I had to write this sort of Obama redux argument. In many ways this is an addition to the previous post on the paternalism and racism inherent in modern liberalism.  We now have a Black president, so what does this signify? In part it signifies that a large majority of Americans have decided that either race (in regard to the presidency) was not important to them, or that Obama’s gifts outway his curse.

A broader and less discussed topic amongst the general public is what this really pragmatically means for the average Black person.  I have argued in other places that the symbolism and hope that a Black President provides is a non-evaluatable factor, but hugely important none the less.  The simple fact that there is a face that looks like many of us in the White House after the history of this nation is HUGE. I am not an individual that will minimize the social cultural impact of the Obama Presidency. 

Ok folks, feel free to get on your limewire, emule, and other peer to peer sharing sites and download your music again.  If you have not heard yet the RIAA has dropped their lawsuit intimidation strategy against downloaders of music.  According to a recent article:

 In a surprise about-face, the Recording Industry Association of America said today that it will no longer pursue its controversial legal strategy of filing large numbers of lawsuits against individuals for alleged music piracy.

This is the same organization that was suing parents of little kids, grandmothers, and also according to some of the articles DEAD PEOPLE (anyone hear the Sixth Sense in the background).  From the beginning they knew that going after a few individuals they “busted” downloading music was not going to deter the masses.  Or maybe they were so dumb that they didn’t.  Regardless, they finally dropped the asinine strategy although they reserve the right to still do it of course. Instead they:

Iraq: I Thought We Were Fighting for Their Democracy

One of the premises for the war in Iraq was to free the people and allow them to form a democratic form of government. The White House propaganda on the subject was that a democratic Iraq could serve as a light and a change agent for the whole middle east reason. This was one of the primary justifications for continue with the war even when it was determined their were no weapons of mass destruction as original stated. With this in mind, I read today that 20 members of the Iraqi government were arrested for attempting to revive Saddam Hussein’s old political party. According to the AP article:

More than 20 employees of Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior have been arrested on allegations that they were plotting to revive Saddam Hussein’s outlawed Baath party, government officials said Thursday.

It further goes on to state that:

Outlawing the Baath party was the first official act of the U.S.-run occupation authority which ruled until June 2004. The purge of thousands of Baath party members from government jobs cost the country the services of skilled people who knew how to run ministries, university departments and state companies. - Source: Yahoo News

I understand that initially when taking down a despotic leader one would want to potentially deconstruct the major party under pinning him. But at what point, if the real premise is of the war was democratic change, can you justify eliminating democracy to create that change? Isn’t that oxymoronical? Or was the war less about creating a true democracy and more about us A) putting a foot in Saddam’s rear end, and B) establishing another presence in the middle east? I hate being the cynic but…….

Others Blogging (Sort Of): Booker Rising

Originally Written 4.10.06 with minor edits

Liberalism is paternalistic and racist, and conservatism is stagnant and impractical, pick your poison.

 

Liberal paternalism as represented by the Democratic party:

 

1) Seeks to erode our African Moral fiber by forcing us to party with individuals who represent moral positions abhorrent to us as Africans.  It makes us passively accept post-modernism & relativism. It tells us to be effective we have to be aligned with other ‘agenda’s’ that in many cases are polar opposites of our fundamental world view. One such agenda is the homosexual agenda (Editor’s note: See Prop 8 Backlash 12.18.08). 

 

2) It seeks to exploit our vote while not providing quid quo pro in terms of economic power, ownership, and independence. Since the Democrat ideal of social justices is rooted in civic equality and not economic equality its effect is to keep the average African American community in lower economic affluence. Because America is structured on instrumental capitalism the average African American community remains less powerful than the average white community.  This is due to the reinforcing liberal paradigm of civic equality in lieu of economic power which is real power in America. Concurrently, modern liberal politics seeks to enact low level wealth redistribution plans but has absolutely no interest in creating what is necessary to revitalize our communities…BLACK POWER.

 

3) It is paternalistic and maintains a White Man as God “save a po’ Black” approach to politics and policy, by attempting to use the government (their party) as a Black family and Black power surrogate.  Their execution of policy and their perception of social justice is the only perception tolerated when decisions are made on “the problem of race”.  Those Blacks who counter their solutions to race, such as nationalist, reparationist, etc. are castigated as “Going contrary to Dr. King” and “Radical”, with the presumption that white derived liberalism ideology on race elevation is superior to Black derived perspectives on race elevation (Editors Note: Visit the forum democraticundergroun.com and talk Black elevation and see the responses you get 12.18.2008).

 

4) It is racist for the same reason that it is mentioned as paternalistic in the previous paragraph. Implicit in liberal sentiment is the under laying belief that we Blacks cannot be entrusted to A) Independently derive solutions to control our communities B) Independently support our families C) Independently educate our children, without needing white participation and white governance to do so.

