I hate putting myself on blast. But sometimes, maybe I just deserve it.
Yesterday as I was leaving a gas station, I was confronted by a young, white woman in tears. Appearance wise, the woman seemed relatively "together"; insofar as I could determine. She was wearing an Nike jumpsuit, had her hair neatly pulled back in a ponytail, and was wearing a hint of conversatively applied makeup. Minus the cigarette she was puffing (I get endlessly annoyed by smokers) she appeared innocent enough. She proceeded in giving me a sob story about how she ran out of gas up the road, how her cell phone died, and how she didn't have any money. Though I offered to take her where she needed to go (Admittedly this is a pretty naive and dangerous habit of mine. I'm working on that.), she declined. Instead, she asked me for "a few dollars". Without hesitation, I pulled out the last $8 I had on the planet and gave it to her. She thanked me for the money and started on -- what I think was-- a trek back to her vehicle.
After that encounter, I stuck my chest out in a self congratulatory manner; praising myself for doing what I considered my good deed for the day. But upon further reflection, I thought about all the times I was approached by scrungy, unkept people with similar stories where I wasn't so quick with my benevolence. I thought about the brothas I see in downtown Flint to whom I'd likely not be so generous. While I do still make it a point to offer assistance if it's requested, I never, ever freely distribute money. Instead, I'd take it upon myself to buy the goods or service they needed. For instance, if someone asked me for money to buy something to eat, rather than giving them my cash, I'd offer to buy the food for them. I simply don't trust people enough to use my cash donations for the purposes they indicate. Yet, when it came to this innocent looking (and yes, pretty) white woman, I did the exact opposite. When she came to me in distress, I not only gave her cash -- thus breaking my own rule -- I did it without hesitation.
I can't help but to feel like I somehow displayed the same kind of prejudice that continues to pervade our society; prejudice based on looks and race. I mean, I could've very well given my last $8 to a pretty, white con artist to whom I immediately showed compassion -- just because she looked a certain way. What does that say about me? Does that make me as bad as the media of whom I'm so critical?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
I hate putting myself on blast. But sometimes, maybe I just deserve it.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
During an on-air discussion on with Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer, contributor Liz Trotta jokingly endorsed the assassination of Sen. Barack Obama. This coming right off the heels of Hillary's vile and tasteless comments.
When asked about the aforementioned story with Clinton, Trotta stated that "some are reading [this] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama." Hemmer quickly inteceded by pointing out Trotta's intention to say "Obama" instead. From there, Trotta goes on to say "...both if we could". This was immediately followed by chuckles. See for yourself:
It's bad enough that Fox News once again put somebody in front of a camera who apparently can't seem to make the distinction between an honorable man running for the highest office in the country with the heartless person who masterminded the attacks of September 11. This is a clear attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy by using associative propoganda (by name) as an imaginary link to some sort of clandestine terrorism. Accentuating the "Hussein" part of his name is another such tool. I get that. I'm angry about that, but I'm certainly not suprised.
Where I draw the line is with Trotta's contention that not only can Obama and Osama NOT be differentiated, but that they both need to be assassinated.
Trotta tried to offer an apology later:
...but like Hillary's tepid and bland apology, Trotta's apology fell upon my deaf ears.
I don't know how gaffes about killing a human being make you feel. But as for me and my house, I refuse to tolerate this any longer. Whether or not Trotta was joking is irrelevant to me. Whether or not Trotta was contrite is irrelevant to me. Yes, I may be willing to forgive the unforgivable. Yes, I'm the biggest fan there is of freedom of speech. But if I can get detained for joking about blowing up an airplane (I haven't, but you get the point), people should be brought to bear for joking about the assassination of a presidential candidate; particularly when the blood of so many other political leaders has been spilled in similar grotesque fashions.
While I have indicated that I will forever be a proponent of the freedom of speech, I've also indicated that this freedom does not necessarily provide a cloak for expressing said freedom without some level of consequence. That said, I'm following in Malik's footsteps by urging you not to go after Fox News themselves. We all know that protests are pretty pointless these days. Instead, hit them where it hurts: through their sponsors. Similar to how Gina from What About Our Daughters successfully launched a campaign against BET by calling out its sponsors; I urge you to let Fox News' advertisers know that you will not support them as long as they subscribe to nonsense "news" outlets that openly allow people to joke about assassinating presidential candidates.
