Saturday, February 28, 2009

The State of the Black Union: Conflicting interests?

By Dr. Boyce Watkins

www.BoyceWatkins.com

I’ll start by saying that I love Tavis Smiley and have a tremendous amount of respect for him.  Ok, I’ve said it, and I meant it.  I hope you believe me as I write.

Tavis Smiley’s work in the Black community is critically important. I encourage Tavis, in the midst of such work, to remember that there is a difference between being an intelligent guide to enlightenment and being downright self-righteous. Tavis has a way of putting political leaders “on blast” for not showing up at his forums. When he held a debate for the Republicans in the 2008 Presidential Primaries, there were several Republican presidential candidates who chose not to attend. I understand being upset about this, because the Republican Party has paid dearly for its racism and ignorance of the needs of the Black community. Smiley responded to the Republican snub by putting the name of the candidate on the podium even if they were not there. This was a clear reminder to those in the audience that the leader “doesn’t care about issues in the Black community.”

When holding the State of the Black Union of 2008 (some confuse it with the State of Black America, issued each year by the Urban League), Smiley again invited as many political leaders as he could find, with Hillary Clinton being his star for the day. Then Senator Barack Obama, in the middle of a heated battle for Democratic delegates in Texas and Ohio, said that he could not attend the forum. Instead, he offered his wife Michelle to attend in his place. That’s when the drama got heated.

Tavis, appearing to be offended by Obama’s slight toward his conference, proceeded to nibble away at Obama’s heels every morning on The Tom Joyner Morning Show. The segments started with “he-say, she-say”, in which Tavis claimed that no one from the Obama camp offered Michelle up for attendance. But even if they had, Tavis claimed that no spouse of a presidential candidate would be acceptable for the conference, even Bill Clinton.

I must admit that I felt Tavis was doing a “Karl Rove” on the truth. Smiley’s snub of Michelle Obama was also a slap in the face of Black women everywhere who have tremendous respect for Michelle. Finally, Smiley’s words and actions bordered on petty and angered the millions of African-Americans who’d come to believe that Barack Obama could walk on water. While I’ve never felt that Obama could walk on water, I certainly did not understand Smiley’s confused obsession with Obama’s behavior. Smiley’s comments toward the Black presidential candidate reminded me of the same double standard I can sometimes get as a Black professor. You may have Black students who feel a certain degree of comfort with you, and thus empowered enough to attack you more than they would a White professor with whom they have no prior social affiliation. These situations can be nightmares, as they reflect problems with the collective self-esteem of the Black community, which leads us to feel that attacking and hurting one another is easier, and thus more satisfying than working together to fight Black oppression. In other words, Smiley was reflecting the same sentiment held by Black men who shoot one another on the street, but stand in fear of the racism in White America. Aaron McGruder, creator of the popular cartoon, “The Boondocks”, would refer to this as “a nigger moment.”

Phones were ringing off the hook, as I had friends from California to New York calling and asking “What’s wrong with Tavis?” I had no idea, since I don’t know Tavis personally. However, because we run in the same circles, I know plenty of people who know plenty of people who know Tavis. One of my great and respected friends, Kyle Bowser, is one of Tavis’ best friends, and Kyle rang my phone the day after I made my comments. Going through the blogs of other Black scholars, I had a chance to see their reactions. Melissa Harris-Lacewell at Princeton University, an intelligent (though somewhat elitist) scholar, happened to be incredibly poignant in her critique of Tavis Smiley’s behavior.

Melissa angered Tavis by writing a column that asked ”Who died and made Tavis King?”.  I wasn’t as direct in my critique of Tavis, but I did have some strong words for him. I did not want to deliver any commentary on the Tavis via the major networks, since I honestly feel that there are some conversations Black folks need to have behind closed doors. But given that we get nearly 100,000 Black readers per week on our website YourBlackWorld, I felt this to be a fitting venue to let the world know how I feel.

I issued a statement agreeing with my friend Roland Martin at CNN, who felt that Tavis was out of line by making such a strong demand on Obama at such a critical time. Yes, Hillary Clinton showed up in spite of being on the same campaign trail, but the fact was that Hillary was well positioned to win in the upcoming battlegrounds states, Texas and Ohio. Also, Hillary Clinton needed to regain the ground in the Black community that was lost when her husband Bill shot himself in the foot. The words out of Bill Clinton’s mouth were so vile, that his own “ghetto pass” was revoked immediately. Clinton had compared Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson, implying that he was simply a Black presidential candidate with no chance to win White voters. While Jesse ran a great campaign, the notion that Obama’s fate would be similar to his own was disappointing for many Black people to hear. Clinton was no longer one of us, and he certainly was not the “first Black president” anymore.

I also felt that Tavis should have been more careful about being too critical of Obama in light of the fact that he was accusing Barack of doing some things that he himself had been doing. For example, Tavis claimed that he was not going to give Obama a “ghetto pass” just because he was Black. Rather, he would challenge him and question him like he would anyone else. First, Tavis’ words presumed (self-righteously) that he knows what is best for Black folks and we cannot make this determination ourselves.  No one gives the “ghetto pass” to Ward Connerly (the guy in California fighting against Affirmative Action) or Condoleeza Rice, so the idea that Black candidates get votes only because they are Black is simply ridiculous. A “ghetto pass”, should such a pass exist, must be earned, and Obama had earned the love, trust and support of the Black community. To presume that people were supporting him just because he is Black is an insult to the collective intelligence of the Black community.

Secondly, Tavis himself had been long receiving the very same “ghetto passes” that he felt Black America was unfairly bestowing upon Obama. As powerful and revolutionary as Tavis may have sounded on The Tom Joyner Morning show, the fact that you hear “This was brought to you by Walmart” at the end of each segment reminds you that the message has been diluted by corporate sponsorship. No great Black revolutionary in American history has ever been brought to you by McDonald’s, Walmart, Wells Fargo, or any of the other corporations that sponsor Tavis’ forums.

Additionally, there is a clear reality in the life of Tavis Smiley, one that he cannot ignore: the Covenant with Black America, The State of the Black Union Conference, The “Pass The Mic” Tour, and everything else Tavis has done was created with the express objective of obtaining revenue and profitability for his corporate sponsors. Tavis has sold himself (and I do not use the word “sold” in a negative sense) to White American corporations as the broker of Black leadership. He is the man that many corporate executives believe they can go to in order to reach the African-American masses. We are the drugs, and he is the pusher: White corporate America represents the group of addicts getting high on the profitability of Black consumption.

