black…MYstory

Not here, though.

I’m blogging over at black folks ‘R’ us.  Come on over and check me out.  You can also follow me on Twitter.

See ya there!

JP Smith

Popularity: 32% [?]

Every month, we read about how several hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost.  We are at an 8.1% unemployment rate that the Fed Chief, Ben Bernanke, says may only rise.  So, when I hear people imply that the unemployed are just too lazy to look for work, it makes my blood boil. Certainly, among any group, there are lazy folks.  Hell, I work with some.  But, to imply that people aren’t looking for work because the unemployment benefits are so good is ludicrous.

Enter CNBC.

This network was recently skewered by Jon Stewart (of the Daily Show) over it cheerleading of Wall Street to the detriment of investors.

As a result, this network is now getting a lot of attention for all the wrong reasons.  Now, one of its host, Erin Burnett (appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe), is showing America why we don’t care for Wall Street types much these days.  In a time when the heads of industry are receiving bailouts after tanking their companies and bonuses to reward failure, what is Burnett’s question:  should America do away with unemployment benefits?  But, it get’s better. Morning Joe host, Joe Scarborough weighs in, comparing the elimnation of unemployment benefits to welfare reform, as if the circumstances of the two are equivalent.

Video below (the madness starts at the 2:40 mark):

Popularity: 52% [?]

You know, some things just write themselves.  Case in point: Texas Rep. Pete Sessions’ statements in a recent interview he gave.  The Republican stated that his party members in the House should adopt a certain Taliban-like mentality to get their message out.

For example, Sessions states:

“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying. I’m saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with.”

He goes on to say:

“If they do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become insurgency of a nature to where we do those things that are necessary to making sure the American public knows what we think the correct answer is…So we either work together, or we’re going to find a way to get our message out.”

When pressed to clarify, he stated the following:

“I simply said one can see that there’s a model out there for insurgency,” Sessions said before being interrupted by an aide. The staffer said Sessions was trying to convey that the Republicans need to start thinking about how to act strategically from their perch in the minority.

I like the fact that the aide had to try to jump in an save him at the end but, by then, Sessions had clearly gone too far.

So, here you are, a long-time member of Congress and you are encouraging members of your caucus to adopt political tactics similar to those whom we labeled enemies of this country and, worse yet, to enact those tactics against the political party in the majority in your own government?

By invoking this imagery, Rep. Sessions, don’t you, if not just in some small way, justify some of the tactics of the real Taliban?

Needless to say, Pete Sessions really step in it with this one.  I hope that he gets and earful and then gets shown the door in the next election.

Popularity: 6% [?]

For a group of people that mock Hollywood, Republicans can’t seem to realize that the show 24 is not real.  We have heard from military interrogations experts that torture does not work to get us the information we need and we have seen judges overseeing Gitmo cases say that evidence based on torture will likely not hold up legally.

Well, for those right-wingers who speak of torture with sort of a pornographic delight, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder’s comments must have hit them like a cold shower.  Unlike Bush nominee and current AG Michael Mukasey, Holder says, without reservation, that waterboarding is torture.

Holder went on to say that if he were to be AG, the prison at Guantanamo Bay would be closed.

The Holder nomination was already set to be contentious because of questions over his advising Bill Clinton in his last-minute pardon of Mark Rich, a fraudster and tax evader who was hiding out in Switzerland at the time.

I imagine that, by hearing him today, the Republicans are having fits.

Hold on to your hats, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

Popularity: 8% [?]

One of the most shameful aspects of the Bush Administration (and there were many) was how Republican idealogues were put in key department positions to, apparently, undermine the very missions of those departments.

One glaring example of this was the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.  For one thing, in a division that oversees civil rights, there seems to have been a reluctance to bring on black attorneys.  Secondly, there seems to have been an effort to purge minority women attorneys out of the division by one idealogue, Bradley Schlozman.  His rationale was that he wanted to replace them with “good Americans”.

However, as bad as this was, there was a person who was worse.  It was John Tanner, the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.  Previously, I have shared how Tanner had claimed that restrictive voter ID laws affect old people and not minorities and, since black people don’t live that long, they have nothing to worry about.  He also stated that the long lines in Ohio in 2004 Presidential elections occurred because black people showed up late to the polls. Yes, according to Tanner, “CP time” was to blame for our voting mess (never mind that there were people missing entire days of work as they stood in line to vote).