I'd like to be the optimist and say that most decent Americans don't endorse -- nor are entertained by -- the lunacy that gets produced on Fox News. Still, the very existence of such lunacy is in itself problematic. Again, to deny its existence is to deny every freedom that we have as Americans. But the media must be held accountable when they choose to deviate from their journalistic responsibilites of increasing our understanding of the world and sustaining our discursive democracy instead of broadcasting the ultimate in disrespect that comes with joking about assassinating our leaders.
H/T to Malik for this story.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary is at it again. As if her racebaiting, gender card pulling, sore loser campaign couldn't get any worse, Hillspawn has hit a new low. When asked why she refuses to drop out of a race where she is mercilessly being beaten, Clinton responded:
My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it.
I seriously couldn't make this up. Hillspawn later offerd some cheesy "what had happened was..." explanation for her comments, but to little avail. The damage has already been done. A prominent senator deliberately invoked the horrendous concept of assassination while discussing a presidential campaign. Doesn't this have the same effect as using the word "bomb" at an airport? I'm just sayin...
As to be expected, Keith Olbermann chimed in. As usual, he verbally assassinates Clinton's comments and indeed her character:
In an interesting turn of events, Bobby Jr. is urging people not to take Hill's comments offensely. In that respect, I tip my hat to Kennedy for essentially shrugging off Hillary's ridiculous and exploitative comments about his father. But to expect the rest of us NOT to make a connection between an assassination and a black man (who has received death threats himself since becoming a legitimate contender) is a bit of a stretch. She knew exactly what she was saying. But she opened up anyway. That's what makes her sociopathic comments unforgivable.
This woman is clearly soulless. Any chance she ever had of earning my respect was lost this week. I am now -- and will forever be -- vociferously ANTI-Clinton.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
I just received some bad news. Both a grandchild and a friend of Sylvia's (one my closest blogging friends) just passed away. Out of respect to Sylv, her friend, and the family I won't go into too many details. But I ask you to keep them all in your prayers.
Sylv, do stay encouraged. Always be mindful that God is an endless source of strength; even when things are the most painful and the most difficult. Remember Psalms 46.
Monday, May 19, 2008
OK. OK. OK. I know that I was supposed to take a break from my regularly scheduled programming about the madhouse that has become the Democratic race. But I couldn't resist myself.
Today I discovered that in a strange and pretty unexpected turn of events, Sen. Obama has been endorsed by West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd. Yes, that Sen. Robert C. Byrd.
Byrd's endorsement came at a pretty bizarre time; considering that W. Virginia -- the state to whom he is beholden was overwhelmingly pro-Clinton during their primaries. It's strange to me that an elected official would so blatantly go against the wishes of his own state.
But perhaps what's most surreal about this whole thing is the endorsement from Sen. Byrd itself. We're talking about the same Robert Byrd who was formerly of the Ku Klux Klan. The same Robert Byrd who attempted to filibuster a vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The same Robert Byrd who opposed the appointments of Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice because they were black (though I must admit, he got it right with Thomas and Rice. I'm just sayin...)
Optimistically, I'm hoping that Sen. Byrd's endorsement represents the ultimate in redemption. As a former Klansman who fought assiduously to deny blacks any equality whatsoever endorsing a black man for one of the most prominent positions in the world speaks all throughout the cosmos. It's true that Byrd has renounced many of his former racist ways, but no single statement speaks to a potential reformation more than by publicly endorsing the very type of person against whom Byrd was once so opposed.
Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this situation. I want to believe that Sen. Byrd has made a complete 180; transitioning from a racist with no social or moral constraints to a rehabilitated person who has learned from his mistakes. I mean, I strongly believed in the redemption of Stanley "Tookie" Williams; and I hate everything about gangs. So should Byrd be any different? Obama doesn't seem to think so.