As a Finance Professor, I must say that I see nothing wrong with the Tavis Smiley business model. I am not here to say that Tavis has “sold out”, for I don’t believe he has. We all sell something in order to make a living, and even the concept of “selling out” presumes that one has managed the thin line between making a profitable trade, versus giving up something of tremendous value. The problems with the Tavis Smiley business model arise when such a business model is pursued carelessly or selfishly. I do not accuse Tavis Smiley of being careless or selfish. However, his attacks on Senator Barack Obama, none of which were thrust on Senator Hillary Clinton, smelled of self-interest from a man who appeared to feel slighted that Obama jumped his place in the line of great Black leadership.

I felt sorry for Tavis after seeing the reactions of our readers on YourBlackWorld. Hundreds of emails and comments were coming in every day, with many readers claiming that they were once Tavis Smiley fans, but not anymore. Overnight, Tavis went from being incredibly popular, to becoming the Milly Vanilly of social commentary. I can’t help but wonder what happened behind closed doors, as I am sure his publisher became concerned that he could no longer sell books. His corporate sponsors were surely aware of the fact that he was not in control of the Black audience they were buying from him. I am willing to bet that his life was a mess, at least for a while.

I hope this year’s State of the Black Union Conference is a bit more balanced.  Tavis is a good brother who deserves our respect.  But it is my greatest hope that he learns the difference between balanced critiques and flat out “haterology”.  I do a lot of critiquing, but when it comes to Obama, I want him to succeed.  I sincerely hope that Tavis wants the same.

This is an excerpt from the book “Black American Money” by Dr. Boyce Watkins, to be released in April 2009.  For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.

 

Barack Obama Says He’s Ready to Fight Lobbyists

President Barack Obama challenged the nation's vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.

"The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. "But I don't. I work for the American people."

He said his ambitious budget plan, unveiled Thursday, will help millions of Americans, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "My message to them is this: So am I."

Some analysts say Obama's proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. "It is the change the American people voted for in November," he said.

Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.

Click to read more.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Pres. Obama Takes Heat for Massive Spending on Helicopters

President Obama has talked tough about the need to shed wasteful spending. But will he practice what he preaches? His one-time rival, Sen. John McCain, brought up a pricey presidential project that seems a bit unnecessary — a fleet of 28 new Marine One helicopters that will cost taxpayers around $11.2 billion.

At a recent summit to cut the federal deficit, Sen. McCain suggested that if President Obama wants to help the economy, perhaps he should consider canceling the order. Obama replied that he's already looking into it. Obama then joked that perhaps he's been unknowingly deprived all his life, but his current Marine One chopper seems just fine to him. CNN is reporting that the new helicopters, which were originally ordered by President George W. Bush not long after 9/11, are now on hold (though not officially cancelled...yet).

Naturally, all this talk of gazillion-dollar equipment has people searching. Folks are desperate to know more about the fancy helicopters, what they can do, and why they cost such an exorbitant sum of cash. Queries immediately surged on "marine one photos" and "why is it called marine one." Regarding the second inquiry: It's called Marine One only when the president is aboard.

 

Click to read.

Obama to Give Major Pitch on Television

President Barack Obama takes center stage on Tuesday to try to sell the American people on his broader agenda for jolting the United States out of deep recession and confronting long-term economic challenges.

Riding high in opinion polls, Obama will deliver a State of the Union-style address at 9 p.m. EST in his first appearance before a joint session of Congress since he took office five weeks ago.

The primetime speech, the opening act on Capitol Hill for any new president, comes in a pivotal week for Obama. He will roll out his firstbudget proposal on Thursday against a backdrop of growing public anxiety over the worst economic crisis in decades.

In a stark reminder of how grim the situation has become, Wall Street slumped to a 12-year low on Monday as investors worried about the government nationalizing ailing major banks, a prospect the White House tried to play down.

 

Click to read.

Attorney’s Perspective on Domestic Violence

By Hugh V. Collins and Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD

I know everyone is talking about the alleged domestic assault and battery that occurred between Chris Brown and Rihanna during the weekend of February 7 – 8, 2009. Recently, MTV, US Weekly and People magazine did specials or cover stories regarding the incident. Gossip organizations like Mediatakeout.com and TMZ.com all had their spin on what transpired. Many people are expressing outrage and taking sides. Some people have stated that Rihanna must have done something and deserved to get beat by Chris Brown while others believe that Chris Brown had no right whatsoever to lay a hand on Rihanna regardless of the argument between them. Well, domestic abuse is more common and more people in the U.S. and in the world have witnessed some form of domestic abuse in their lives or among their families. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics report in 2005, one in 320 households were affected by intimate partner violence. Also, they report that female victims are more likely to be victimized by intimates than male victims.

Click to read.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Stock Market Plummets to 11-Year Low – Obama’s Team Hits Panic Mode

The Dow and S&P 500 tumbled to levels not seen in nearly 12 years Monday, as investors continue to worry that the government's efforts to slow the recession won't be sufficient.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 250 points, or 3.4%, according to early tallies., ending at the lowest point since May 7, 1997.

The S&P 500 (SPX) index lost 26 points, or 3.5%, ending at the lowest point since April 11, 1997.

The Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 53 points, or 3.7%. The tech-fueled index has held up better than the rest of the market so far this year, closing at the lowest points since Nov. 20, 2008.

Stocks had gained in the morning on enthusiasm that the government may boost its stake in Citigroup, briefly assuaging fears that the troubled bank would have to be nationalized. But the early advance quickly petered out, as the worries of the last few weeks returned.

 

Click to read.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Boyce Watkins on Eric Holder

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

www.BoyceWatkins.com

Attorney General Eric Holder took heat this week for doing something that most Black elected officials are simply not willing to do: He told the truth about race. During a Black History Month speech, the Attorney General lost some major political points by stating that when it comes to discussing race in America, we have become “a nation of cowards”. I couldn’t have been prouder, for you have to be pretty damn brave to admit that we are as cowardly as we are.

I watched the words roll out of Holder’s mouth like steamy breath pouring out on a cold winter day. I simply couldn’t believe it. Eric Holder wasn’t just speaking about Black History, he was MAKING Black History. While everyone looks to the first Black President to deliver something other than Ebony magazine covers, I am also looking to see if the first Black Attorney General can deliver some real progress on a justice system that has mutilated Black families across the nation.

Sure, being the first Black Attorney General is a nice accomplishment, almost cute. I don’t use the word “cute” to demean the significance of Holder’s achievements, but far too many African Americans are focused on obtaining such accolades in America as long as they remember to never really use their prominence to make a difference. You are given the keys to the vault as long as you firmly agree to keep the keys out of the reach of the Black masses. You are not to mention race in any meaningful way, and if you do, you’ll get body slammed, even by the most liberal among us. Racism in America is deep, and the disease has the greatest impact on those who think they’ve been cured.

