The Urban Politico

Free Birth Control!!! (Whether you want it or not)

2012-01-27T09:13:00.000-05:00

Conversation between Federal Government and citizen.

Maybe I should use a different finger to make my point

Well hello there ~~subject~~ citizen! I’m here to help you. From now on all of your birth control pills are gonna be free!! No co-pays or deductibles. Isn’t that special? You can thank me later.

What’s that friend? You say you don’t need or use birth control pills? Hmm. Well that’s no problem because future HIV screenings, breast pumps, sterilization procedures, domestic violence counseling and screening, well-woman tests, and STD counseling are gonna be free!!! Isn’t that wonderful? Aren't you just quivering with joy and gratitude? I know I would be.

Oh. You say you’re an XY human being and not an XX human being. Well see I’m afraid these benefits apply only to people with XX chromosomes. You XY's will just have to continue to pay on your own for gender specific issues. I think that’s fair. Since I’m the Federal government, what I say goes. I got your equal protection right here pal.

Ehh. Speak up sonny it’s hard to hear you with my head in the clouds. Oh, you say you have firm and deeply felt religious, financial or moral objections to paying for other people’s birth control? I thought we went over this before. That’s just too bad partner. Life is not fair. I think it’s a good idea. You will just have to violate your religious objections. What’s the big deal anyway? So your premiums rise so that other people can have “free” birth control? It’s “free” to them isn’t it? And that’s a heck of a selling point, you must admit.

Yes I know that virtually all plans already provide birth control, 99% of women who have had sex have used at least one contraceptive method, impoverished women are covered by Medicaid and most teen mothers said lack of access to birth control was not a problem. I read that new study which showed that higher income women (who were presumably paying co-pays for their birth control) had much lower rates of unplanned pregnancies than poor women (who were often covered by Medicaid) So? Shouldn't you be ecstatic to pay more so that they can pay less? Stop mumbling about the inefficiency of subsidizing something someone was already doing.

Oh cut out that blubbering. So you have diabetes or colon cancer or prostate cancer or black lung or heart disease or optic neuritis or MS or Parkinson's or high cholesterol or obesity or any number of other LIFE THREATENING conditions. Tell it to someone who cares. You will still have to pay out of pocket for office visits and co-pays for medications related to preventing or treating those conditions. Those diseases either disproportionately impact men or impact men and women equally. I certainly can’t preen as the great savior of women’s health if I’m trying to reduce costs for both genders now can I sport? Any of this getting through to you kid?

Yes, that's right, everyone has the absolute individual right to use or not use birth control as they see fit. I'm glad you're finally seeing the light there buddy. I knew this would get through your thick skull eventually!! We agree on something. Finally!!

I want YOU to pay for birth control

Eh. No. Just because everyone has the individual right to use or not use birth control as they see fit doesn't mean that you have the individual right to pick a plan that doesn't include birth control OR that you have the individual right not to pay for other people's birth control. They have the right to choose; you have the duty to pay for their choices. What are you some sort of nutty libertarian? How dare you express preference as to what goods and services you want to buy with your own money. You say you have nothing against anyone using birth control you just don't want them to reach into your pocket to pay for it? Stop oppressing me with logic. The same people who smugly shout if you don't like abortion don't have one also say if you don't need birth control pay for mine anyway. And that makes all the sense in the world to me. Yes it sure does. No I won't explain how.

Say you'll sue? Yeah, so what I just lost in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC where I tried to argue that there was no ministerial exception to federal employment laws. That's a completely different case. I don't see any issue with church and state coming together as long as the state gets to tell the church what to do. And I do so love telling churches what to do. I know I said if you liked your health plan you could keep it but you know I said a lot of things. And stop whining about the Amish or Christian Scientists getting religious exemptions. I like them. You, I don't like.

So you say you might drop insurance coverage or close up shop rather than pay for coverage that violates your deeply held ethical, religious, philosophical or moral beliefs? Well that is a road you don't want to travel down my friend. If you're smart you'll get with the program. I have this handy dandy new indefinite detention law that I can't wait to try out. Go ahead. I dare you. I double dare you. I double DOG dare you.

QUESTIONS
1) Do you think the new HHS policy is a good thing? If so why?
2) If people who object decide to pay fines or drop coverage what should the Federal government do?
3) Is this a threat to religious freedom and/or freedom of conscience?
4) Do you recognize the "double DOG dare" reference?

Join The Urban Politico Team: Live Chat - GOP Presidental Debate on CNN

2012-01-26T20:07:00.000-05:00

LIVE CHAT with The Urban Politico Team TONIGHT @ 8PM EST

GOP South Carolina Presidential Primary Debate Hosted By:
CNN, CNN en Espanol, The Hispanic Leadership Network and the Republican Party of Florida

CNN will broadcast the debate starting at 8 p.m. EST.

Live Stream @ live.cnn.com

Join us this evening for a live-chat via http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/ and logging into our Chat Feature.

President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address: Full Speech and Synopsis

2012-01-25T10:05:00.003-05:00

President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address

Presidents have long used the State of the Union address to highlight their accomplishments, and layout their vision and plans for the upcoming year. This year was no different. 2012 is unique because it's an election year. A year where the siting President is seeking a second-term and his policies are under attack by his opposition. Exemplifying the essence and persuasiveness of his oratory skills, President Obama took everyone to class giving a lesson that included a much needed walk down memory lane. He detailed a list of his accomplishments, (ensuring to highlight the policy decisions that have worked and produced significant results, which are currently under scrutiny by GOP Presidential contenders) and provided an analysis of policy matters where both parties have been in agreement in past political climates; a quick preview into the issues he will tackle as candidate Obama.

Ladies and Gentleman, He's Back!!!! Class in in session....

Enhanced Broadcast - 2012 State of the Union Address

Republican Presidential Candidate Willard "Mitt" Romney made a "strategic decision" to release his tax returns for 2010 and 2011 on Tuesday, the same day as the President's State of the Union Address. His campaign hoped that the release would receive a decreased amount of attention due to the President's Speech. They were banking on the usual backlash that the President's speeches usually cause, pushing the reality of the released tax returns to the back burner. Romney felt so confident with his decision and returns that he had this to say:

"I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."

President Obama and his team were 10 steps ahead. In anticipation of a move like this, combined with the campaign rhetoric used thus far, Obama served Romney and all the GOP contenders a curve ball. The President sent a message and stopped them dead in their tracks stating:

Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.

In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families -- your taxes shouldn't go up. You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief.

We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get a tax break I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit or somebody else has to make up the difference, like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet.

Essentially, the tax system is beyond broken. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Warren Buffet, and most members of the US Congress are getting away with monetary murder receiving tax breaks they don't need. The tax code will be a major issue in the 2012 election and the President has let it be known he is ready for the fight. To add a visual to his words, Warren Buffets Secretary Debbie Bosanek, of Berkshire Hathaway, was seated in the First Lady's box and was singled out in a portion of the speech.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

The President made sure to highlight the auto loans that saved GM and prevented the country from entering a depression. The auto loan has also been a subject of ridicule by Republican Presidential Candidates.
The most important portion of the speech came when the President literally called the US Congress out for not doing their job. He challenged them to send him legislation that will help move the country forward. He also made Congress aware that he fully expects them to play politics from now until the election, which equals nothing getting done, but he urged them to not play politics and put the people first.

Lastly, for all those naysayers who labeled this President as soft and unwilling to take tough actions with regards to our enemies, he kindly reminded them that Osama Bin Laden was taken out under his watch and without partisan bickering or stalemate from a do nothing congress.

Overall, the speech did an excellent job of touting the accomplishments of the administration thus far, just in case people forgot. Most importantly, he made the case to voters that the work started in 2008 is not complete and that there is still work to do.

Full Text of President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address

In fairness, please see the Republican response delivered by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels who also served as Budget Director under President George W Bush, and the Tea Party response delivered by former Presidential Candidate Herman Cain

video platform video management video solutions video player

Republican Response

video platform video management video solutions video player

Tea-Party Response

Questions

1. What are your overall thoughts on the speech?
2. Was there anything that the President didn't touch on that you would have liked him to touch on?
3. Based on the speech, what do you anticipate as the single most important issue heading into the election?

4. Give your take on the state of our union?

Join Us Tonight - Live Chat: State of the Union Address

2012-01-24T14:30:00.000-05:00

2012 State of the Union Address

Join us again for a LIVE CHAT TONIGHT during the President's State of the Union Address at 9:00 pm EST.

The White House will live-stream the video here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

2012-01-24T09:06:00.003-05:00

The Open Politico

Open forum for any of our readers to discuss issues, drop links to articles or videos, or just voice your opinion about whatever is on your mind out there in Urban or Political news.

Sound Off........

Red Tails, Black in Hollywood, What's Next

2012-01-24T07:36:00.005-05:00

After heavy promotion and a well constructed sob story for George Lucas's Tuskeege Airmen opus Red Tails, the film took the number two spot at the weekend box office. Raking in $19.1 million in its opening weekend. The Black action history flick was second only to Underworld Awakening, the vampire thriller starring Kate Beckinsale. This isn't the first time a predominantly Black film has finished its first weekend in the top three spot. But it is the first time that it's happened with a White Executive Producer begging people -- Black and White alike -- to go out and see a film or else we never get another colored picture ever again.

The doom and gloom rhetoric surrounding the plight of Black actors, actresses, directors, writers, producers and any other positions in the upper echelons of the Hollywood machine have long been highlighted in the Black community: radio shows, websites, blogs like the one you're reading. But while the problem has been highlighted the attitude has always been, "We'll show Hollywood we can be a box office smash too. We'll show Hollywood our stories are worth telling."

Now we have Hollywood's golden boy blaring the same tune on his trumpet for cinematic justice. But the question remains.... Will it make even the slightest bit of difference?

George Lucas says he's been trying to make Red Tails for the last 20 years ago. That means his mission to bring this story to life began in 1992. In 1992 Spike Lee brought a piece of African-American history to life on the big screen, X; the movie adaptation of the Autobiography of Malcolm X. X came out in '92, the year before another piece of all-American history was brought to life via movie magic; Oliver Stone's JFK.

When I was in college Spike Lee came to my school and gave a lecture. He covered the classics, Do the Right Thing and School Daze and talked about his searing documentary, When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, painting a picture of New Orleans in the days, weeks and months after Katrina. But he also talked about X, specifically what it took to get a movie like that made. His answer in short, rich friends.

In the credits for X, there is a special thanks to Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Janet Jackson, Prince and Peggy Cooper Cafritz -- founder of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts. While on the campus of FSU Spike told us all in the audience the studio pulled his funding and to finish the film he had to reach out to friends with deep pockets and bigger hearts. He told us he asked Magic Johnson for a donation after he'd already asked Michael Jordan so Magic would give more than Jordan. Spike also recounted how studio executives wanted to place X under strict time constraints. They told him the movie should be no longer than two hours. Spike told us he called Oliver Stone to inquire about JFK. Stone told Spike JFK was running three hours. As we all know X runs a good three and a half hours.