In his latest book The Audacity of Hope, Sen. Obama eloquently states:
Listening to Senator Byrd I felt with full force all the essential contradictions of me in this new place, with its marble busts, its arcane traditions, its memories and its ghosts. I pondered the fact that, according to his own autobiography, Senator Byrd had received his first taste of leadership in his early twenties, as a member of the Raleigh County Ku Klux Klan, an association that he had long disavowed, an error he attributed—no doubt correctly—to the time and place in which he'd been raised, but which continued to surface as an issue throughout his career. I thought about how he had joined other giants of the Senate, like J. William Fulbright of Arkansas and Richard Russell of Georgia, in Southern resistance to civil rights legislation. I wondered if this would matter to the liberals who now lionized Senator Byrd for his principled opposition to the Iraq War resolution—the MoveOn.org crowd, the heirs of the political counterculture the senator had spent much of his career disdaining.
I wondered if it should matter. Senator Byrd's life—like most of ours—has been the struggle of warring impulses, a twining of darkness and light. And in that sense I realized that he really was a proper emblem for the Senate, whose rules and design reflect the grand compromise of America's founding: the bargain between Northern states and Southern states, the Senate's role as a guardian against the passions of the moment, a defender of minority rights and state sovereignty, but also a tool to protect the wealthy from the rabble, and assure slaveholders of noninterference with their peculiar institution. Stamped into the very fiber of the Senate, within its genetic code, was the same contest between power and principle that characterized America as a whole, a lasting expression of that great debate among a few brilliant, flawed men that had concluded with the creation of a form of government unique in its genius—yet blind to the whip and the chain.
From the passage above, it's clear that Obama is ready to turn the other cheek; even to a person who would've fought tooth and nail against a black man ever running for president.
All of this nothwithstanding, I can't help but wonder if Byrd's rehabilitation is more of reflection on the changing of times than it is with the changing of his personal beliefs. For the first time in history, people who engage in racist acts can actually be brought to bear, arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for those activities. Racism -- though still manifesting itself in many covert ways -- simply doesn't have the same kind of openly mainstream validation as it once did. Has Byrd's political career as of late -- including his shocking endorsement -- been a much needed corrective action for his shameful past or is he still the same racist; only closeted because of the lack of overt social and institutional support of racism that existed but a few decades ago?
I haven't been on Bush in a while. Either I'm losing my steam, I'm too focused on the Dem battle and how Clinton supporters are ruining America, or Bush has been on his best behavior lately.
I can at least rule out the last option.
This weekend, when asked about the ongoing global food crisis, somebody unfortunately allowed your Commander-InComptent to respond. His answer was simple: Blame India. Said the President regarding India:
When you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.
As to be expected, people around the world are pissed.
If I can digress for a moment, I'd like to happily annouce that I've lost 31lbs this month on a diet I've been on. But -- and getting back to the point of this post -- just by virtue of the fact that I'm in a position where weight loss is even an option, I'd hardly say that the food crisis is fault of poorer nations. Yet, your President can't seem to understand that notion.
The President's comments are another sad example of the audacious and brazen acknowledgment of the arrogant 'leadership' in the Western world. The ability of the West to flourish is overwhelmingly predicated on a certain level of plundering of smaller, poorer nations. Whether by neo-colonialism, hegemonic policies, or simply being the proverbial "fat cat", industrialized nations need to accept their role in this and stop blaming poor folks for everything wrong in the world. I liken this to the fat kid blaming the paper thin kid for all the food being gone.
This type of pillaging has become a calling card of sorts for some of the world's leading nations. As such, deflecting the blame is certainly not the way for us to strategically position ourselves in a global market. Yet, that's the idea being conveyed by Bush.
This is why somebody seriously needs to cut this dude's microphone off. Or perhaps we can just stick some food in his mouth to shut him up. I'm just sayin...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
A while back, I wrote a post about how America tends to place a higher premium on missing white women than they do for just about any other group in this society. After reading that post again (as I frequently do with some of my older stuff), I thought that perhaps I was writing with hyperbole. Maybe things weren't as overt as I speculated.
