See stories like this are what's driving me insane about President Obama throwing money at banks all willy nilly like. This story further proves that investment banks knew that the assets that they were using to back CDOs were worthless and intentionally spread the risk throughout the market in an attempt to recoup their losses and get out before the market began to completely crumble. Here we have a government official, and former Lehman Brother's employee wanting to invest heavily in real estate at the end of the bubble? Having worked for Lehman, I'm sure that he was fully aware of the impending collapse of several mortgage lenders including Mortgage Lender's Network in which Lehman was a heavy investor. What made Lehman Brother's stop purchasing paper from wholesale mortgage lenders? And if Lehman found that the investments were no longer sound, what would make a former Lehman executive take a government insurance fund heavy into stocks and real estate in or after 2007?
If he was unaware of Lehman's disastrous position in 2007 then he was ill equipped to be handling government finances. If he was aware and made this investment anyway then he's a criminal. Either way he needs to be investigated. President Obama, there can be no redress until we stop allowing these criminals to rob the cookie jar. If cases like this one and the recent funneling of billions from AIG to private banks demonstrate nothing else, they tell you that these criminals will not stop unless charges are filed. Congress, the SEC, and other regulatory and oversight bodies are derelict.
Criminal investigations need to begin immediately.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
State of the Union
I've never felt a sense of nationalism before. I've always identified with others more so on the basis of race than ethnicity or nationality. As I watched President Obama address the nation last night, I really understood what it meant to be proud of one's country and to unite around the principle of nationhood. It wasn't that I wished harm upon the nation or did not want the country to succeed, I just felt like the success of the nation was separate and apart from me or that I had no say in the direction that the nation would take. I always felt like an outsider looking in watching people make decisions about the course of the nation and it's citizens fate with utter disregard for our unique vantage points and perspectives.
For as far back as I can recall, the government has been an entity shrouded in secrecy, rife with corruption and backroom deals. Presidents and Congress seemed to be running the nation from some self designated pedestal. Their approach to governance seemed to be that of an aristocratic elite, smarter and better suited somehow to guide the people; justified in their efforts to make decisions without the support or consensus of we the people. Last night I heard the president, for the first time in my lifetime, appeal to the will of the people.
Reading the Constitution it appears that the "founding fathers" made the qualifications to hold public office simple by design. Escaping the firm grip of a monarchy "ordained by God" to subjugate, over-tax and wrongfully imprison its citizenry, surely influenced the political perspectives of the "founders." Although their experience did not lead them to see the obvious wrongs of chattel slavery and sexism, it indubitably roused their desire establish a government that was more representative and less oppressive than a monarchy based in the principle of divine right. And yet somehow, after the revolutionary war to establish the union and a civil war to preserve it, the country metamorphosed into an imperialistic, war mongering, torturing, empire, led by a god-head/president who thought it more prudent to abandon the rules of law & evidence and to rely on his instincts masked as messages from God. Last night, President Obama reassured us that America's future will be representative of the people again, enhanced to be more inclusive and reflective of all Americans.
For the first time in my entire life I feel like I can consider myself to be American. I feel like the person sitting in the Oval Office is my president. I feel personally accountable for the success of not just my immediate circle of family and community but the larger circle of nation. (I'd always skipped nation even though I felt like a global citizen.) And interestingly enough my feelings are not predicated on President Obama's race. I am proud of President Obama because I sense that he has a genuine desire to understand and incorporate the viewpoints of all people. His desire to encourage everyone to break free of the chains that bind them--the lie that you are second class because of your gender or race, the lie that you can not reach your desired level of greatness, the lie that you are somehow better or worse than anyone else because of your access to or denial of privileges, the idea that false racial or gender based or caste based constructs can be eradicated by acknowledging their presence and by providing everyone with not only equal opportunity but also equal access--is laudable.
To paraphrase author Ayi Kwei Armah, the greatest leadership comes in the form of inspiration. Given President Obama's first state of the union address, he has a keen sense of true leadership.