These were the issues and hurdles a critically acclaimed, albeit controversial, director had to deal with 20 years ago to get a period piece based on African-American history made. Here we are 20 years later with an even more critically acclaimed director, with no major controversy to his name or works (Jar Jar Binks aside) having to finance his own film because in 20 years there is still no audience for it.

These are the lines fed to apparently all directors Black and White on why Black films can not and do not succeed. Unless of course your name is Tyler Perry.

To drum up support for Red Tails, Perry penned a letter on his website discussing the difficulties he still faces when trying to make movies.

He wrote:

"Unfortunately, movies starring an all African American cast are on the verge of becoming extinct. THAT'S RIGHT, EXTINCT! Ask any executive at a Hollywood Studio why, and most of them will tell you one of two things. The first thing they'll say is that DVD sales have become very soft, so it's hard for a movie with an all black cast to break-even. Secondly they'll say, most movies are now dependent on foreign sales to be successful and most "black" movies don't sell well in foreign markets. So what that means is you will begin to see less and less films that star an all black cast. Isn't that sad in a 2012 America? Somewhere along the way we still haven't realized that we are more alike then not.

I must tell you that I have been very fortunate to work with a studio that sees the value in my type of storytelling and filmmaking. As well as having you, an audience of all races of people, who have stood by me arm and arm. It has helped me navigate through some pretty rough waters."

Whether you love Tyler Perry and his brand of work, hate him like our Grand_Central, or are indifferent like I am, the one thing you can't deny is the man's continued to push to have Black stories told. Call it coonery, buffonery, samboing whatever you like but when you can release a movie featuring an entire Black cast year after year, sometimes two and three times a year without a studio head giving you too much of a second thought it goes to show there is an audience for a film filled with color. Furthermore, Perry doesn't just have anybody in his films, he has heavyweight actors and actresses bringing his sometimes bland and melodramatic scripts to life: Phylicia Rashad, Loretta Divine, Thandie Newton, Kimberly Elise, Cicely Tyson, Angela Bassett, Lynn Whitfield, Blair Underwood. The list goes on. (Kathy Bates and Alfre Woodard in Tyler Perry's The Family that Preys)

Now many, Grand_Central this is for you, believe Tyler Perry exemplifies all that is wrong with the Black community, Black media and the image of ourselves we see projected on to small and silver screens alike. Personal feelings about his work aside, if you look at his business model it is undeniable. Perry's work has tapped the bible belt. His movie premieres are events for southern church groups, and his prevalence has given rise and credence to other filmmakers wanting to tell other stories of the African-American Americana.

Monday, the trailer for T.D. Jakes' newest film, Woman Thou Art Loosed: On The Seventh Day was released. Comments I read on one blog derided the trailer for over acting (how can you tell in a minute and 21 seconds) and for having the hackneyed come to Jesus moment. Mind you Bishop T.D. Jakes is the same man behind last summer's Jumping the Broom that had bourgie Black folks everywhere headed to theaters to see a film they hoped would put the professional Black woman without a man or marriage meme to bed. While there was no mountain moving to shatter the five-year-old trope through film, the movie came in third place in it's opening weekend against Thor and Fast Five making $15.2 million and besting Something Borrowed starring Kate Hudson. Since its May 6, 2011 release Jumping the Broom has made more than $37 million in the United States.

The year before that the rom-com Just Wright, starring Queen Latifah and Common debuted in fourth place on it's opening weekend with a cool $8.2 million. Since its 2010 release the movie has grossed more than $21 million in the U.S.

To say there isn't an audience for Black films with Black casts is a lie. To say Black films don't command an audience is a lie.

Just as this year's Black film buzz has been all about Red Tails and Pariah before it and Spike Lee's Red Hook Summer to come, in year's past there has been the it Black film for folks to go see.

But that's the problem there is only one or two "it" films with a predominantly if not exclusively Black cast for the entire Black-American population to go see. We may be a minority but we are not... I repeat we are not a monolith.

Yet we have to beg for Precious when The Blind Side is greenlighted and the stories are nearly identical only the players different. We have to beg for the shelved 35 and Ticking when identical films No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits, Bridesmaids and Something Borrowed are released en masse.

Last year's much ballied about film, The Help, debuted at number 2 it's opening weekend making $26 million. Since it's August release the film has grossed more than $169 million domestically and $35 million in foreign markets. The film told through the voice of "Skeeter" Emma Stone's character, is really about the work lives and sister-hood of Abileen (Viola Davis) and Minny (Octavia Spencer) both of whom were nominated today for Academy Awards and Spencer who recently won a Golden Globe for best supporting actress.

The Help appealed to a diverse audience, probably because of its controversial subject matter, but audiences turned out to see a group of domestic Black women protest their station in life through simple literacy.

The problem with getting films telling Black stories green-lighted in Hollywood is that they are marketed as Black films. Just like when you go into bookstores (those that are left) and you see the sign that says African-American literature. We are being distinguished in a sub-category for doing the same thing our less colorful counterparts do. We are being distinguished in a sub-category for telling the same stories our less colorful counterparts do.

The problem with the way forward in Hollywood following the firestorm created by the release of Red Tails is to not use a sob story to promote a movie or pitch it in the frame of a woe is me pity party. Instead sell it as an American story that has cross cultural appeal even if the cast looks nothing like you. Cosby anyone.

I understand this will be much harder to do than it is to type but it is the only way to conclusively end the debate on Black movies, Black literature, and Black music and just make it all American. If we are to be a melting pot, the tossed salad body of assimilated tan people what we create and put out into the media dialogue should reflect that.

Wishful thinking yes. But it is the only way to push past begging and fighting for films to be made and released and just have them at the ready for all to watch.

Questions:

1. Did you see Red Tails? What did you think?

2. Do you think it's first weekend showing will show Hollywood Black films are viable period not subtext necessary.

3. Can new Black filmmakers break into Hollywood without dumbing down their content or making it overtly religious?

Willard's Tax Returns

2012-01-24T06:48:00.006-05:00

It must be nice to be Willard and Ann Romney. I say this because they literally made money while they slept in 2010 and 2011. Neither Willard nor Ann had to punch a clock, report to an office or take direction from a supervisor. That says a lot about the man who wants to be the next President of the United States of America, a nation where 99% of the people MUST earn a wage.

Let's examine the wealth gap and look at the Romney's tax returns.

The Romney's earned $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011. All of this income came from dividends and interest from investments.

From The Washington Post:

None came from wages, the primary source of income for most Americans. Instead, Romney and his wife, Ann, collected millions in capital gains from a profusion of investments, as well as stock dividends and interest payments.

The couple gave away $7 million in charitable contributions over the past two years, including at least $4.1 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Romney’s family has for generations been among the Mormon Church’s most prominent members.

The Romneys sent somewhat less to Washington over that period, paying an estimated $6.2 million in federal income taxes. According to his 2010 return, Romney paid about $3 million to the IRS, for an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent.

For 2011, Romney estimates that he will pay about $3.2 million, for an effective rate of 15.4 percent. That’s in line with his earlier estimates, but sharply lower than the rates paid by President Obama and Romney’s closest Republican rival, Newt Gingrich.

"You’ll see my income, how much taxes I’ve paid, how much I’ve paid to charity," Romney said at a debate Monday night in Tampa. "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes." He said his tax bill is "entirely legal and fair," adding: "I’m proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes."

Romney released his tax returns — nearly 550 pages, including the 2010 returns for three family trust funds and a foundation — in a bid to regain his footing in the Republican presidential campaign after stumbling badly in last weekend’s South Carolina primary.

This is the money quote literally and the quote that I advise all of you to think deeply on -

"I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."

Thank you Willard, you've just confirmed what we already knew. The US Tax Code gives an unfair advantage to wealthier people and allows them to pay less taxes, percentage wise than the average person.

Will the release of these tax returns help Romney or hurt him?

Did the Romney's pay their fair share of taxes?
Is the US Tax Code fair?
Is it wrong to pay more taxes than you owe?

Is Mitt's problem Region or Religion

2012-01-23T17:13:00.002-05:00

To the chagrin of our president, there is still a red America and a blue America. A red America, that, in the past, represented a more intellectually conservative point of view, has dissolved into a party ran mostly by Southern social conservatives. Once Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrats made the move to the Republican Party, they helped give a voice to the disaffected Southern white voters. Eventually, with growth of like-minded communities, the South came to be the geographical representation of the Republican Party. As the Party is forced further to the right, the likelihood of Mitt Romney becoming their nominee becomes more unlikely - though not impossible.

Romney started behind the proverbial 8-ball simply because of his religious beliefs. Romney is a Mormon. However, I’m under the impression that the ascension of President Obama to the White House made Romney’s Mormon pill a little easier to swallow. After all, if a Muslim, Buddhist, Communist, Socialist, Black Liberation Theology Christian without a legitimate birth certificate can be elected to the highest office, a Christian Mormon should be fine. This has more to do with the region he’s from than his religion.

Historically speaking, the power center of the Republican Party has always been suspicious of northern, more moderate, republicans. The Republican Party has not put forth a Republican Presidential Nominee from the northeastern states (East North Central, Mid Atlantic, New England) since 1948 (Thomas E. Dewey); coincidentally, the same year Strom Thurmond ran for president as a States’ Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat).

As we saw in the South Carolina primary, Mitt Romney does not light the fire of Southern Republicans. Called a "Massachusetts Moderate" by Newt Gingrich (from Georgia now residing in Virginia), who spits the fire and furry representative of many Southern Whites, Romney failed to convince one of the most conservative states in the country to vote for him. Looking at the exit pools, about 60% of those who self-identified as ideologically conservative, evangelical or born-again, and supportive of the tea party backed Gingrich.

If you look at history, Romney’s path to nomination is laced with uncertainty. His religious concerns with Evangelicals is well known; however, Southern Republicans, even against their own interests, adamantly oppose Northern Republicans telling them what to do. From the carpetbaggers and Yankees of the late 1800s to the R.I.N.Os of the 1990s, Southern Republicans have always had a “if you’re not with us, then you’re against us” mentality. In the last decade or so, Republicans have started wearing this position like a badge of honor highlighted by the Grover Norquist-isque pledges. There is NO room for moderates and NO room for compromise.

There is a genuine fear that Romney, hailing from the DARK BLUE state of Massachusetts, won’t be extreme enough. That Romney won’t care enough about the social issues that drive many southerners to causes – even some to violence. That he won’t be lock-in-step with any and everything the Republican South demands of him. The truth is, most Northern Republicans care less about social issues – same sex marriage/abortion/etc. – and more about economic issues. Romney may be the Republican’s best shot at beating Obama in November, but that hardly matters; he’s a R.I.N.O., and as such, he is not to be trusted.

