the sand" with Syria that you couldn't back up). We understood why you couldn't consistently address issues of race in your first term -- because they would be a distraction from all the other issues you had to tackle -- the economy, two wars, health care reform, etc. But we put you in a second time in hopes that you would be free to speak about, and do something about, race in America. Because being the first black President -- hell, being the first black ANYTHING -- comes with its own set of responsibilities. One of those is to make it better for those who look like you and don't have the same power or platform that you do. This idea that you have to be a President of all the people and not just one group is undermined by the fact that we're Americans, too, and our race problem is America's race problem. And yours.
Mr. President, Black America has been ridin' hard for you. It's time for you to return the favor. You could start by explaining us instead of being the first to criticize us.
Sincerely,
Black Woman Blogging
I listened to your comments on the looting going on in Baltimore yesterday. All I could think was, "Here we go again."
Let me get to the point: You're quick to criticize black folks when we don't live up to your standards, but you're slow to criticize non-black folks when their failure to live up to any standard of decency leads to the murder of black folks.
As one reporter noted, you did not walk the streets of Ferguson. You were silent about Eric Garner. I've not heard you utter the phrase "Black Lives Mater."
But the minute that black folks -- young black folks at that -- begin to loot and riot in response to the racial transgressions you barely acknowledge? Then it's on. You jump on the obvious bandwagon and, despite your race, fail to add anything to the conversation that non-blacks don't already think and say. You fail to add the context that your experience as a black man in America would cause to come to you naturally. Or at least it should.
Sure, it's easy to call young black people "thugs." It's easy to confirm the pre-existing stereotypes. But you have a higher calling and a greater debt to the very people you condemn so easily.
You have a higher calling because you know better and you were put into office in part because you were expected to lift your voice for black people at most, or at least to make sure that black people are treated equally under the law. Make no mistake -- many black folks had their doubts about you. I know for certain that many black women would not have voted for you but for the fact that you are married to Mrs. Obama, enabling you to wear her "race rank," for lack of a better phrase. The idea behind black folks putting a black man in the White House was that he -- you -- would bring your life experience with you and deploy it for our equal treatment and everyone else's education. For many of us, the reason to vote you in for a second term was to give you the political freedom to speak to the uneasy issue of race that you didn't have in your first term. The idea was that you'd have nothing to lose and you'd expend some political capital on the uneasy issue of race. Instead, you chose to use Eric Holder as your proxy.
To make matters worse, your comments on Baltimore embodied Professor Derrick Bell''s Third Rule of Racial Standing from his book, "Faces at the Bottom of the Well, " to wit:
Few blacks avoid diminishment of racial standing, most of their statements about racial conditions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The usual exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted 'enhanced standing' even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing. (emphasis added).
And when the President of the United States disparages black people, without adding the context to their actions that he knows or should knows, this exception to the rule of racial standing becomes all the more stronger.
But you knew that.
You chose to call them thugs when you could have quoted Dr. King about the nature of rioting: "Riot is the language of the unheard." You didn't put their actions into context, You simply brushed all of those who looted with a broad brushstroke, with an easy sound bite, knowing that you wouldn't have to bear the consequences of the condemnation you heaped upon them and those who look like them.
Enough. Is. Enough.
To borrow a turn of phrase from your girl Ms. Bey, black folks have been ridin' hard for you, Mr. President. Ridin' hard, even when you've done things that, quite frankly, we and most of the free world didn't understand (like that "line in the sand" with Syria that you couldn't back up). We understood why you couldn't consistently address issues of race in your first term -- because they would be a distraction from all the other issues you had to tackle -- the economy, two wars, health care reform, etc. But we put you in a second time in hopes that you would be free to speak about, and do something about, race in America. Because being the first black President -- hell, being the first black ANYTHING -- comes with its own set of responsibilities. One of those is to make it better for those who look like you and don't have the same power or platform that you do. This idea that you have to be a President of all the people and not just one group is undermined by the fact that we're Americans, too, and our race problem is America's race problem. And yours.
Mr. President, Black America has been ridin' hard for you. It's time for you to return the favor. You could start by explaining us instead of being the first to criticize us.
Sincerely,
Black Woman Blogging
How to Socially Vaporize Inappropriate People (as Well as President and Mrs. Obama Have)
I think we can all agree that the GOP legislative staffer's comments on Malia and Sasha Obama's dress and behavior at the latest turkey pardoning ceremony were inappropriate and offensive. What I've found interesting, however, is how the remarks have not even been acknowledged by President and Mrs. Obama (and yes, she's not "Michelle," she's "Mrs. Obama." She will be the First Lady or a former First Lady for the rest of her life. If you didn't call Mrs. Reagan "Nancy" or Barbara Bush "Barbara," you don't call Mrs. Obama "Michelle.").
"Ah," I thought to myself. "Social vaporization."
What is "social vaporization," you ask?
It's the refusal to dignify the offensive actions of a person and, in many cases, the ignorant person who acted, by ignoring them and their act. Social vaporization to its fullest effect is treating the person who offended you like they don't exist.
There are some segments of our society that have made social vaporization a high art form. Too often, when someone does something that offends us, we engage in social jiu jitsu -- we attempt to use that person's offensive conduct to harm them. We deride the offender's conduct in their presence, try to correct the conduct, or inflict the same conduct upon the offender. We also give the offender what they want: Attention.
That's just way too much energy. Social vaporization is so much more efficient. To see social vaporization at its best, you need to be around old money Southerners. Of all races. They socially vaporize people by politely ignoring the conduct, removing themselves from the offender's presence with a polite excuse ("Could you excuse me for a moment? I need to say hello to a dear friend of mine across the room."), and, depending on the magnitude of the transgression, never making themselves available to be of help to, or in the presence of, the offender. They stop taking the offender's calls. They decline social invitations from the offender. And they do so without expending as much energy as it takes to wipe their behinds.
I've had to socially vaporize people. One was a house guest who made inappropriate comments about one of my family members shortly after I had experienced a death in my family. Said house guest has never stepped foot in my home since. Vaporized. I don't even expend energy thinking about relenting and having this person in my home. I made my Whitney Houston-inspired "Hell to the no" decision years ago. Poof. Vaporized.
I, too, have been socially vaporized. A lovely lady was trying to groom me for membership in The Links. I didn't realize it at the time, and with my sense of Delta superiority, I didn't think it mattered. I didn't respond appropriately to her overtures, didn't make it a priority to attend the right events. She socially vaporized me. I deserved it. I was not ready for what she was offering. And I learned to respect The Links.
But old money Southerners? Talk about social vaporization. They socially vaporize people so well that the people who are vaporized don't even know they've been vaporized. The vaporized simply think that the vaporizers are just busy, going through a difficult time, or overwhelmed with family obligations. In fact, vaporized folks often create excuses for those who vaporize them because they can't imagine that they have been socially vaporized. The vaporizers treat the vaporizees politely when encountered, but that's about it. Vaporizers don't explain. That would be an unmerited expenditure of energy for people who don't deserve it.
Why socially vaporize someone? Because they're probably not going to change, you can't raise them (because we all know you can't raise grown people), and it would raise your blood pressure to be continually assaulted by their inappropriate or insensitive behavior.
So how do you decide whether to socially vaporize someone? Ask yourself the following questions:
1) How offended was I by what the offender did? If the answer is "extremely," then ask yourself:
2) Do we even have a relationship? If the answer is "no," vaporize them. If the answer is "yes," ask yourself:
3) Is this a relationship worth saving? If not, vaporize them.
Vaporizing someone is like forgiving someone. Forgiving someone is giving up the hope that the past will ever be different. Socially vaporizing someone is giving up the hope that the offending person will ever cease to offend you.
May the force of social vaporization always be with you.
"Ah," I thought to myself. "Social vaporization."
What is "social vaporization," you ask?
It's the refusal to dignify the offensive actions of a person and, in many cases, the ignorant person who acted, by ignoring them and their act. Social vaporization to its fullest effect is treating the person who offended you like they don't exist.
There are some segments of our society that have made social vaporization a high art form. Too often, when someone does something that offends us, we engage in social jiu jitsu -- we attempt to use that person's offensive conduct to harm them. We deride the offender's conduct in their presence, try to correct the conduct, or inflict the same conduct upon the offender. We also give the offender what they want: Attention.
That's just way too much energy. Social vaporization is so much more efficient. To see social vaporization at its best, you need to be around old money Southerners. Of all races. They socially vaporize people by politely ignoring the conduct, removing themselves from the offender's presence with a polite excuse ("Could you excuse me for a moment? I need to say hello to a dear friend of mine across the room."), and, depending on the magnitude of the transgression, never making themselves available to be of help to, or in the presence of, the offender. They stop taking the offender's calls. They decline social invitations from the offender. And they do so without expending as much energy as it takes to wipe their behinds.
I've had to socially vaporize people. One was a house guest who made inappropriate comments about one of my family members shortly after I had experienced a death in my family. Said house guest has never stepped foot in my home since. Vaporized. I don't even expend energy thinking about relenting and having this person in my home. I made my Whitney Houston-inspired "Hell to the no" decision years ago. Poof. Vaporized.
I, too, have been socially vaporized. A lovely lady was trying to groom me for membership in The Links. I didn't realize it at the time, and with my sense of Delta superiority, I didn't think it mattered. I didn't respond appropriately to her overtures, didn't make it a priority to attend the right events. She socially vaporized me. I deserved it. I was not ready for what she was offering. And I learned to respect The Links.