Don’t believe me? Just answer this question (I say this as someone who likes Barack Obama and voted for him): When was the last time you heard President Barack Obama even say the words “black man”, “black men”, or “black male” in any forum other than a Black event? Instead, you only hear him speaking for the middle class and gleefully indulging us with borderline ridiculous and hyper-redundant comparisons to Abraham Lincoln (who is given far too much credit for the ending of slavery). Were he to compare himself to Martin Luther King or even acknowledge the existence of Malcolm X, he would be crucified for it. President Obama is allowed to humiliate and chastise Black men in speeches about personal responsibility, but he would be severely punished if he were to give those same speeches to the masses of Americans who have squandered their wealth and helped to destroy our financial system (especially those on Wall Street). He speaks on Black men needing to take accountability in spite of urban Black male unemployment rates as high as 40%, while he uses policy support and massive spending to coddle a nation dealing with 7.4% unemployment. I say all this as a fan of Barack Obama, but I also say this as a man who believes that the hard work on racial equality must be done by those in power if we are to ever have a chance of fulfilling Dr. King’s dream. This does not imply that Barack Obama does not believe in racial equality. It is to say that he is likely being told that discussing the truth on race in America will get him into serious trouble. Even if you are not a coward yourself, you are forced into taking cowardly positions on honest racial dialogue when you realize that the punishment for such engagement is incredibly steep.

I know what Eric Holder was talking about in that speech. I know that the price for speaking honestly on race is high, for I pay it every day on my own campus (I will probably pay it for writing this article). Every day, I witness conversations being had around the dinner table that most Black people know they cannot have in public. Eric Holder, by virtue of his willingness to bring the dinner table conversations into the public eye, has now joined me in the group that has been labeled to be “bad angry Black men”.

Being labeled as the “Angry Black Man” can be sad and hurtful. It doesn’t matter how nice you are. I can be as friendly and personable as I want, but the truth of the matter is that if you speak openly about the mass incarceration of Black males, the horrific conditions of inner city schools or the massive unemployment rates of Black males across America, you are going to be attacked and discredited for it. I saw Lou Dobbs (CNN’s version of Bill O’Reilly) mention that he doesn’t feel that Holder is “passing the test” to be qualified as Attorney General, all because Holder made one strong statement about racial equality, one that Martin Luther King would agree with wholeheartedly. What is saddest about our nation is that we have a long history of crucifying those who’ve pushed hardest for our country to advance its racial dialogue. The response to such conversation is as predictable as a dog in front of a bowl of Puppy Chow.

I once recall mentioning the idea of having a prominent Black scholar come to my campus to speak on the social implications and questionable capitalist incentives of mass incarceration and stock ownership in the prison industry. This was a Finance topic, and I am a Finance professor. The idea was shot down immediately by another Black man who felt it would scare the people on campus. When I do CNN interviews on matters related to race, higher administrators on my campus celebrate interviews by other faculty while pretending that my interview never happened. Black scholarship is considered to be “ghetto scholarship”, because those evaluating the quality of such work are typically those who understand or appreciate it the least. The issue of race is demeaned to being a footnote of worthless banter by those who need to learn to keep their mouths shut.

Where Eric Holder and I differ is that he is far more courageous than me. He has decided that he can both be the Attorney General of the United States and speak honestly on behalf of African Americans. I gave up on being a campus Dean, President or high ranking government official a long time ago, since I enjoy the freedom of speech that comes with academic marginalization. I run my own business so that no one can control me financially and pull the suffocating purse strings that cause the rest of us to keep the truth in our pockets. The funniest part of it all is that every piece of historical evidence says that we are simply engaging in the same denial as the previous generation. When I was approached about joining the Obama Administration, I immediately said no – I love Barack to death, but I am not interested in being controlled by lies and pandering. I am not sure what Eric Holder was trying to do with his statement, but I am incredibly proud of him and I hope his statement is a signal regarding how he will conduct business as The United States Attorney General. Our country should be absolutely ashamed of the way it has dismissed Black men in the prison system, giving them longer sentences for the same crimes, disenfranchising them from the rest of the world and using the criminal justice system as a path to modern day slavery. If only we could get liberal groups to be as passionate over this injustice as they are about saving the environment. Perhaps then, meaningful and mutually respectful multi-racial coalitions can exist.

Eric Holder, you have my respect. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to feel that way. Yes, you are right, we are a nation of cowards, and until we gain the courage to have honest conversations, we are always going to be plagued by race. Dreams (like that of Dr. King) are created while we are sleeping. But these dreams are fulfilled when our eyes are wide open and we are wide awake. Wake up America…..it’s time to be honest.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” He makes regular appearances in national media, including CNN, ESPN, BET and CBS. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.

A Reader’s Response to "The Assassination Cartoon"

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

A Reader's Response to "The Assassination Cartoon"

The NY Post overstepped any excusable boundary of journalistic propriety with this editorial cartoon. It is overtly offensive to such a degree that I would have probably accepted an apology from their corporate board alongside an excuse that it was unaware that the paper's editorial management were reprobate racists, and that the publishing of this cartoon had been the cause of their termination of employment at the paper. Instead the NY Post's asinine unapologetic rationalisation for the cartoon would be comical under different circumstances. "Oh hey, we're not racists, we're derelict journalists without an 'effing clue about reality in America"

Still, I disagree with an underlying assumption in your post, and would ask you to contemplate why I believe it is not only false; it is also counter-productive in working towards a society that does not make assumptions about humans, based solely upon easily discerned external differences; a goal I believe both of us share.

This is not an artifact of true conservatism. "Radical Conservative" is an oxymoron. You made a distinction between neocons and radical conservatives. It would be better to further divide the political right into a more truthful classification. I grew up in Las Vegas in a very politically conservative family. When I was young, Vegas bore the shameful nickname: "Mississippi of The West", and was a very segregated city. In 1964, both of my parents became registrars of voters, and went to the other side of the tracks into the Black neighborhoods to register voters there, stating loudly that the disenfranchised Black population in The Nation was not only Un-American, it was an obscenity to anyone who believed they belonged in The Party of Lincoln. My parents had also supported Vegas headline stars, led by Sinatra, when they threatened to boycott the showrooms unless the Hotel/Casinos welcomed all visitors without regard for the color of their skin, and backed the local musicians who pressed for inclusion of Blacks in the Musicians' Union and in showroom orchestras. Back then, at least in Las Vegas, the integration debate wasn't divided on party lines.

It is also worth remembering that it was the Warren Supreme Court that unanimously decided Brown v Board of Education, and Chief Justice Earl Warren was Eisenhower's appointee. It was President Eisenhower that sent the National Guard into the South to enforce Brown. The truth is that no Real Conservative, nor Old School Republican is racist. This is not the same as saying that some of the policies that were borne from a Conservative political world view does not aid in perpetuating racism though, and there are many places where Conservatism deserves to be harshly criticised.