If you're curious, I looked up the Democratic Presidential Nominees going back to 1948:
Truman – Missouri
Adlai Stevens – Illinois
John F. Kennedy – Massachusetts
Lyndon B. Johnson – Texas
Hubert Humphrey – Minnesota
George McGovern – South Dakota
Jimmy Carter – Georgia
Walter Mondale – Minnesota
Michael Dukakis – Massachusetts
Bill Clinton – Arkansas
Al Gore – Tennessee
John Kerry – Massachusetts
Barack Obama – Illinois

Why don't Republicans like Mitt?
Why don’t conservatives like northern Republicans?
Do you think there will ever be a Republican nominee from the northeastern region?
If Romney won the general election, would he govern from the middle or from the far right?

Don't Call it a Comeback, I Been Here for Years!

2012-01-22T01:47:00.001-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen, we officially have ourselves a race! What seemed like a foregone conclusion for Mitt Romney only a few days ago has now turned into an open 3-man contest with Rick Santorum winning Iowa, Romney winning New Hampshire and now Gingrich winning South Carolina. And not only did Gingrich win South Carolina, but he won it walking away; he beat Romney by 13 points (over 75,000 votes).

Results for South Carolina Republican Primary (U.S. Presidential Primary)

Jan 21, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)

1. Newt Gingrich	243,153	40.4%
2. Mitt Romney	167,279	27.8%
3. Rick Santorum	102,055	17%
4. Ron Paul	77,993	13%
5. Rick Perry	2,494	0.4%
Other	8,192	1.4%

Questions:
What does it mean that Gingrich won by double digits?
Does this give Gingrich the momentum to carry Florida?
Did the debates give Gingrich his boost?
Is this a testament to the "Southern Strategy?"

Music Reviews-Songs in the Key of Life, Hardcore Jollies and Etta James

2012-01-21T05:14:00.064-05:00

Songs in the Key of Life

Stevie Wonder is often considered to be a genius. I can't call if but if he is then Songs in the Key of Life is the release that proves it. He had never created anything as fantastic before and would never do anything as sublime afterwards. This is without a doubt the best release Wonder ever created, a top ten seventies album and arguably one of the best albums of all time.
Growing up, I listened to this album obsessively. It was one of the few current pop albums that my parents also loved. There were many times that I would come home to hear this album playing. So it brings back a ton of good memories. Wonder's writing here is top notch. Listening to it makes you think why can't people write lyrics like that today? His love songs get the point across without getting lost in explicit descriptions. The blues and protest songs are angry and direct but don't slide off into pity or hatred.

I can't really compare this album to many others, inside Wonder's work or out of it. It transcends simple comparisons. I don't listen to a lot of modern music because I generally find it soulless and lacking in rhythm with too many electronics but Wonder proved back in 1976 that electronics and modern sounds didn't necessarily have to impede soul or rhythm. The album is seamless-literally. There is no way to tell if or when Wonder transitions from playing almost all the instruments himself to working with a full band or if he is recording live in studio. He combined the most up to date synthesizers and electronic orchestration with skilled talented band members, great song writing and really warm mixing and production. There are too many session musicians to mention but some special guests included luminaries such as Herbie Hancock, Minnie Ripperton, Syreeta Wright, Dorothy Ashby, George Benson and Deniece Williams.

Sonically juxtapose this album to almost anything released after say 1990 and notice the difference in recording volume. Songs in the Key of Life is recorded very warmly with a full rich sound. You can hear everything and nothing is too loud. Modern music is often recorded way too loudly which gives a sterility that thankfully is nowhere to be found on this album.

At a time when many contemporaries were either turning amps up to 11 and playing the simplest blues riffs they could steal, or boasting about not even being able to play their instruments, or running pell mell into disco, Wonder showed that there was still room for someone who took music seriously and didn't let cynicism dominate his worldview.

Musically this album runs the gamut from the updated hardcore urban blues of Pastime Paradise and Village Ghetto Land to gospelized masterpieces like Joy Inside My Tears to jazz inspired tunes like Sir Duke , afropop like I am singing to pop ditties like I wish and If it's Magic and Isn't She Lovely to R&B like As or Knocks me Off my feet to funk/rock like All Day Sucker or Contusion. There is literally not a bad song or filler on this release. That's unusual for any album let alone a double one. Double albums tend to be sprawling and virtually always have a few duds or indulgent navel gazing songs on them. Not so here. The quality control is incredibly high. Everyone should have this album. If you don't shame on you. Go out and get it. Now. If you do have it, take it out and listen to it. This album is medically proven to cure loneliness, confusion, depression, rage and melancholy.

Hardcore Jollies

Funkadelic was always the more outrageous, dangerous, rock oriented half of P-Funk, George Clinton's conglomeration of musicians, and this release lives up to that billing. Hardcore Jollies is "dedicated to the guitar players of the world" and proceeds to show why from the first cut, a demented take on Coming Round the Mountain.

After guitar legend Eddie Hazel left the band, he was replaced by a man known as "Kidd Funkadelic" -Michael Hampton. Although Hardcore Jollies was not Hampton's first outing with the band it may be -in my opinion-the one in which he had the most impact. It's hard to say. I like this album a lot but it is VERY heavy on guitar wanking. The man himself, Eddie Hazel also shows up to play on a few cuts. Unless you are a guitar junkie or completist collector this might not be an essential Funkadelic album for you. But if you LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE guitar then this album is a must-have. The only "hit" that is on this release is Cosmic Slop but to me that was more than worth the price. Of course to me almost anything P-Funk did in the seventies was more than worth the price so there's that.

Unfortunately by 1970's America, music critics, radio programmers, record companies, and most shamefully musicians and audiences that should have known better had begun to redefine "rock" so that the term excluded (with the exception of Hendrix and Chuck Berry) almost everything that any black musician ever created. Thus David Bowie or Talking Heads doing James Brown inspired music are still rock musicians but James Brown or Funkadelic? Nahhhh. This is silly, racist and most importantly untrue. Hardcore Jollies is a rock album. Period. As I mentioned it's full of extended nasty midrangy guitar solos played by Hazel and Hampton that sound like Godzilla and Mothra put aside their differences and decided to kick everybody else's a$$ for a change. Bootsy Collins and Cordell Mosson hold down the bottom end here. Hendrix Alum and drummer extraordinaire Buddy Miles also can be heard on this release. This album, sounds for lack of a better word, out there. There's judicious use of synths and reverb. Listening to it makes you feel like you entered another world. The lyrics are often explicit with plenty of double entendres. Check out Smokey and You Scared the Lovin Outta Me.

Etta James

Etta James passed away yesterday. Unfortunately some of the younger generation only knew her from her song At Last or from the film "Cadillac Records" which was full of exaggerations and artistic license (Etta James did NOT have a relationship with either of the Chess brothers-yes there were two, not just one) or as an older cantankerous woman who didn't appreciate Beyonce's versions of her songs or depiction of her life.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. All music is related. This is especially the case with African American music. And before say the late seventies, many black musicians grew up in an era, where although they may have eventually specialized in whatever genre their interest lay, they had to be able to acquit themselves well in a variety of different music styles. Jimi Hendrix backed up Wilson Pickett and Little Richard. George Clinton started out singing doo-wop. Fred Wesley hit it big with James Brown but his true love was jazz. Jazz giant David Newman got his big break in Ray Charles' band. And Ray Charles played anything he damn well pleased.

This is the world in which Etta James grew up. She was comfortable singing in a wide variety of genres. I love blues but Etta James was more than a blues singer. She came in at a time and place when blues was both influenced by and transitioning to rock-n-roll, R&B and soul. She also had quite a way with pop and gospel songs. Ironically and sadly she died the same week as Johnny Otis (a Greek-American bandleader who for all intents and purposes decided to be black), the musician who "discovered" her.

Back in the day there was a song called Work with me Annie by Hank Ballard. This was a pretty suggestive song because "working" was exactly what your dirty mind thinks it was. It was followed up, just in case any really dim person missed it, by a song titled Annie had a Baby, can't work no more. A teenaged Etta James sang an answer song titled Roll with me Henry and her career took off. If you haven't heard her sing you really missed a treat. She had struggles in life as we all do but her personal issues* aren't important to me. What is important is the incredible voice James had. She should have copyrighted the term "smoky alto".

Do yourself a big favor and take some time to listen to her sing Something's got a hold of me, Baby what you want me to do (in which she takes a vocal solo in which she imitates a harmonica), You can leave your hat on, I'd Rather go Blind, Ball and Chain, A Sunday Kind of Love, Only Women Bleed, Fool That I am or many many more. You may be interested in her seventies album Only A Fool, which had very bass heavy production and was chock full of rock and soul covers aimed at the younger audience. There's also a cover of Prince's Purple Rain floating around there somewhere. I'm not a huge fan of her post eighties work but like a lot of people from the old school she worked until she couldn't any more. Much respect. Nothing against Beyonce or Aguilera or Adele or Joss Stone or whoever but this right here was the real deal.

*Fun fact-James was also known for not taking any stuff. In the Howlin' Wolf biography Moanin' at Midnight, the author describes an incident at a 1955 Apollo show where the lovestruck but then illiterate Wolf had someone write a note of sweet nothings to the seventeen year old James. James responded by confronting the 6-6 300lb Wolf and rudely rebuffing his advance in front of his entire band. "Old country man" was the nicest thing she said. Undeterred Wolf had someone write another note to take to her. James wrote back a note that was simple and sweet. "You m******f****! F*** you!!" At this point Wolf got mad. But he took the hint.

Breaking News: Etta James, Dead at Age 73

2012-01-20T11:38:00.008-05:00

Legendary Singer Etta James Has Passed Away At Age 73

From Eyewitness News:

Etta James, the legendary singer who mastered a range of styles from R&B and soul to jazz and blues, has died at the age of 73 from terminal leukemia.

The veteran singer, nicknamed The Matriarch of R&B and "Miss Peaches," had been hospitalized late December and for a time was on a respirator to handle her breathing for her. She died early Friday at Riverside Community Hospital.

James, who would have turned 74 on January 25, also suffered from dementia. She was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 1993. Her enduring hits include "At Last" and "Tell Mama."

Embarrassingly, I only learned of Etta James when the movie "Cadillac Records" was released, but found her voice incredible and thought she was a superb artist. Here are two of my favorite songs from Etta.

All I Could Do Was Cry

At Last

Rest in Peace Etta.

Reality for Black Women in Corporate America

2012-01-20T09:30:00.001-05:00

Last week I came across an article that revealed "in-depth details" about US First Lady Michelle Obama and her relationship with White House Staff. The book titled "The Obamas" was written by New York Times Reporter, Jodi Kantor. In the book, Kantor reveals details about the First Lady's negative interactions with her husband's most senior advisers and attempts to label her as someone dictating US policy through the President. Kantor's sources are current and former white house aides. Without promoting this book and going into an in-depth report, basically Mrs. Obama is summed up as an "angry black woman" and someone who is overly ambitious of her husband's agenda and an overall force to be reckoned with in the West Wing. After reading through the various reports, it appeared to me that Mrs. Obama is simply supporting her husband (which is what a good wife is supposed to do), acting as a confidante and serving as a voice of outside reason to the President. As cited by Kantor through her sources, allegedly Mrs. Obama was unhappy with the line up of her husband's staff and often times felt they didn't have his best interests at heart with regard to certain policy matters.

