Friday, October 30, 2009

Michael Jackson: THE BEST


So I just got home from seeing Michael Jackson's This is It!

Verdict: AMAZING.

There are simply not enough adjectives to describe his GENIUS.

Instead of trying to describe how great it was, I'll leave you with a clip from the movie and my favorite clip of Michael Jackson on the entire internet.

GO SEE THE MOVIE!

That's all! :)

Amazing clip of This is It



My favorite clip of Michael Jackson on all of the internet:



Hey Liz Cheney Is There Room In the Bunker For You?

There are few people in political life I can't stand more than Liz Cheney.

She's like that annoying girl in grade school that was the teachers pet but cheated on all of the tests in secret and never got caught while at the same time telling on all of the other kids for doing it. I don't know why that's what I see when I look at her but it is.

She is a walking and talking example of NEPOTISM. She got her stupid job as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (don't try to tell me she got this job on the merits!), because her daddy was the Vice President. She has a law degree which is more than I have (right now as I write this post) so I can't say that she is a complete idiot. Moving on...

Presently, she is the go to attack dog for all things anti-Obama foreign policy, cause you know she is an expert being that she is the daughter of Dick the always in the bunker, let's just bomb them and think about the consequences later, Cheney. She is basically Dick Cheney in a wig.

This past week
she criticized Obama for his public surprise visit to Dover Air Force Base to meet the coffins of fallen soldiers coming from Afghanistan.

Isn't it a good thing that the Commander and Chief is there to honor the fallen?


Not according to the lil Cheney. She thinks he did it for a photo-op citing the fact that Bush never took cameras to meet the fallen soldiers and their families.

One problem. She must have forgetten that
BUSH NEVER EVER WENT TO MEET THE FALLEN COMING HOME FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN EVER. EVER. EVER.

Via Talking Points Memo:

Liz Cheney called out President Obama for his early-morning trip to honor fallen soldiers arriving at Dover Air Force Base yesterday, suggesting President Bush honored America's heroes with a bit more class than his successor.

Cheney, on Fox News Radio's John Gibson Show yesterday:

"I think that what President Bush used to do is do it without the cameras. And I don't understand sort of showing up with the White House Press Pool with photographers and asking family members if you can take pictures. That's really hard for me to get my head around...It was a surprising way for the president to choose to do this."It's not clear exactly what Cheney is referring to when she says, "Bush used to do it without the cameras."

It's true that Bush's Pentagon continued a long-standing policy of banning cameras at Dover when the nation's fallen arrived in flag-draped caskets from foreign battlefields. (Upon taking office, Obama lifted the ban.)

So that covers "without the cameras."

But as CBS's Mark Knoller reported yesterday, Obama was the first president to visit arriving dead at Dover during the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq -- meaning that when it came to taking trips to Dover like Obama did yesterday morning, Bush never used to "do it" at all.





This woman has no SHAME.

Like father, like daughter.


Updated: Lawrence O'Donnell SLAMS Liz even better than me! Keepin' it real!

Thursday, October 29, 2009

In Case You Missed It...

Jon Stewart takes on Joe "The Rat" Lieberman and the media over the Public Option

Check it out:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Public Option Limited
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis


Phillies Win Game 1: Where my Yankees Fans At???

Please check out this highlights video from last nights amazing Phillies Victory. The video features my favorite band Coldplay. Phillies victory in NY mixed with a little Coldplay is good for the soul on an otherwise boring Thursday morning!!!


Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Exit Magic Johnson Enter Black Magic Johnson

When I was a kid growing up during the 80’s the game of basketball was the center of my young world. Entire summers were spent running up and down the basketball courts of West Philadelphia and winters were spent glued to the television, cheering along my favorite teams. Much of my basketball childhood was spent as a Lakers fan, primarily due to the presence of my idol, Earvin “Magic” Johnson. His finesse, unique passing style and overall offensive dominance made him my choice for best player in the league. The man’s career spoke for itself. Inducted in to the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2002, after having retired due to his successful bout with the HIV virus, Magic Johnson had become more than an icon. Not only had he been one of the most exciting, successful athletes in the world, black, white or any other race, but he had overcome the biggest and most feared epidemic of our time. AIDS!!!

Johnson seemed to excel at whatever he put his hands to. Whether it is basketball analysis, business ownership, or hosting a talk show….Well actually let me take that back…ALMOST whatever he put his hands to. He had help bring about the Starbucks, coffee shop revolution, which alone, I’m sure made him multi-millions. All this is fine and wonderful, but along the way it seems as if something went terribly wrong.