When Nixon played the Southern strategy in 1968, the GOP decided to turn away from principles seeking electoral wins instead, and welcomed into their midst the racists, and right-wing extremists. The Neocons turned away from their conception by former Trotskyists hard right, when President Carter had the temerity to stand up and say that Palestinians, whose homes were adjacent to centuries' old cemeteries in which their ancestors had been buried, had a natural right to live free upon that land. The Republican Party's embrace of the New Right, The Religious Right and the Neocons runs against the grain of true conservative thought, which posits at its very foundation axioms that a proper government is the smallest one necessary to insure the Nation's Defense and domestic tranquility; that a state has no business interfering into the private matters of its citizenry, as long as their public actions do not violate the liberties of other humans.

Over the past four decades, what is defined as being conservative has been drastically changed, and has now become nothing more than a synonym for all things that are mapped to the right-side of a linear political model. This has aided in the polarisation of America, and turned politics into an either/or distortion of reality. Scalia and Thomas are not conservative jurists, they are right-wing activist judges who actively seek to radically change precedence settled a long time ago. Conservatives do not believe in radical change; they believe in a steady-state status quo. Radical change, be it to the right or the left is antithetical to true conservative theory.

American Conservatism is presently facing a dilemma, and many conservatives are doing some deep soul-searching about where contemporary conservatism has gone wrong. Many are very unhappy about the manner their political ideology has been jacked by the radicals who hide their true being under conservatism's mantle. They want to separate themselves from it. The best course of action is to give Real Conservatives some breathing room; to help them differentiate themselves from the racists, the theocrats, the warmongers, the pro-torturers, the thieves of human rights. If they are forced into a corner, grouped together with all of the right-side, then forced to choose between that or the left, they will have no other option than to remain on the right.

There are people with whom we disagree with politically, and there are also people who are enemies of freedom and justice for all. It's a propitious time to separate the wheat from the chaff here. Choose your targets wisely.

My Reponse:

I fully agree with every point you made, to the comma. Your criticism is right on the money and very well stated (in fact, so much so that I'm going to take this comment and send it to everyone in the "Progressive Network" who regularly receive my column. I also intend to post it on "Your Black World", along with this response).

It was remiss of me not to make it clear that I didn't intend to paint ALL conservatives with the same broad brush. You are also correct that the phrase "radical conservative" can be construed as be oxymoronical when applied in a political context. I should have used the phrase "reactionary conservatives." That would have been much more specific in pointing out those in which I was referring.

But I was using the term "radical" with respect to the American Heritage Dictionary definition,
"Departing markedly from the usual or customary." While that should have covered the point that you are making in your response, the fact that I was sufficiently unclear to motivate your need to respond, clearly demonstrates a failure on my part. As Ms. Emmel, my old English teacher, used to constantly tell me, the point of writing is to communicate. If you fail to do that effectively, the entire exercise is meaningless.

Therefore, I want to thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, and relating the shortcoming on my behalf with such civility and eloquence. You've taught me something that I'll never forget--to never assume that the reader understands what's going on in my mind. If it is my intent to communicate effectively, I have a responsibility to avoid intellectual shorthand.



Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

"You Want Me to Beat Him for You, Mas'sa?"

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Assassination Cartoon

I’m all for freedom of speech, but there are limits. Along with freedom comes responsibility, and the New York Post demonstrated the complete absence of responsibility with the publication of their cartoon depicting the assassination of the President of the United States.

While freedom of speech and expression are indeed a cornerstone of American democracy, it is against the law to shout “fire” in a crowded theater–and with good reason. It is necessary for a free society to protect itself from those who don’t have the common sense to recognize that what they consider funny, or a practical joke, can get people killed. Thus, even in a free society it is sometimes necessary to jail a free citizen for behavior that amounts to criminal stupidity. While I’m not an attorney, I think they call it criminal negligence.

That is exactly the rationale that should be used to prosecute, and jail, all those responsible for the publication of this criminally ill-considered cartoon. Most of the criticism that’s being lodged against this cartoon seems to have more to do with its incredibly poor taste. But it’s one thing to be petulant, immature, and bigoted–we expect that from ultra-conservative extremists. But when you begin to advocate the assassination of the President of the United States, you’ve crossed the line–a line that separates merely stupid, from that which is criminal.

That cartoon literally sent a message out to every deadbeat, bigoted loser in the country that they can finally make something of themselves. They can finally find purpose in their previously miserable and lackluster lives by assassinating the President of the United States. Thus, what the New York Post is calling a meaningless joke is actually a clarion call to every bigoted fool in the United States. It says that there are people in this country who will consider you a hero, if you bring violence against the president–and they know it. Can you imagine the hue and cry coming from Republicans if the New York Times had run a cartoon depicting the assassination of Ronald Reagan?

The mere thought of perpetrating violence against the President of the United States shouldn’t even be a part of the public discourse. It serves to desensitize the public to a possibility that should be unthinkable in a civilized society. But history has clearly demonstrated that one of the most lethal weapons in the conservative arsenal is subliminal suggestion--along with suggestions that aren’t so subliminal--such as, liberals are aligned with drug dealers, criminals, and welfare cheats; Obama sympathizes with people who hate America and “pals around with terrorists;” and anyone who is against spying on American citizens, torture, or the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is un-American. Now we have this, and they’re complaining, “What’s all the uproar about? It was just an innocent joke.”

We’ve had enough experience with neo-cons and radical conservatives where anyone with even an ounce of common sense recognizes that nothing is a joke with them–especially when they’re out of power. They’re dead serious, and they’re desperate. Conservative Republicans know better than anyone that considering their atrocious eight years of governance, combined with President Obama’s competence and responsible statesmanship, that the Republican Party faces an extremely bleak future. So they’ve gone to plan B, to eliminate Obama at all cost, and by any means necessary. As ugly as it seems, anyone who doesn’t recognize that reality has blinders on.

Look at the facts. Their proven method of operation is to demonize, dehumanize, then eliminate. When the neo-cons decided to exploit Iraqi resources instead of going after Osama, as was the intent of the American people, they first began to demonize, then dehumanize Saddam Hussein–a former ally--in order to prepare the American people to accept the idea that it was necessary to take him out.

Now look at what the conservatives are doing with respect to President Obama. First, they portray him as a monkey, then they have two police officers (respected members of the community) killing him, with a captions suggesting that it was justified based on his political activity. Then here comes Allen Keyes slithering from under his rock, saying that “Obama is a radical communist,” and that “He’s going to destroy this country.” He then went on to say, “We’re either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

Again, it’s a blatant attempt to call all fools to arms. His malevolent intent couldn’t be more evident. He’s effectively given every fool in America carte blanche, indicating that “stopping” President Obama would be an honorable and patriotic act.