But old money Southerners? Talk about social vaporization. They socially vaporize people so well that the people who are vaporized don't even know they've been vaporized. The vaporized simply think that the vaporizers are just busy, going through a difficult time, or overwhelmed with family obligations. In fact, vaporized folks often create excuses for those who vaporize them because they can't imagine that they have been socially vaporized. The vaporizers treat the vaporizees politely when encountered, but that's about it. Vaporizers don't explain. That would be an unmerited expenditure of energy for people who don't deserve it.
Why socially vaporize someone? Because they're probably not going to change, you can't raise them (because we all know you can't raise grown people), and it would raise your blood pressure to be continually assaulted by their inappropriate or insensitive behavior.
So how do you decide whether to socially vaporize someone? Ask yourself the following questions:
1) How offended was I by what the offender did? If the answer is "extremely," then ask yourself:
2) Do we even have a relationship? If the answer is "no," vaporize them. If the answer is "yes," ask yourself:
3) Is this a relationship worth saving? If not, vaporize them.
Vaporizing someone is like forgiving someone. Forgiving someone is giving up the hope that the past will ever be different. Socially vaporizing someone is giving up the hope that the offending person will ever cease to offend you.
May the force of social vaporization always be with you.
Can We Declare a Genocide of Young Black Men in America?
I have one question for President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder: Can we declare a genocide of young black men in America?
I don't mean to be melodramatic, and I'm not naive enough to believe that there isn't enough already in America's mean streets and hard 'hoods responsible for the deaths of young black men.
But somehow, I never hear of unarmed young white men being accidentally shot by police officers or intentionally shot by wannabe vigilantes or old people with an aversion to loud hip-hop blasting from an SUV. I don't hear of any other race of young men in America being gunned down like dogs as often as young black men.
How many more have to die before we realize we have a problem?
Do I have to go before the U.N. to have a genocide declared? President Obama just authorized air strikes to avert a genocide in Iraq. Can we get an air strike or two up in the 'hood to avert the genocide of young black men in America?
I have yet to take down my "Justice for Trayvon" photo for this blog because, as soon as I think about taking it down, another young black unarmed man is shot down.
If indeed Michael Brown was shot while he had his hands in the air, that's murder. Added to all the other murders of unarmed black men (Trayvon, Oscar Grant, too many to name), this, to me, is looking like a genocide.
As someone who hopes to be the mother of at least one son, I'm at a loss of what to tell this son-to-be that he can do in the presence of police or other maniacs to make sure he doesn't get shot. Clearly, putting your hands in the air doesn't work (Michael Brown). Walking away doesn't work (Trayvon Martin). Lying face down with your hands behind your back doesn't work (Oscar Grant).
How many more have to die before we declare a genocide?
I call B.S., America. This IS a genocide.
I don't mean to be melodramatic, and I'm not naive enough to believe that there isn't enough already in America's mean streets and hard 'hoods responsible for the deaths of young black men.
But somehow, I never hear of unarmed young white men being accidentally shot by police officers or intentionally shot by wannabe vigilantes or old people with an aversion to loud hip-hop blasting from an SUV. I don't hear of any other race of young men in America being gunned down like dogs as often as young black men.
How many more have to die before we realize we have a problem?
Do I have to go before the U.N. to have a genocide declared? President Obama just authorized air strikes to avert a genocide in Iraq. Can we get an air strike or two up in the 'hood to avert the genocide of young black men in America?
I have yet to take down my "Justice for Trayvon" photo for this blog because, as soon as I think about taking it down, another young black unarmed man is shot down.
If indeed Michael Brown was shot while he had his hands in the air, that's murder. Added to all the other murders of unarmed black men (Trayvon, Oscar Grant, too many to name), this, to me, is looking like a genocide.
As someone who hopes to be the mother of at least one son, I'm at a loss of what to tell this son-to-be that he can do in the presence of police or other maniacs to make sure he doesn't get shot. Clearly, putting your hands in the air doesn't work (Michael Brown). Walking away doesn't work (Trayvon Martin). Lying face down with your hands behind your back doesn't work (Oscar Grant).
How many more have to die before we declare a genocide?
I call B.S., America. This IS a genocide.
The House GOP Members: Burning Down the House
"Watch out. You might get what you're after."
Talking Heads, "Burning Down the House."
It is only fitting that on the end of Day 15 of the Government Shutdown, and only one day away from the first-ever U.S. government default, I dedicate the Talking Heads' "Burning Down the House" to the House GOP members. I couldn't imagine for the life of me that our elected leaders would play Russian Roulette with the full faith and credit of U.S. obligations and would be willing to tank not only the U.S. economy but the world economy in an effort to get back at President Obama.
Do they hate this Black man that much? Oh yes. Yes they do.
Before you go all ballistic and accuse me of playing the race card, let's call a thing a thing: This shutdown isn't about defunding Obamacare. It's about embarrassing and weakening this African American president whom the GOP has despised since Day 1 of his first term, what with Mitch McConnell vowing to make him a one term president (How's that workin' for ya, Mitchie?) before the President even started governing.
Note how the target has shifted. First they wanted to defund Obamacare. When they realized that the President wasn't going to roll over as easily as he did in his last term (see, that's what happens when a President is re-elected -- he can tell you to kiss his ass), they were lost trying to find any semblance of a bone to be thrown at them (e.g., medical device tax repeal) so they could declare victory and avoid embarrassment once polling showed that the nation primarily blamed the GOP for the shutdown. Instead of unconditional surrender by reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling without negotiation, these fools would rather "burn down the house" by incurring the first U.S. default. When your own party elder, John McCain, declares defunding Obamacare as a "fool's errand" (which he has done not just once, but twice within the last week), that should tell you to give up the ghost.
But not these rabid Republicans. They even have the nerve to protest outside of the monuments they have shut down and blame the President for the shutdown. They're worse than that sick joke about a child killing his parents and seeking the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.
Almost as insipid as these House GOP members are the people who support them, who have no idea of what a U.S. default would mean or even how "bad" Obamacare really is. BMNB (my husband, Black Man Not Blogging) and I have recently had the pleasure of having conversations with these idiots. I spoke with a clerk at Target who told me that Obamacare was going to run up the deficit. I told her that, in the short run, costs might rise, but in the long run, as more healthy and young people are forced to buy health care insurance, health care costs would go down and, as a result, the national deficit. I walked away and it hit me: I just had a conversation with an idiot. She probably makes minimum wage, works less than full time, and isn't receiving health care benefits. She needs to thank her lucky stars that there is Obamacare, because she's probably going to need it.
My husband's strange encounter with an idiot involved someone who told him she opposed raising the debt ceiling because it would just encourage the government to "spend, spend, spend." My husband responded, "The spending has already occurred. Raising the debt ceiling just ensures that the government can cover the bills it has already incurred through its appropriations." He, too, realized he'd just had a conversation with an idiot.
So here's to the idiots in the GOP who hate President Obama's black ass so much that they're willing to burn down the house. They're probably related to the Confederates who were willing to burn down a country because they hated black people so and the segregationists who were willing to lynch black folks instead of acknowledging our equal rights. Today's GOP idiots should at least have the intellectual honesty to put on their white robes and burn a cross in the White House lawn.
But as the song "Burning Down the House" says, "Watch out. You might get what you're after."
Dear Mr. President: Don't Blink, But Do Fart On Their Heads
Dear Mr. President,
When boys wrestle, especially brothers, the ultimate in victory is for the winning boy to not only sit on head of the defeated boy, but to fart on his head as well. In families, it's usually the older brother who ends up sitting and farting on the head of his younger brother as a deterrent to future challenges. Mr. President, you didn't grow up with brothers, but there's a lesson to be learned from the wrestling of boys.
But first, Mr. President, I have a message for you from my sister regarding this standoff with congressional Republicans: Don't blink.
In this standoff/government shutdown, there's far more at stake than just a budget or the debt ceiling. As you've so aptly put it, what is at stake is the ability to govern without being forced into false crises created by a small contingent of Republicans who are out of step with the majority of the nation. So my sister's advice to you, Mr. President, is to continue to stand toe-to-toe with them and don't even think about blinking. Don't flinch. Stand your ground. Which leads to a message from me:
Don't just sit on their heads; fart on their heads.
I, like so many other Americans, am so weary of Tea Party efforts to derail the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare." It's the law. They need to get over it and move on. The rest of the country has. Given that many of these representatives represent broke-ass states with people who desperately need health care (and could stand to back away from the fast food joints and processed foods in general) but fear anything with the word "Obama" in it, they ought to just move on. But shutting down the government and threatening the first U.S. government default ever? Now that deserves not just sitting on their heads, but farting on them, too.
The Republicans know they have backed themselves into a corner and are looking for a way out. They know that, the longer this goes on, the more dim their hopes become of recapturing the White House in 2016. They know all of this, but like a little brother wrestling his older, bigger brother, they don't know how to get out of this political headlock that will eventually lead to the political equivalent of you not just sitting on their heads, but farting on them as well.
When they capitulate, and they will, Mr. President, take that victory lap. Do whatever is the political equivalent of sitting and farting on their heads so they will think twice about pulling this stunt again.
Don't blink, Mr. President. But do fart on their heads, so to speak.
Sincerely,
Black Woman Blogging
When boys wrestle, especially brothers, the ultimate in victory is for the winning boy to not only sit on head of the defeated boy, but to fart on his head as well. In families, it's usually the older brother who ends up sitting and farting on the head of his younger brother as a deterrent to future challenges. Mr. President, you didn't grow up with brothers, but there's a lesson to be learned from the wrestling of boys.