One day, while in front of the television, I noticed a commercial ad for Jackson Hewitt, starring none other than….You guessed it….Earvin “Magic” Johnson. Not long after, again, while indulging in one of my favorite pastimes, I noticed another commercial add. This time the ad was for Rent A Center, starring none other than….You guessed it…Earvin “Magic” Johnson. I used to think that the “Magic” stood for something phenomenal in the man’s basketball talent. A unique skill that he possessed, which enabled him to pass the ball one way, while looking in the opposite direction. Or to single handedly take control over a basketball game and solidify a win for his team. Later the “Magic” in his name, was something synonymous with a miracle. Magic Johnson, had truly proven how much Magic he could perform by doing the impossible. By beating the HIV virus, he gave hope to thousands of men and women fighting with this horrible disease. Because after all he’s still only human, right? Right?

Later on the Magic was proven through his ability to go straight capitalist on us. I mean, no one ever looked at Johnson as a socially conscious individual. He wasn’t the poster child for any movement, so it was a natural transition for him. In fact we embraced it…his career didn’t end with basket ball…Or with HIV….His career…His legacy had only just begun….
Jackson Hewitt along with H&R Block, are two of the biggest exploiters of black, urban economics that you will ever encounter. They prey on poor, uninformed individuals who are living from paycheck to paycheck and see an opportunity to obtain a few fast bucks. These companies are even beginning to target individuals during the holiday season, offering individuals an opportunity to get some Xmas cash. Shucks, who doesn’t need Xmas cash? By using your last paycheck of the year, you can have your taxes done and receive up to a $1500 refund anticipation loan. This forces you to use this same company to actually file your taxes in February. But guess what? That last pay stub doesn’t provide all of the information needed to obtain an accurate, refund amount. Therefore if it turns out that Jackson Hewitt was wrong and you are not owed a refund or you aren’t owed as much as they thought you were….guess who has to pay that money back? WITH INTEREST!!!! I have heard of some individuals, who have been charged between 20-30 percent interest on a refund anticipation loan (RAL). This is legal robbery folks. These companies should be shut down just like the pay day loan companies.
Don’t even get me started on Rent A Center. These crooks allow you to rent to own an item, such as a computer, a television, a couch, etc. Doesn’t sound too bad right?? Well the amount of interest put on these items to rent them with the option to buy, is truly the equivalent of purchasing the item twice, sometimes thrice.

Do you see now why Magic Johnson can never be Magic again? His new title Black Magic is well deserved and was unfortunately earned through his greedy, self centered choices. Black folks supported him throughout his fight with HIV and this is the thanks we get. As usual, we offer our support for our heroes, while they are in crisis (OJ Simpson), but when the crisis is over, we get stabbed right in the back. Black Magic Johnson, do you really need the proceeds from these endorsements? We know you don’t Black Magic so why do you intentionally exploit us? Why do you continue to benefit from our failure, from our lack of knowledge and from our disparity? Why instead of standing beside us and helping to raise our consciousness against these common pitfalls do you encourage us to fall into them? Black Magic, you were my favorite basketball player of all time. You were the black man that beat the white guy (Larry Bird) in the NBA Championship and made us all proud. You are a disgrace, not only to black people, but to all poor people. If that AIDS virus doesn’t come back to haunt you, I hope that someday your conscience does.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Scalia vs. The Evil Activist Judges

When it comes to interpreting the United States Constitution, there are several different philosophies that the Supreme Court Justices have adopted throughout history. Those judges following the Purpose doctrine seek to understand why a particular section or amendment was created in order to apply its intent to a given factual situation. Conversely, those judges following the Strict Constructionist doctrine tend to toss purpose out the window and are only concerned with the actual literal text of the clause in question. As one might imagine, these two groups of judges bump heads on just about every issue that comes before the Court. These two groups are also just as equally if not more so divided on the following major philosophical issue: Is the Constitution (1) a "Living Document" where its interpretation changes and grows as America changes and grows or (2) a static document that retains its Original interpretation as that interpretation existed in 1787 when it was written?

While you're pondering that question and basking in all of its philosophical glory, allow me to inject an ugly dose of reality into the matrix: whether you feel (1) or (2) is correct is largely determined by your politics.

Generally speaking, progressives feel that the Constitution is a Living Document that must be interpreted in light of a maturing society (this is what Republicans refer to as "activist" judging). Conservatives, on the other hand, generally feel that the Constitution is not a Living Document.

The Justice that most embodied the "Living Document" philosophy was the late Chief Justice Earl Warren who was Chief Justice from 1953-1969 during the height of the Civil Rights Era. Chief Justice Warren was about as (1) as they come. Under the "Warren Court," America was given Brown v. Board which overturned prior precedent and outlawed racially segregated schools, Miranda v. Arizona which literally created the rule that we all know from watching too many TV cop shows as our "Miranda Rights" (the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, etc.), and also Loving v. Virginia which made it illegal for any state to ban interracial marriage. These cases are widely heralded as landmark American accomplishments and a true testament to our progress as a nation, BUT had the Warren Court adopted the Originalist Philosophy of (2) up above, schools would still be segregated racially depending upon the state you live in, the police would not have to read you your rights, and many people like the 44th president of the United States would not exist. See the difference a simple judicial philosophy makes in our daily lives?