Michelle Obama Debunks Kantor's Claims

This is not a new story and I am afraid we will continue to hear this story. We've entered an era of progressive women who are successful in their own right. We can anticipate seeing more US First Ladies like Michelle Obama in the future. In the 1990's while President Clinton was in office, his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton was crucified as well for her active role in her husband's administration. It was often joked that Hillary was really President during the Clinton years - in my opinion a very biased and sexist assumption/joke. I hate to sound like some righteous feminist, because I am far from that, but we all know that this mess would not even be taking place if the genders were reversed. The deeper issue that comes to my mind and is most alarming to me, is the perception that all of this places on women in Corporate America - specifically black women in "Corporate America." The mislabeling of First Lady Michelle Obama and the negative images of her portrayed in this book are directly related to the plight of black women in Corporate America.

Today, there are six African-American CEO's who sit at the head of America's Fortune 500 companies. Of those six, one is a woman, Ursula Burns of Xerox. As a young black woman working up the ranks, I can't even begin to tell you how sad and depressed this makes me. In 2012, we have one woman at the helm of a Fortune 500 and there doesn't appear to be any other black women in sight who could help increase this number. Woman continue to be deprived of development and the leadership opportunities early on in their careers, that prepares them to ascend to the top of organizations. Yes we have come a long way, but we still have a lot of work to do.

In her interview with Gayle King last week, Mrs. Obama acknowledged that there has been an active campaign to bring forth proof, that she is an "angry black woman." Imagine that, the nations first African-American First Lady, who happens to be whip smart, beautiful, was successful in her own right along with her husband, and most importantly, she is highly educated. All of these positive attributes and she still has to fight back against negative stereo types? Her strength is mistaken for arrogance. However, at the end of the day, Michelle Obama only has to fight back against these stereotypes to perfect an image that is inspiring and serves as a role model to young women like myself. If we really think about it, she could keep quiet on all of this and go about her merry way. Post Obama Presidency, the First Lady will be well off and will probably lend her time to philanthropy and become a global ambassador for a cause that is near and dear to her heart. Let's just say Mrs. Obama will not be job-hunting, going on interviews or seeking professional development or promotions in a particular field. She will not be subjected to the scrutiny or placed under the magnifying glass that black women in Corporate America are placed under.

It's no secret that I admire Mrs. Obama and look at her an example of the type of woman I hope to be in the future. Her role as first lady was supposed to give the world a better image of black women, especially in America. After the 2008 election I was most excited about Michelle Obama's role, because I finally had a woman who looked like me, spoke like me and most importantly had ambition that mirroed my own. Most positive images of black women were not in the work place, they were in entertainement or sports. As much a people dislike Condoleezza Rice, she actually personified the image of a successful black woman who was motivated, ambitious and highly educated. Taking policy or political views out of the equation, Ms. Rice suffered the same negative stereotypes that Mrs. Obama is being subjecteed to, today. Why can't black women get a break?

In reality, this is all very revealing and lets me know, we have an even further way to go until black women are respected for their thoughts and ideas and their ambition is not mistaken for arrogance. If Mrs. Obama is being labeled, what does that mean for me?

Do we share the same sentiments.....

What can black women do to change the "Angry Black Woman" stereotype that is often associated with them?

Is Michelle Obama an "Angry Black " woman?

Did you have any expectations for Michelle Obama and her image impacting black women across Corporate America?

BREAKING NEWS: Perry out of Race!!

2012-01-19T10:54:00.001-05:00

ZZ Flop, we hardly got to know you!

Texas Gov. Rick Perry will end his bid for the Republican presidential nomination today and is expected to endorse former House speaker Newt Gingrich, according to two sources familiar with his thinking.
Gingrich himself said via email this morning that all he knows is “not much. Rumors.”
Perry has called a press conference at 11 a.m. this morning in North Charleston to announce the news, which was first reported by CNN’s Peter Hamby.

Perry’s announcement comes just hours before the candidates will gather for their 16th debate of the Republican race and just two days before the South Carolina primary.
For the last several months, it had become clear that Perry would not be a major factor in the race — hamstrung by a string of lackluster debate performances that culminated in his inability to name the three federal agencies that he would eliminate if elected president.
One early Perry fundraiser, who soured on the campaign as the candidate repeatedly stumbled, said the decision “was a foregone conclusion to what has been quite possibly the worst-run presidential campaign of our lifetimes.”
Following a fifth place finish in Iowa, Perry said that he would return to Texas to reassess his candidacy. But, less than 24 hours later he announced — via Twitter! — that he would continue in the race.

STORY

QUESTIONS
1) Does this clear the field for a conservative alternative to Romney?
2) Why didn't Perry get more traction in the race?
3) Did the Texas accent remind voters of Bush too much?
4) Did you ever get the feeling that Perry's heart just wasn't in it?

The US Military: Is it bereft of discipline?

2012-01-18T15:18:00.001-05:00

There's a saying in the military that "There are no undisciplined soldiers. Only untrained soldiers." Well, if this is true, the military should immediately mandate sensitivity and ethics training across the armed forces. Recently, a video surfaced showing four Marine snipers urinating on dead Taliban soldiers. Now I know there are no classes entitled, "Don't pee on your enemy." But these soldiers' actions forces one to question whether these soldiers had any training at all on the laws of war. These soldiers, who have performed one of the most disrespectful and disgusting acts possible to deceased humans, seem incomprehensibly undisciplined. But this brings us a broader point: Why are US soldiers behaving in this manner?

Speak with any drill sergeant and they will tell you that the military has gone soft. They'll tell you that training is less rigorous, shorter, and that current recruits are lazy and spoiled. But that aside, shouldn't recruits come to basic training with a minimal respect of humankind? Well apparently not. Maybe video games and the lack of basic social and communication skills really have corrupted our youth because they just don't give a damn.

So basically it's military basic training versus the video game/twitter/facebook generation. This is a generation that does what it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. Oh yeah, and then they put it on YouTube for the world to see. In addition, this generation has the attention span of the venerable fruit fly. So, do the actions of the four Marines highlight a unique problem with this generation? I say yes.

When I went to basic training in 1997, it had changed a bit from the Vietnam era that my dad trained in but it maintained the same spirit of yesteryear's warfare. For example, we slept in World War II-styled barracks, we learned to navigate the jungle using only a map, compass, and intellect, we negotiated obstacle course that simulated conditions Vietnam, and we wore only standard issue clothing - none of that fancy insulated technology-laden clothing today's soldier wear. And oh yeah, NO ONE had electronic devices to communicate with loved ones. The only connection to the outside world was a land line phone, and it was a gamble on whether we could actually use it or not. Oh yeah, there was also snail mail.

Today's soldiers train in relative comfort, with new barracks, Wi-fi, revamped obstacle courses, and high tech gear. In addition, they have a myriad of electronic devices in which to get emotional support from loved ones on a daily basis. If they don't have access to their fancy Ipads, they could always send their instant messages home via emails.

Now I know some of our Vietnam-era readers and older may laugh when I say this but we were trained to be tough because we did without. Even more importantly, training made us mentally tough. For example, when you walked up to the 50 foot rappelling scaffold and the Drill Sergeant screamed, "Turn around and walk down that wall," you didn't ask questions, you moved out. When you only had food for two days but you were in the field for five, you learned to do more with less. Through all of this training, we achieved the most important thing of all - discipline. Highly trained soldiers equal highly disciplined soldiers. I fear that this has been lost on many in this current generation of soldiers.

I can't honestly say I didn't hear about similar break downs in discipline in Desert Storm or campaigns like Operation Just Cause. We just kicked tail and came back home. Sadly, my generation is this generation's middle management. My generation, the Majors and Lieutenant Colonels, basically trained the first line leaders, Lieutenants and Captains, of today's soldiers. So where did our leaders go wrong? Or, to be specific, which leaders went wrong here?

Let's turn to my personal hero, the great military strategist Sun Tzu, for guidance. Regarding military leaders, Sun Tzu stated, that if a unit trains and gives instructions and the soldiers make a mistake, it's the fault of the generals. But, if the generals retrain and reiterate instructions, and the soldiers make another mistake, it's the fault of the lieutenants. Since these words were written over a thousand years ago, let me help you update them.

Today's modern military has two types of officers and two types of enlisted soldiers. Since some branches have different ranks, I will use Army ranks for simplicity. In the officer corps there are field grade officers (Major to General) and company grade officers (Lieutenant to Captain). In the enlisted ranks there are junior enlisted (Private to Sergeant) and senior enlisted (Staff Sergeant to Sergeant Major).

Now, when Sun Tzu refers to "generals," he is referring to field grade officers and senior enlisted soldiers. By "lieutenant," he is referring to company grade officers and junior enlisted soldiers. So to make his reference a little clearer: When the soldiers eff up once, it's the more experienced leader's fault, when they eff up again, even after training and instructions, it's the junior leadership's fault. So, since this is not the first time US soldiers have embarrassed the entire military based on lack of discipline (think Abu Grahib, the Bradley Manning leaked video, and the murder of three Afghan Civilians by the "kill squad"), the junior leaders are at fault. And it's clear that military leaders believe this as well, as they are calling for the heads of the four marines ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/american-marines-accused-war-crimes).

In any case, military senior leadership may need a different strategy to prevent damaging acts like this. These four Marine snipers have put the entire military at even more risk of deadly attack than they already are. In addition, they have provided fodder to a motivated enemy who recruits its troops with the heathen American message. Furthermore, they put citizens in our land at risk because of Taliban sympathizers who may plan strikes right here in the US. Let's not even mention the damage done to diplomatic relations.

In my opinion, more than a few heads need to roll for this.   Although the military will most certainly take action against the four Marines, I say, "Why stop there?" I think leaders up to the General in charge of Afghanistan should answer for this.   Lack of training displays like this completely set back diplomatic advancements our country has made, which is a crucial element in defeating our elusive Taliban enemies.

The military chain of command, across all branches, cannot simply play the blame game and pray these types of actions won't happen. Leaders need to constantly train and constantly engage soldiers beginning at basic training. They have to take an active role in preventing behaviors exhibited by the four Marines by integrating substantive ethics courses into training.  Most importantly, leaders must understand the unique mentalities as well as the unique stresses of today's soldiers and provide the necessary resources to deal with their issues. To do any less ignores the realities of war and in some ways makes them complicit.  So, in order to mitigate the damage done by this vile act, as well as the other atrocities done during our wars in the middle east, our military must change, and they must change today.

SOUND OFF!!

1. What's your take on how the public image of the military has changed?

2. What actions do you think the military should take in response to the actions by the four Marines?

Detroit City Council President-Broke and Busted

2012-01-18T05:00:00.091-05:00

I don't know about you but I like to model my behavior after those who are successful at what they do. If I need to lose weight I'm not going to pick a doctor, dietitian or personal trainer who's morbidly obese. If I want career advice I won't listen to some fellow that has been in the same job without promotion for his whole life. And if I want to be successful with the opposite sex I certainly wouldn't seek counsel from a man that hasn't been on a date since the Reagan Administration. But that's just me. Evidently some good citizens of the city of Detroit feel differently.