The American people simply can’t tolerate what’s going on here. It’s time to send these lunatics a clear message that we’re not having it. This is not a third world country, and we’re not going to allow them to turn it into one. So at the very least, we’ve got to insist that the people responsible for creating, and allowing that cartoon to be published, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Let them explain the humor of the cartoon to a jury.

In addition, congress should introduce legislation clearly outlining what constitutions criminal negligence in exercising our freedom of speech. We already have a precedent for it–while I do have freedom of speech, I can neither incite a riot, nor advocate the killing of my neighbor with impunity, so I’m amazed that we don’t have something on the books about advocating the assassination of the president.

But of course, the New York Post’s defense will be, “What’s the big deal? We didn’t mean it that way at all. The liberals are just overreacting.” But presumably, there’ll be a few older people on the jurywith that quaint, but pointed wisdom that we tend to be losing in this nation. They aren’t as caught up in technicalities as we are, and they have an adage regarding such nonsense. They’ll say, “You’re peeing on my head and trying to tell me it’s raining.”

So I’m confident that they’ll send a message to both the New York Post, and the world of conservative anarchists in general. They’ll make it clear that we don’t find jokes about the assassination of our president the least bit funny. Then they’ll make them pay, dearly.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Black News: Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon Snubbed by Obama

Mayor Sheila Dixon, in her first extended television interview since she was indicted in January, told WJZ that she was "floored" by the accusation that she stole gift cards from needy families and "bothered" that Barack Obama snubbed her during a pre-inaugural visit to Baltimore.
Reporter Adam May said the interview was granted without ground rules, though Dixon told the station that she would not answer specific questions about the 12-count indictment filed against her after a nearly three-year investigation of City Hall corruption by the state prosecutor's office.
Dixon is charged with theft, perjury for failing to disclose gifts from developers and misuse of office. She has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and did so again in the interview.
Dixon said, "I was floored" when accused of taking gift cards intended for low-income families.

 

Click to read.

Black Politics: New York Post Stimulus Cartoon Draws Apology

A day after publishing a cartoon that drew fire from critics who said it evoked historically racist images, the New York Post apologized in a statement on its Web site -- even as it defended its action and blasted some detractors.

A New York Post cartoon has sparked a debate over race and cartooning this week.

A New York Post cartoon has sparked a debate over race and cartooning this week.

Many of those critical of the cartoon said it appeared to compare President Obama to a chimpanzee in a commentary on his recently approved economic stimulus package.

"Wednesday's Page Six cartoon -- caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut -- has created considerable controversy," the paper said about the drawing, which shows two police officers standing over the body of a chimpanzee they just shot.

The drawing is a reference to the mauling of a woman by a pet chimpanzee, which was then killed by police. In the cartoon, one of the officers tells the other, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

The Post said the cartoon was meant to mock what it called an "ineptly written" stimulus bill.

"But it has been taken as something else -- as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism," reads the statement. "This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

But the statement immediately swerves to fire back at some of the image's critics.

Don't Miss

"However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past -- and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback," the statement says. "To them, no apology is due. Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon -- even as the opportunists seek to make it something else."

Click to read.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Republican Leadership–They Just Don’t Get it

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Republican Leadership–They Just Don't Get it

It is completely unconscionable how far the Republican leadership has strayed from anything resembling responsible governance. While they thrive on their claim of patriotism, their petulant obstructionism during one of the most serious financial crises in American history betrays a total disregard for this nation, and an absolute disdain for the American people. Their childish behavior is nothing short of political malfeasance.

But true to form, they claim that their attempt to sabotage President Obama's rescue program is for America's own good. They claim that they're concerned about reckless spending, and the huge debt that the president's initiative is going to leave our children. But that claim is disingenuous on it's face. Where was that concern when they literally threw away a trillion dollars, off budget, in Iraq–a meaningless war that only served to enrich Republican cronies, and has caused so much wear and tear on the U.S. Military, that it's going to cost us an additional trillion in order for the nation to recover.

And where was Republican fiscal responsibility when they committed to building an embassy in Iraq that's rivaled only by the Vatican in terms of size and opulence? The embassy that was originally budgeted to cost 592 million to build is now estimated to cost $736 million at last count, due to the shoddy workmanship of the Asian labor force imported to do the work--Bush spent all of that money and the fire suppression systems didn't even work. It is by far the largest embassy in the world, built on 104 acres of land, and it has been estimated that it is going to cost a billion dollars a year to maintain.

The Republican Party's fiscal responsibility also seemed to be missing in action when, according to a Washington Post article, the Defense Department's inspector general says that the Pentagon "cannot account for almost $15 billion worth of goods and services ranging from trucks, bottled water and mattresses to rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns that were bought from contractors in the Iraq reconstruction effort." And the article goes on to indicate that "The Pentagon did not have the proper documentation, including receipts, vouchers, signatures, invoices or other paperwork, for $7.8 billion that American and Iraqi contractors were paid for phones, folders, paint, blankets, Nissan trucks, laundry services and other items." The article also points out that "the inspector general found deficiencies in accounting for $5.2 billion of U.S. Payments to buy weapons, trucks, generators and other equipment for Iraq's security forces. In addition, the Defense Department spent $1.8 billion of seized Iraqi assets with "absolutely no accountability."

But now that it comes to rescuing the American people, the Republican Party has all of a sudden found Jesus. And just as suddenly, now that they're in the minority, they also see a moral imperative for bipartisanship. This, from the party that forced Democratic lawmakers to meet in the basement when Republicans were in the majority.

Now that they're in the minority, they seem to be fully embracing Rush Limbaugh's position that "There is no bipartisanship in President Obama's plan. President Obama's definition of bipartisanship is when Republicans cave and agree with his plan so he can then claim it's bipartisan." Limbaugh goes on to say;

"Mine is a genuine compromise. So let's look at how the vote came out, shall we? Fifty-three percent of voters in this country -- we'll say, for the sake of this proposal, 53% of Americans -- voted for Obama. Forty-six percent voted for Senator McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Let's give the remaining 1% to President Obama, so let's say that 54% voted for President Obama and 46% voted for Senator McCain. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009, $540 billion of the one trillion will be spent on infrastructure as defined by President Obama and the Democrats. The remaining $460 billion, or 46% that voted for Senator McCain, will be directed towards tax cuts, as determined by me."

Someone needs to point out to Limbaugh and the Republican leadership that their newly embraced idea of bipartisan governing is un-American. They're proposing another form of government–a coalition government--and that's not how we do things in the United States. If we did govern in that manner, however, Al Gore would have controlled the government after the 2000 election. After all, he did win the majority of the votes.