But first, Mr. President, I have a message for you from my sister regarding this standoff with congressional Republicans: Don't blink.
In this standoff/government shutdown, there's far more at stake than just a budget or the debt ceiling. As you've so aptly put it, what is at stake is the ability to govern without being forced into false crises created by a small contingent of Republicans who are out of step with the majority of the nation. So my sister's advice to you, Mr. President, is to continue to stand toe-to-toe with them and don't even think about blinking. Don't flinch. Stand your ground. Which leads to a message from me:
Don't just sit on their heads; fart on their heads.
I, like so many other Americans, am so weary of Tea Party efforts to derail the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare." It's the law. They need to get over it and move on. The rest of the country has. Given that many of these representatives represent broke-ass states with people who desperately need health care (and could stand to back away from the fast food joints and processed foods in general) but fear anything with the word "Obama" in it, they ought to just move on. But shutting down the government and threatening the first U.S. government default ever? Now that deserves not just sitting on their heads, but farting on them, too.
The Republicans know they have backed themselves into a corner and are looking for a way out. They know that, the longer this goes on, the more dim their hopes become of recapturing the White House in 2016. They know all of this, but like a little brother wrestling his older, bigger brother, they don't know how to get out of this political headlock that will eventually lead to the political equivalent of you not just sitting on their heads, but farting on them as well.
When they capitulate, and they will, Mr. President, take that victory lap. Do whatever is the political equivalent of sitting and farting on their heads so they will think twice about pulling this stunt again.
Don't blink, Mr. President. But do fart on their heads, so to speak.
Sincerely,
Black Woman Blogging
President Obama's Comment About Attorney General Kamala Harris: I'm Not Offended, and Ain't I A Woman?
President Obama lauds California Attorney General Kamala Harris by saying she's brilliant, tough, dedicated and "the best looking attorney general in the country."
One of the local news channels here, CBS 13, showed a video of interviews with women -- and a guy or two -- asking them whether President Obama's remarks were offensive to women. The women gave mixed responses.
None of the women were African-American, which pisses me the hell off because, as an African-American woman, I've got a way different perspective on this and I'm tired of white women being the voice of all women. In the words of Sojourner Truth, ain't I a woman?
My perspective is different because I saw President Obama's remarks not as a gendered commentary, but a raced-and-gendered commentary, if you will, and an inside joke between friends. I don't recall President Obama ever making a comment about the looks of a non-African-American female, which is why I, as an African-American woman, respect him -- because his choices in women affirm us African-American women. I know this sounds anything but feminist, but hear me out.
I am one of the few African-American women who served on the Harvard Law Review with the President long before he became president. We weren't buds and he couldn't pick me out of a lineup, but I have to admit -- I expected that he, like many African-American men poised to be successful and powerful, wouldn't even choose an African-American woman as a mate, much less revel in the beauty of African-American women.
Many African-American men like President Obama are told that, precisely because they are successful and powerful, they don't have to "limit" themselves to African-American women. One African-American male student I met while attending Princeton told me that men like him could "trade up" and didn't have to date African-American women. In fact, he even deigned to tell me in so many words that I was lucky he was paying me any attention.
When I see so many powerful and successful African-American men date outside our race, I have to admit -- although I believe love knows no color, I wonder whether they ever considered dating an African-American woman or whether they bought into the message about "trading up." When you see Tiger Woods' parade of women past and present, it's pretty clear that he does not find African-American women attractive.
So when the Leader of the Freakin' Free World not only habitually gushes about his African-American wife's beauty -- a beauty that has been repeatedly derided in the mainstream press -- and goes on to compliment the beauty of another intelligent and powerful African-American woman, I'm not offended. I'm affirmed, strangely enough. So much of what appears in the media about African-American women is negative in so many ways -- like pictures on the internet comparing the First Lady to a chimpanzee -- that I'm happy that the one man who could pretty much choose any woman in the world revels in the intelligence and beauty of African-American women. No offense, but I don't want white women's experiences to be the barometer of whether I should be offended. They don't experience the world as I do. Never have, never will.
I'm not offended, and ain't I a woman?
The President was wrong, though. Eric Holder is the best looking attorney general in the country.
One of the local news channels here, CBS 13, showed a video of interviews with women -- and a guy or two -- asking them whether President Obama's remarks were offensive to women. The women gave mixed responses.
None of the women were African-American, which pisses me the hell off because, as an African-American woman, I've got a way different perspective on this and I'm tired of white women being the voice of all women. In the words of Sojourner Truth, ain't I a woman?
My perspective is different because I saw President Obama's remarks not as a gendered commentary, but a raced-and-gendered commentary, if you will, and an inside joke between friends. I don't recall President Obama ever making a comment about the looks of a non-African-American female, which is why I, as an African-American woman, respect him -- because his choices in women affirm us African-American women. I know this sounds anything but feminist, but hear me out.
I am one of the few African-American women who served on the Harvard Law Review with the President long before he became president. We weren't buds and he couldn't pick me out of a lineup, but I have to admit -- I expected that he, like many African-American men poised to be successful and powerful, wouldn't even choose an African-American woman as a mate, much less revel in the beauty of African-American women.
Many African-American men like President Obama are told that, precisely because they are successful and powerful, they don't have to "limit" themselves to African-American women. One African-American male student I met while attending Princeton told me that men like him could "trade up" and didn't have to date African-American women. In fact, he even deigned to tell me in so many words that I was lucky he was paying me any attention.
When I see so many powerful and successful African-American men date outside our race, I have to admit -- although I believe love knows no color, I wonder whether they ever considered dating an African-American woman or whether they bought into the message about "trading up." When you see Tiger Woods' parade of women past and present, it's pretty clear that he does not find African-American women attractive.
So when the Leader of the Freakin' Free World not only habitually gushes about his African-American wife's beauty -- a beauty that has been repeatedly derided in the mainstream press -- and goes on to compliment the beauty of another intelligent and powerful African-American woman, I'm not offended. I'm affirmed, strangely enough. So much of what appears in the media about African-American women is negative in so many ways -- like pictures on the internet comparing the First Lady to a chimpanzee -- that I'm happy that the one man who could pretty much choose any woman in the world revels in the intelligence and beauty of African-American women. No offense, but I don't want white women's experiences to be the barometer of whether I should be offended. They don't experience the world as I do. Never have, never will.
I'm not offended, and ain't I a woman?
The President was wrong, though. Eric Holder is the best looking attorney general in the country.
Make Black History: Sign The White House Petition to Pardon the Black WWII Sailors of Port Chicago
Two
hundred and fifty-eight African-American World War II sailors were court-martialed,
of whom fifty were convicted of mutiny, because they refused to continue
loading munitions after an explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine near what
is now the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California. They refused to return to work because they
had been relegated to the dangerous job of loading munitions because of their
race. It was the largest mass mutiny
trial in U.S. Naval history.
On July
17, 1944, at 10:18 pm, an explosion occurred at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine
involving 4,606 tons of munitions, killing 320 cargo handlers, crewmen, and
sailors. According to the Navy’s own
historical website (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-1.htm ), African-American Navy
personnel units were assigned to the dangerous work of loading munitions at
Port Chicago under the supervision of white officers. In his book
“The Port Chicago Mutiny: The
Story of the Largest Mass Mutiny Trial in U.S. Naval History,” author and U.C.
Berkeley professor Dr. Robert Allen (http://africam.berkeley.edu/faculty/allen.html) quoted one of the African-American
sailors convicted of mutiny as saying that the officers "encouraged" competition
by the black sailors in loading munitions tonnage and threatened punishment or loss of privileges.
On
August 9, 1944, 258 African-American Port Chicago sailors refused to return to
the work of loading munitions. When
given the chance to reconsider their decision, 208 of the 258 were willing to
return to work. Instead, the 208 were
subjected to summary courts-martial and given bad conduct discharges, and the
remaining 50 were charged with mutiny. After
32 days of hearing, 80 minutes of deliberation, and despite the presence of
Thurgood Marshall and his call for a formal investigation by the government
into the circumstances of the work stoppage, all 50 men were convicted of
mutiny. Marshall filed and argued an
appeal on their behalf with the Navy’s Judge Advocate General’s Office in
Washington, but the convictions were upheld.
Forty-seven of the fifty received clemency, were released from prison,
and eventually left the Navy “under honorable conditions,” but their mutiny
convictions stood. Rep. George Miller
(D-California), who represents the district where Port Chicago stood, sought to
have the convictions of the 50 reversed, with no success. The National Bar Association passed a
resolution in 1998 calling for pardons for the 50 convicted of mutiny, with no
success. President Clinton pardoned Freddie
Meeks, one of the 50 convicted of mutiny.
Now is
the time for President Obama to grant redress of this racial wrong and pardon the
remaining 257 of the African-American World War II sailors of Port Chicago who
were court-martialed and/or convicted of mutiny, many of whom have passed away
with this stain on their record of service to our country. No American serviceman or servicewoman should
be or should have ever been singled out for the most dangerous jobs in the
military based solely on race.
Short URL: http://wh.gov/vQzx
Why Mitt Romney and the GOP Lost: Ask Maya Angelou
"When people show you who they are, believe them."
~ Dr. Maya Angelou
There's been a lot of punditry going on about Mitt Romney and the GOP's loss of the presidential election. It just isn't all that deep. Just ask Dr. Maya Angelou.
Dr. Angelou has been quoted a bazillion times for saying, "When people show you who they are, believe them." Simply put, Mitt Romney and the GOP showed the American electorate who they are. And we believed them.