Speaking of (2)'s and the Originalist Philosophy, we turn now to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Nobody represents the Originalist Philosophy better than Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was misquoted today by the Huffington Post as saying that he would have dissented on the historic Brown v. Board case, however he actually did not go that far. But Scalia did provide ample evidence of his Originalist Philosophy recently at the University of Arizona College of Law where he stated the following:

"The fight is about the Supreme Court inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed...Right to abortion? Come on. Nobody thought it violated anything in the Constitution for 200 years. It was criminal. The same is true of homosexual sodomy. Yet the nation’s high court has struck down state laws banning both. They may be bad ideas but don’t tell me it’s unconstitutional.

"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today...[a]nd that’s not what a constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society."

Scalia may not have literally said that he would have voted against Brown v. Board, but in light of the fact that this is a man who truly believes that the Supreme Court should resolve the legal issues facing our nation in 2009 using the original intention of the Constitution as it existed in 1787, he didn't have to.

Aside from the fact that the original Constitution sanctioned slavery, there's just one other minor little flaw in Scalia's approach, created by the founding fathers themselves, that contradicts the notion that the Constitution should remain static: it has been amended 27 times.

Senator Joe Lieberman: MORON

Memo to Rahm: You need to get that horse head or whatever it is you do to persuade people to take your side and make it appear in Senator Lieberman's bed by 7am tomorrow.

I am not saying that I take Senator Lieberman's threat to join the Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill if it includes a public option seriously (and I'm not the only one), but come on!

We have one long awaited good day for REAL health care reform and this loser has to come in a ruin the party! Am I the only one who feels like he just rained on my parade?

Joe Lieberman has a history of being a traitor (2008 Republican Convention remember that?)
and is now an Independent because the Democrats endorsed Ned Lamont back in 2006 (even though he was the incumbent AND had been the party's nominee for Vice President just 6 years earlier). Even after the 2008 election, Obama forgave Lieberman and didn't take away his powerful chairmanship which in retrospect I think he definitely should have done.

Seriously, though Joe did you have to be that guy? I'm sure this has nothing to do with Connecticut being the home state for many powerful health insurance corporations right?

I am pretty much seething with anger and have no more to write THAT WON'T END UP IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO BE SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS, so I'll leave you with Keith Olbermann's segment on Joe "The Rat" Lieberman and also with an excellent and more tempered synopsis of what happened today via Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo (a MUST read news blog).

Friday, October 23, 2009

The Public Option: Don't Call It A Comeback

MAJOR UPDATE: If's official! Harry Reid announced today that the public option (opt-out) will be in the Senate bill.

Senator Durbin said the pressure from progressives made it impossible for Congress to leave the public option out of their bill. Remember when folks were tryna play me for saying we should be writing letters and calling our elected Reps?!

I'm officially feeling vindicated.


Remember this post of mine?

I would love to say that I'm clairvoyant or whatever but really I was just very hopeful all along that the public option would survive fear mongering, town halls, death panels, etc and make it to the point where we are talking RECONCILIATION! Please note that even if the version of the public option that is in the Senate bill is weaker (which it most certainly will be) than the House version they can strengthen it back up during conference committee.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

The public option. The idea was believed to be dead. Liberals wanted it, but Senate vote counters insisted it simply could not pass the Senate. The dynamic, however, has changed. The public option may be back from dead.

I am told that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is leaning toward including the creation of a new government-run insurance program – the so-called public option – in the health care reform bill he will bring to the full Senate in the coming weeks.

Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.

This is not because there has been a new groundswell of support for the idea. In fact, there are still a handful of Democrats who -- along with Olympia Snowe and every other Republican – oppose the idea. As recently as this morning, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”

That would appear to be a problem because Reid needs 60 votes to pass a health care bill and there are simply not 60 Senators who support a public option. But Reid is now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.

And Democratic critics of the public option would get a chance to go on-the-record with their opposition by voting for an amendment to strip it from the health care bill. Under Senate rules, such an amendment would need 60 votes to pass. And while there may not be 60 votes in favor of a public option, there are also not 60 votes against it. So, it would remain in the bill.

The downside: The move would almost certainly cost Democrats the support of Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the sole Republican who now supports Democratic health care reform efforts. Asked today if she would vote to block a bill with public option, Snowe told reporters, “On the public option? I'd say I'm against a public option, so yes."

Another important point: Reid’s version of the public option is different from the more liberal version advocated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in two key ways: 1) Reid’s version would allow individual states to opt-out of the program, giving public option critics the chance to say that their states retain the right to scrap the idea; and, 2) Under Reid’s plan, the new government insurance program would have to negotiate payment rates with health care providers. Under Pelosi’s, payment rates would be tied to the lower rates paid by Medicare.