STORY
At a time when the City of Detroit faces bleak choices of bankruptcy, the imposition of some form of emergency manager or consent agreement and/or massive cutbacks and layoffs, the voters decided that they would sleep easier knowing that the City Council President was a man who had already demonstrated repeated inability to pay his bills on time as agreed.

Detroit— City Council President Charles Pugh is facing foreclosure and says he likely will abandon his $385,000 Brush Park condominium. His personal financial struggles come as he and council colleagues fight to bail Detroit out of its own fiscal crisis.
On Friday, Pugh said he can't afford to pay his mortgage after taking a pay cut and leaving a high-paying TV career to run for the City Council.
"Making my mortgage payments has been a struggle for me," Pugh wrote in an email. "I fought hard to stay in my condo because I had an attachment to it, but I can no longer afford to do so."
The mortgage issue is the latest financial problem facing Pugh, 40, a former Fox 2 television anchor and radio show host who was the top vote-getter in the 2009 election. He is paid $76,500 as council president.
"I am devoted to this city and helping us to move forward despite wage cuts and personal sacrifices such as foreclosing on my own home," Pugh said. "These are the tough choices Detroiters make every day, and I am no different."

Well no. Sorry there Chuckie but you are different. Most Detroiters do not earn and will not ever earn $240,000/yr which was Mr. Pugh's approximate salary as a Fox 2 anchor before he quit his job to run for City Council. Now $240K may not be all that much money on the coasts but out here in flyover country it's a pretty nice salary. In fact, per NYT research that salary put Pugh in the top 3% of earners in Metro Detroit.

I am sympathetic to people whose financial situation changes unexpectedly. If my boss were to announce today that my salary would be cut by two-thirds because he thought that was commensurate with my actual production (ahem), well I'd be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But if I decided on my own to quit my job and go sell T-shirts outside of Comerica Park can I really demand sympathy? Shouldn't I have thought about how to pay my mortgage before I chose a new job with smaller salary? If I went to my mortgage holder, what would they say to me?

The difference is that unlike with his personal finances, in which the only people hurt by default will be Pugh and/or his creditor(s) and neighbors, if the City of Detroit were to go bankrupt or have an emergency manager imposed, there would be thousands, if not millions of people negatively impacted. If everyone in Detroit did what Pugh is doing (and many have) the bottom would fall out of the sickly housing market and the moribund tax base would die.
That said there are more people who are walking away from their mortgage and some intellectuals even think that this action may be both moral and in your best interest. So this is very mixed up with an individual's concept of right and wrong and their bottom line self-interest. I was raised to consider that the time to ruthlessly pursue your self-interest is BEFORE you sign your name to a contract. Once you've agreed to terms, you should live to those terms. Pugh was making more than enough money to make a larger down payment on that condo or get a place just as nice for a little bit less money. And it appears that Pugh's chaotic personal finances may be shading over into his political finances.

Judging by his personal life Pugh seems to not understand the link between cause and effect, present action and future consequences. That would bother me if I were a Detroit resident relying in part on Pugh to help find a solution to the financial crisis.
QUESTIONS
1) Do Pugh's personal financial troubles have anything to do with his job overseeing the city finances?
2) Is it okay to walk away from a house or condo that you can no longer afford?
3) Does a leader have a responsibility to set a standard for financial probity?
4) If someone owed you money but said that times were bad now and therefore they wouldn't be paying you back, would you be understanding and accepting?

The Republican Base Boos Juan Williams: Who Are These People?

2012-01-17T21:00:00.005-05:00

Even though they probably could have saved those last 10-or-so debates, the one positive that we can take away from watching all of these things is that we've learned a lot about the Republican base. First they cheered for the idea of executing people in the electric chair. Then they booed a solider currently serving in the United States military because he was gay. Then they cheered for the idea of letting sick people die. At Monday's South Carolina debate they did it again, only this time they booed Fox News' Juan Williams over the idea that Newt Gingrich may have made racially insensitive remarks about Black people and food stamps.

So you guys are going to boo Juan Williams now? Juan Williams of Fox News?? Isn't that against the Republican 11th commandment?

I find the psyche of the Republican base fascinating. Consider for a moment the mentality of a person who instinctively boos the very protector of their own freedom simply because that protector happens to be gay. Also consider what manner of man is honestly filled with jubilation at the prospect of an innocent person dying at all, let alone dying from lack of health care coverage or from execution by electric chair. And now this latest insight into the Republican mind: anger and resentment towards an African American - on MLK Day mind you - who even dares to insinuate that we still have a race problem in modern day America. Fascinating.

The fact of the matter is, Juan Williams should not have had to ask Newt Gingrich about his "food stamp" comments because Newt Gingrich should have never made them in the first place. Just as Ronald Reagan knew precisely what he was doing when he used to stoke the conservative lynch mob flames during his stump speeches with the imagery of "welfare Queens", Newt Gingrich knew precisely what he was doing when he called Barack Obama a "food stamp president." This plays right into the stereotypes held by many Whites that most people on welfare and food stamps are lazy Black people (despite the fact that 61% of people on welfare are White). In short, Gingrich was race bating, and Juan Williams attempted to call him out on it. And then in an impressive reversal of reality, Gingrich turns the crowd against the Black guy for having the audacity to point out that Gingrich was, in fact, race bating. As if it was Juan Williams - and not Newt Gingrich - who had played the race card.

I find all of this fascinating because, quite frankly, it takes one hell of an ego to reconcile all of these seemingly irreconcilable positions. It requires more than the mere belief in your convictions; you must also believe that anybody who says anything that departs in the slightest from what you have been taught is 100% wrong and must be destroyed. One must be unabashedly vocal against anything that does not fit the conservative talking points word for word. Gay soldiers must be ousted, sick people without insurance must die, convicted criminals must be executed, and Black people need to know their place, shut the hell up with all that race card talk, and be thankful that they are even allowed to speak at a GOP debate in the first place.

Like I said...fascinating.

QUESTIONS:
1. Who are these people?
2. What forms their opinions?
3. Was Juan Williams unjustifiably playing the race card?
4. What have you learned from the GOP debate audience?

The Urban Politico: Open Politico Discussion Forum

2012-01-17T08:30:00.005-05:00

The Open Politico

Open forum for any of our readers to discuss issues, drop links to articles or videos, or just voice your opinion about whatever is on your mind out there in Urban or Political news.

Sound Off........

Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere

2012-01-16T23:25:00.001-05:00

We often talk about the "fierce urgency of now" on this blog. We have a lively debate on this post discussing how easy it is for those in certain privileged positions to make laws and rules for everyone else with complete disregard for historical facts. I feel that Dr. King's Letter from Birmingham Jail perfectly embodies exactly how I feel about these...privileged "decision makers." I've posted an abridged version of Dr. King's letter to share with the readers. Dr. King was a master of words. I can do him NO justices! However, if you'd like, you can read the letter in its entirety here.

Powerful Words Below:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you go forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

Thanks for reading.

The Legacy of Dr. King: The Memorial and Celebrating His Life Through Service

2012-01-16T06:00:00.001-05:00

Celebrating the Legacy of Dr. King

Today marks the 26th anniversary of the US national holiday in observance of Dr. King's birthday. Dr. King would have been 83-years old today. In honor of Dr. King, his commitment to service and social justice, I am in Washington D.C. volunteering with a group of friends on the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. National Day of Service. On Sunday afternoon I took a trip to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in our nation's capitol. Let's take a look.....

"The Stone of Hope" to symbolize the civil rights struggle, is preceded by "The Mountain of Despair." Inscribed on each side of the stone are two quotes from Dr. King's speeches.

"The Mountain of Despair"

The statue of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is in direct line with the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. The location honors the President who protected the United States from internal strife, and where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech; to the Jefferson Memorial, which honors the President who helped create the United States as the author of the Declaration of Independence. The entire memorial sits on 4 acres. Cherry Blossoms were gifted to the United States by Japan in honor of the site and as a sign of peace, something Dr. King was an advocate of.

Photos from the Memorial.......

In the spirit of Dr. King's legacy and all of the things that he stood for, I encourage everyone to go out into your communities and participate in a service activity. It's not too late. To find a project, visit http://mlkday.gov/serve/find.php .

How do you plan to honor Dr. King's legacy and memory today?
Have you visited the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington D.C. ?

Book Reviews-Rethinking A Dance with Dragons, Just After Sunset and more

2012-01-14T05:30:00.006-05:00

Rethinking A Dance With Dragons

A good friend started George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series on my recommendation and has read the first four books. She is finishing book five, A Dance with Dragons (ADWD). To put it mildly, so far she is less than impressed. "Dumb, Dumb, Dumb" were her exact words.

We agreed that the first three books were excellent, but that there were a few stumbles in book 4, A Feast for Crows (AFFC). I think AFFC is worse than ADWD but having now reread and discussed ADWD I would make a few additions to my original lukewarm positive review. I briefly touched on these points before but didn't emphasize them.
There are some spoilers from the first book although I will generally avoid spoilers from the other books. If you figure stuff out on your own well I can't help that. Have a cookie because you're smarter than the average bear!

PACING
This is the biggest problem with ADWD. It is just under 1000 pages. Despite the length, the story moves forward only haltingly. In book one, we ended with Ned Stark's execution and the North's secession under Robb Stark, the new King in the North. In book two we saw feuding between two brothers, special challenges faced by Sansa &Arya Stark, Tyrion given a chance to lead, and an invasion. In book three, well just read it. These stories moved. They were tight and you couldn't wait to turn the page.

But in ADWD we get incredibly detailed histories on which princess married which noble and why certain great families have been warring for years but the story doesn't move much past where it was in AFFC. Because ADWD and AFFC were originally supposed to be one book this is understandable but somewhat frustrating. This leads directly into the next issue.

EDITING
There are 5-6 critical storylines that make up the series theme. These are

What's going on beyond the Wall?
Will the Stark children be reunited and have revenge on their family's enemies?
Will Daenerys become Queen?
Will Jon discover who his mother was?
Will the roles of Littlefinger and other chessmasters ever be revealed?
What does it mean to be rightful heir?

I don't expect complete resolution now. But after five books I would like to see some progress towards answers. Instead ADWD features many chapters on people whining about their responsibilities or quixotic quests by flat characters in boring new settings. This could have been ruthlessly chopped from ADWD. There are over 20 different points of view between ADWD and AFFC. This harms the narrative flow. Imagine if Lord of the Rings were told from the point of view of Grima Wormtongue and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. That might be an interesting diversion for a while but now imagine that Tolkien had spent a full third of the book detailing the various adventures those relatively minor personages had, what they ate for breakfast, where they used the toilet and what they thought about their one great love who got away.