For as far back as I can recall, the government has been an entity shrouded in secrecy, rife with corruption and backroom deals. Presidents and Congress seemed to be running the nation from some self designated pedestal. Their approach to governance seemed to be that of an aristocratic elite, smarter and better suited somehow to guide the people; justified in their efforts to make decisions without the support or consensus of we the people. Last night I heard the president, for the first time in my lifetime, appeal to the will of the people.
Reading the Constitution it appears that the "founding fathers" made the qualifications to hold public office simple by design. Escaping the firm grip of a monarchy "ordained by God" to subjugate, over-tax and wrongfully imprison its citizenry, surely influenced the political perspectives of the "founders." Although their experience did not lead them to see the obvious wrongs of chattel slavery and sexism, it indubitably roused their desire establish a government that was more representative and less oppressive than a monarchy based in the principle of divine right. And yet somehow, after the revolutionary war to establish the union and a civil war to preserve it, the country metamorphosed into an imperialistic, war mongering, torturing, empire, led by a god-head/president who thought it more prudent to abandon the rules of law & evidence and to rely on his instincts masked as messages from God. Last night, President Obama reassured us that America's future will be representative of the people again, enhanced to be more inclusive and reflective of all Americans.
For the first time in my entire life I feel like I can consider myself to be American. I feel like the person sitting in the Oval Office is my president. I feel personally accountable for the success of not just my immediate circle of family and community but the larger circle of nation. (I'd always skipped nation even though I felt like a global citizen.) And interestingly enough my feelings are not predicated on President Obama's race. I am proud of President Obama because I sense that he has a genuine desire to understand and incorporate the viewpoints of all people. His desire to encourage everyone to break free of the chains that bind them--the lie that you are second class because of your gender or race, the lie that you can not reach your desired level of greatness, the lie that you are somehow better or worse than anyone else because of your access to or denial of privileges, the idea that false racial or gender based or caste based constructs can be eradicated by acknowledging their presence and by providing everyone with not only equal opportunity but also equal access--is laudable.
To paraphrase author Ayi Kwei Armah, the greatest leadership comes in the form of inspiration. Given President Obama's first state of the union address, he has a keen sense of true leadership.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Next Free Re-Financing...
Banks have agreed to halt foreclosures for three weeks. Maybe Barney Frank can convince them to allow people to re-fi at better rates without the exorbitant fees.
Full article here.
Full article here.
The Media...
Will the media stop reporting every single thing that the president does? I understand that news outlets have to make money, but do we need to know every single step the man takes? The conspiracy theorist in me says that the media is intentionally over exposing the president so that the American public will become fatigued and apathetic again, allowing the media to spoon feed us what they want us to know. But my more conformist side says that this is just like everything else in our capitalist system, when people find out that something makes money they milk it dry.
From playing the same song on the radio 1000 times a day to incorporating rap music into every form of advertisement from rapping lizards to rapping grannies to every single person with studio time recording a song using a vocoder, capitalism encourages people to suck the life out of all forms of inspiration or creativity. It's as though business owners do not believe that consumers are capable of appreciating more than one concept at a time.
Note to the media, yes we like President Obama, yes we think he's intelligent and we do want to know pertinent relevant information about what is going on in the white house, but each day your dramatizations about supposed infighting and "missteps" are tending more and more toward hyperbole as opposed to news. Here's an idea on something Americans may also be interested in.
I have to go check now to see if the president has sneezed today and if it was the sneeze heard round the world or some other god awful headline...
From playing the same song on the radio 1000 times a day to incorporating rap music into every form of advertisement from rapping lizards to rapping grannies to every single person with studio time recording a song using a vocoder, capitalism encourages people to suck the life out of all forms of inspiration or creativity. It's as though business owners do not believe that consumers are capable of appreciating more than one concept at a time.
Note to the media, yes we like President Obama, yes we think he's intelligent and we do want to know pertinent relevant information about what is going on in the white house, but each day your dramatizations about supposed infighting and "missteps" are tending more and more toward hyperbole as opposed to news. Here's an idea on something Americans may also be interested in.
I have to go check now to see if the president has sneezed today and if it was the sneeze heard round the world or some other god awful headline...
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Stop the world and let me off...