Recently, we have found out more about the exploits of Schlozman and Tanner.  A report released by the Department of Justice’ Office of the Inspector General, in conjuction with DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, shows how, under these two, ideaology trump qualifications at every turn.  Even worse, it was clear that these men lied under oath to Congress when testifying about their hiring practices.  How do we know?  Their internal emails to each other tell us the real story.

For example, here one such email cited in the report:

In that incident in August 2004, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent an e-mail to Schlozman asking Schlozman to bring coffee for him to a meeting both were scheduled to attend. Schlozman replied asking Tanner how he liked his coffee. Tanner’s response was, “Mary Frances Berry style — black and bitter.” Berry is an African-American who was the Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not (DAAG R. Alexander) Acosta, with the comment, “Y’all will appreciate Tanner’s response.”

Here’s another disturbing passage:

Special Litigation Section Chief Cutlar told us that Schlozman also talked to her about Attorney A’s transfer. According to Cutlar, Schlozman said that Attorney A was “a Democrat in hiding and is not going to hide in my Appellate Section.” Cutlar also told us that Schlozman said that Attorney A “wrote in Ebonics,” “was an idiot,” and “was an affirmative action thing.”

But, this had to be my favorite.  In this passage, Schlozman clearly indicates that the measuring stick being used for attorneys at Justice is political leaning and that it could get them in trouble if found out by stating the following:

In an e-mail to a Division front office Counsel dated January 12, 2004, Schlozman inquired about an attorney being referred as a candidate for a career civil service position by asking, “how does he view the world, if you know what I mean?” Schlozman added in the e-mail “(and for God’s sake, don’t forward this email!).”

Both Tanner and Schlozman left DOJ after it became clear that what they were doing was clearly over-the-line.  However, Talking Points Memo uncovered something very interesting, Tanner is still on the DOJ’s payroll.  So, what do they have the guy who left over racially insensitive comments and hiring practices do?  Talking Points Memo tells us:

In other words, DOJ’s response to the outrage provoked by Tanner’s racist comments was to … send him to Alabama to help with the racially charged work of redrawing political districts. Great idea!

It would appear to me that the incoming Obama administration will have some major housecleaning ahead of them.  I believe that there would be no better place to start than the Department of Justice.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Up until a few years ago, I would get greatly offended at any comparison of the struggles of the GLBT (gay,lesbian,bisexual,transgender) community to that of black people to obtain civil rights.  However, after seeing what certain Republicans (and a few of us on the left) have wrought, I can now understand the comparison.

There’s be a lot said about “the sanctity of marriage” and how gay marriage would undermine that.  However, in a country where half the marriages end in divorce, “the sanctity of marriage” isn’t exactly a high priority.  Also, let’s be honest.  I have yet to hear a couple say, “We got divorced because a gay couple got married.  We just felt that marrige in this country was becoming a mockery so, we split up!”

So, I would like to suggest some real ways in which we can address the “sanctity of marriage” for straight couples so that we can feel morally justified in telling other people how to live their lives.

1. Outlaw divorce: The number one killer of marriages is…ummm…divorce. Just cut in out altogther and the “success” rates of marriages double.  Of course, there are loopholes.  For example, there’s always death.
2. Enact harsh penalties for adultery: Too many marriages end due to infidelity.  So, we need to outlaw adultery.  To hell with scarlet letters or public shame — I’m talking about prison time.  If the police catch you sneaking out on your spouse for a booty call in the middle of the night or a quick “lunch break”, you’ll be arrested, tried and convicted.  Serial adulterers shall be stoned to death in the public square.
   
3. You do it and you’ll be saying “I do”: Caught having sex?  Guess what — you’re now husband and wife…forever. If you’re going to play house, do it all they way.  You now get the full experience, including bills, laundry and the annoying body odors that come in the middle of the night.
4. Make a kid and you’ve made the deal: We didn’t catch you in rule #3?  Well, we got ya now!  You made a kid and you’re now of to the chapel.  Just don’t do this with anyone else.  You do remember rule #2, don’t you?
5. Abuse your family and pay the price: Under no circumstances are you allowed to verbally or physically abuse your loved ones in any way.  Since divorce is illegal, abuse will be met with maximum retaliation. Non-compliance can be met with penalties up to and including death, leaving your spouse free to marry someone more sensible.
6. Under no circumstances allow a celebrity to get married: Celebrities tend to treat marriage as something to do between roles or between releases of their latest CD’s.  We sure would hate to have kill off your favorite actor or singer based on their indiscretions.
7. Finally, accept fate: Marriage isn’t about happiness — it’s about the sanctity of the institution.  If you wanted to be happy you should have been…well…gay.

Popularity: 17% [?]