TIMING

It looks like GRRM has written himself into a pickle here. I know he's talented enough to get out of it but his incredible attention to detail and every little thing that's happening in a story, combined with a penchant for cliffhangers that end every book means that in ADWD many of the characters we care most about are still too young to have much impact on events. What was needed was a five or seven year break, which would have fit PERFECTLY after the horrific events in A Storm of Swords. Many events in ADWD could have been described in flashback where suitable. The harsh training that Arya and Bran are each undergoing is not necessarily something that needs great painstaking detail. Speaking of specific characters leads me to my last point.

CHARACTERIZATION

Many characters that we've come to know and love act in ways that simply don't ring true. In some cases they regress. In A Game of Thrones we see Daenerys transition from a frightened girl who is molested by her brother and sold to her husband to a defiant leader who has dragons. In books two and three, people that underestimate her tend to regret it. She's wiser than people realize and combines a savvy realpolitik with a caring nature.
In ADWD she's changed to a horny teenager who is distracted by butterflies and blue beards (don't ask). Whenever a serious decision or deep analysis is needed she runs off to ride the train.

Jon Snow, who famously put (and kept putting) duty and his word above his love and loyalty for his family has turned into an emo moping teen. My friend calls him "Eeyore" and honestly that's a pretty accurate description. He has reason to be depressed (events in books one through three) but still. Of course character growth or degradation is part of a storyline but these are EXTREMELY sudden transitions that don't ring true. Tyrion suffers the most from this. In ADWD Tyrion is definitely the butt monkey.

All in all I STILL THINK ADWD is a worthwhile read. It's just not as good as the first three books. It shares a lack of focus with AFFC. ADWD has sections which compare favorably with the first three books; there's just too few of them. Unsurprisingly the best prose is centered around Jon Snow and the political situation in the North. I wish Martin had made that the central storyline.

I hope that ADWD is just a "transitional" book and the next book gets back to the stripped down churning storylines that made the earlier books so amazing. Martin is still the man. If AFFC was a swing and miss, ADWD is a single. Because Martin's earlier at bats were all grand slams, people notice the difference.

Just After Sunset
by Stephen King

This is a recent collection of short stories by the famed horror author. I picked this up after Full Dark although Just After Sunset is the earlier release. In the foreword King explains that he had lost his taste for creating short stories and was a bit worried about it. He did not feel that his financial success was a fair trade.

After editing another collection of short stories, King felt inspired to write (and in some cases rewrite) some more short stories of his own and Just After Sunset was the result. King is a extraordinary writer of course but I didn't enjoy this book as much as I did Full Dark.

The stories here seem to be connected by fears of loss, aging, disease and dying. If you are the sort of person who is REALLY bothered by the fact that at some time over the next thirty years your body will greatly deteriorate, you may contract some chronic disgusting disease or condition, and you will eventually pass into non-existence, this probably isn't the book for you. King only goes for the disgusting gross-out once in "A Very Tight Place" which details the battle of a man trapped in a port-a-potty by a vindictive neighbor. More typical though is "Willa", a ghost story told from the POV of ghosts, "Rest Stop" in which a wimpy author tries to find the courage to confront an abusive husband or "The Things They Left Behind" which directly confronts the 9/11 horror.

It's a mug's game trying to figure out what was going through a writer's mind when he wrote a story or how much of himself he put into it. King is sympathetic to that point of view but does nevertheless include some afterword notes on each story. I was grateful for that. It is always fascinating to get a peek under the hood so to speak, into the mind of a creative person to see how it works. Little things that the rest of us ignore or take for granted are seeds for that person's inspiration.

The Pigman
by Paul Zindel

There are some books that may be written for teens but really have a lot to say to us all. The Pigman is such a book. When I think of books that influenced me to become the cynical, distrusting person that I am The Pigman would have to be near the top of that list. In some stories the author uses examples to try to convince people to live a better life. I'm not sure that Zindel did that with The Pigman.

The novella is pretty depressing actually. In some respects it was both forerunner for more realistic books aimed at young adults and really a downsized noir novel. It's about two high school students, high spirited troublemakers, John Conlan and Lorraine Jensen who enjoy among other pranks, making calls to people pretending to be charity workers looking for money. One of the people they call is Angelo Pignati -an old man man who is desperate for human contact. John and Lorraine go over to his house to pick up the money but find that Mr. Pignati is such a great guy that they become good friends with him.

This relationship starts out in a lie of course but becomes real as neither John or Lorraine know as much about life as they think they do and since Mr. Pignati is widowed his only friend besides the teens is a baboon at the zoo. The story ends on a very dark down note. There's something to be said for the idea that we come into the world alone and leave alone. But maybe while we're here we can add a little happiness. I don't know. I know what I took from this novella was not to trust people so easily.

The Way of the Wiseguy
by Donnie Brasco (Joe Pistone)

Joe Pistone is an Italian-American former FBI agent who worked undercover for over six years infiltrating the NY Mafia. He started out with small time hoodlums associated with one Family.
Using skills learned in the FBI but mostly from his own experiences growing up in an Italian-American New Jersey neighborhood, Pistone reinvented himself as "Donnie Brasco"-jewel thief, occasional drug dealer, and all around tough guy. He infiltrated the Bonanno Crime Family and was in fact proposed for membership. The fact that Pistone survived undercover as long as he did without losing sight of who he was was amazing. He was after all working closely with people for whom killing was second nature. His cover was so good that in fact when he was pulled from the assignment and his FBI status revealed to mobsters, many mobsters who worked closely with him refused to believe it and thought that the FBI must have kidnapped and brainwashed "Donnie".

Although it's somewhat arguable as to how many mobsters are in jail because of Pistone-he claims over 100- what's beyond debate is that for six years he swam with some of the biggest sharks in the ocean of organized crime and didn't get bit. So he may know a little bit about how Italian-American gangsters (or as they like to call themselves "wiseguys") behave.

The Way of the Wiseguy is his second book on the topic. Here he's more relaxed and less "on" as an FBI agent. We get to see more of Pistone's own nature and thoughts come out. He repeats throughout the book that there is nothing honorable or decent about wiseguys. They are the scum of the earth and he had no problem putting them in jail. He says he's pretty much the same person coming out of the assignment as he was before-same values, beliefs and goals. But he does admit to this though:

The one thing that did stick with me long after I ceased being Donnie Brasco was the wiseguy attitude. Not backing down from confrontations, standing up for yourself, taking no sh**, cutting corners here and there. I'm not talking about acting like a tough guy or throwing your weight around or doing anything illegal or unethical. I'm talking about being someone who understands how the world works and makes it work for him. Nobody's sucker. A guy who knows his way around.

There was one instance where Pistone was working with his mob mentor Lefty to close a deal with a corrupt bank exec. The exec got scared and backed out. The exec told Lefty that he was scared of "Donnie's killer eyes". Pistone was impressed, relieved and miffed that his acting was so good. Lefty had been involved in over twenty murders and evidently didn't scare the executive as much as an FBI agent pretending to be a mobster.

The book is a short (200 page) but revealing and to the point discussion of how wiseguys differ from normal people. Pistone explains Mafia protocol, how wiseguys make their money, why wiseguys aren't nice people, their typical day, why you should never ever ever let a wiseguy do you a favor, what their hierarchy is, how wiseguys relate to women and other such questions you may have. The book also has some CD transcripts of discussions between "Donnie Brasco" and Lefty in which Lefty had noticed some inconsistencies in what "Donnie" had done and was trying to determine if this might lead to "Donnie's" murder or, more importantly from Lefty's POV, his own.

Does Libertarianism Trump Decency?

2012-01-13T13:28:00.001-05:00

Have you been paying attention to the Republican Presidential primaries? Have you noticed the strong following Ron Paul has? He finished a very respectable third in Iowa, and second in New Hampshire. Now he is taking his message to South Carolina where I suspect his message will ring nicely in the ears of their Tea Party heavy population.

While running as a Republican, Paul’s message is really one of a Libertarian. If you listen closely, you can absolutely see how a Libertarian message, on its surface, resonates with the conservative masses. It is a message of pure individuality. At its most basic form, Paul’s message is one where the constitution grants each of us individual rights that must not, and cannot, be usurped by the Federal government. A Libertarian believes that each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Simply put, as long as you do not hurt anyone else, you should be allowed to do as you please. If you want to go into business for yourself, no problem; if you want to be a career student, by all means; if you want to smoke weed or use your body to profit by performing sexual favors, who are we to say “no.” From a Republican perspective, this is small government in its truest form.

Of course as with anything, there are variations of Libertarianism, but the Ron Paul version is the rawest. He believes that liberty – at least what he calls “liberty” – should be priority number one above all else.

If we are honest, this is very poetic. Wrapped in its cocoon made of patriotism and strict constitutionalism, placing faux-liberty above everything else sounds great! This would create Utopia! However, it is riddled with unintended consequences that seem to disproportionately affect minorities and women. Not only has Paul not denounced those…consequences, he’s embraced them.

“[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty,” Paul wrote. “The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.”

Did you catch that? If a property owner wants his property “white only,” the federal government has no authority to tell him otherwise. I’ve had this conversation with my Republican friends in the past. In my opinion, this is not only a position devoid of empathy for any other person other than Caucasian; it is also a fundamental difference in priorities. I hold personal liberty in very high regard; however, I believe the responsibility of bettering our entire nation is even higher. What good is it to have a country with celebrated personal liberties if said country is decaying internally with hatred? I think it is fair to ask our citizens for a slight reduction in personal liberties for the advancement and betterment of the entire nation.

To me, it’s simple, are we a better nation when we allow business to discriminate based on race, sex, or gender perpetuating some of the ugliest and vial stereotypes of our history? I say no! I’ve always argued that diversity makes us a better nation. Can you imagine what type of country this would be if we DIDN’T have the Civil Rights Act (and like actions)? I don’t think it’s too far a stretch to assume many of the falsehoods about the various races would embed itself even deeper (if that’s possible) into society. I could literally see a “Whites Only Facebook” and “Blacks Only Facebook.” What respectable citizen wants to live in that world? We’ve already been through a time when the most power people in our nation grew up only knowing bigotry and segregation. I’d rather live in a country where civil liberties took a back seat to human decency and the advancement of the entire United States.

But, I’m sure Ron Paul would say that integration was a big government power grab. I would say that integration helped usher in better school systems, equipment, books, and pay for teachers that gave African Americans a better education than what they were receiving prior to it. This allowed EVERYONE to benefit and progress, not just White citizens. We’ve experienced a version of Ron Paul’s understanding of government; it was called “separate but equal.” Paul is okay if an individual exercises his civil liberty and decides not to hire someone based solely on the color of their skin. If you don’t get that job, try another employer. Easy peasy…right?

Let’s be clear, I don’t think Libertarians are racist – although we all know Paul has some ‘splainin to do. I do, however, feel their position is a bit…naive. One of the major flaws with Libertarianism is their belief that (eventually) society will self correct and right all the moral wrongs. The federal government need not step in. I guess it is easy to take that position when you aren’t the ones feeling the brunt of the oppression. [Editor’s Note: It’s ironic actually. Dr. Paul graduated from Duke Medical School in 1961. If Dr. Paul were African American, he wouldn’t have been allowed admission into Duke at that time.] There is a reason the SCOTUS demanded the South move “with all deliberate speed.”