 

—

 

The worst thing that could occur to the Democratic Party as it pertains to securing the Black vote is our holistic success as a people.  Their whole paradigm in dealing with Blacks is highlighting things that are not done for Blacks in America, and then providing solutions in the form of programs that only they can provide for us (read that again and think about it).  If we holistically have success, local community control, dynamic economic inner-cities, and a success for model for our own education, there is nothing left for them to ‘sell’ us.  That is why it is incumbent on them to keep us in a status quo state or state of need.   

 

Liberal politics and policies aren’t driven by Blacks for Blacks in an effort to create Black power, but by whites for Blacks in an effort to keep a Black voting block and maintain THEIR power.  

Turner Gill Buffalo Coach

Occam’s razor is a principle established in the 14^th century that (paraphrased) states “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” The hiring of Gene Chizek over Turner Gill, when applying the principle of Occam’s razor seems to point out that “all things being equal” Turner Gill’s race led him to be treated unequally when he was passed over for the head Auburn football coaching position. This shows that in spite of the mantra of Change that got us our first Black President, that discrimination in many areas of life is still alive with its ugly tentacles reaching out in various social and economic environments.

For those of you who do not follow college football the story is probably off of your radar. For those who have been following you are well aware of Turner Gill and the Auburn football head coaching position saga. Turner Gill, who is Black, took a small historically terrible football team, the Buffalo Bulls, and in three years of coaching the team had such a dramatic turnaround most pundits described him as the best coach available on the market. Auburn ended up hiring Gene Chizek, a white man who posted a pathetic record of 5 wins and 19 losses at Iowa State. Almost universally college football pundits scratched their heads in the non-verbal gesture that symbolizes “What the hell were they thinking”. It made no sense on paper, until you dig a little deeper.

Auburn is a Deep South SEC team in Alabama a historic hotbed of racial conflict. Not only was Turner Gill a Black man, that alone may not have been a problem but…gasp… he was married to a white woman! Ironically this was also the case of the third candidate in the running for the position, Charlie Strong from Florida. Various reporters interviewing other coaches and individuals in the league reported that many folks new neither Gill nor Strong were going to get the position either because of ethnicity or the color of their spouse. The rationale from the top of Auburn was that they were more “comfortable” with Chizek, who had spent some time at Auburn before as an assistant coach.

The outrage over the hiring was so great that it prompted Charles Barkely, an Auburn alum to state this:

“I think race was the No. 1 factor,” said Barkley, who played basketball for three seasons at Auburn during the early 1980s. “You can say it’s not about race, but you can’t compare the two résumés and say [Chizik] deserved the job. Out of all the coaches they interviewed, Chizik probably had the worst résumé.” – ESPN.Com

So back to Occam’s Razor. You have a Black candidate, who has a dramatically better track record, who almost universally is considered the better coach. Did I mention that 90% of the fans on message boards and internet site polls wanted Gill? Yet Gill was passed over by the Auburn administration for a White man who was dramatically worse in every category.

Occam’s Razor points to race. This situation also leads one to believe that if it can happen in such a high profile setting we must assume that it is still occurring across the nation in lower profile situations. How many Black, qualified, individuals are being passed over for jobs, contracts, appointments and other situations because the folks doing the hiring were just “more comfortable” with folks who were white?

Obama ran and won his campaign on the mantra of Change. How does the Obama brand of change deal with real and significant issues of race and class discrimination such as are illuminated by the Chizek over Gill hiring? Or is the election of Obama more of the, “I can have a Black friend, I am OK with a Black boss, but I will be damned if my daughter brings home a Black man” syndrome?

Occam’s Razor tells me that race, racism, and discrimination based upon race are going to be alive, well and kicking in this nation regardless of what color the President is.

PS. One side note: Where are all of the conservatives who champion equality of treatment based upon resume not skin color on this issue? Rush Limbaugh was quick to blast out Donnovan McNabb for getting treated better because he was Black is he blasting Chizek for being white? Hypocrites

I actually don’t think this was about George W. Bush at all to be honest. I think the journalist bought a pair of Kobe’s new low top basketball shoes, and found out that they DIDN’T give him the support for his ankles while hooping that Nike promised.

One thing we do know – Bush is used to bobbing and weaving. He looked like Floyd Mayweather Jr. up their

I have always tried to blog honestly, and allow my post to reflect my intellectual growth (or shifts) as well as my conflicts. Today’s post is a reflection of both of those categories as it relates to Proposition 8 in California. For those of you who do not know, Proposition 8 (link wiki) was a proposition that passed in California this November 2008 election that essentially certified that marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Blacks overwhelmingly supported this proposition causing Black folk to catch heat from gay folk and uber-liberals. 