Looking at the current state of the world I can't stop thinking about the Tower of Babel. Humans, fresh off the flood and full of themselves, felt like they should build a tower to heaven and make a name for themselves across the Earth. Of course this story is a myth developed by humans to explain the poly lingual nature of the Earth, but it seems so appropriate in these times. Across the globe, people destroyed what was best about the diverse cultures of the world to speak one tongue and adhere to one standard of life. Men transformed themselves to gods on Earth, subjecting one another to atrocities, attempting to limit the extent to which individuals could exist and what could matter to them. I know this is an over simplification, but weren't banks and governments the culmination of man's desire to control the Earth? Under the current world order, men control every one's right to pursue even the most fundamental human desires: food and shelter. Given the power to control others man didn't seek to uplift or share, instead he waged war and stood by idly as hunger, disease and poverty persisted.
What if banks are supposed to fail? Back in October when former President Bush sent Paulson out to hoodwink Congress, I couldn't help thinking why do I care if banks fail? Sure it would be terrible for capitalism and the current world order but what if you didn't really like the current world order to begin with? What if people didn't have to indenture themselves to banks and could really pursue their own interests? Sure it would be hard at first but I think I would prefer tending to my own garden to sitting in my cubicle.
The current system promotes class hierarchy, hunger, war and destruction; surely enlightened souls could come up with an alternative to the injustices wrought upon our spirits each day. Why does the fulfillment of the few have to come at the costs of so many?
Maybe I'm a dreamer but my goal in life is to live somewhere warm enjoying the Earth's bounty, surrounded by loved ones, pontificating on the origins of life. I know that many people's nature would push them to fight and destroy one another, but what if everyone just started a garden and we all just ate enough and didn't hoard and gorge? What if we could appreciate the sing song nature of multiple languages and embrace the spiritual philosophies of multiple cultures? What if we didn't desire to be gods on Earth controlling one another and the rest of the Earth's inhabitants for a change?
What if banks are supposed to fail? Back in October when former President Bush sent Paulson out to hoodwink Congress, I couldn't help thinking why do I care if banks fail? Sure it would be terrible for capitalism and the current world order but what if you didn't really like the current world order to begin with? What if people didn't have to indenture themselves to banks and could really pursue their own interests? Sure it would be hard at first but I think I would prefer tending to my own garden to sitting in my cubicle.
The current system promotes class hierarchy, hunger, war and destruction; surely enlightened souls could come up with an alternative to the injustices wrought upon our spirits each day. Why does the fulfillment of the few have to come at the costs of so many?
Maybe I'm a dreamer but my goal in life is to live somewhere warm enjoying the Earth's bounty, surrounded by loved ones, pontificating on the origins of life. I know that many people's nature would push them to fight and destroy one another, but what if everyone just started a garden and we all just ate enough and didn't hoard and gorge? What if we could appreciate the sing song nature of multiple languages and embrace the spiritual philosophies of multiple cultures? What if we didn't desire to be gods on Earth controlling one another and the rest of the Earth's inhabitants for a change?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What did they know and when did they know it...
Ok I've had enough. Today Geithner came out spewing that same nonsense about the government guaranteeing the banks debt which is essentially the same as an agreement to pay off their debt. The same banks that lobbied to make filing for bankruptcy more difficult and have been ripping consumers off with usurous interest rates on credit cards and car loans for years. The same banks that KNOWINGLY passed on exorbinant risk to investors; some saavy and some not so saavy. The banks need to be investigated for myriad reasons not limited to the following:
They knowingly securitized bad debt.
At the start of the housing boom, mortgage brokers and lenders used their established relationships with commercial banks and investment houses to pass off riskier debt. People have to question why investment banks, many of which had lending arms of their own post the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, were purchasing paper from mortgage lenders. If the investments were as safe as purported, why were borrowers paying a premium for the loan in the form of higher interest rates and why couldn't the retail or commercial lending arms of these banks provide loans to these consumers in the first place?
They knew the product lines were dangerous.
Banks knew that mortgage lenders were creating products that would significantly impair a borrowers ability to sell their home. Loans with LTVs of 103-125% were prevalent meaning that borrowers were getting loans that were higher than the value of the asset itself. This is fine in a growing market but creates quite a challenge if the market stagnates or worse begins to decline. Initially banks sought legislation like the revisions to bankruptcy law forcing homeowners into a state of indetured servitude. However as more homeowners continued to defualt, investment banks stopped purchasing paper from mortgage lenders forcing them to collapse.