As usual, Limbaugh's retreaded, Republican answer for everything is tax cuts for the rich. But we've been down that road before, several times, and it's always been a disaster. Why should we give the very same people who recklessly wasted the initial bailout money even more tax cuts?

The fact is, this Republican plan, as all Republican plans, is nothing more than yet another attempt to undo the New Deal. The Republican Party's only reason for being for the past seventy years has been to reverse the provisions of President Franklin Roosevelt's landmark legislation that literally rescued Americans from having to sell apples on the street to survive. But the New Deal is much too popular to be successfully attacked legislatively, so the neo-cons decided to use this farce of a war in Iraq to both rob the American people of the means to fund the programs created by the New Deal, and at the same time, enrich themselves beyond measure. But their greedfest got out of hand, as it always does (see Ronald Reagan disaster), which led directly to our current condition.

The Republican stimulus plan is ridiculous on it's face. In short, it's a scam. Fact: No one is going to create jobs until the average American has enough money to purchase what is produced. It is that fact has always made Republicans miserable failures in managing the economy, going all the way back to the Great Depression.

So why should we listen to Republicans? Why should President Obama even consider allowing people who lost their own child for child abuse to become foster parents? If it was up to me, I'd relegate them to the basement. That's the only good idea they've had in seventy years.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Attny General Says US Is a “nation of cowards” on racial matters

Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, said Wednesday the United States was "a nation of cowards" on matters of race, with most Americans avoiding candid discussions of racial issues. In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

Holder's speech echoed President Barack Obama's landmark address last year on race relations during the hotly contested Democratic primaries, when the then-candidate urged the nation to break "a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years" and bemoaned the "chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." Obama delivered the speech to try to distance himself from the angry rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

 

Click to read.

Black Political Leader Kevin Powell Discusses Violence Against Women

Writer’s note:

Given all the hype and controversy around Chris Brown’s alleged beating of Rihanna, I feel compelled to post this essay I originally wrote in late 2007, so that some of us can have an honest jump off point to discuss male violence against females, to discuss the need for ownership of past pains and traumas, to discuss the critical importance of therapy and healing. Let us pray for Rihanna, first and foremost, because no one deserves to be beaten, or beaten up. No one. And let us also pray that Chris Brown gets the help he needs by way of long-term counseling and alternative definitions of manhood rooted in nonviolence, real love, and, alas, real peace. And let us not forget that Rihanna and Chris Brown happen to be major pop stars, hence all the media coverage, blogs, etc. Violence against women and girls happen every single day on this planet without any notice from most of us. Until we begin to address that hard fact, until we all, males and females alike, make a commitment to ending the conditions that create that destructive behavior in the first place, it will not end any time soon. There will be more Rihannas and more Chris Browns.

In my recent travels and political and community work and speeches around the country, it became so very obvious that many American males are unaware of the monumental problems of domestic violence and sexual assault, against women and girls, in our nation. This seems as good a time as any to address this urgent and overlooked issue. Why is it that so few of us actually think about violence against women and girls, or think that it’s our problem? Why do we go on believing it’s all good, even as our sisters, our mothers, and our daughters suffer and a growing number of us participate in the brutality of berating, beating, or killing our female counterparts?

Click to read more.

 

 

President Makes Announcement on Foreclosures

His massive stimulus plan now signed into law, President Barack Obama is turning to attack the home foreclosure crisis at the heart of the nation's deepening economic woes.

His goal is to prevent millions of American families from losing their houses because they can't make mortgage payments.

"We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans, and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes," Obama said Tuesday as he signed his tax cut and spending package into law.

The ambitious plan he was announcing at a Phoenix high school Wednesday was expected to offer government cash to mortgage companies that reduce interest rates — and therefore monthly payments — for homeowners in danger of default, according to several people briefed on the plan. What remained unclear was how the government will decide who qualifies for relief.

One Democratic official familiar with the plan said it also would allow homeowners to refinance their mortgages if they owed more than their homes were valued. Still another section would give bankruptcy judges more authority to change mortgages. That last provision has been opposed by lenders, who said it would add risk and lead to higher interest rates.

 

Click to read.

Roland Burris Hearing Calls to Quit

About the affidavit

Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., talks to the media about an affidavit that he filed Feb. 5 with the Illinois House committee. (Tribune photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo / February 15, 2009)

Facing a perjury probe in Illinois and an ethics investigation in Washington, U.S. Sen.Roland Burris pleaded for yet another chance to explain himself after admitting he tried to raise campaign cash for then- Gov. Rod Blagojevich while seeking the Senate seat from him.
The junior senator, just a month in office, struggled to maintain a sense of normalcy on a Downstate "goodwill tour" but found no goodwill from fellow politicians. Republicans and even some Democrats in Illinois called for his resignation, and in Washington, senators who had barely begun to accept his controversial appointment chafed at the revived scandal.
Burris tried to stem the political damage by limiting his public comments Tuesday, but his evolving explanations had already set off a cascade of new questions about how he came to be picked by Blagojevich, who was charged with trying to sell the former Senate seat ofPresident Barack Obama for personal or political profit.
"There were never any inappropriate conversations between me and anyone else," said Burris, who took no questions from reporters. "And I will answer any and all questions to get that point across to keep my faith with the citizens of Illinois."

Click to read.

 

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

President Obama Prepares to Sign Stimulus in Denver

President Barack Obama is ready to sign into law the most sweeping economic package in decades, a rescue plan meant to reinvigorate job creation, consumer spending and public optimism. Add the bill to an ever-growing deficit.

Capping the biggest victory of his month-old administration, Obama will sign the economic legislation Tuesday in Denver.

The setting, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, is meant to underscore the investments the new law will make in "green" energy-related jobs. It also allows Obama to get away from Washington, where the bill's passage was a mostly partisan affair, and be among people who may benefit from the huge government intervention.

The flailing economy continues to dominate Obama's time.

Tuesday is also when General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which are living off a combined $13.4 billion in federal bailout loans, are due to hand in plans to Obama's government about how they can remain viable.

And on Wednesday in Arizona, Obama will unveil another part of his economic recovery effort — a plan to help millions of homeowners fend off foreclosure.

 

Click to read.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Barack Obama Criticized on Civil Liberties

Despite President Obama's vow to open government more than ever, the Justice Department is defending Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

In half a dozen lawsuits, Justice lawyers have opposed formal motions or spurned out-of-court offers to delay court action until the new administration rewrites Freedom of Information Act guidelines and decides whether the new rules might allow the public to see more.