That is, until I heard the story of Romona Moore. Here's the Reader's Digest of the story:
Romona Moore was a 21-year old daughter of a Guyanese immigrant and a student at Hunter College in New York. One day she stepped out to go to a local Burger King. She never came back. Worried, her mother -- Elle Carmichael -- called the NYPD; who essentially blew off the report. Moore was later found tortured and murdered. The NYPD is now being sued for botching this case.
What was most interesting about this case is that Moore's disappearance came fresh off the heels of another woman abduction that grabbed the attention of all of New York. In contrast to Moore's case, the NYPD launched a massive seearch for Svetlana Aronov; spouse of an affluent white doctor fom the Upper East side of New York. They pulled out all the stops during Aronov's investigation; including search dogs, door-to-door visits, and -- get this -- a psychic. A PSYCHIC!!! Oppositely, they didn't even so much as file a report for Moore.
For the full story, check out the article written by Sean Gardiner from the Village Voice. It's a little lengthy, but well worth the read.
Reading this article -- coupled with the conspicous reality that people of color apparently don't make good news stories (unless they're the ones committing the crimes), I'm convinced that my thesis about missing white women is not that far off after all.
Having a few police officer friends myself, I try to show a little more tolerance and forgiveness for the men and women wearing the badge. But stories like this; where those who operate under the "protect and serve" mission ignore particular types of people; sicken me to no end. But I don't place the onus solely on police negligence. True, they likely could do far more to address victims of color; especially considering the resources they willfully devote to the Natalee Holloways of the world. But I'd be remiss if I wasn't equally as critical of the media who feed off stories centering around white vicitimization while casually dismissing people of color. As the Village Voice article points out, attempts to involve the media in Moore's case were met with apathy by the media -- who are ostensibly committing to disseminating information affecting our world. When they decide to exclude particular groups in the interest of others whom they consider more 'newsworthy', they have to be brought to bear.
It is indeed a sad day, when people have to consider bleaching their skin in order to receive any validation in this country.
Hat tip to Malik for this story.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Senator John Edwards has finally resolved the mystery of who he'd endorse when he came out for Barack Obama. Though Edwards is not of superdelegate status, having this endorsement is a major boost for the Obama camp. It's conceivable that the 18 delegates earned by Edwards during the Democratic nomination will move over to Obama; furthering the likihood of Sen. Obama gaining the party's bid. This obviously is not set in stone; considering that Edwards' pledged delegates were only pledged to Edwards. Still, I don't think that anybody in the Obama camp will turn him or his delegates away.
I have my theories about this development. I suspect that Obama already knew about Edwards' endorsement well before the West Virginia primary. Speculating a major loss (which did, in fact, come into fruition), I think Obama deliberately waited until now to make the announcement. What better way to stop the bleeding and steal the thunder away from a major victory by Hill than to use the endorsement of one the most heavily sought politicians in America. Besides that, Edwards -- with his Southern accent, perfect hair, and son-of-a-mill worker upbringing -- is a perfect candidate to get those "white, hard working Americans" to the polls.
I've always thought that John Edwards would be a perfect Veep. I think he'd even make a great president. Maybe this endorsement is a step in that direction.
Monday, May 12, 2008
I was over at Carmen's site last week; where I participated in a discussion regarding Senator Clinton's overly-ambitious attempts to win the Democratic nomination despite being significantly behind in every major electoral category. From that discussion, it is my contention that Hill continues to stay in the race for one of two reasons:
(1) Her clear sense of entitlement; or
(2) Because she plans to dismantle Obama's campaign so severely for the General Election that she becomes the clear and undeniable candidate in 2012.
I wasn't able to get anybody on Carm's site to bite on my theory. But I really believe I'm on to something. For additional reference, look no further than her campaigning in Pennsylvania.