Mitt Romney showed us he's the kind of man who would strap his family's dog on the roof of the family minivan in a pet carrier. And we believed him, hugging our pets closer to us all the while.
Paul Ryan showed us he was the kind of person who would decry entitlements for everyone else despite the fact that he collected Social Security as a minor after his father died. And we believed him.
The GOP showed us they have hated President Obama since day one of his presidency, when they vowed to make him a "one term president." They showed us over and over again during the primaries, when more than a few of their candidates made making President Obama a one term president their rallying cry, with little to no substance in their campaigns. And we believed them.
Mitt Romney showed us he was willing to tack hard to the right on immigration and abortion during the primaries and then attempt to Etch-a-Sketch his way to the center during the presidential campaign, backing off of his hard right positions. And we believed him.
Mitt Romney showed us, albeit inadvertently, that he had contempt for 47% of the country. And we believed him.
Mitt Romney showed us he was not only willing to outright lie about his position on the auto industry bailout, but to lie and say that the auto industry planned to ship jobs to China, so much so that the CEO of Chrysler had to blast him publicly. And we believed him.
The GOP showed us that they were willing to lie about voter fraud to make the case for making it more difficult for minority communities to vote, even down to the outrageous curtailment of early voting in minority communities and the enactment of voter ID laws. And we believed them, so much so that we flipped the script and voted absentee, since most states don't require an ID for absentee ballots because the GOP STILL thinks that only old, white Republicans vote absentee.
The GOP showed us they were willing to lie about President Obama's record, creating this false narrative of him being a failed president. And we believed them - not the false narrative, but that they were willing to lie to create such a false narrative.
Mitt Romney showed us that he was willing to make a tragedy political, to wit, the raid on the U.S. Embassy in Libya. In a presidential debate, no less. And we believed him.
Mitt Romney showed us that he was willing to back away from his most significant accomplishment in elected office -- health care reform, or "Romneycare," because it was politically expedient. And we believed him.
And even after defeat, Mitt Romney ungraciously stated that President Obama won because of the "gifts" he bestowed on minorities and women.
No, Mitt, you lost because you showed us who you are. Despite the mainstream media's pathetic failure to hold you to account for your flip-flopping, despite the Super PAC money that the titans of industry poured into your campaign, despite having Karl Rove on your team, the voters were not distracted. You showed us who you are. We paid attention. And we believed you.
That's why you and the GOP lost.
Just ask Maya Angelou.
~ Dr. Maya Angelou
There's been a lot of punditry going on about Mitt Romney and the GOP's loss of the presidential election. It just isn't all that deep. Just ask Dr. Maya Angelou.
Dr. Angelou has been quoted a bazillion times for saying, "When people show you who they are, believe them." Simply put, Mitt Romney and the GOP showed the American electorate who they are. And we believed them.
Mitt Romney showed us he's the kind of man who would strap his family's dog on the roof of the family minivan in a pet carrier. And we believed him, hugging our pets closer to us all the while.
Paul Ryan showed us he was the kind of person who would decry entitlements for everyone else despite the fact that he collected Social Security as a minor after his father died. And we believed him.
The GOP showed us they have hated President Obama since day one of his presidency, when they vowed to make him a "one term president." They showed us over and over again during the primaries, when more than a few of their candidates made making President Obama a one term president their rallying cry, with little to no substance in their campaigns. And we believed them.
Mitt Romney showed us he was willing to tack hard to the right on immigration and abortion during the primaries and then attempt to Etch-a-Sketch his way to the center during the presidential campaign, backing off of his hard right positions. And we believed him.
Mitt Romney showed us, albeit inadvertently, that he had contempt for 47% of the country. And we believed him.
Mitt Romney showed us he was not only willing to outright lie about his position on the auto industry bailout, but to lie and say that the auto industry planned to ship jobs to China, so much so that the CEO of Chrysler had to blast him publicly. And we believed him.
The GOP showed us that they were willing to lie about voter fraud to make the case for making it more difficult for minority communities to vote, even down to the outrageous curtailment of early voting in minority communities and the enactment of voter ID laws. And we believed them, so much so that we flipped the script and voted absentee, since most states don't require an ID for absentee ballots because the GOP STILL thinks that only old, white Republicans vote absentee.
The GOP showed us they were willing to lie about President Obama's record, creating this false narrative of him being a failed president. And we believed them - not the false narrative, but that they were willing to lie to create such a false narrative.
Mitt Romney showed us that he was willing to make a tragedy political, to wit, the raid on the U.S. Embassy in Libya. In a presidential debate, no less. And we believed him.
Mitt Romney showed us that he was willing to back away from his most significant accomplishment in elected office -- health care reform, or "Romneycare," because it was politically expedient. And we believed him.
And even after defeat, Mitt Romney ungraciously stated that President Obama won because of the "gifts" he bestowed on minorities and women.
No, Mitt, you lost because you showed us who you are. Despite the mainstream media's pathetic failure to hold you to account for your flip-flopping, despite the Super PAC money that the titans of industry poured into your campaign, despite having Karl Rove on your team, the voters were not distracted. You showed us who you are. We paid attention. And we believed you.
That's why you and the GOP lost.
Just ask Maya Angelou.
This Time, I'm Voting for Obama Because He's Black
This time, I'm voting for President Obama because he's black. Before you accuse me of "playing the race card," a phrase I find offensive because it is intended to thwart any meaningful and real discussion of race and racism in America, hear me out.
Last time, I voted for President Obama because I believed he was the candidate with the better intellect and temperament to deal with the challenges American would face.
I was not disappointed. I knew that there was no way he was going to be able to reverse the tsunami that would become the Great Recession in only four years. But you could not have told me that the GOP would have, from day one, conspired to make President Obama a "one-term president" before he had even done anything to deserve such animus. To my knowledge, the GOP didn't even conspire to make Roosevelt a "one-term president," and his agenda was decidedly more radical than President Obama's.
You cannot tell me in good conscience that we'd even be saying that a white president who accomplished all of the following and more in four freakin' years was a "failed president":
So I've already voted for Barack Obama because he's black. Since he's not been graded fairly because of his race, I've decided to balance the unspoken racial bias with my racially biased vote. As a fellow African-American Ivy League-educated professional, I totally get it. Been there, got the "unspoken racial bias" t-shirt many times over. Hell, it's not like a whole lot of evangelical white folks aren't holding their noses about Romney's religion and voting for him just because he's white.
As Iyanla Vanzant says, "Call a thing a thing." If Barack Obama were white, we wouldn't even be talking about a close race. Nor would he have been treated with more disrespect than any sitting president I can recall in my 49 years in these united states.
Yep, I said it. And I'm not playing the "race card." I'm playing the "reality card."
Get over it.
Last time, I voted for President Obama because I believed he was the candidate with the better intellect and temperament to deal with the challenges American would face.
I was not disappointed. I knew that there was no way he was going to be able to reverse the tsunami that would become the Great Recession in only four years. But you could not have told me that the GOP would have, from day one, conspired to make President Obama a "one-term president" before he had even done anything to deserve such animus. To my knowledge, the GOP didn't even conspire to make Roosevelt a "one-term president," and his agenda was decidedly more radical than President Obama's.
You cannot tell me in good conscience that we'd even be saying that a white president who accomplished all of the following and more in four freakin' years was a "failed president":
- The Lily Ledbetter Act
- The Consumer Protection Agency
- Appointing two women to the Supreme Court
- Ending the war in Iraq
- Earning a Nobel Peace Prize
- Health care reform
- Taking out Osama bin Laden and most of the top leadership in Al Qaeda
- Saving the U.S. auto industry
- Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
- Deferring deportation of Dreamers
- Keeping the entire U.S. economy from going off a cliff
So I've already voted for Barack Obama because he's black. Since he's not been graded fairly because of his race, I've decided to balance the unspoken racial bias with my racially biased vote. As a fellow African-American Ivy League-educated professional, I totally get it. Been there, got the "unspoken racial bias" t-shirt many times over. Hell, it's not like a whole lot of evangelical white folks aren't holding their noses about Romney's religion and voting for him just because he's white.
As Iyanla Vanzant says, "Call a thing a thing." If Barack Obama were white, we wouldn't even be talking about a close race. Nor would he have been treated with more disrespect than any sitting president I can recall in my 49 years in these united states.
Yep, I said it. And I'm not playing the "race card." I'm playing the "reality card."
Get over it.
The GOP Pussy Riot: Shit Just Got Real
Soooo . . . . the GOP, from ol' Mittens down to Karl Rove, are running for the hills and taking their money with them, trying to distance themselves from the ignorance that is Missouri GOP senate candidate Todd Akin. Akin got on a local TV show and revealed his complete and utter ignorance about female physiology, telling us that. with a "legitimate rape," the female body can somehow shut down conception. After getting woodshedded by his party superiors, he walked back his statement, apologizing for using the term "legitimate rape." The entire GOP is telling Akin to drop out no later than today so they can put another candidate in his place.
WTF?
What we have going on here is a GOP pussy riot. It's not that they're ashamed of Akin's uninformed and antiquated views. Heck, Paul Ryan and many GOPers have sponsored bills with Akin to eliminate abortion rights except for "legitimate rape," whatever that is. And there are many ignorant GOP members who share Akin's ignorant view on conception, as if an ovum can outrun sperm that comes from "legitimate rape." Oh no, it's just that President Obama has a commanding lead among women and the GOP can't afford to fall further behind. So they're using their former ally Akin as a whipping boy. If they can literally get him off the stage, they can continue to distract us from what they would do with women's reproductive rights if they had all the power to do so and hide their ignorant views on rape.