For those of you who know me, know I have a Christian conservative background, and spent my early years in the Republican party before becoming a staunch independent.  I am still a Christian, and so my ideology is filtered through that particular belief system.  Now, based upon that you would think I would be 100% anti-gay marriage. The truth however is that I am on the fence on this one.  As a Christian I: A) Believe homosexuality is a moral issue revolving around sexual choice, and B) That Christians, like anyone else, have the right in democracy to express their preference in behaviors of choice through vote.  Obviously you can feel free to debate me on anyone of those principles. 

That being said as it relates to homosexual marriage these are what are at issue for me:

1. In a democracy that protects me in theory, from the majority, should I take a more libertarian approach to the issue of gay marriage and say the state should not be involved? Fundamentally I believe with the major exception of abortion that Christians should change hearts first, and work on policy second.

2. Does fighting against gay marriage open the door for future oppression against my faith, or does it in fact do the opposite…does the fight for gay marriage eventual impede upon my right as a Christian to express my opinion of homosexuality as a sin in a public setting?

I caught some grief I admit when I tell folks that I DID NOT vote for Barrack Obama.  They were like, “Brother how can you not vote for a fellow bi-racial American, didn’t you know we mixed folks have been waiting since Prince did Purple Rain to be back on top?” The next question to come out of their mouth after I informed them that I did not vote for brother Obama was usually, “Damn, I can’t believe you voted for McCain!” 

The fact is I used my God given freedom of choice and American right to cast a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in either candidate. I actually wrote in my own name.  I have a very legitimate reason why before you start running at me all of the “Black folk died yada, yada” and “it is your American duty, BS”.  I would like to frame my reason with a question.  If you had to choose between two children that you equally love (or hate if you are a crappy parent) to die, which one would you choose? Hummm?

Here is my problem with the forced playdo dichotomistic political nature of our election system. What if you find each one equally crappy and equally immoral?

My voting dilemma was this:

Choose McCain andddd: I would by default be choosing Sarah Palin, whom makes me legitimately sick to my stomach.  Now I am what some would consider a Christian fundamentalilst (well sorta) and she fundamentally made me sick. Since McCain was a fall down the steps step away from dying I knew I would probably be voting in reality for her. Not going to do it.  In addition I think the Republican party is terrible when it comes to race, social justice, global political acumen, and is a war mongerer.  Since I am a strong believer in social justice and racial upliftment I could not vote Republican.

Choose Obama andddd: I am chosing a vote for Abortion.  For those of you who know me you already know I am voriciously (I made that word up by the way) opposed to abortion. Obama, being the most leftist President ever elected and being extremely, extremely, liberal on the abortion is, plus the fact that he will most likely be appointing three supreme court justices during his tenure made me unable to pull the trigger. 

So in the end I voted for me. I mean really, I had as much chance of winning as any of the other third party candidates. Plus I believe 95% of the things I say anyway so voting for me would not put me into the forced conundrum of the two party dichotomony.

Who did you vote for and why? I won’t judge you…;)

Are you surpised? I mean really man, come on. Are you surprised? In an American environment where everything is up for sale at any given moment, are you surprised that now troubled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich sought to sell his ability to open Obama’s open senate seat?  Are you surprised that Jesse Jackson Jr.’s camp decided to find out ways to pull a couple cool million together to make it so?

Personally, I am not. Bribes, AKA greasing the wheel, AKA loaded palm handshakes have been around well, hell, they have been around I suppose since cavemen started jocking for position by the fire. Note: Grug the cro-magnon pulling Grunta the fire keeper behind home rock and giving him that pterodactyl leg. According to sources:

“Raghu said he needed to raise a million for Rod to make sure Jesse got the seat,” an unidentified source who attended the meeting told the Tribune. Blagojevich also attended the meeting, which was sponsored by Nayak, an Oak Brook businessman. – (Source – Yahoo News, 12.12.08 – Link Below)

What I am surprised with however is that more of these events don’t get exposed. Unfortunately in American we have a Deification / Demonization approach to our political figures.  This, I think, is a result of us as Americans being forced into the playdo mold of the two party system.  So if they are on our team (AKA the Palinites overlooking her vivid hypocrisy and the Obamites thinking he will save the universe Luke Skywalker style) they can do no wrong.  It is only until the dramatic such as the requested bribe, the foot tapping under the stall, the hooker coming clean that our deification of those on “our team” forces us to humanize them. 

Hopefully Jesse Jackson Jr. is cleared.  It seems (in my cynical view) that he must have done enough to have “plausible deniability” so we will see.  But damn! When are we as Americans going to wake up and really look at our political machine?

Others Talking About It:

African America

Booker Rising

Cobb

Source Links:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081212/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor_jackson