This is not a done deal. I am told that Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) – who worked for months to get Olympia Snowe’s support for the bill and has consistently said a public option cannot pass the Senate – was apoplectic when Reid told him he wanted to include the public option. “Baucus went to DEFCON 1,” said a source familiar with the negotiations, referring to the alert level the military uses for an imminent attack on the homeland.

UPDATE: Snowe gave an interview to Bloomberg TV today where she reiterated her opposition to the inclusion of a public option that would kick into gear immediately -- and said it may not be possible to finish a bill this year.

“A public option at the forefront really does put the government in a disproportionate position with respect to the industry,” Snowe said on “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.

She added: “Christmas might be too soon. . . . We should give it the time it deserves.”

2nd UPDATE: A spokesman for Max Baucus denied the Senator was upset with Senator Reid.

"From the moment he recommended a public option in his white paper nearly a year ago, Senator Baucus has made clear he would support a public option or any other mechanism to ensure choice, competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate," said Baucus spokesman Scott Mulhauser.

Mulhauser dismissed reports of Baucus being upset as rumors, adding "I hear Jon and Kate may be getting back together if you want to chase more rumors down rabbit holes.”

The White House vs The Faux News Channel

I challenge you to watch this and not conclude that the White House didn't go at Faux News hard enough!

WTF


Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Andrew Sullivan: Obama like T-1000 from Terminator 2


This article is excellent and so I am posting it in its entirety.
Times Online
Andrew Sullivan
There is a strange quality to Barack Obama’s pragmatism. It can look like dilly-dallying, weakness, indecisiveness. But although he may seem weak at times, one of the words most applicable to him is something else entirely: ruthless. Beneath the crisp suit and easy smile there is a core of strategic steel.

In this respect, Obama’s domestic strategy is rather like his foreign one — not so much weakness but the occasional appearance of weakness as a kind of strategy. The pattern is now almost trademarked. He carefully lays out the structural message he is trying to convey. At home, it is: we all have to fix the mess left by Bush-Cheney. Abroad, it is: we all have to fix the mess left by Bush-Cheney. And then ... not much.

The agenda may be clear. He wants an engaged Iran without nuclear weapons. He wants to be the first American president to enact universal health insurance coverage. He wants a sane two-state solution for Israel/Palestine. He wants to leave Iraq without having it blow up on him. He wants to find a way to solve the AfPak Rubik’s Cube. He wants to allow gays to serve openly in the military. But on all these things, it’s mid-October and still ... nothing substantive. So obviously, he’s a total fraud and failure, right?

Wrong. When Obama moves, he moves with chilling swiftness. The stimulus package went through Congress like a speeding bullet. The appointment of Hispanic judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was as clean as these things can be. But these were matters over which he had almost complete control. When he doesn’t have such control, he takes another tack.
He sets out a goal and then he waits. He waits for the other players to show their hand. He starts a process that itself reveals that certain options are unfeasible, until he is revealed by events to have no other choice but ... well, the least worst practical way forward. He always knows that things can change, and waits for the optimal moment to seize the initiative.

On Iran, for example, he has done not much more on the surface than open up direct talks. Beneath, you see deeper shifts. His election itself and his Cairo speech laid some important groundwork for June’s Green revolution.

He managed to inspire the opposition without throwing his lot in with them (playing the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, with finesse). In America, he has slowly defused the debate away from the polarising “Are you a patriot?” or “Are you with those scary Muslims?” to the more realistic: “If we want to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon, what’s the least worst way of trying — or is it impossible after all?”

By waiting, we learn. We now know, for example, that Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, is more sympathetic to sanctions against Iran than Vladimir Putin. We learn more about divisions within the Tehran leadership. We may also discover that even with a transparent, good-faith engagement from Obama, the Chinese and Russians have no intention of shifting. That will leave him with a clearer, if narrower, set of policy options. The president can afford to do this because he has more power than anyone else. But he doesn’t have total control, especially as America’s global power is balanced by China, India and Russia. He’ll act when he knows what the options really are. And not until.

On health insurance reform, you see the same cunning. Universal insurance is now all but certain in some form, but how to restrain costs remains a difficult challenge. One way would be the dreaded public option, or rather a compromise in which a public option would be available, but only if individual states approve it for their own populations. Obama knows the public option, insofar as most Americans understand it, is popular. So why not get his opponents to fight it in their states where they can be hurt, rather than nationally, where they can tar Obama as a “socialist”. Sneaky.

It may not happen, of course. But what’s important to note is that it’s still possible even at this late stage. After months of wrangling, his near-ideal solution is still viable. (Compare that with how Hillary Clinton’s fared in 1993.) He has fudged without cornering himself with a commitment he will be unable to fulfil, while leaving open the best practical option in the near future. That way, whatever happens, he will get the credit.