Banks knowingly sold assets that had questionable value.
Once investment bankers began to realize the toxicity of the assets they were holding, they began to look for ways to spread the risk. Issuance of asset backed secutrities peaked between 2006 and 2007, AFTER banks cease to buy loans from mortgage lenders. Banks did not differentiate the assets in these securities even though they were aware that there were significant challenges with some of the loans they were holding on their books to be bundled into securities. In the pyramid scheme that was the mortgage industry for the past decade, the banks looked for new entrants in an attempt to recoup their losses. This worked well until outside investors began to challenge the valuations of the assets backing the securities.
If for no other reason than to garner a better understanding of the potential depth of the challenge currently faced by the banks, the government needs to conduct a thorough audit of these banks books. By thorough I mean access to the banks ledgers and internal manangement consolidation systems and reports. The government has many arms capable of carrying this out, including forensic accountants in the IRS and FBI. Congress should request this inquiry before attempting to shore up assets they don't understand.
I think at this point everyone is growing weary of the charades and grandstanding of hearings that accomplish nothing because congressional leaders don't even know what questions to ask.
They knowingly securitized bad debt.
At the start of the housing boom, mortgage brokers and lenders used their established relationships with commercial banks and investment houses to pass off riskier debt. People have to question why investment banks, many of which had lending arms of their own post the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, were purchasing paper from mortgage lenders. If the investments were as safe as purported, why were borrowers paying a premium for the loan in the form of higher interest rates and why couldn't the retail or commercial lending arms of these banks provide loans to these consumers in the first place?
They knew the product lines were dangerous.
Banks knew that mortgage lenders were creating products that would significantly impair a borrowers ability to sell their home. Loans with LTVs of 103-125% were prevalent meaning that borrowers were getting loans that were higher than the value of the asset itself. This is fine in a growing market but creates quite a challenge if the market stagnates or worse begins to decline. Initially banks sought legislation like the revisions to bankruptcy law forcing homeowners into a state of indetured servitude. However as more homeowners continued to defualt, investment banks stopped purchasing paper from mortgage lenders forcing them to collapse.
Banks knowingly sold assets that had questionable value.
Once investment bankers began to realize the toxicity of the assets they were holding, they began to look for ways to spread the risk. Issuance of asset backed secutrities peaked between 2006 and 2007, AFTER banks cease to buy loans from mortgage lenders. Banks did not differentiate the assets in these securities even though they were aware that there were significant challenges with some of the loans they were holding on their books to be bundled into securities. In the pyramid scheme that was the mortgage industry for the past decade, the banks looked for new entrants in an attempt to recoup their losses. This worked well until outside investors began to challenge the valuations of the assets backing the securities.
If for no other reason than to garner a better understanding of the potential depth of the challenge currently faced by the banks, the government needs to conduct a thorough audit of these banks books. By thorough I mean access to the banks ledgers and internal manangement consolidation systems and reports. The government has many arms capable of carrying this out, including forensic accountants in the IRS and FBI. Congress should request this inquiry before attempting to shore up assets they don't understand.
I think at this point everyone is growing weary of the charades and grandstanding of hearings that accomplish nothing because congressional leaders don't even know what questions to ask.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
I'm Just Saying...
I can not stand all the tell the president what to do people out there but I had to make this suggestion. Maybe President Obama should go beyond limiting executive pay at the banks. Maybe he should just fire them altogether and let hedge fund managers run the banks. They seem to understand what the banks are holding better than the CEOs and regulators do. Maybe by forcing them to have skin in the game on the side of the growth of the economy instead of its failure we can all come up. I'm just saying don't take my word for it read for yourself...
John Paulson article.
John Paulson article.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Interesting
Ever since i learned that Qaddafi built a river in Libya I've been wondering why other African leaders did not work with him to improve irrigation and water purification challenges through out the continent. Now it looks like they just may.
Read entire article here.