When Clinton cleverly juxtaposed herself to Rocky, the iconic fictional boxer who became the poster child for underdogs everywhere, I immediately cringed. Though using the label of "underdog" is somewhat of a misnomer for a person worth $109 million and who -- at one point -- was all but crowned the next president, I still got a chill when she said it. Being a Rocky buff, I immediately knew where she was going with this. Again, while I hate propogating conspiracy theories, this one may have a bit of legitimacy. Consider:
In Part I, Rocky lost a close contest to the heavily favored champion, one Apollo Creed. But the real hands-down winner in the contest was Rock. Not only did most of the media side with him; thinking that he was robbed of the title; but the physical and mental beatings he put on Apollo wore the champ down just enough to set him up for the ultimate knockout in the sequel. Hill's sequel = 2012.
By my estimates, Hill is no longer in this Democratic contest to win it. She's in it to RUIN it.
With every comment about how Obama can't win with the "white, working class", every unfair and unbalanced association with Rev. Wright, every attack on Obama's "experience" and every cry of disenfranchisment of Michigan and Florida voters, Hillary is using every Republican-feeding attack she can to methodically soften Barack up to take a loss during the General Election. If Sen. McCain can capitalize on Hill's subtle Obama-thrwarting and is given the opportunity to continue George Bush's legacy for the next four years, Americans will become so upset (and at the same time, possibly enthralled by Hill) that the only option they will consider is to put Clinton in office during the next term. I can see it now: "I told you so..." would be her campaign slogan.
I hate to openly admit things that I got away with, but I know the story of self-benefitting sabotage against somebody else all too well. I've done it myself. Except, my "prize" wasn't anywhere near the significance of winning the White House. The booty that stands to be won here will be worth the wait for Hill; especially since age apparently is not an issue when running for President.
Fortunately though, at the end my diabolical scheming didn't work. Hopefully, Hill's won't either.
I was just over at Mother Jones, where I read a very interesting op-ed by David Corn. In his piece, he questions whether or not Senator John McCain will ever be brought to bear for his association with televangelical Rod Parsely, who has called for the "eradication" of Islam. In lue of all the anguish Sen. Obama has been left to endure because of Jeremiah Wright, I'd ask the same question:
Will Sen. McCain be found guilty by association with controversial religious figures?
We all remember when Rev. John Hagee (another McCain supporter, I should point out) tried to play God by suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment to New Orleans for its sinful nature. As if that wasn't bad enough, now Rev. Parsley is urging us Christians to stand up and fight Islam; what he considers a "false religion." In similarly controversial sermons, he has lashed out against homosexuals, suggested that America is complicit in a "black genocide" and even compared abortionists to Nazis. Yet both he and his friend Sen. McCain has been given a pass. I mean, seriously: if Rev. Wright said anything like this in his sermons:
...all hell would break lose. And it has. It continues to.
This begs an important question: since Sen. McCain frequently referred to Rev. Parsley's as his "a spiritual guide," why hasn't the MSM brought him to bear because of Parley's statements? Two words; say it with me now: "Double Standards."
Talking heads in the conservative media (and indeed, even some of the more liberal outlets like CNN) have been working around the clock to punish Obama for his affiliation with Rev. Wright. But I challenge these hypocrites in the media RIGHT NOW to examine some of the associates involved with the other two candidates currently running for President. If after all that, the MSM still chooses to go after Obama, fine. But if Obama is going to be tried and found guilty for relationships with questionable figures, the knife must cut both ways.
I usually don't like to push propoganda. But in this case, I just couldn't resist:
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Relax fellas. I'll give the dads their props pretty soon.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
It's not very often that I credit hip hoppers as being a voice of social consciousness. But, I ain't even gon lie: even I was impressed when I read that hip hop mogul Jay-Z (Sean Carter) has set up an education fund for the children of Sean Bell, the unarmed man recently killed by three police officers.
According to the New York Times:
The rapper Jay-Z has established an educational trust for the two children of Sean Bell, the unarmed man shot and killed by the police in November 2006 on the day he was to be married, allhiphop.com reported. Last month the three policemen tried for Mr. Bell’s death were acquitted of all charges by a New York judge. Mr. Bell’s fiancée, Nicole Paultre Bell, has been appearing in “I Will Not Lose,” an advertising campaign for Rocawear, a clothing company founded by Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter.