Cathy Young, from real clear politics, paraphrasing Richard Epstein said, “[R]acial segregation and discrimination by private businesses in the South was not simply the result of owners' personal choices but of powerful societal pressure as well as coercion by state governments. Businesses that refused to discriminate were targeted for officially sanctioned or condoned harassment and intimidation.”

A serious discussion on personal liberties has its place. For the most part, I’m sure you would find most folks would agree with many of the Libertarian principles. However, being so steadfast against ANY government intervention all in the name of personal liberties completely ignores the history of our nation. It is one thing to ask for liberties and a reduction of “Big Brother’s” fingerprint; it is another to ignore the erosion of decency by allowing entire races to be excluded from society.

Do personal liberties trump racial progress?
Should the government step in to force business to serve everyone regardless of race and sex?

Worst. Judge. Ever.

2012-01-12T05:00:00.001-05:00

I want to take a break from the Republican Primary, if I may, and focus on an issue of injustice on our nation's highest court. I'm talking about Clarence Thomas. That's right, good old "Uncle Thomas." Nobody butchers the reading of the Constitution more than Justice Thomas. Last March we wrote a post about a highly controversial Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Thomas where he decided that a Black man (John Thompson) had no right to sue the New Orleans District Attorney's office that had wrongfully convicted and imprisoned him for 18 years after it was discovered that the District Attorney's office had intentionally buried evidence that would have proved the man's innocence. It doesn't get much lower than that. In one of the most bizarre and illogical decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court (which is really saying something), Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, said that John Thompson could not sue the New Orleans prosecutor's office because he could not prove that there was a "pattern" of hiding evidence committed by the prosecutor's office in other cases besides his own.

Tuesday of this week, the Supreme Court decided yet another case involving evidence that was hidden during a criminal trial by none other than...wait for it...the New Orleans prosecutor's office! Once again, New Orleans prosecutors committed what is known in the legal world as a "Brady Violation"¹ by hiding evidence that could have overturned somebody's murder conviction. In this case, it was a Black man by the name of Juan Smith. In addition to hiding the evidence in these two cases, the Orleans Public Defender's Office reports that the New Orleans prosecutor's office has hidden evidence in 28 cases. 28!

You were saying something about a pattern?

28 Brady violations, yet Justice Thomas could not see any "pattern" of Brady violations in last year's case against John Thompson, which begs the question of whether Clarence Thomas understands what the word "pattern" means.

In the case decided this week, Smith v. Cain, the issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the evidence hidden by the prosecutor's office was "material" as that term has been defined by the Supreme Court. 8 of the 9 Justices agreed in this case that the hidden evidence was material to Juan Smith's conviction. In other words, they agreed that there is a "reasonable probability" that Mr. Smith's trial may have turned out differently had the hidden evidence been presented to the jury. 8 out of 9 Justices agreed on this point. You get 1 guess as to who the 1 dissenting Justice was here.

That's right. Clarence Thomas.

Justice Thomas wrote a 19-page dissent (4 times as long as Chief Justice John Roberts' 4-page majority opinion) arguing that a higher standard should apply here in order to overturn the prosecutor's murder conviction. According to Thomas, it is not enough that the hidden evidence creates a "reasonable probability" that Juan Smith's trial might have turned out differently; the hidden evidence must outweigh the non-hidden evidence and prove that Juan Smith would "more likely than not" have received a different verdict.

Fortunately for all of us in the general public who may be wrongly accused of a crime some day like Juan Smith and John Thompson, Chief Justice Roberts clapped back on Justice Thomas, correcting his misunderstanding of the law. Roberts wrote in the majority opinion:

We have explained that “evidence is ‘material’ within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” A reasonable probability does not mean that the defendant “would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence,” only that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to “undermine confidence in the [conviction].” - C.J. Roberts, Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. ____ (2012).

In translation: "Thomas my dear fellow conservative friend, let me help you out here because, once again, you simply do not know what the F*#@ you're talking about."

QUESTIONS:
1. Is there anybody out there who still feels that Clarence Thomas was a great choice for the Supreme Court?
2. Why does Thomas automatically take the side of the prosecution on cases like these?
3. Given that this is the second time within a year that the United States Supreme Court has had to review the misconduct of the New Orleans prosecutor's office for hiding evidence, at some point does Thomas have to simply admit that he completely pulled that lack of "pattern" ruling out of his ass?
4. Given that these cases tend to involve a criminal justice system that is already unfair towards Blacks, do you feel that Clarence Thomas has personally taken the Black community a few steps backward since he was appointed to the Supreme Court?
5. Should we have some kind of rule where a Supreme Court Justice is automatically removed from the bench if they continuously keep getting the law wrong over and over again?

¹ - A reference to the 1963 landmark Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, where the Court held that prosecutors must hand over all evidence in their possession to a criminal defendant, especially if the evidence is in the defendant's favor.

Guest Post: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul...Oh My Enter the Future of the Progressive Party, Meet this year’s NLC Fellows

2012-01-11T12:00:00.000-05:00

Being asked to suspend one's belief is completely appropriate when reading science-fiction or watching a magic show. To date, there has been many a moment when the GOP presidential primary race has felt like both.

However, no moment was more oddly pronounced than GOP hopeful, Rick Santorum failing at sleight of hand or lips when attempting to redact comments he made in pre-caucus Iowa. Altering, "I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money," to "I don't want to make black people’s lives better."

Newt Gingrich prefers to rely on the pattern of truthiness. The former speaker took center stage in the sideshow, calling President Obama the "food stamp president." A moniker Gingrich finds fitting since, according to him, under Obama more black people are on food stamps than ever. This seems to be a favorite illusion of republicans- to make it appear as if minorities blacks, latinos, gays, (heck) anyone other than them, is the problem in America.

But where, I ask, are the solutions? Republicans are quick to place the blame, but where, I ask, are the solutions? This three ring three ring circus that is the the Republican presidential primary has become the best reality show on television. The utterances from its stars are completely absent of the innovative ideas our nation desperately needs. It seems amongst this weird, wacky and very irreverent class of GOP presidential contenders, decency and civility have all exited stage right. Those of us who respect intelligence, have had enough partisanship, love America and still believe in her ability to uphold the promises of life, liberty, and prosperity are left to wonder: is this really the best in leadership that America has to offer?

The good news: New Leaders Council is sending its next class of fellows through the doors of their annual training academy. This training is intended to cultivate the ideas and leadership that are so woefully missing from our current political scene. New Leaders Council is the future of progressive leadership. This month, the organization launches its 2012 Institutes in 20 markets across the nation; this represents the group’s largest number of fellows and chapters in its seven-year history. Progressives are often and mistakenly considered godless, anti-capitalists or dismissed as a radical sect of the left. University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Joel Rogers defines progressivism as, "equal opportunity and equal access for all. Period." Progress means forward motion, something members of NLC are no longer looking to elected officials on either side of the aisle to create for them. New Leaders Council trains each of its fellows, all young professionals in their prime and under 40, to put innovation to work to create social solutions.

If only a spell would allow today's young people to inherit the economy, policies or even political civility that bolstered American society for a generation. This is why many are organizing themselves to create the equity and access that our nation’s framers intended. It's what abolitionists did to end slavery, women to obtain suffrage, women to end prohibition and young people of all ages and backgrounds who organized during the 1960's to make civil rights a reality. Community organizing has come under intense scrutiny in recent political cycles. Yet, it is when communities organize that progress is actually made.

Progress. A – a simple concept able to better the lives of all, regardless of what party they may pledge allegiance to. The future we all face is too important, too fragile, to leave to chance. This is why anyone calling themselves a New Leaders Council fellow has gone through an intense application and interview process to determine their commitment to progressive values and causes. New Leaders Council knows that we must provide our people with the tools and network to implement their ideas. Smoke and mirrors are what led our nation into the economic chaos we're currently experiencing. We're advocating for less trickery and more do-goodery. Forgive me as that is not a word, but the concept still stands.

Were the field of Republican presidential wannabes able to do anything outside of serving their intended purpose, some thought provoking, inspiring and much needed dialogue on reducing unemployment, reviving the housing market, resurrecting public schools and even race, could be had.

Our nation has no shortage of obstacles to overcome. Yet while those running for the Republican nomination are quick to point out what is wrong with America, they are incapable of illuminating the rest of us on how we can resolve these issues. Change cannot be legislated. It can only be carried out and accomplished. With unmitigated certainty the 2012 fellows of New Leaders Council are the people to do it.

Meet the NLC Class of 2012 by visiting www.newleaderscouncil.org

Lauren Brown Jarvis is a writer and producer of digital content for web. With ten years experience as a broadcast media professional, including time spent with The Weather Channel, Georgia Public Broadcasting, and All The Hits Q100, Lauren currently serves as Director of Communications for New Leaders Council. Prior to, Lauren developed new media and content for Atlanta Public Schools, The International Society of Africans in Wine, Adrene Boutique, Upscale Magazine, and more. Serving as the first ever Social Media Professional at Spelman College, Lauren implemented social media campaigns focused on Spelman's broad base of alumni, students, parents and donors. As a result, Spelman College was named number sixteen of the top 100 colleges using social media besting the University of Georgia. Lauren has also facilitated training of professionals associated with All Women's Media Alliance and Cascade United Methodist Church. In 2011, she hosted and produced Digital Doyennes, a celebration of women leaders in social media and digital innovation. Lauren has been named a Vicki R. Palmer Scholar, and a fellow in New Leaders Council and the National Black Programming Consortium's New Media Institute.

Romney Wins New Hampshire Primary - Is it a Wrap?

2012-01-11T07:43:00.004-05:00

Results for New Hampshire Republican Primary (U.S. Presidential Primary)

Jan 10, 2012 (95% of precincts reporting)

1. Mitt Romney	95,669	39.4%
2. Ron Paul	55,455	22.8%
3. Jon Huntsman	40,903	16.8%
4. Newt Gingrich	22,921	9.4%
5. Rick Santorum	22,708	9.3%
6. Rick Perry	1,709	0.7%
7. Michele Bachmann	343	0.1%
Other	3,240	1.3%

There are 4 primaries in January, (Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire Primary, South Carolina Primary and Florida Primary), 6 in February (Nevada Caucus, Maine Caucus, Minnesota Caucus, Colorado Caucus, Colorado Caucus, Michigan Primary and Arizona Primary), and 1 in March (Washington State Caucus) ALL BEFORE the so-called "Super Tuesday" primary election on March 6, 2012: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Mitt Romney has just made history by becoming the first Republican nominee to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Now he heads into South Carolina which is a state heavily populated with Christian Evangelicals who may not be as receptive to a Mormon like Romney as Iowa and New Hampshire both were. Moreover, candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been hammering Romney with negative TV ads in South Carolina for weeks. Nevertheless, there's no denying that in politics, momentum can be contagious in attracting other voters so given the fact that Romney has now picked up 2 states in a row we are left with one question:

Is it a wrap?