I, for one, want Akin to stay in the race. Let's go ahead and have that debate about abortion rights and what the GOP would really do if they were in control. Mind you, I'm not all that hyped about abortion. I don't support it as a choice in my life, although I'm way past the age of having to make that decision. I'm for all the contraception a woman can get so she never has to make the choice to abort a child. But I have a major problem with men deciding this issue for women. Let's have a pussy riot for real.
Let's talk about rape and the fact that there is no such thing as "legitimate" rape. "No" means "no," and rape is rape.
Let's talk about the inconsistency of opposing contraception that would make abortion not even be an option and opposing abortion, too. About making women have children against their will, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Let's talk about basic conception -- that an ovum can't tell whether sperm comes from rape.
In fact, let's just go all out and talk about all the ways the GOP has put the rights of women in their cross hairs.
The GOP started this pussy riot; let's finish it. Shit just got real.
WTF?
What we have going on here is a GOP pussy riot. It's not that they're ashamed of Akin's uninformed and antiquated views. Heck, Paul Ryan and many GOPers have sponsored bills with Akin to eliminate abortion rights except for "legitimate rape," whatever that is. And there are many ignorant GOP members who share Akin's ignorant view on conception, as if an ovum can outrun sperm that comes from "legitimate rape." Oh no, it's just that President Obama has a commanding lead among women and the GOP can't afford to fall further behind. So they're using their former ally Akin as a whipping boy. If they can literally get him off the stage, they can continue to distract us from what they would do with women's reproductive rights if they had all the power to do so and hide their ignorant views on rape.
I, for one, want Akin to stay in the race. Let's go ahead and have that debate about abortion rights and what the GOP would really do if they were in control. Mind you, I'm not all that hyped about abortion. I don't support it as a choice in my life, although I'm way past the age of having to make that decision. I'm for all the contraception a woman can get so she never has to make the choice to abort a child. But I have a major problem with men deciding this issue for women. Let's have a pussy riot for real.
Let's talk about rape and the fact that there is no such thing as "legitimate" rape. "No" means "no," and rape is rape.
Let's talk about the inconsistency of opposing contraception that would make abortion not even be an option and opposing abortion, too. About making women have children against their will, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Let's talk about basic conception -- that an ovum can't tell whether sperm comes from rape.
In fact, let's just go all out and talk about all the ways the GOP has put the rights of women in their cross hairs.
The GOP started this pussy riot; let's finish it. Shit just got real.
GOP "Gaslighting" the American Electorate
To hear ol' Mittens Romney and Paul Ryan tell it, President Obama has plunged the American economy over the cliff, and only they -- the GOP -- are in a position to rescue America. Even Mrs. Romney has bought into and perpetuated the narrative of Mittens as "Superman" saving America.
WTF?
This is what could best be described as the GOP "gaslighting" the American public.
The term "gaslighting" comes from the movie "Gas Light," in which a husband tries to make his wife think she is crazy so that others will, too. According to Wikipedia:
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory and perception. It may simply be the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.
So when I hear Paul Ryan say that President Obama made our economy worse, I know for damn sure I'm being gaslighted. What President Obama did, consistent with what President George Bush did before him, was to keep the American economy from going off the cliff by keeping the banks AND the Detroit auto industry in business. And I really feel like I'm being gaslighted when the press reports that Paul Ryan voted for TARP.
Like my doctor says, just as no one ever gives a doctor credit for the heart attack her patient didn't have, no one ever gives a politician credit for the crisis he averted.
What's even more "gaslighty" about this is that they want to revert to the policies that almost pushed the country off the economic cliff and roll back the limited protections put in place by President Obama under their rubric that less regulation is good for all of America, not just their corporate cronies. NOT.
Let's face it -- if a white man of EITHER political party had kept the banks afloat, kept Detroit in business, passed a stimulus package that not only augmented the budgets of several states in recessionary times but also kept many teachers and public safety officers on the job, ended a war, created a consumer protection agency focused on reigning in financial institutions' wretched excess, passed health care reform that allowed people to get coverage DESPITE pre-existing conditions and put their 23 year-old kids back on their health care insurance, ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," signed the Lily Ledbetter law, AND freakin' killed Osama bin Laden, we wouldn't even be talking about a re-election. We'd be talking about a coronation.
What the GOP won't cop to is that they've been trying to derail this president from day one.
Well I, for one, refuse to be gaslighted. And I think the American public will refuse to be, too, in November.
WTF?
This is what could best be described as the GOP "gaslighting" the American public.
The term "gaslighting" comes from the movie "Gas Light," in which a husband tries to make his wife think she is crazy so that others will, too. According to Wikipedia:
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory and perception. It may simply be the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.
So when I hear Paul Ryan say that President Obama made our economy worse, I know for damn sure I'm being gaslighted. What President Obama did, consistent with what President George Bush did before him, was to keep the American economy from going off the cliff by keeping the banks AND the Detroit auto industry in business. And I really feel like I'm being gaslighted when the press reports that Paul Ryan voted for TARP.
Like my doctor says, just as no one ever gives a doctor credit for the heart attack her patient didn't have, no one ever gives a politician credit for the crisis he averted.
What's even more "gaslighty" about this is that they want to revert to the policies that almost pushed the country off the economic cliff and roll back the limited protections put in place by President Obama under their rubric that less regulation is good for all of America, not just their corporate cronies. NOT.
Let's face it -- if a white man of EITHER political party had kept the banks afloat, kept Detroit in business, passed a stimulus package that not only augmented the budgets of several states in recessionary times but also kept many teachers and public safety officers on the job, ended a war, created a consumer protection agency focused on reigning in financial institutions' wretched excess, passed health care reform that allowed people to get coverage DESPITE pre-existing conditions and put their 23 year-old kids back on their health care insurance, ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," signed the Lily Ledbetter law, AND freakin' killed Osama bin Laden, we wouldn't even be talking about a re-election. We'd be talking about a coronation.
What the GOP won't cop to is that they've been trying to derail this president from day one.
Well I, for one, refuse to be gaslighted. And I think the American public will refuse to be, too, in November.
If I'm A Slut, Rush Limbaugh's a Eunuch
Let me make sure I understand this correctly: Rush Limbaugh equates advocating that employers provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives to asking to be paid to have sex and, if you're a woman doing the advocating, being a prostitute and a slut.
I, too, support President Obama's policy requiring employers that provide health insurance coverage to include birth control within their coverage. I believe that when you enter the stream of commerce by having employees, you should be held to the same standards as other employers. I guess that makes me a slut.
Well, if I'm a slut, Rush Limbaugh's a eunuch. I'm talking not having the balls of a field mouse.
It was easy -- no, cowardly -- for Limbaugh to simply brand a young woman with enough courage to voice her support of that policy before a Congressional committee as a prostitute and a slut. His message was simplistic and offensive -- because of who you are, what you advocate has no merit. A woman advocating insurance coverage of birth control is a slut. What would he call a man advocating the same thing? What would he call a man advocating insurance coverage for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs? Well, a man who would brand a woman advocating insurance coverage for birth control coverage a slut, from the insulation of his radio broadcasting booth no less, is a eunuch. No courage, no balls whatsoever. A eunuch.
Oh, and Rush, although you want this young woman, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, to post a tape of herself having sex if she is provided such coverage, are you going to ask men who receive insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs to post their sex videos, too? Somehow, I don't think so. Women who want to avoid pregnancy by using insurance-covered contraception are somehow sluts, but men who "pump it up" using erectile dysfunction drugs are what -- studs?
I don't think so.
Sounds like Rush has been hitting the oxycontin again. Maybe he needs to go to rehab. Again.
I, too, support President Obama's policy requiring employers that provide health insurance coverage to include birth control within their coverage. I believe that when you enter the stream of commerce by having employees, you should be held to the same standards as other employers. I guess that makes me a slut.
Well, if I'm a slut, Rush Limbaugh's a eunuch. I'm talking not having the balls of a field mouse.
It was easy -- no, cowardly -- for Limbaugh to simply brand a young woman with enough courage to voice her support of that policy before a Congressional committee as a prostitute and a slut. His message was simplistic and offensive -- because of who you are, what you advocate has no merit. A woman advocating insurance coverage of birth control is a slut. What would he call a man advocating the same thing? What would he call a man advocating insurance coverage for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs? Well, a man who would brand a woman advocating insurance coverage for birth control coverage a slut, from the insulation of his radio broadcasting booth no less, is a eunuch. No courage, no balls whatsoever. A eunuch.
Oh, and Rush, although you want this young woman, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, to post a tape of herself having sex if she is provided such coverage, are you going to ask men who receive insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs to post their sex videos, too? Somehow, I don't think so. Women who want to avoid pregnancy by using insurance-covered contraception are somehow sluts, but men who "pump it up" using erectile dysfunction drugs are what -- studs?
I don't think so.
Sounds like Rush has been hitting the oxycontin again. Maybe he needs to go to rehab. Again.
Gov. Jan Brewer: Bitch, Is You Crazy?
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer greets President Barack Obama on the tarmac in Arizona and gives him a personal note to invite President (Yes, PRESIDENT) Barack Obama to a private meeting. He reminds her that her account of their last meeting at the Oval Office wasn't particularly kind or accurate. She responds by pointing her finger in the face of the LEADER OF THE FREAKIN' FREE WORLD and getting angry. Because he won't meet with her? Because of her own words?