Granted, he is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and this (relatively speaking) is a drop in the bucket compared to what he and others like him could be doing for millions of other poor children. And -- yes -- he stands to make even more loot from his new marketing campaign for Rocawear. And -- yes -- I have an issue with people profitting from tragedy (case in point). But I still give Jay kudos for using his platform to uplift somebody who has gone through the unimaginable. Good lookin' out, Jay.
See? Hip hop is completely the devil. Just 90% of it.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
In this video, some obnoxiously ghetto girl in Atlanta is acting like a fool toward an elderly woman. I don't know what caused the incident and I'm not sure on any other developments that may have come out of this story. But what I do know is that I'm ashamed to be a black person right now. I'm also ashamed to admit that I've actually rode on the MARTA:
When watching episodes like this, it's important to be reminded that no social or racial groups on this planet are monolithic. We don't all act like this. Still for me, it hurts to see my people showcasing themselves in this light, even when it's not done as often as people suggest.
I think about all the battles waged to open the world up for minorities; whether it's the fight for equal opportunities, combatting negative perceptions, or raising social awareness in our communities. So when I see igornant a** stuff like this, (especially in my hometown of Flint, Michigan; where it's more of a norm than an exception), I admittedly wonder to myself: "What's the use?"
What is we gon' do?
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
If you're an animal enthusiast, I suggest you turn away now. This post won't be pretty.
Last Saturday after severely breaking its ankle, Kentucky Derby second-place contestant Eight Belles was euthanasized. NBC was on the scene reporting as it all went down:
As a result of the euthanasia (which I should remind people is a MERCY killing), PETA has been all over the place protesting this event and the jockey who was riding the horse. My frustrations with pointless protests aside, the most bothersome aspect of this story is the unusually high premium placed on animal "rights", all in a time where human rights are seemingly being trampled on ad infinitum.
I was over a Jared's place where he made a convincing argument which I support. Though it's not entirely related to euthanasized thoroughbreds, it ties in to my feelings about animal "rights":
Currently, the ASPCA is running commercials that publicize a new program through which you can sponsor an animal in a shelter, and provide food, care, and medicine, etc. The approach is indestinguishable from that of Compassion International, World Vision, or any number of other groups who do the same things - but for kids. That's the somewhat frightening thing, here; those kids are now fighting dogs and cats for a limited pool of charitable resources...and it's a given that in many peoples' minds, it's a 50/50 proposition as to which group will get their donaitons.
When you honestly think - even for a second - that a dog in a shelter in Mumbai is more worthy of your $30 a month than the Dalit kid dying of dysentery in the street outside of that shelter? When you spend more mental and emotional energy worrying about the animals being displaced and killed by China's Three Gorges dam project than you do in trying to find a way to bring some semblance of hope to a North Korean family huddled in a safehouse in that country? You've lost me, and further convinced me that - as a culture - our perspective continues its slide off the rails.
But he also concedes to the issue of compassion toward animals, as do I:
Obviously, there's nothing wrong with loving your pets, taking care of animals, or believing in the inherent evil of animal cruelty (and taking steps to stop it, and to punish it). I'm right there with you on each of those counts. It's not an either/or proposition, of course. We can be compassionate toward people and animals, but for some reason, we're struggling more and more with the order of things.
Simply put: there is nothing wrong with having a love for animals. Indeed, they're cute, cuddly, and all of that other good stuff. But at the end of the day, they are just animals. They DO NOT possess the same faculties of reason and morality as humans even if they can feel pain. Since they don't have the same faculties as humans; as Dr. Ed Locke from the University of Maryland argues; the same rules about honoring "rights" should not apply. Nevertheless, somewhere down the road our priorities have gotten horrible lost. When PETA can come out and declare that they would be opposed to a cure for AIDS if it came at the expense of animal testing, there is some fundamentally flawed thinking at work. Incidentally, this is the same group which launched a campaign where animal killings were compared to the Jewish Holocaust; using Theodor Adorno's famous quote as their foundation (a bad quote, by the way, since oppressed groups like Blacks and Jews were dehumanized and treated like animals; whereas animals are already animals. There's a HUGE difference.). So I suppose I can't be suprised by PETA and other similar groups. But still, I am at least disappointed.