I wish someone would let me borrow about $2B so that I could put solar panels in the Sahara desert and provide an alternative power source throughout the continent.
DAKAR, Senegal — President Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya was named chairman of the African Union on Monday, wresting control of a body he helped found and has long wanted to remake in his pan-African image.
His installation as the new head of the 53-member body resembled more of a coronation than a democratic transfer of power. Colonel Qaddafi was dressed in flowing gold robes and surrounded by traditional African leaders who hailed him as the “king of kings.”
The choice of Colonel Qaddafi was not a surprise — he was the leading candidate — but the prospect of his election to lead the African Union caused some unease among some of the group’s member nations, who were meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as well as among diplomats and analysts. Colonel Qaddafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron hand for decades, is a stark change from the succession of recent leaders from democratic countries like Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria.
Read entire article here.
I wish someone would let me borrow about $2B so that I could put solar panels in the Sahara desert and provide an alternative power source throughout the continent.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Chase Happiness Not Money
One of my favorite blogs has a feature called FGOTW, Fly Girl of the Week, where they acknowledge women of color who are pursuing their creative aspirations. One of the gems that I garnered from reading the feature was the title of this post. Though simple, the spirit could not be more appropriate in these times.
Anyone who knows me is aware that while Lord knows I am thankful to be employed, I do not really find my work all that fulfilling. However yesterday's coporate chronicals take the cake. I had a meeting that really succeeded in murking my spirit. My job entails measuring and tracking compensation and force data for a financial company. I have no direct input into whether or not a person gets a raise or gets fired but I hear some of the insight into those decisions. In yesterday's meeting, high level managers spent hours ranking employees in the company. They gave virtual sililoquies on the achievements and accomplishments of their favorites(though they had no scripts in the form of concrete performance measures and data). I had two gutteral reactions; (1)financial services companies have sucked big time so no one's performance was outstanding last year and (2)employee ranking and compensation is unfair and arbitrary but I'll leave that insight for another post.
While the bonuses issued by my employer will not be as egregious as those being distibuted elsewhere in the financial sector, that people that earn (using the term loosely) more than twice the national income average will be granted bonuses at all given the company's performance was quite astounding. That I spend hours of my life doing something that I could absolutely care no less about is even more morally and spiritually bankrupt.
I have however gained insight into several areas of interest around the current crisis due to my career choices. Fiat based financial systems are inherently big circles of nothingness supported by people's belief in the system. Group think supports power contructs, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So I will be proselytizing on the social hierarchy of expertise, group think and other issues to keep my mind off of the mundacity that surrounds me--I have a mortgage, and while I would stop paying if I could convince about 10 people to stop paying with me, right now I'm trapped in the group think of I better pay my bills on time or be homeless. All that to say thank goodness I have a job to complain about but I'm working my way toward happiness.
Anyone who knows me is aware that while Lord knows I am thankful to be employed, I do not really find my work all that fulfilling. However yesterday's coporate chronicals take the cake. I had a meeting that really succeeded in murking my spirit. My job entails measuring and tracking compensation and force data for a financial company. I have no direct input into whether or not a person gets a raise or gets fired but I hear some of the insight into those decisions. In yesterday's meeting, high level managers spent hours ranking employees in the company. They gave virtual sililoquies on the achievements and accomplishments of their favorites(though they had no scripts in the form of concrete performance measures and data). I had two gutteral reactions; (1)financial services companies have sucked big time so no one's performance was outstanding last year and (2)employee ranking and compensation is unfair and arbitrary but I'll leave that insight for another post.
While the bonuses issued by my employer will not be as egregious as those being distibuted elsewhere in the financial sector, that people that earn (using the term loosely) more than twice the national income average will be granted bonuses at all given the company's performance was quite astounding. That I spend hours of my life doing something that I could absolutely care no less about is even more morally and spiritually bankrupt.