Honestly, Michael Steele and I are, politically speaking, likely to be polar opposites.  However, he is a Republican figure who is not likely to tread too often in wingnut territory.  Also, while conservative, he doesn’t come off as sounding like he doesn’t live in the real world.  Being a politician from Maryland, he would have likely not made it had he come across any other way.

It has been a week since we elected the first black man as United States President and, now, the GOP has the opportunity to make a black man a first in Republican ranks — the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee.  It appears that Steele will be throwing his hat in the ring to be considered for the post.  A few years back, the minority barrier for this post was broken when Mel Martinez, a Cuban-American senator from Florida served as co-chair.

Steele’s potential candidacy comes at a time when a spotlight has been shone on the GOP and it is being seen for what it truly is — a party that is overwhelmingly white and male.  If it is to survive, it better learn how to attract more than this demographic.  Steele feels that he would possess the qualifications the infuse new blood into the party.  Lord knows they need it!

Would Steele attract me?  Not likely.  But, perhaps if he can get in to help guide the party in a direction that broadens their appeal, more power to him because, to be real, when people are concerned with food, clothing and shelter, the whole “guns, God and gays” platform falls a little flat.

So, we’ll see if the GOP is willing to give a shot to one of its most loyal stalwarts.  If not, we’ll likely know that, once again, the Republican party is not looking to expand its reach.

Popularity: 19% [?]

I usually don’t talk a whole lot about the weather but, today is no ordinary day.  Part of the reason that I live in Ohio is because, for the most part, we don’t get a lot of tornadoes and we don’t live close enough to a coastal area to get a hurricane.

Well, yesterday, I was just expecting to get some rain as the remnants of Hurricane Ike came rumbling through.  But, I, like hundreds of thousands of others, was caught flat-footed.

Here in the Cincinnati area, a 40 mph wind is a big deal.  Well, what was left of Ike cut a path through the Midwest and I was looking out my window as 70 mph winds blew past for a few hours.  When it was all said and done, communities were dealing with a lot of falling trees and cleanup but, that’s not the worst of it.

Nearly 1,000,000 customers of our local energy company were without power at some point.  Over 24 hours later, about 600,000, including myself, are still without power (I am submitting this post from one of the places in town that still has power).  If I’m lucky, I’ll get my power back tomorrow morning but, some people are being told it may take a week for them to get theirs back.  Schools and businesses are closed.  Good luck finding an open restaraunt, gas station or grocery store.  Ice and gas are premium commodities.  If I can find extras of any of those things, I’ll pass some on to a neighbor.

I have an even deeper respect today for people who have been through a hurricane.  In just dealing with the side effects of one, we are having our lives put on hold.

Hopefully, my posts for tomorrow will be from the comfort of my own home.

Popularity: 12% [?]

I can remember, several years back, when I had to check a white co-worker who jokingly told another white co-worker that she was going to teach her how to talk “ghetto”.  Despite her attempts at verbal gymnastics in explaining that she was not referring to a black people, she knew she was busted.

This was not the first or last time I dealt with code words.

For example, when we hear “urban” or “inner-city”, it’s often a substitute for “black. ”

The way I’ve hear race relations in America is that Jim Crow has been replaced by his more sophisticated offspring, James Crow, Esq., who is much more subtle in his attacks.

It goes without saying that I am sensitive to issues of race and I can usually catch these code words.  However, they can often slip by us with such subtlety that sometimes even the user may not be aware (for example, and we could debate this, with Hillary Clinton citing Barack Obama’s challenges with “hard-working Americans, white Americans”).

But, some code words are more obvious, once we are clued in, and are clearly racist in their intent.  Take for example the case of Tomeika Broussard.  Broussard was awarded $44,000 last year in a discrimination suit after being fired from her job.  Broussard said she was harrassed on an almost daily basis but, her harassers chose code words to insult her.  For example, she recalls how a once overheard a supervisor refer to her as a “reggin”.  If you spell it backwards, you’ll get the meaning.

Even recently, I posted about a white basketball coach who won a suit against Iona College in New York over his claims that he suffered racial retaliation by certain school officials there over his decision to marry a black woman. The primary perpetrator of his harassment was these school’s Vice President and former Athletic director, who said to this coach, “You’re really going to marry that Aunt Jemima? You really are a ni**er lover.”

In today’s society, code words are becoming the new racial slurs.  It appears that courts are recognizing that, just as much as their more overt cousins, the way in which certain code words are used can be just as harassing.

Popularity: 18% [?]

LOL!

Popularity: 14% [?]