Is it me, or is this white privilege run amok? The idea that you can point your finger in the face of the President of the United States, who just happens to be black, because he won't do what you want and has the temerity to challenge you based on your own words? Because he's not SUBSERVIENT?
And she actually had the nerve to say she felt "threatened" by the President.
Pardon my language, but Gov. Brewer, as they say in the 'hood, "Bitch, is you crazy?"
Let's get one thing straight. President Barack Obama IS the President of the United States, much to the chagrin of Republicans, Tea Partyiers and the like. And until he no longer holds the office, you still respect him as the holder of that office.
Another thing: Gov. Brewer, if anyone should have felt threatened, it was the President. Given your erratic behavior, a lesser person occupying the office of President would have had the Secret Service take you down on the tarmac once you raised your finger to his face. And you know damn well you wouldn't have done that in the presence of the First Lady, who would not have been bound by the "You never hit a woman" credo that properly raised men are raised by, men like President Obama.
I, for one, am getting mighty tired of crazy Republicans, most of whom happen to be white, disrespecting my President. I can't help but think this is a race thing, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.
But I still think that bitch is crazy, pardon my language.
Is it me, or is this white privilege run amok? The idea that you can point your finger in the face of the President of the United States, who just happens to be black, because he won't do what you want and has the temerity to challenge you based on your own words? Because he's not SUBSERVIENT?
And she actually had the nerve to say she felt "threatened" by the President.
Pardon my language, but Gov. Brewer, as they say in the 'hood, "Bitch, is you crazy?"
Let's get one thing straight. President Barack Obama IS the President of the United States, much to the chagrin of Republicans, Tea Partyiers and the like. And until he no longer holds the office, you still respect him as the holder of that office.
Another thing: Gov. Brewer, if anyone should have felt threatened, it was the President. Given your erratic behavior, a lesser person occupying the office of President would have had the Secret Service take you down on the tarmac once you raised your finger to his face. And you know damn well you wouldn't have done that in the presence of the First Lady, who would not have been bound by the "You never hit a woman" credo that properly raised men are raised by, men like President Obama.
I, for one, am getting mighty tired of crazy Republicans, most of whom happen to be white, disrespecting my President. I can't help but think this is a race thing, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.
But I still think that bitch is crazy, pardon my language.
Grand Old Party? More Like The Donner Party
So Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina Republican primary, despite allegations by his second wife that he requested an open marriage and despite him unloading on CNN's John King for asking about said alleged request. Independent expenditure PACs have been firing at Romney and Gingrich in ways that do violence to President Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment -- Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.
I'm not a Republican, but is it me or is the Republican party looking more like the Donner Party? It seems each candidate or their surrogates are willing to do or say anything to stay in the game, even at the expense of the party's ability to put someone in office come November.
What's more telling is that none of the candidates is speaking of their vision for the country going forward. Their campaign slogan? "Beat Obama," as if this were the Army/Navy game, or Big Game between Stanford and Cal for that matter.
Republicans, let me give you a hint: Running on beating Obama might get you through the Republican primaries to the nomination, but it won't necessarily get you to the White House. And feasting on each other on the way there certainly won't help.
From my point of view, given how the GOP has disrespected this President and the First Lady in ways I've never seen in all my born days as an American, any candidate running on "Beat Obama" without more strikes me as racist because the GOP has done little, if anything, to disavow the racist attacks from its own party operatives on President and Mrs. Obama. Given that the economy is starting to pick up, Republicans are going to need more than just "Beat Obama" to win the independent voters they're going to need to get to the White House. More like "Beat Obama because (fill in the blank)." But "Beat Obama"? That's not enough.
Plus, the candidate who had the best chance of "beating Obama" is already out of the race -- John Huntsman. Huntsman was articulate, independent-minded, and without the 1% baggage of Mitt "I Like To Fire People" Romney and the failed ethics of Newt "Contract ON America" Gingrich, yet he had the misfortune of not being conservative enough to make it out of the primaries. Are Republicans not old enough to remember that Newt's speakership was a failed one? That he had ethics charges handed down against him? That as he was chastising Bill Clinton for lying about having an affair, he was engaged in one himself? Quite frankly, the personal stuff in Newt's life might not matter had he had a stellar political record as speaker, but he didn't. In my opinion, the only Republican candidate who could have possibly beaten President Obama hands down is sitting in the governor's mansion in New Jersey. Heck, even I would have given Governor Christie a look-see, and I'm a yellow dog Democrat. And yes, the Southern evangelicals need to get over the elephant in the GOP room (no pun intended) -- Mitt Romney's faith. No one will say they won't vote for him because he's Mormon no more than they would say they won't vote for President Obama because he's black. But that doesn't mean they're not thinking it, and both thoughts are bigoted ones. I might disagree with Romney on the issues, but I respect his faith, period.
So, as a Democrat who will be supporting the President this fall, I can't help but say I'm enjoying the Donner, er, Grand Old Party doing the work for the Democrats this fall. Munch on, Donner Party. Munch on.
I'm not a Republican, but is it me or is the Republican party looking more like the Donner Party? It seems each candidate or their surrogates are willing to do or say anything to stay in the game, even at the expense of the party's ability to put someone in office come November.
What's more telling is that none of the candidates is speaking of their vision for the country going forward. Their campaign slogan? "Beat Obama," as if this were the Army/Navy game, or Big Game between Stanford and Cal for that matter.
Republicans, let me give you a hint: Running on beating Obama might get you through the Republican primaries to the nomination, but it won't necessarily get you to the White House. And feasting on each other on the way there certainly won't help.
From my point of view, given how the GOP has disrespected this President and the First Lady in ways I've never seen in all my born days as an American, any candidate running on "Beat Obama" without more strikes me as racist because the GOP has done little, if anything, to disavow the racist attacks from its own party operatives on President and Mrs. Obama. Given that the economy is starting to pick up, Republicans are going to need more than just "Beat Obama" to win the independent voters they're going to need to get to the White House. More like "Beat Obama because (fill in the blank)." But "Beat Obama"? That's not enough.
Plus, the candidate who had the best chance of "beating Obama" is already out of the race -- John Huntsman. Huntsman was articulate, independent-minded, and without the 1% baggage of Mitt "I Like To Fire People" Romney and the failed ethics of Newt "Contract ON America" Gingrich, yet he had the misfortune of not being conservative enough to make it out of the primaries. Are Republicans not old enough to remember that Newt's speakership was a failed one? That he had ethics charges handed down against him? That as he was chastising Bill Clinton for lying about having an affair, he was engaged in one himself? Quite frankly, the personal stuff in Newt's life might not matter had he had a stellar political record as speaker, but he didn't. In my opinion, the only Republican candidate who could have possibly beaten President Obama hands down is sitting in the governor's mansion in New Jersey. Heck, even I would have given Governor Christie a look-see, and I'm a yellow dog Democrat. And yes, the Southern evangelicals need to get over the elephant in the GOP room (no pun intended) -- Mitt Romney's faith. No one will say they won't vote for him because he's Mormon no more than they would say they won't vote for President Obama because he's black. But that doesn't mean they're not thinking it, and both thoughts are bigoted ones. I might disagree with Romney on the issues, but I respect his faith, period.
So, as a Democrat who will be supporting the President this fall, I can't help but say I'm enjoying the Donner, er, Grand Old Party doing the work for the Democrats this fall. Munch on, Donner Party. Munch on.
Mr. President, I Don't Appreciate Your Tone
Rep. Maxine Waters wasn't the only person who found the president's parting language in his address to the Congressional Black Caucus "curious." When I heard his summation, I looked at my husband with a "Oh, no he didn't" look on my face.
WTF?
For those of you who missed it, I'm going to include a link to the text of the president's speech at the end of the post. The speech in its entirety was a very positive speech. Suffice it to say, the language that caught my attention was this:
I expect all of you to march with me. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We've got work to do, CBC.
With all due respect, Mr. President, you're the one with the work to do.
The end of your speech implies that: 1) CBC members and black folks have been complaining, grumbling and crying; and 2) We're sitting around in our "bedroom slippers" instead of working on the challenges that face us. My family and I have faced the same recession-related challenges as the rest of America and black folks in particular -- unemployment, underemployment, wage cuts, foreclosures, lack of health insurance, you name it. But we haven't all been sitting around complaining, grumbling, and crying. We've picked ourselves up, and we've picked up those in our family who wanted to complain, grumble and cry and reminded them of who we are and what we're made of.
If any group of Americans would have the right to complain, grumble and cry, it would be African Americans. As you are well aware, we've suffered the highest unemployment rates and the greatest loss of personal wealth due to this recession. We've stood by and watched while you let Wall Street get away with its shenanigans. And all along, despite your detractors, we've defended you, telling naysayers that it took more than four years to get into this mess and it would take any president, black, white or otherwise, more than four years to get us out of it.
More curious, however, is your choice of this language for this particular audience. My husband, Black Man Not Blogging, said after hearing the end of your speech, "Yeah, it's okay to talk to us like that as long as he's telling the white folks the same thing."
Mr. President, are you telling white folks the same thing? Somehow I doubt it.
Finally, I would think that a Black president would be more sensitive to black stereotypes than to invoke language that suggests indolence and inertia on the part of Black people, especially Black leaders. I can't help but think that if you had been raised by an African American parent -- not African, but African American -- you would have chosen your words more wisely or not have allowed someone else to choose those words for you.
Mr. President, although your speech in its entirety was positive, I don't appreciate the tone of the last lines of your speech.