I have however gained insight into several areas of interest around the current crisis due to my career choices. Fiat based financial systems are inherently big circles of nothingness supported by people's belief in the system. Group think supports power contructs, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So I will be proselytizing on the social hierarchy of expertise, group think and other issues to keep my mind off of the mundacity that surrounds me--I have a mortgage, and while I would stop paying if I could convince about 10 people to stop paying with me, right now I'm trapped in the group think of I better pay my bills on time or be homeless. All that to say thank goodness I have a job to complain about but I'm working my way toward happiness.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barack Obama @ Vernon Park 10/13/08
Please excuse my shaking hands, a sister was trying very hard not to pass out.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Damn! Damn! Damn!
I knew Reverend Wright's speech was going to be troublesome when every clip I watched was from the conservative government propaganda news channel. As I watched I found myself in complete internal conflict. For the first time, I felt like I could relate to what it must have felt like for black people to watch as Washington and DuBois or Dr. King and Malcolm X were pitted against one another. Having those historical debates as a vantage point I'm able to see that at the end of the day all that each of these individuals ever wanted was to help their people. Up to this point I could never understand why they couldn't just work together and not have the discussion about the advancement of the race in the public sphere. But as I watched Reverend Wright speaking to every possible media outlet I realized that the desire to be right and to win can be very powerful even if detrimental.
Apparently Rev. Wright didn't get the memo that every other "leader" is adhering to; be easy so Barack can get at least some semblance of a fair shake. A good friend of mine once said "if a person doesn't have a reason for doing something then they definitely don't have a good reason." That's what I was struggling to understand from Reverend Wright; why now and who was he reasserting his position with? Most reasonable people, who watched the sermons in their entirety came away thinking that the "controversy" was media generated and that whether you agreed with his delivery or not, you couldn't really dispute the historical accuracy of most of his statements. Even as he delivered his speech to the NAACP there was a great deal of audience participation and support so why did Reverend Wright feel the need to preach to the choir in front of a national audience? I respect my elders but I really wished as I watched every speech including the interview with Bill Moyers that when asked about Barack that the Reverend Wright would simply respond:
"Given Barack's background and life experiences he has a different perspective on the possibilities for all people in America."
He referred to a media agenda in his interview with Bill Moyers, so did he really think that he could change the minds of those who were trying to caricature him? Was he trying to? I'm not of the mindset that the reverend was out to hurt Barack but at what point do you realize that the media that is demonizing you can't then fairly represent you? That's just counter intuitive.
Apparently Rev. Wright didn't get the memo that every other "leader" is adhering to; be easy so Barack can get at least some semblance of a fair shake. A good friend of mine once said "if a person doesn't have a reason for doing something then they definitely don't have a good reason." That's what I was struggling to understand from Reverend Wright; why now and who was he reasserting his position with? Most reasonable people, who watched the sermons in their entirety came away thinking that the "controversy" was media generated and that whether you agreed with his delivery or not, you couldn't really dispute the historical accuracy of most of his statements. Even as he delivered his speech to the NAACP there was a great deal of audience participation and support so why did Reverend Wright feel the need to preach to the choir in front of a national audience? I respect my elders but I really wished as I watched every speech including the interview with Bill Moyers that when asked about Barack that the Reverend Wright would simply respond:
"Given Barack's background and life experiences he has a different perspective on the possibilities for all people in America."
He referred to a media agenda in his interview with Bill Moyers, so did he really think that he could change the minds of those who were trying to caricature him? Was he trying to? I'm not of the mindset that the reverend was out to hurt Barack but at what point do you realize that the media that is demonizing you can't then fairly represent you? That's just counter intuitive.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
It's When They Wanted Randal to Share the Apprentice All Over Again
I used to be the biggest apprentice fan in the world. I even skipped going to work one day to stand outside NBC studios in the hopes of hearing Donald Trump say "you're hired." Then Randal won and just as I was about to do my victory step in the name of Kwame Jackson, the Donald asks Randal to share his win with Rebecca. When Randal replied appropriately "this is the Apprentice not the Apprenti," fake outrage like this ensued. I haven't watched the Apprentice since, even when they attempted to use the lure of the ever entertaining Omorosa to trick me into coming back, I still felt some kind of way about the Donald implying that Randal shouldn't be able to have his 15 minutes without some other chick getting 7 1/2 of them.
Fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary and the stage is being set for more fake outrage. Pundits all over the idiot box are speculating about a so called "dream ticket" which to me is synonymous with this chick can't win but you should let her come and steal your thunder so as not to appear selfish despite the fact that had you been in her shoes everyone would be calling you a loser and telling you to fade into obscurity already. I sure hope Senator Obama doesn't acquiesce.
Fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary and the stage is being set for more fake outrage. Pundits all over the idiot box are speculating about a so called "dream ticket" which to me is synonymous with this chick can't win but you should let her come and steal your thunder so as not to appear selfish despite the fact that had you been in her shoes everyone would be calling you a loser and telling you to fade into obscurity already. I sure hope Senator Obama doesn't acquiesce.
I told y'all she was crazy
So it appears that Hillary does share Lyndon B. Johnson's sentiments. Now apparently Barack is an elitist. I'm not going to take the path that somehow a black man in America can not be elitist. I've met plenty of black elitists who cling to legacy and an inherent sense of superiority with the best of them. However Hillary's constituency and possibly Hillary herself don't claim Barack is elitist due to an observation of some sort of inherent superiority complex, they are referring to Barack as an elitist for being an educated, well spoken, married, black man. Essentially they are suggesting that he is an elitist for the same reasons that they initially claimed that he isn't black enough-he does not fit their stereotype of what it means to be black.
Every bullet point on Senator Obama's resume challenges Hillary's perceived entitlement to the oval office due to the fact that we all did a little better financially while her husband was in office; I've got a whole nother blog in mind to analyze that. That the media is complicit in the perpetuation of Hillary's baseless claim demonstrates the institutionality of the racist belief that somehow education reduces or negates "blackness" and results in elitism. This elitist atack is parallel to other colloquialisms referring to black people who dare to take pride in themselves including but not limited to "chip on the shoulder," "arrogant," and Lyndon B. Johnson's term of choice "uppity negro."
What about Barack's observation that rural/working class,(code word for poor) white americans habitually vote against their own interests and are diverted by issues of no relevance to their everyday lives due to their bitterness about their personal circumstances was untrue or elitist? In fact I think that Barack was too lenient in his observation of this demographic. Bottom line poor white people have aligned themselves with rich white people against their own self interests due to racism, and the notion that somehow whiteness trumps all for centuries in this country. In fact it was Dr. Kings astute observation of this fact and his attempt to unite all economically and politically disadvantaged people white and black that resulted in his fall from grace among white elites including but not limited to Lyndon Johnson.
I wish that Barack could ask Hillary to clarify what aspect of his statement was elitist or historically inaccurate. Alas he can not as that would play into the other institutionalized cultural doctrine that a black man can not question or offend a white woman, however slight the offense, without bringing down the wrath of all of white america. Which leads me to ponder the cultural implications of white women lying to implicate black men...
Every bullet point on Senator Obama's resume challenges Hillary's perceived entitlement to the oval office due to the fact that we all did a little better financially while her husband was in office; I've got a whole nother blog in mind to analyze that. That the media is complicit in the perpetuation of Hillary's baseless claim demonstrates the institutionality of the racist belief that somehow education reduces or negates "blackness" and results in elitism. This elitist atack is parallel to other colloquialisms referring to black people who dare to take pride in themselves including but not limited to "chip on the shoulder," "arrogant," and Lyndon B. Johnson's term of choice "uppity negro."
What about Barack's observation that rural/working class,(code word for poor) white americans habitually vote against their own interests and are diverted by issues of no relevance to their everyday lives due to their bitterness about their personal circumstances was untrue or elitist? In fact I think that Barack was too lenient in his observation of this demographic. Bottom line poor white people have aligned themselves with rich white people against their own self interests due to racism, and the notion that somehow whiteness trumps all for centuries in this country. In fact it was Dr. Kings astute observation of this fact and his attempt to unite all economically and politically disadvantaged people white and black that resulted in his fall from grace among white elites including but not limited to Lyndon Johnson.
I wish that Barack could ask Hillary to clarify what aspect of his statement was elitist or historically inaccurate. Alas he can not as that would play into the other institutionalized cultural doctrine that a black man can not question or offend a white woman, however slight the offense, without bringing down the wrath of all of white america. Which leads me to ponder the cultural implications of white women lying to implicate black men...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I Love Michelle Obama...