As I've always maintained: animals have an important place in this world. Above anything we may think about them, they are -- first and foremost -- God's creatures. As such, they are deserving of love, respect, and compassion. But if you think for a moment that they warrant as much attention and care as the abused, neglected, and persecuted people of the world, you're sadly mistaken.
PETA, how about we have a nice steak dinner? My treat.
Monday, May 05, 2008
A great story I once heard:
Once upon a time, there was a prominent Senator from New York who was seemingly a shoo-in to receive the party's nomination for President. But out of nowhere -- and against overwhelming odds -- a relatively unknown politician from Illinois emerged. This politician wasn't particularly rich or influencial. He didn't have the experience necessary to convince people that he could get the job done once in office. His speeches were often accused of being lofty, devoid of substance, and poorly indicative of how he would do as Commander-in-Chief.
Nonetheless, Abraham Lincoln still overcame William Seward, won his party's nomination, and ultimately took the White House.
Have you made the connection yet? If not, here's a little help for you.
Friday, May 02, 2008
I was over at the Hippie Conservative's joint. He just wrote an interesting piece about how each of the current Presidential candidates have been linked in one way or another to some pretty questionable characters. This got me to thinking:
For starters, I'm really not as focused on John McCain right now, largely because the media doesn't seem to care themselves. I will at least note that I think we should be paying more attention to him, especially since the dude has done virtually no real work during this campaign season, but is still a viable contender for the Presidency. But for the sake of a random thought I'm having at the moment, I'll focus squarely on the Dems.
Unless you've been living in a cave, you know about Barack Obama's recent divorce with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Personally, I think it was a necessary sacrifice for the sake of any political progress that rests on the horizon for Obama. I mean, the dude has been losing a lot of steam with his white supporters since Wright's fiery comments found their way on YouTube. Whether or not you agree with his take on social justice, retribution, oppression, etc., you can't deny that those comments have been hurting Obama's chances to secure the nomination. As such, some people have been crying foul.
Well, not me.
Admittedly, it pains me to see 'my' candidate dropping in popularity because of the antics of somebody else. But I'd be a complete hypocrite if I started crying foul at this point. After all, when Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton, Geraldine "Get a Clue" Ferraro, and Bob "The Black Sellout" Johnson kept putting their feet in their collective mouths -- and damaging Hillary's campaign in the process -- I sat back and cheered. But now the same thing is happening to Obama. This shows that the campaign has all the makings of a double-edge sword. Both sides run the risk of getting cut pretty deeply.
Opposite to what Sun-tzu said: maybe these candidates should keep their enemies close and their friends closer...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
I just read that Deborah Palfrey, the so-called "DC Madam" recently convicted for organizing a high-class ring of prostitution in the Washington DC area has reportedly committed suicide. According to sources, she hung herself in her mother's shed in Florida a little over a month before she was set to be sentenced for her conviction.
If this woman killed herself, then I'm Nancy Reagan.
You won't be able to convince me that this woman killed herself. The truth is: I think she was taken out in a way to make it appear to be a suicide. Before I'm accused of being some conspiracy theorist loon, consider the that she was threatening to name a slew of DC politicians whom she served as clients. She stood to damage the reputations and political careers of a bunch of people. Now all of a sudden she's found dead. And we're supposed to believe it was suicide?
The more I think about Hillary and her "tenacious" campaigning, the angrier I get. Hypothetical question for you:
If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton switched hats; where he was running out of money, losing in pledged delegates, dropping the ball on what was once considered a coronation, and pulling foul antics against a fellow Democrat, do you think he would've still been in this race?
Even if Hillary
steals wins the nomination, the fact that she has been fueled by her sense of entitlement (whether that be race, wealth, or legacy) has been apparent. And disgusting.
I will never, Ever, EVER vote for another Clinton. Not even if it was George Clinton. And I loved Atomic Dog.