And he has framed the debate so that the Republicans find themselves as their own worst enemies. Support for Obama’s health reform was sliding until August’s right-wing temper tantrum. Since then, his approval ratings on the issue have steadily climbed, and Democrats are increasing their lead in congressional polling.

Now look ahead to next year. The impact of health reform will be initially all positive: more and more people able to get insurance, without the full costs being felt. The stimulus package has been so steered towards spending in 2010 (sneaky again) that it will doubtless boost the recovery as the mid-term congressional elections approach. And, with health reform under his belt, Obama could easily pivot from his liberal base towards an emphasis on fiscal responsibility — which puts the Republicans on the spot and appeals to independents.

In other words, he has kept most of his options open. He is thinking further ahead than the Republicans. If he gets real universal coverage, he will be an icon on the left and thereby get more breathing space to tilt to the right. That’s why he may well not make a big move or decision on Afghanistan any time soon. It would be nuts to either alienate or please his liberal base until he gets healthcare passed.

But if healthcare passes, and the economy revives, Obama will have dodged several premature traps. And he will then be in a very strong domestic position from which to deal with Iran and Afghanistan and Israel. My sense is that on the really divisive issues — accountability for torture, and gay rights, for example — he intends to wait for a second term. If that enrages his base — as it has — they have few other places to go. And he looks bipartisan by resisting them. At the same time, he has not explicitly ruled out bringing justice to the torturers or rights for the gays. He’s able to balance a commitment to the right thing with an almost chilling ability to restrain himself from doing it.

As a long-term political strategy, you can see the method in his apparent meandering. Yes, there are vast risks. It may still fail. And yet, when you look at it closely, you see that in all this, he has both maintained his vast ambitions and yet shrewdly minimised the political risks to himself. This is cunning, not weakness. And one day, his opponents will realise it.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

MLB: PHL VS NYC



So it looks sort of like the Philadelphia Phillies will be facing the New York Yankees in the World Series this year. Two extremely patriotic teams and two very proud cities. Many of us I am sure are not baseball fans, including myself. However, it is quite difficult not to notice that much of The Urban Politico following, reside between Philadelphia and New York City. As a result of this fact, my competitive spirit says that I must taunt all you New Yorkers and let you know that you are going DOWN!!! Here is the video from last nights thrilling, bottom of the 9th inning hit, by Jimmy Rollins to put the series at 3-1 against the Dodgers. This is what you guys are up against....I hope your ready!!!



Monday, October 19, 2009

Secret Service Overwhelmed By Number of Obama Death Threats

This is the kind of story that gets my blood boiling.

You mean there are so many hateful, racist, crazy wingnuts right now in America that the Secret Service is running out of resources?!

The Department of Homeland Security needs to do something about this NOW!

Someone needs to start charging Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh a fee for stirring all of this up!

What is wrong with these people? Obama won a free and fair election and the far right acts like he organized groups of Democratic operatives and hill staffers to cause a ruckus to stop a recount...Oh wait I'm confusing that with what ACTUALLY happened in 2000.

As much as I hated (and I mean HATED) Bush and Cheney I never wished death on either one of them. I love America more than I disliked their policies.

The right wing is always so quick to call themselves patriots, but one of their most popular blogs actually fantasized about a military coup to overthrow the Obama administration.

Are these people nuts?! (That was mostly rhetorical.)


New Poll: Majority STILL Support a Public Option


I don't even have anything to say except,

CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPS!


You can't complain about this not getting done if you haven't done your part to help!

Friday, October 16, 2009

President Obama to GOP Critics: Grab a Mop!


President Obama tells the Republican critics to grab a mop and help clean up the mess!


Guest Post: Chris Rock and the "Good Hair" Phenomenon


Guest Post
by
Jamillah


The question is did Chris Rock go too far??

The documentary titled "Good Hair" is one of the most sensitive issues for African American women. Indeed, the title is in contrast to "bad hair," "kinky hair," "nappy hair," or whatever you may call it.

Here's the problem: in this movie, Chris Rock has exposed all the techniques we, as Black women, do to our hair: perms, weaves, wigs, braids and so forth. But how is this movie helping us?? Is it just for fun?? More importantly, why has our hair been made into a MOVIE??

I'm indifferent because out of all the topics worth creating a dialogue about, this is not a topic I choose to discuss...and yet here I am. My caucasian colleagues have seen the movie and came to work with a ton of questions!! I have to admit, I was a little disturbed.

Yes, I am permed but I don't feel it correlates to me trying to be white. For me, I am natural. I wear my own hair!! However, by any means, don't ask a Black woman: "is that your real hair?"!!! (My sistas know what I'm talking about) It's just rude.

Nevertheless, I still don't understand why Chris Rock made a documentary as a eye opener for all the world to see....what is his point?? Is it that Black women spend the most money on hair maintenance or that most Black women don't have "Good Hair?"