Ok so I'm watching the replay of Larry King live with Michelle Obama and I find myself clapping ridiculously in my cubicle. I love Barack too but I think a part of me loves him because he loves Michelle. Someone asked me why I'm voting for Barack and part of my response was because of the impact that having him as president would mean for my nephew as a young black man. The second part of my response, one that I didn't realize I felt so strongly about until I started saying it, was because he loves, is married to and supports a black woman. But he doesn't love just any woman he loves a brilliant, sophisticated and accomplished black woman. As I watched Michelle finesse her responses to Larry I thought I can't wait until she becomes first lady. She inspired me. She inspired me in an Oprah sort of way where immediately after hearing her speak, you want to make a positive change in the world. I love Michelle Obama because she is proud and honest. She says what Barack can't say, but in a way that's so smooth and calm that you can't tell if you've just been complimented or condemned.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Hillary's Lesson in Black History
Late last week, Hillary Clinton taught us a very interesting lesson in revisionist history. It turns out despite what’s being covered in curriculums across the country, and the greater public understanding, it wasn’t the real sacrifices of Martin Luther King Jr.— including his own life—that served as a major impetus for the passing of the Civil Rights act. It wasn’t the courage of the thousands of people who faced death, dogs, and lynching that fomented change in this country. It was apparently the power of Lyndon Johnson.
Ignoring the fact that recordings of Lyndon Johnson’s comments in the White House make Dog the Bounty hunters rant sound like the I Have a Dream speech, Johnson never supported the Civil Rights Act, nor would there have been such an act for him to pass had it not been for the Philip A Randolphs, James Farmers, Rosa Parkses and Martin Luther King Jrs of the world. However I take personal offense to the Senator’s comments for greater reasons than its inaccuracy. Obama’s campaigners got it right, Hillary Clinton was attacking Obama’s very desire to hope to be president or to hope for change.
Essentially what she said to black people was even the one hero that we allow you to have every year on the third Monday in January, in some states, was essentially powerless. What she said to every black child across the country is that this eloquent, educated, leader no matter how large his constituency had less value in the acquisition of advancement for the cause of his people than a racist who signed a piece of paper in the hopes that black people would become distracted enough to stop their financial and political assault on the United States. She believes this garbage at the core of her being. For her, it wasn’t possible for Martin Luther King to foment change then and it’s not possible for Senator Obama to foment change today. What does that mean for the hopes and dreams of African American children?
If Senator Obama who has successfully obtained degrees from two ivy league universities, been elected to state congress and now serves in the US congress can not dare to hope to be an harbinger of change in our society, what does that say for black peoples ability to hope to effect change in their lives and their communities? I wonder if she shares Lyndon’s sentiments:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Ignoring the fact that recordings of Lyndon Johnson’s comments in the White House make Dog the Bounty hunters rant sound like the I Have a Dream speech, Johnson never supported the Civil Rights Act, nor would there have been such an act for him to pass had it not been for the Philip A Randolphs, James Farmers, Rosa Parkses and Martin Luther King Jrs of the world. However I take personal offense to the Senator’s comments for greater reasons than its inaccuracy. Obama’s campaigners got it right, Hillary Clinton was attacking Obama’s very desire to hope to be president or to hope for change.
Essentially what she said to black people was even the one hero that we allow you to have every year on the third Monday in January, in some states, was essentially powerless. What she said to every black child across the country is that this eloquent, educated, leader no matter how large his constituency had less value in the acquisition of advancement for the cause of his people than a racist who signed a piece of paper in the hopes that black people would become distracted enough to stop their financial and political assault on the United States. She believes this garbage at the core of her being. For her, it wasn’t possible for Martin Luther King to foment change then and it’s not possible for Senator Obama to foment change today. What does that mean for the hopes and dreams of African American children?
If Senator Obama who has successfully obtained degrees from two ivy league universities, been elected to state congress and now serves in the US congress can not dare to hope to be an harbinger of change in our society, what does that say for black peoples ability to hope to effect change in their lives and their communities? I wonder if she shares Lyndon’s sentiments:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)