In only one case has the Justice Department agreed to suspend a FOIA lawsuit until the disputed documents can be re-evaluated under the yet-to-be-written guidelines. That case involves negotiations on an anti-counterfeiting treaty, not the more controversial, secret anti-terrorism tactics that spawned the other lawsuits as well as Obama's promises of greater openness.

"The signs in the last few days are not entirely encouraging," said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed several lawsuits seeking the Bush administration's legal rationales for warrantless domestic wiretapping and for its treatment of terrorism detainees.

Click to read.

 

Sunday, February 15, 2009

President Barack Obama Celebrates Passage of the Stimulus

US President Barack Obama early Saturday hailed a 787-billion-dollar economic stimulus plan passed by Congress, calling it "a major milestone on our road to recovery."

"This is a major milestone on our road to recovery, and I want to thank the members of Congress who came together in common purpose to make it happen," Obama said in his weekly radio address.

He promised to sign the package into law "shortly."

The comments came after the US Congress late Friday approved a 787-billion-dollar package of tax cuts and fresh spending to salvage the broken US economy, handing the president his biggest yet political victory.

The Senate voted 60-38 to pass the measure hours after it cleared the House of Representatives by a lopsided 246-183 margin, setting the stage for Obama to sign the measure into law before his self-imposed February 16 deadline.

 

Click to read.

The Story of Black New Orleans

By Leland C. Abraham, Esq.

Outside of the New Orleans, very few of Black Americans have heard of this historic place. Faubourg Treme (hereinafter called “Treme”) was one of the first communities of black free men during slavery. Treme began as a plantation like any other plat of land during the time. Near the end of the 18th century, Claude Treme purchased the land. Within a few decades of this purchase, a canal was built that split the land. Some developers then began to make the land into neighborhoods. These neighborhoods would go on to house whites, creoles and free people of color throughout the 1800s.
Louisiana was a little different from the other southern states in that blacks could purchase their freedom. In fact, some blacks had their own slaves during this time period. Treme was extremely unique in that it was a precursor to a lot of black history. For example, the first black newspaper publication came from Treme. The Tribune started out as a French language publication but later became bilingual. This was important because after the civil war, the Tribune urged it black readers to “boycott” the rail system until there was equal treatment among the races. This would have been in the latter portion of the 19th Century, well before the “Birmingham Bus Boycott.”

Click to read more on YourBlackAttorneys.

Finally – Stimulus Bill Limits Executive Pay

An amendment in the $787 billion economic stimulus package passed by Congress Friday would severely restrict bonuses and other forms of compensation for top executives at companies receiving federal bailout money.

Sen. Chris Dodd's amendment will affect more executives than previously anticipated, financial analysts say.

Sen. Chris Dodd's amendment will affect more executives than previously anticipated, financial analysts say.

The amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, would impose wide-ranging restrictions on how -- and by how much -- top executives at companies receiving federal bailout money can be compensated.

The measure would cap bonuses -- already often far more lucrative than base salaries for top executives -- and could require executives at companies that have already received bailout money to pay back some of their compensation if it exceeded certain limits.

Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said the amendment was aimed at imposing "tough new limits on huge bonuses" for executives at firms receiving money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

"The decisions of certain Wall Street executives to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers have seriously undermined public confidence in efforts to stabilize the economy. American taxpayers deserve better," Dodd said.

Click to read.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

The Republican Rape of America


BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Republican Rape of America

The Republican leadership and their corporate cronies have systematically brutalized and raped America. Now they're insisting that we give them a bonus instead of treating our wounds. Those are literally the facts, but why are so many Americans blind to the assault? In short, we've been brainwashed.

The Republican Party has demonstrated repeatedly that they are lousy at governance but there are none better when it comes to marketing their philosophy–and they should be, because they have but one philosophy–to divide and conquer. It would be inaccurate to call them racist, however, because they don't care any more about poor and middle class White people than they do minorities, but neither do they have any qualms about using racism and division to advance their interests.

Ironically, conservative Republicans have taken the Democratic Party's primary strength and used it against both the Democratic Party, and the American people as a whole. First they took the Democratic Party's penchant for being concerned with the plight of America and coin phrases like "bleeding heart liberals" and "tax and spend Democrats." Then they played on middle class frustration by tying civil rights, welfare, and crime into one neat bundle, and then attributed all of America's problems to the Democrat Party's tendency to be compassionate, or what they call, "bleeding heart liberals."

The genius of that strategy was by engaging it, the Republican Party not only managed to demonize minorities as welfare cheats and criminals who only want to avoid work and prey on the middle class, but it also allowed them to tie all of those negative images to the liberal agenda. Then by using people like Rush Limbaugh and other Republican propagandists, they repeatedly hammered that message home until they convinced many poor and middle class White people to vote against their own best interests. After all, they didn't want to be aligned with "liberals," welfare cheats, and criminals–they're loyal and "hard-working" Americans.

Thus, the Republican Party's entire agenda is about smoke, mirrors, and demonization in order to distract the American people. Take that ugly word "liberal" for example. The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." What? An undereducated person wouldn't even recognize that definition. The way Rush Limbaugh spits it out you'd think liberal meant "one who stomps kittens and molests young children."

On the other hand, The American Heritage Dictionary defines conservative as, "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." While there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that definition–that is, unless you happen to be a woman, Black, gay, poor, or different in any way--the definition is just as significant in what it doesn't say as what it does. In the final phrase under "liberal" the definition says, "free of bigotry," while in the final phrase under conservative it says, "tending to oppose change."

That distinction is not insignificant since "traditional views and values" render each of the groups indicated above subservient–and by definition, conservatives oppose any change in that regard. In addition, the phrase "free of bigotry" is conspicuously absent in the dictionary definition. Thus, Republican talking points not withstanding, even the dictionary recognizes their underlining agenda.

But what Republicans are against is just as instructive as what they are for. During the recent bailout, Republicans responded to corporate fat-cats giving themselves huge bonuses with taxpayer bailout money with just a few whimpers and some scattered and perfunctory whining. But when President Obama proposed spending taxpayer money on schools, police and firemen, you could hear their wail across the land. What makes protecting our communities, and educating American children more wasteful than giving out huge bonuses, perks, and jets to corporate fat-cats? There are three answers to that question.

First, when we spend money on the American people, it takes away from their piece of the pie. They'd rather take that money and give even larger windfalls to their cronies--the very same fat-cats that they bought the jets for. While they claim the fat-cats are going to use that money to create jobs, we just saw exactly what they're actually going to do with it by the way they handled the bailout money--they're going to use it to wine, dine, and enrich themselves.