If anyone has seen the movie, what are your pros/cons to the issues at hand?? And is there such a thing as Good Hair??


------------
Jamillah is a PR Rep with First Investors and is currently a student at Kean University (Class of 2010) where she is pursuing her MA degree in Corporate Communications and Public Relations.

Jon Stewart on New GOP Website: You've Got Fail


He nails it. I love that he points how the mini-Steele that was only on the website on the first day was a lot like the paperclip in Microsoft Word.

Check it out:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
You've Got Fail
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorRon Paul Interview

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Rachel Maddow Completely Destroys Tim Phillips

Tonight, while everyone was busy watching the "Balloon Boy" little Falcon not fly away in his family's homemade helium balloon on CNN, Rachel Maddow was completely slaughtering Americans For Prosperity's Tim Phillips.

It was a thing of beauty.

Who is Tim Phillips you ask? He's one of the corporate funded jerks who helped to orchestrate all the yelling this summer at congressional town hall meetings, among other things. Think Jack Abramoff.

He's basically an overpaid used care salesman who is hurting America.

Thankfully, we still have journalists like Rachel Maddow who don't allow guests to come on and get away with lie telling. You know like on CNN.

It's a must see! Check it out:

Part 1



Part 2



House Vote Boosts White House Goal of Closing Gitmo on Time

Well look what we have here. Progress!

The House of Representatives voted today to fund the transfer of Gitmo detainees to U.S. soil to stand trial, making President Obama's promise to close the prison by January 2010 much more of a real possibility.

Just a few weeks ago folks were upset about Obama allegedly breaking a number of his promises.

I definitely think there is something to be said for patience and perspective. It's been less than a year and most importantly the deadline to close Gitmo is not even here yet.

That said this bill does exclude funding for housing the prisoners once their trials are over so we still have a ways to go in this complicated process.

For now though, I'll take this bit of news as a step in the right direction and I think you should too.

4th Grader Asks the POTUS Why Everyone Hates Him


I love this clip but it also makes me very sad. Even with the first African American President kids still have to wonder why so many people in America hate him.

It's a great clip though, coming out of Obama's brief trip to New Orleans.



Hey Louisiana Um...WTF?!



Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License by Louisiana Judge

At first when I saw this headline I was like no way this is true! We are in 2009 not 1929 for goodness sakes.

Full article via Huffpo here:

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.





Um, I'm sorry judge I didn't know it was up to you to determine how long a marriage would last or how the kids would turn out when you sign the form to give someone a marriage license? Of course just like this guy, the judge said he's not a racist.

Of course the ACLU is now involved (I wish I was working on that case) and this will definitely turn out well for this couple in the end because like I said before, this is not 1929.

What's going on in the world?!

Jon Stewart Calls Out 30 GOP Senators Who Voted Against Rape Victim

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the Franken amendment to protect the victims of gang rape should have gotten the support of all 100 votes in the United States Senate. But it didn't SMH.

30 Republican Senators sided with the corporate interests over the victim.

Turns out some of the same Senators who wanted to protect KBR, were in favor of the amendment to stop funding ACORN. Surprise, surprise...

Check it out:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorRon Paul Interview

Guest Post: Get Your Hand Out My Pocket!!!

GUEST POST from "The Fed":

***SIGH***

You know...I really want to believe that we live in the world that the conservatives THINK we live in.

It is a world were we must give tax breaks to the "job creators," infuse them with funds, and the money will trickle down to the middle class.

So let me get this right, you are going to give some of the greediest men in the world:
  • money
  • tax breaks, and
  • deregulation

And in return these men, with huge hearts and generosity, are going to do the right thing and provide goods and services at a lower price, and create jobs. All of which benefits middle Americans.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called supply-side economics (generally). And in theory, it sounds beautiful!

Now, let's come back to reality. We all know that the richest 1% is basically a fraternity...and in that fraternity, they play games with each other like "Who has the longest yacht!"

**Side Note: And in case you are wondering, this isn't hyperbole. I know the manager of the largest yacht company in the area, and the LITERALLY play games like this....he built a yacht that came in UNDER cost (which was $1Million BTW) the customer pitched a fit because he wanted to tell his friends that he owned a million dollar yacht and MADE the company spend the rest of the money on something...anything....to make it a million dollar yacht. If you still don't believe me, do some research on Bernie Madoff and his "Bull" yacht.**

...sorry...back to my point...

Supply side economics and Reagan's "Trickle-down theory" are nice...but what happens when the people you give the money to decide to ..... keep the money?

It is my theory (and I am NOT an economist) that the money in today's struggling economy is the same as it was 5 years ago. The population in today's economy is the same as it was 5 years ago. So what happened?

Well...we are creatures of habit. We like what we like. And, without getting TOO outrageous, we will pay for it. For example, we went from paying $5 for movies to paying $10 for movies (and don't get popcorn and a drink, that is an extra $10). But, we LOVE our movies (and other products) so...we pay it. But the wages of the staff did not go up. Between 1997-2007 Minimum wage stayed at $5.15/hour.