Here's the link to text of the speech.
WTF?
For those of you who missed it, I'm going to include a link to the text of the president's speech at the end of the post. The speech in its entirety was a very positive speech. Suffice it to say, the language that caught my attention was this:
I expect all of you to march with me. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We've got work to do, CBC.
With all due respect, Mr. President, you're the one with the work to do.
The end of your speech implies that: 1) CBC members and black folks have been complaining, grumbling and crying; and 2) We're sitting around in our "bedroom slippers" instead of working on the challenges that face us. My family and I have faced the same recession-related challenges as the rest of America and black folks in particular -- unemployment, underemployment, wage cuts, foreclosures, lack of health insurance, you name it. But we haven't all been sitting around complaining, grumbling, and crying. We've picked ourselves up, and we've picked up those in our family who wanted to complain, grumble and cry and reminded them of who we are and what we're made of.
If any group of Americans would have the right to complain, grumble and cry, it would be African Americans. As you are well aware, we've suffered the highest unemployment rates and the greatest loss of personal wealth due to this recession. We've stood by and watched while you let Wall Street get away with its shenanigans. And all along, despite your detractors, we've defended you, telling naysayers that it took more than four years to get into this mess and it would take any president, black, white or otherwise, more than four years to get us out of it.
More curious, however, is your choice of this language for this particular audience. My husband, Black Man Not Blogging, said after hearing the end of your speech, "Yeah, it's okay to talk to us like that as long as he's telling the white folks the same thing."
Mr. President, are you telling white folks the same thing? Somehow I doubt it.
Finally, I would think that a Black president would be more sensitive to black stereotypes than to invoke language that suggests indolence and inertia on the part of Black people, especially Black leaders. I can't help but think that if you had been raised by an African American parent -- not African, but African American -- you would have chosen your words more wisely or not have allowed someone else to choose those words for you.
Mr. President, although your speech in its entirety was positive, I don't appreciate the tone of the last lines of your speech.
Here's the link to text of the speech.
Stop Turding On President Obama's Vacation
Turd [vt]: when used with the preposition "on," means "to harshly and unfairly criticize someone's actions or work." Example: My boss turded on the report I wrote.
My ten year-old great-nephew taught me that "turd" is not only a noun, but a verb. It is a verb that applies to the press and the public's criticism of President Obama's vacation in Martha's Vineyard.
It seems that people, most of whom I would hazard to guess aren't Black, seem to have a problem with President Obama taking a vacation in Martha's Vineyard, either because of the timing or the location. To them I say, "Stop turding on President Obama's vacation."
For starters, before President Obama was a president, he was a father. As any parent can tell you, family vacations are often driven by children's school schedules, not their parents' work schedules. Most parents try to squeeze in a family vacation before their children return to school, and that's their business, even if they happen to be the Leader of the Freakin' Free World. The recession isn't going to get any better if President Obama doesn't take his family vacation right now for two weeks or so.
Second, Black people have been vacationing and -- gasp! -- living on ostensibly wealthy Martha's Vineyard since time immemorial. If the public has a problem wrapping its mind around this concept, I would commend to their reading Jill Nelson's "Finding Martha's Vineyard: African Americans at Home on An Island." Heck, among Black folks on Martha's Vineyard, President Obama is, well, nouveau riche. That said, his vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, an option not available to the vast majority of Americans, is no different than President George H.W. Bush vacationing at his family's estate at Kennebunkport (also during a recession), President George W. Bush vacationing at his ranch at Crawford, or President Kennedy vacationing at his family's estate in Hyannisport. All these locales are pretty much unavailable to the vast majority of Americans because they can't afford to rent or buy in these areas. Think about it -- when's the last time we had a broke-ass President, white or otherwise? I think the real issue is that out-of-work whites and Right Wingers desperate to retake the White House don't want to see a wealthy Black president vacationing in a wealthy area, even if he is nouveau riche.
Finally, press reports state that President Obama's immediate predecessor had taken far more days of vacation at this time in his first term than has President Obama by a factor of 3 to 1. In fact, of Presidents Bush (41 and 43), Reagan, Clinton and Obama, the only president who had taken fewer days of vacation at this point in his first term was President Clinton, another Democrat. Seems like Republican presidents like them some vacation, moreso than President Obama and President Clinton, both Democrats, I might add. I guess this means Democrat presidents just work harder, right?
I raise all this to say that the rules shouldn't change for President Obama, whether we're talking about vacations, debt ceilings, or whatever. But somehow, they always do.
America, stop turding on President Obama's vacation. In fact, just stop turding on President Obama, period.
My ten year-old great-nephew taught me that "turd" is not only a noun, but a verb. It is a verb that applies to the press and the public's criticism of President Obama's vacation in Martha's Vineyard.
It seems that people, most of whom I would hazard to guess aren't Black, seem to have a problem with President Obama taking a vacation in Martha's Vineyard, either because of the timing or the location. To them I say, "Stop turding on President Obama's vacation."
For starters, before President Obama was a president, he was a father. As any parent can tell you, family vacations are often driven by children's school schedules, not their parents' work schedules. Most parents try to squeeze in a family vacation before their children return to school, and that's their business, even if they happen to be the Leader of the Freakin' Free World. The recession isn't going to get any better if President Obama doesn't take his family vacation right now for two weeks or so.
Second, Black people have been vacationing and -- gasp! -- living on ostensibly wealthy Martha's Vineyard since time immemorial. If the public has a problem wrapping its mind around this concept, I would commend to their reading Jill Nelson's "Finding Martha's Vineyard: African Americans at Home on An Island." Heck, among Black folks on Martha's Vineyard, President Obama is, well, nouveau riche. That said, his vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, an option not available to the vast majority of Americans, is no different than President George H.W. Bush vacationing at his family's estate at Kennebunkport (also during a recession), President George W. Bush vacationing at his ranch at Crawford, or President Kennedy vacationing at his family's estate in Hyannisport. All these locales are pretty much unavailable to the vast majority of Americans because they can't afford to rent or buy in these areas. Think about it -- when's the last time we had a broke-ass President, white or otherwise? I think the real issue is that out-of-work whites and Right Wingers desperate to retake the White House don't want to see a wealthy Black president vacationing in a wealthy area, even if he is nouveau riche.
Finally, press reports state that President Obama's immediate predecessor had taken far more days of vacation at this time in his first term than has President Obama by a factor of 3 to 1. In fact, of Presidents Bush (41 and 43), Reagan, Clinton and Obama, the only president who had taken fewer days of vacation at this point in his first term was President Clinton, another Democrat. Seems like Republican presidents like them some vacation, moreso than President Obama and President Clinton, both Democrats, I might add. I guess this means Democrat presidents just work harder, right?
I raise all this to say that the rules shouldn't change for President Obama, whether we're talking about vacations, debt ceilings, or whatever. But somehow, they always do.
America, stop turding on President Obama's vacation. In fact, just stop turding on President Obama, period.
Debt Ceiling Mistakes All Around: I Call B.S.
So . . . Standard & Poors, which didn't downgrade all those mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the housing bubble meltdown, found the stones to downgrade, of all things, U.S. treasuries?
I call B.S.
But first, there are a lot of mistakes to go around, starting with my own. My mistake was allowing the stop-loss orders on my 401(k) stock holdings to expire while all this debt ceiling madness was going on. I was preoccupied with other things going on in my life and just didn't pay attention. The unrealized gains on my 401(k) holdings took a major haircut from 29% to 8%. Nothing to do but ride it out. Had I had my stop-loss orders in place, I could have gone back and re-bought all my perfectly good holdings for a lot less, in essence shorting my own stock portfolio. I've got another fourteen years to ride it out, but lesson learned: Always keep your stop-loss orders in place so when stupid people panic and sell, you're not stuck talking about unrealized gains instead of realized gains.
Second, I blame President Obama for even negotiating the debt ceiling increase with the Tea Party Terrorists in the first place. Yes, I said it: Tea Party Terrorists. Mind you, I have friends in the Tea Party and I respect that they've done more than just talk -- they get out and support their candidates and hew closely to their principles. But to hold the debt ceiling hostage and create unnecessary worry in the markets? I call B.S. But the President should have never even deigned to negotiate the debt ceiling increase. He should have simply said, "No president before me has ever negotiated the increase of the debt ceiling that is an inevitable result of Congress passing a budget that requires greater revenues than our taxes provide. I'm not going to be the first." The off-the-record remarks should have been, "Oh HELL no, the first (real) Black president ain't going out like that. If Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, I will and let them fight it out with the Supreme Court."
Third, I blame the Tea Party and the Republican Party. Republicans, I know and like a lot of you, but your Tea Party is out of pocket and you need to get them in check. There is no way any elected official with any sense of statesman- or stateswomanship would have let the debt ceiling negotiations go for so long and so cattywhampus to the detriment of the entire nation. This whole thing was nothing more than an effort to embarrass and weaken the President, otherwise the spending would have been cut from the budget. Do you folks hate President Obama that much that you'd stick it to the rest of the nation to prove some point? It's a good thing I'm paying off my credit cards and my mortgage is a 30-year fixed, otherwise you folks would have to get a restraining order against me, especially the Tan Man (Boehner) in all his glorious ineptitude.
But I also blame Standard & Poors. Even as bass-awkwards as our political system has become, do you S & P asswipes really think France has a better chance of paying off its debt than we do? Really? Where were you guys when people with no jobs, a 500 FICO score and a barely discernible pulse were able to get no doc, interest-amortizing balloon mortgages for houses they could not afford? So, those folks were a good credit risk but the good ol' U.S. of A., which has never defaulted on debt, gets a markdown because of temporary insanity in Congress? I call major B.S.