The second reason that every Republican member of the house, and all but three in the senate, voted against helping the American people is that they didn't want to risk undoing all the time and effort that they put into brainwashing us. It wasn't easy trying to teach the American people that thinking of themselves was selfish, morally repugnant, and a form of socialism. But you've got to hand it to the Republicans, when you consider the unrestrained greed of the corporate fat-cats that we just witnessed, it is truly unbelievable how they continue to keep Americans in the dark.

Which brings us to the third reason–education. After addressing the first two issues, it shouldn't be hard to understand why Republicans are against funding education–their very survival depends on an undereducated electorate. It's not easy to get people to vote against their own interests, and it would be next to impossible if the people were properly educated. The survival of Republican Party is totally dependent on a non-thinking electorate who will have a knee-jerk reaction to the fallacy of the "isms."

In spite of the fact that the only way that America can possibly survive is through a highly educated citizenry, the Republican Party simply cannot afford an educated electorate. How can they survive in an environment where you have citizens asking, "Now, how is giving these fat-cats my money going to get them to create jobs, if you don't leave me with enough money to purchase what they produce?" They simply cannot have that kind of independent thinking running rampant throughout the nation. They need a population that's so dumb that every time they holler "socialism" we'll hand over our piggy banks.

They need to keep us so ignorant that they can convince us that a government job is not really a job, it's just meaningless work, while at the same time, blind to the fact that they've been feeding from the public troff for the past thirty years.




Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

New Politics: Credit Card Companies are Changing the Game On You

By Dr. Boyce Watkins

www.DrBoyceMoney.com

In case you weren’t sure, credit card companies are not out to help you. If you are financially illiterate and uninformed, they are going to exploit you. If you are worried about the financial crisis, they are going to prey on your fear to get money out of you. They are also doing exactly what the rest of us are doing: trying to remain protected in a fragile economy.

The stimulus is stymied. The bailout is a failout. The stock market has consistently given a “thumbs down” to every piece of legislation passed in response to this crisis. Our economy is like the sick man who won’t respond to antibiotics. While the results of the latest package are yet to be seen, the truth is that no one is sure what will work. Every company is out to protect their assets and hold on to their cash, which means they no longer have much interest in loaning money to you.

Yes, this is true even if you have a good credit score, which is the ironic part.

Customers are opening their monthly statements to find that credit card companies have started to either ration credit (give less of it) or raise the interest rate being paid on outstanding debt. This doesn’t even count all the dirty tactics used, like using your payments to pay off low interest debt first, quietly getting rid of the grace period or charging interest on your balance from the prior two months vs. the current one. Even when you’ve been making payments on time for years, banks keep raising the bar to maximize shareholder wealth. When liquidity is scarce, those giving out water demand a higher cost per bottle. Additionally, higher default rates have justified the increase in interest rates, but higher interest rates increase the likelihood of default. It’s a nasty cycle, really.

Lawmakers are trying to intervene. Congressional hearings have taken place. Banks are being scolded by senators who keep telling them that this form of business practice is unethical and that they are gouging the American consumer. All this might be true, but what is also true is that you can’t force banks to loan you money. Also, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to legislate a strong economy.

If you have a less than stellar financial history, there is an even greater opportunity for your credit card company to raise your interest rates. If you have defaulted on other loans or are a slow payer in other areas, then they have no problem telling you to pay up or ship out. The days of easy money are long behind us, and companies are dramatically shifting their business practices.

The bottom line is that THEY’VE GOT YOU. They know that you’ve become addicted to the debt they so readily offered in the past, and this debt has become the lifeblood for the lifestyle to which you’ve chosen to become accustomed. They know that they can charge you a higher interest rate because you can’t do anything about it. Like a drug addict who is angry about paying more for his product, you really don’t have any other choice.

Well, maybe you do.

Here is one solution: tighten your economic belt. That means putting together a financial fitness plan today that consists of getting rid of as much debt as possible. I’ve mentioned in prior articles and on our website that paying off debt can be one of the best investments you make with your money. This is especially true if you have a stable job and are paying a high rate of interest to your credit card company.

So, the Dr. Boyce Challenge for this month is simple: Create a budget which includes the steady elimination of credit card debt. That means you should list every single expense you have for the entire month on one piece of paper or a spreadsheet. Don’t leave anything out. Count the money you want to use for getting your hair done, your nails, paying your mortgage, car note, whatever. Count everything. That will be your first step toward obtaining financial fitness.

As you create the budget, allocate at least 10% of your monthly after tax income toward reducing credit card debt. So, if you earn $3,000 per month after taxes,$300 per month should be allocated toward removing credit card debt, not including interest. So, if you owe $5,000 in credit card debt, you can remove this debt in roughly a year and a half. While $300 may seem like a lot of money to find in your budget, it’s there if you look hard enough. In fact, if you spend $10 per day on lunch and/or coffee, you can find the bulk of the money by taking your lunch to work. Make this one of the first bills you pay, not the last. The last bill is the one that only gets paid half the time. It’s easier to negotiate with creditors if you don’t need them so much. Take small steps toward finding your financial freedom.

Next month, we will move to step 2 of the Dr. Boyce Financial Challenge. While I confess that this change won’t be easy, I can promise that it will be worth it in the end. Be strong and remain focused, this is your opportunity to shine.

Dr Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and author of “Financial Lipo 101: From financial fat to fitness”, to be released in April, 2009. For more information, please visit www.DrBoyceMoney.com.

Your Black Wealth: Senate Finally Passes the Stimulus

The U.S. Senate gave final approval Friday to a $787 billion recovery package that President Obama hopes will help boost an economy in freefall with a combination of government spending and tax cuts and credits.

Sen. Sherrod Brown speaks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at right on the Senate floor Friday.

Sen. Sherrod Brown speaks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at right on the Senate floor Friday.

Approved earlier by the House, the plan -- which went through multiple permutations as it bounced back and forth on Capitol Hill over the past week -- now goes to Obama's desk, where he plans to sign it into law by Presidents Day.

Spending in the package includes about $120 billion for infrastructure -- new projects repairing bridges, roads, government buildings and the like -- more than $100 billion for education and $30 billion on energy-related projects that Obama says will create "green jobs."

More than $212 billion goes to tax breaks for individuals and businesses, and another $267 billion is in direct spending like food stamps and unemployment benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that the plan will create between 1 million and 3 million jobs.

Most individuals will get a $400 tax credit, and couples will get $800.

The vote by the Senate took several hours longer than a simple roll call of its 100 members generally would. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, attended a wake for his mother until about 8 p.m. Friday.

Voting began about 5:30 p.m. Then, the Senate chamber sat nearly empty until Brown arrived to vote about five hours later.

He was flown from Ohio to Washington on a plane provided by the White House, which said no commercial flights were available that would have allowed Brown to cast a vote and return to Ohio in time for his mother's funeral Saturday.

Click to read