So where did that money go? Anyone? Anyone? (Bueller?.....Buelller?)

I know we like to say it was the housing market that put us in our current economic position...and there is truth in that. There were people (whether by gov't force, or predatory lenders) taking out mortgages they couldn't afford. Of course houses (like the movies) were going UP in cost, while home-buyers' (like the theater staff's) salaries weren't going up. So again, we find ourselves in a position where we (the American public) paid more than the cost of something without fair compensation in return.

Between 1990 - 2005, CEO pay rose 298.2%, and corporate profits by 106.7%, by contrast, the average worker's pay has only risen by 4.3%.

It was reported today that JP Morgan (and others -namely Citibank) had large profits.

In 3 months, JP Morgan had a profit of $3.6 BILLION dollars! And while this week's jobless claims dropped (slightly), unemployment is almost at 10%! TEN PERCENT!!!!!

"Is that it?"
"No, there's more!"

Inflation - the general price of goods - is GOING UP!!!!

Pop Quiz!

There are 10 people in a room that has a line drawn right down the middle. 9 people are on one side of the line and 1 on the other. Each person has $10. If the 9, give the 1 $10, and 1 gives each of the 9 $1, who will end up with 90% of the money?



-----------------
The Fed is an HBCU grad and currently resides in the DC/Baltimore area where he holds a position within the federal government working with standards and policy in Congress.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New Frontline Special: Obama's War

Since I consider PBS's Frontline to be required viewing for smart people, I thought you should know that there is a brand new special available online dealing with the situation in Afghanistan.



Check out the preview below and then watch the entire program
HERE:


SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Enron Case

You all remember Enron. 'Member? You 'member! Anyway, our good friends at the Supreme Court of the United States have decided to grant certiorari (legal term for agreeing to hear the case) for Jeff Skilling's appeal. When all the smoke cleared, Skilling, the former CEO of Enron, was one of the main cats responsible for cooking the books and defrauding the American people out of Billions (with a "B") of dollars. When Enron fell, it was the largest bankruptcy in American history until Lehman Brothers last year. Yeah, it was a pretty big deal. Your boy Skilling was the Madoff of his time; he was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison on 19 counts of federal crimes including fraud, securities fraud, insider trading (aka: Martha Stewart), and many more.

As it turns out, the Circuit Courts (the 13 federal courts of appeal) have what the legal profession calls a "circuit split" over one of the many legal issues that sent Skilling to jail, the federal "honest services" fraud statute. This the same statue that took down Rod Blagojevich. In a nutshell, it says that it is illegal to deprive the general public of "the intangible right to honest services." Sounds pretty vague right? Well that's exactly why there is a circuit split on what the statute is suppose to mean. And like clockwork, whenever there is a circuit split on an issue of federal law, the Supreme Court has to do its duty and set the record straight for everybody.

Meanwhile, jokers like Skilling who have a proven knack at exploiting opportunity, will use the circuit split on this issue to say that he was wrongfully convicted by a vague statute. This cat just never stops hustlin' right?

Too bad the most he's going to get out of a successful appeal here at the Supreme Court level is a new trial on the issue of the "honest services" fraud only; that would be only 1 down with 18 more to go. But I'm sure a devious mind like Skilling can cook up a way for those other 18 right?

The real question is how will the Supreme Court rule?

If I was a gambling man, I'd say Chief Justice John "Prosecutors Up, Convicts Down" Roberts and his conservative block actually won't have too much mercy for your boy Skilling here seeing as how he allowed himself to become a convict and all. Tough luck, son. Better luck next time.

Want Real Healthcare Reform? DO SOMETHING



Okay so I know I sound like a broken record but it's important to keep repeating myself because it's not over til it's over...healthcare reform that is.


Here is Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, talking about what YOU can do to help make sure this healthcare reform bill INCLUDES a public option (Hint: It involves more than tweeting your frustrations, telling your friends how much you think Obama and the Democratic Congress are a disappointment, and yes even blogging).



Honestly, if you don't do anything and this doesn't get done you will only have yourself to blame (I mean that in the nicest way possible). No more words. No more pontificating.

At least if you have something to say, put it in an email to Congress or call and tell your elected representative and not just the person next to you.

Contact information for everyone in Congress below (see now you don't even have the excuse that you don't know how to get in touch with them):

Call Congress using the Organizing for America website


Email your Senator

Email your Representative

Don't have time to write an entire email?
Tweet them! (Okay so I know what I said above but isn't it better to tweet your frustrations to them instead of just about them? Duh.)

Oh and one more thing, even if you don't have time to contact them yourself, maybe in place of your daily email rant to your co-workers and friends, send the hyperlink above and encourage them to contact Congress. Every little bit helps.