Finally, I blame us as a nation. This recession was a man-made injury created by ignorance and greed. A lot of people are going to come out of it with lower incomes and lower net worth because many of the jobs we lost here in America aren't coming back. America, we used our homes as ATM machines and monuments to our own financial ignorance, and we allowed corporate America to pimp us, run with the money, and leave us -- as individuals and as tax-paying citizens -- holding the bag. All that quantitative easing and TARP money is just more debt on our national credit card.
And China is so not going to give us a limit increase on that credit card.
Time for Americans to wake up and play smarter, not harder, with our finances and our politics.
I call B.S.
But first, there are a lot of mistakes to go around, starting with my own. My mistake was allowing the stop-loss orders on my 401(k) stock holdings to expire while all this debt ceiling madness was going on. I was preoccupied with other things going on in my life and just didn't pay attention. The unrealized gains on my 401(k) holdings took a major haircut from 29% to 8%. Nothing to do but ride it out. Had I had my stop-loss orders in place, I could have gone back and re-bought all my perfectly good holdings for a lot less, in essence shorting my own stock portfolio. I've got another fourteen years to ride it out, but lesson learned: Always keep your stop-loss orders in place so when stupid people panic and sell, you're not stuck talking about unrealized gains instead of realized gains.
Second, I blame President Obama for even negotiating the debt ceiling increase with the Tea Party Terrorists in the first place. Yes, I said it: Tea Party Terrorists. Mind you, I have friends in the Tea Party and I respect that they've done more than just talk -- they get out and support their candidates and hew closely to their principles. But to hold the debt ceiling hostage and create unnecessary worry in the markets? I call B.S. But the President should have never even deigned to negotiate the debt ceiling increase. He should have simply said, "No president before me has ever negotiated the increase of the debt ceiling that is an inevitable result of Congress passing a budget that requires greater revenues than our taxes provide. I'm not going to be the first." The off-the-record remarks should have been, "Oh HELL no, the first (real) Black president ain't going out like that. If Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, I will and let them fight it out with the Supreme Court."
Third, I blame the Tea Party and the Republican Party. Republicans, I know and like a lot of you, but your Tea Party is out of pocket and you need to get them in check. There is no way any elected official with any sense of statesman- or stateswomanship would have let the debt ceiling negotiations go for so long and so cattywhampus to the detriment of the entire nation. This whole thing was nothing more than an effort to embarrass and weaken the President, otherwise the spending would have been cut from the budget. Do you folks hate President Obama that much that you'd stick it to the rest of the nation to prove some point? It's a good thing I'm paying off my credit cards and my mortgage is a 30-year fixed, otherwise you folks would have to get a restraining order against me, especially the Tan Man (Boehner) in all his glorious ineptitude.
But I also blame Standard & Poors. Even as bass-awkwards as our political system has become, do you S & P asswipes really think France has a better chance of paying off its debt than we do? Really? Where were you guys when people with no jobs, a 500 FICO score and a barely discernible pulse were able to get no doc, interest-amortizing balloon mortgages for houses they could not afford? So, those folks were a good credit risk but the good ol' U.S. of A., which has never defaulted on debt, gets a markdown because of temporary insanity in Congress? I call major B.S.
Finally, I blame us as a nation. This recession was a man-made injury created by ignorance and greed. A lot of people are going to come out of it with lower incomes and lower net worth because many of the jobs we lost here in America aren't coming back. America, we used our homes as ATM machines and monuments to our own financial ignorance, and we allowed corporate America to pimp us, run with the money, and leave us -- as individuals and as tax-paying citizens -- holding the bag. All that quantitative easing and TARP money is just more debt on our national credit card.
And China is so not going to give us a limit increase on that credit card.
Time for Americans to wake up and play smarter, not harder, with our finances and our politics.
Call Their Bluff, Mr. President: Raise the Debt Ceiling
I'm about through with this goat rodeo in Congress about raising the debt ceiling. President Reagan got 18 debt ceiling increases without this level of last-minute debate and rancor and President Obama can't get one? No Congress has ever refused to raise the debt ceiling, but now that President Obama is in office, they are refusing his first-ever debt ceiling increase request?
I call B.S.
I think this is payback for health care reform. I think this is, as Sen. Harry Reid said, an effort to embarrass the president.
If I were President Obama, I wouldn't have even deigned to negotiate an increase in the debt ceiling limit. All this talk about cutting spending and eliminating tax loopholes should have occurred when Congress passed the budget. Now the time's come to pay for the budget they passed.
Call their bluff, Mr. President. Raise the debt ceiling by executive order.
By my count, you have a 3/4 chance of being able to do so successfully. Once you do it, your opponents will rush to a U.S. District Court in the Fourth Circuit, the conservative "rocket docket," to seek equitable relief to prevent you from doing what you've already done. At some point, this issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, probably sooner rather than later. As I see it, the U.S. Supreme Court will do one of four things:
1) Dismiss any effort to overturn your executive order as a political question over which they decline to exercise jurisdiction;
2) Uphold your authority to increase the debt limit;
3) Hold that an increase in the debt limit was implied in Congress' passage of the budget; or
4) Hold that you didn't have the authority to increase the debt limit.
Even on the off chance that the U.S. Supreme Court reaches the issue and decides that you didn't have the authority to increase the debt limit, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will have the cojones to void your increase of the debt limit given what it would entail -- an international financial meltdown of epic proportions. What Supreme Court would want that on its hands?
Mr. President, as they say in the military, sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. And, to be honest, you very well may not get a second term if you raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.
But for the good of the nation, Mr. President, do not let our country fall off a financial cliff. There is no political point worth making that would take down the economy of not only our nation, but other nations as well.
Call their bluff, Mr. President. Raise the debt ceiling by executive order.
I call B.S.
I think this is payback for health care reform. I think this is, as Sen. Harry Reid said, an effort to embarrass the president.
If I were President Obama, I wouldn't have even deigned to negotiate an increase in the debt ceiling limit. All this talk about cutting spending and eliminating tax loopholes should have occurred when Congress passed the budget. Now the time's come to pay for the budget they passed.
Call their bluff, Mr. President. Raise the debt ceiling by executive order.
By my count, you have a 3/4 chance of being able to do so successfully. Once you do it, your opponents will rush to a U.S. District Court in the Fourth Circuit, the conservative "rocket docket," to seek equitable relief to prevent you from doing what you've already done. At some point, this issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, probably sooner rather than later. As I see it, the U.S. Supreme Court will do one of four things:
1) Dismiss any effort to overturn your executive order as a political question over which they decline to exercise jurisdiction;
2) Uphold your authority to increase the debt limit;
3) Hold that an increase in the debt limit was implied in Congress' passage of the budget; or
4) Hold that you didn't have the authority to increase the debt limit.
Even on the off chance that the U.S. Supreme Court reaches the issue and decides that you didn't have the authority to increase the debt limit, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will have the cojones to void your increase of the debt limit given what it would entail -- an international financial meltdown of epic proportions. What Supreme Court would want that on its hands?
Mr. President, as they say in the military, sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. And, to be honest, you very well may not get a second term if you raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.
But for the good of the nation, Mr. President, do not let our country fall off a financial cliff. There is no political point worth making that would take down the economy of not only our nation, but other nations as well.
Call their bluff, Mr. President. Raise the debt ceiling by executive order.
Stop The Debt Ceiling Pissing Match
For the first time in our nation's history, our federal government faces the serious prospect of defaulting on debt.
That our elected officials could think that raising the debt ceiling, something so vital to the functioning of not only our economy but the entire world's economy, could be the subject of political negotiation and gamesmanship is absolutely ludicrous. You want to talk about debt reduction? Great. But not when you have debt to pay such that, if you don't pay it, the entire world economy will spasm. The potential defaults of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Ireland have nothing on the cataclysmic result of the first United States default.
I call B.S. on any Congressperson who would even think that raising the debt ceiling is subject to negotiation. That said, I specifically call B.S. on the Tea Party activists who even put this sorry-ass political play in motion. This is a desperate attempt to score political points at the expense of their political nemesis, who just happens to be the nation's first African American president, with absolutely no consideration of the effects on the entire nation, if not the world.
And somewhere in Beijing, the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are looking at each other and saying, "Are those crazy-ass Americans for real?"
I wonder how you say, "Bitch betta have my money" in Mandarin.
Enough is enough. Stop the debt ceiling pissing match.
That our elected officials could think that raising the debt ceiling, something so vital to the functioning of not only our economy but the entire world's economy, could be the subject of political negotiation and gamesmanship is absolutely ludicrous. You want to talk about debt reduction? Great. But not when you have debt to pay such that, if you don't pay it, the entire world economy will spasm. The potential defaults of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Ireland have nothing on the cataclysmic result of the first United States default.
I call B.S. on any Congressperson who would even think that raising the debt ceiling is subject to negotiation. That said, I specifically call B.S. on the Tea Party activists who even put this sorry-ass political play in motion. This is a desperate attempt to score political points at the expense of their political nemesis, who just happens to be the nation's first African American president, with absolutely no consideration of the effects on the entire nation, if not the world.
And somewhere in Beijing, the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are looking at each other and saying, "Are those crazy-ass Americans for real?"
I wonder how you say, "Bitch betta have my money" in Mandarin.
Enough is enough. Stop the debt ceiling pissing match.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)