I am now stepping down from my soap box...

Update: Even if you aren't motivated to do anything because I've written in this post, do so because President Obama is asking you to.

Goal for the week is 100,000 calls to Congress using the OFA link above.

Guest Post: The GOP Has a New Push


At The Urban Politico, we're always happy to take Guest Posts on the issues of the day. If you have a topic you'd like to write about, email us your submission at:

the.urban.politico@gmail.com

Today's Guest Post comes to us from fellow blogger "The Fed."
The Fed is an HBCU grad and currently resides in the DC/Baltimore area where he holds a position within the federal government working with standards and policy in Congress. Today, he writes to us about the new GOP website, so check out this latest submission and be sure to show our guest some Urban Politico some love and chime in with your comments:


The Faces of the Republican Party

Their tag line says:
"The GOP is a Party of many people with varied and diverse backgrounds, but we all share a passion in Republican principles. Why are you a Republican? Let us know by filling out this
form and you could be the next to be featured here."

If you roll your mouse over the pictures...you can see WHY the individual people became republicans...

take a moment...wasn't that sweet...?

Too bad the world most of them live in doesn't exist.

Let me be fair, there was a time with the Republican party actually had diversity in values. It was founded on the values of anti-slavery, and came to power in opposition of the
Kansas-Nebraska Act. They even fought against "States' Rights" as a way to defend slavery. But somewhere between William F. Buckley and Richard Nixon and his Southern Strategy, it moved further away from being a friend of Black America.

With their agenda opposing Affirmative Action, and now in support of States' Rights and smaller government (unless, of course, it has to do with same sex marriage or abortion where they want the government to be as big as it can get) it isn't the same agenda that assisted many of the great Black Americans in our history to forge out the lives we have today. Blacks had to fight against States' Rights, and they supported the Government getting involved with everyday issues and expanding rights to include EVERYONE.


Even with gun rights we have a different perspective. I'm sure most of us understand gun ownership rights as laid out by the 2nd amendment. But we have also seen the destruction done in our communities. There is no reason why AR-15s are street legal. Why are we hunting with military caliber weapons?


It is damn near offensive with the face of black men and woman representing the "O" in GOP on their new website. There aren't that many black people IN your party. Did you ask them all to come in for the photo shoot?

Isn't the truth, that today's conservative agenda ISN'T a diverse agenda? Isn't it a party of exclusion and twisted philosophies and idealism? Can you related more with democratic issues or republican issues?

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Jon Stewart Pwns CNN for Fact Checking Obama SNL Sketch

Basically, he made CNN look really stupid because they don't even fact check their own guests but made time to fact check a comedy sketch (which as you know I didn't find funny).

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
CNN Leaves It There
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorRon Paul Interview

Event Promo in the NY Metro Area: "Obama and Sotomayor: The Age of Minority Leadership"

For all of the Urban Politico readers in the NY Metro area, you should check out the following:

"Obama and Sotomayor: The Age of Minority Leadership"
Topic of October 22, 2009 Symposium - The Rutgers School of Law-Newark Association of Latin American Law Students (ALALS) will present a symposium titled "Obama and Sotomayor: The Age of Minority Leadership" on Thursday, October 22, 2009, from 6 - 9:30 pm. The Association of Black Law Students, Asian Pacific-American Law Students Association, Rutgers LGBT Caucus, Women's Law Forum, and the Human Rights Forum are event co-sponsors. The symposium will consist of two panels: the first on how the ascension of an African American to the presidency and a Hispanic woman to the highest court has impacted their communities, and the second on why minority communities should not become complacent in the face of these transformational
changes.

What: "Obama and Sotomayor: The Age of Minority Leadership"
Who: PANEL I
  • Hon. Esther Salas, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey
  • Jenny Rivera, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Latino and Latina Rights and Equality, City University of New York
  • Al Alvarez, Esq., Deputy Chief of Staff to Gov. Jon Corzine
  • Yvette Bravo-Weber, Dean of the Minority Student Program, Rutgers School of Law-Newark
  • Brandon Paradise, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law-Newark
  • Juan Cartagena, General Counsel and Vice President for Advocacy, Community Service Society, and General Counsel, Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, moderator

PANEL II
  • Hon. Doris Ling-Cohan, New York State Supreme Court
  • Debra E. Guston, Esq., Partner, Guston & Guston, L.L.P.
  • Peter BergĂ©, Esq., Associate, Bendit Weinstock, P.A.
  • Suzanne M. Cerra, Esq., Co-founder and President, Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C., and Chief Operations Officer, New Jersey Women Lawyers' Association
  • Adil Haque, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law-Newark, moderator
When: 6 - 9:30 pm, Thursday, October 22, 2009
Where: Baker Trial Courtroom, Rutgers School of Law-Newark, Newark, NJ 07102
RSVP: alals.rutgers@gmail.com