How Romney Destroyed Jobs and Why It Won't Matter in the GOP Primary

2012-01-10T00:04:00.014-05:00

Mitt Romney (center) and colleagues at Bain Capital

Over the next few days you may come to hear some dirt about Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. A 28-minute video is being released by a PAC affiliated with Newt Gingrich that was produced by somebody formerly affiliated with Texas Governor Rick Perry's campaign. In short, the video takes shots at Romney and exposes some of the skeletons in his closet. One of those skeletons is how our dear Mitt made his millions at the expense of workers losing their jobs. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal recently ran an article which studied the 77 companies effected by Mitt Romney's venture capital firm, Bain Capital, from 1984 to 1999 while Romney was in charge. From a strictly financial perspective, Bain Capital did relatively well; from 1984 to 1999 it turned $1.1 Billion in investments into gains of $2.5 Billion. Likewise, Romney also ate well from this success; he earned between $190 Million to $250 Million personally during this time period. Not too shabby, right? But, again, that only tells the story from a strictly financial perspective. When we look at the story from the perspective of the workers at these companies - many of whom lost their jobs as a result of Bain Capital's manipulations - it paints a completely different picture.

Venture Capital 101
In order to provide a better context for what exactly Mitt Romney and his crew were doing, it's important to understand just what exactly a venture capital firm does.

Venture capital firms typically start by finding a struggling business that the firm feels could be very profitable by making a few key changes much in the same way that a real estate developer finds a run-down house that he or she feels could be flipped for a nice profit with a little repair work. Once they find John Doe and Susie Q's struggling mom and pop shop business, the venture capital firm then goes out and finds investors to put up the capital needed to "fix" John & Susie's business. Pooling all of this money together, the venture capital firm then buys a large ownership interest in John & Susie's business, thereby taking control of the company itself. Once the venture capital firm has control of John and Susie's business, it then goes to work implementing its own game plan as it sees fit in an effort to make the business profitable. This may mean selling off certain business assets, reducing office space, or even reducing the company's work force. Whatever it takes to turn a profit.

Once John and Susie's business becomes profitable again, the venture capital firm then realizes a return on its investment by either (i) taking the company public by offering stock through an Initial Public Offering (IPO) or (ii) finding a wealthy company/individual that/who will buy John and Susie's entire business in one fell swoop. Once either of these transactions has happened, the venture capital firm collects all of the money, pays back all of its investors, and whatever remains after all is said and done is kept by the venture capital firm as profit. As you can imagine, this can be quite a large sum of money. It is not uncommon for venture capital firms to turn profits of $10's or even $100's of Millions of dollars on a single deal.

Romney's Venture Capital Firm
From 1984 through to 1999, Mitt Romney was the head of a venture capital firm know as Bain Capital. As the Wall Street Journal reported, of the 77 companies Romney's firm was involved with during this time period, 17 of them (22%) were forced into bankruptcy after his firm was done tinkering with them. Mathematically speaking, that's not a bad track record...that is unless you used to work at one of those 17 companies.

click on image for short list of other bankrupted companies

One such company was a circuit board producer by the name of DDi. DDi had over 3200 employees before Romney's firm came along. Once Bain Capital become involved, DDi was forced to let go of 40% of its work force (1300 people). After Romney's firm "flipped" DDi with an IPO in 2000, DDi then went completely bankrupt 3 years later. Romney's firm, however, made $116.7 Million dollars from the deal.

Pursuant to the Wall Street Journal, Romney's firm profited millions of dollars from doing the same thing to at least 16 other companies that we know of.

Why This Probably Won't Matter to Republican Voters During this Primary
Venture Capitalism is a sexy form of free enterprise in our country, but clearly there is the potential for a real downside when people's lives are negatively impacted. The real takeaway from all of this should be the human element, not the large financial gain. Sure, Romney might have made some money for his investors, and that undoubtedly looks good to Republicans who believe in the free market, but the job loss angle will not play over well to a general election audience with unemployment sitting at 8.5%. There's an extremely low tolerance among the general public for anybody out there who puts an honest worker out on the street. But we're not in the general election. We're in the Republican primary. Meaning, you may have lost your job to a venture capitalist like Mitt Romney, but as far as Republican voters are concerned, as long as somebody was able to make some money off of your tragedy then it's all good.

QUESTIONS:
1. What are your thoughts on venture capitalists?
2. Should we overlook the fact that Romney bankrupted 17 companies because he personally turned a profit?
3. Should we overlook the fact that Romney bankrupted 17 companies because he made 60 companies profitable?
4. Will this story gain any traction during the Republican primary?
5. Will this story gain any traction during the general election?

Ron Paul Calls Out the Criminal Justice System as Unfair to Blacks

2012-01-08T18:13:00.000-05:00

Say what you will about Congressman Ron Paul, but the man went on the record during Saturday night's New Hampshire debate to speak power to truth about something that most politicians - both Democrats and Republicans - purposely avoid talking about in public: the disproportionate incarceration rates of Blacks in our criminal justice system. Take a listen:

Ron Paul Says He's the Only One That Understands True Racism

Mind you, this is the same man who does not believe that government should be able to tell a private business that it must serve Blacks at a lunch counter if it doesn't want to, but as far as his comments on the issue of the criminal justice system we have to give credit where credit is due. It is a verifiable fact that Blacks who commit the exact same crimes as Whites are convicted and receive harsher sentences than do Whites. It is rare to hear anyone in elected office speak about this fact so we felt it was necessary to highlight Ron Paul's comments here.

Did Ron Paul get it right - is the criminal justice system unfair to Blacks?
Did he damage his chances of winning the GOP nomination by speaking publicly about this observation?
Why didn't the Republican audience clap for this statement the same way that they clapped for the death penalty during previous debates?
Why don't more politicians speak about or try to change this problem in our criminal justice system?

Who's Putting Paychecks in People's Pockets Now

2012-01-08T12:42:00.000-05:00

Friday's unemployment numbers for the month of December did not reflect the dramatic drop we saw in November from 9 percent to 8.6 percent, but there was a drop none-the-less. The new unemployment rate of 8.5 percent for the general population, 15.8 percent for Blacks and 11 percent for Hispanics comes with the addition of 200 thousand jobs to payrolls. Friday's announcement was good news for the economy though not great; the DOW fell 55 points.

The release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics also plays a political role now that we are in full swing for the 2012 election. At a time where all of President Obama's opponents, both declared and undeclared are calling him the best foodstamp President we've ever had, he now has numbers to back up his claims he is putting Americans back to work; even if it is not as quickly as we would like.

House Speaker John Boehner long called President Obama and the Democratic party the party of foodstamps. The moniker was given following the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the shellacking midterm elections which brought Republicans into power in the House. Now we find Republican Presidential Candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum trying to appeal to the Black vote by calling the first Black President a food stamp politician. Gingrich has gone further to compare the 2012 election to the election of 1860; you know the one that resulted in secession, Civil War... and ... and ... and ... oh right, the end of slavery.

I understand the Republican Presidential Candidates want to challenge the President's shoddy economic record but their own policies aren't much better. When Gingrich first made reference to "food stamp President" PolitiFact posited this question:

Setting aside the racial angle I say no. When Obama came into the White House on January 20, 2009 the first item on his agenda was to pass a stimulus. The American Recovery and Reinvestment act was 95 percent tax cuts for the middle class. One of those tax cuts was the payroll tax cut. The tax cut Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree on how to extend just two weeks ago. Also in the stimulus; mortgage modification programs to help people facing foreclosure stay in their homes, the wildly popular "Cash for Clunkers," then there was the equally popular among homeowners "Cash for Appliances" where you trade in your old washing machine, refrigerator etc. for a more energy efficient one and receive a rebate courtesy of your Uncle Sam. The stimulus also provided "shovel ready" projects for our infrastructure. How many road construction projects have you seen with this sign:

The purpose of the $787 billion stimulus plan was to save or create two million American jobs. That doesn't sound like much when 14 million Americans were out of work at the height of the recession but it's a start. Where the stimulus failed is in its myopia. The plan was only meant to work for two years. When the money ran out cities, states and the private sector were supposed to takeover the job creation bolstered by the Federal government. That didn't happen. Cities and states were running astronomically high deficits that put them in the positions where they could not pay for firefighters, police officers, teachers and other civil servants.

Job cuts came a calling once again but that is not necessarily through the fault of the President alone. His plan did what it was supposed to do but the private sector never responded. The much maligned $700 billion bank bailout put capital into the biggest banks in America which have only gotten bigger. The banks now had more money than ever but refused to lend it out. Keeping credit tight and hoarding money that doesn't belong to you keeps the private sector stagnated in such a way that even if small business owners wanted to hire more employees they simply can't because banks aren't being generous enough to take a good risk because of all their bad behavior beforehand. Talk about the worst time to realize hindsight is always 20:20.

Since the passage of the stimulus in February of 2009 there has been little other legislation, whether introduced by Congress or the President himself with the desired effect of getting people back to work. For a while Congress blamed the President for his lack of leadership; i.e. the year and a half spent on health care/insurance reform vs. the economy is/was seen as a waste of time. (Just like the bill to repeal the health care law only passed in the House is/was a waste of time.) But this past summer the President introduced a bill, the $447 billion American Jobs Act, with the desired effect to put the people back to work. The bill in its entirety has been a failure. Only pieces of it have been signed; those specifically pertaining to veterans. Other parts of the bill put into action have been done by executive order or appointment allowing the President to circumvent the intransigent Congress and do what needs to be done on his own.

Such action is not the President pandering to the welfare Kings and Queens by allowing them a pass on getting a job and an unlimited amount of food stamps via EBT. This is our government as a whole neglecting to do something, anything to help those who can no longer help themselves because our financial system and government has failed them.

The Republicans call President Obama a food stamp President when in actuality it is their own partisanship, in-fighting and bickering that has kept a record 46 million people waiting for their benefits to make a midnight run.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In the meantime, the private sector has been rebounding on its own with little help from government aside from a few tax cuts to make it easier to hire employees, and Americans' own discontent with the economy has seen them bucking the trend of scrimping and saving in favor of going balls to the walls shopping though the majority of us will never be "Ni**as in Paris."

The President thus gets credit for his slight participation in this recovery just as he would be credited if the whole thing went to hell in a hand basket.

The fact that 200,000 people were added to payrolls is an Obama accomplishment. Proof he's putting paychecks, not food stamps, into the pockets of his people.

But Newt Gingrich doesn't see it that way. He wants to address the NAACP on exactly why Obama's not the one for them/us; food stamp tendencies and all. He wants to put children back to work as janitors in their own school because they have no one to look up to about the merits of hard work and responsibility. Rick Santorum doesn't want to help "blah" people get on welfare but get a job in the manufacturing sector. A sector which hasn't truly existed in these United States in decades. America doesn't make anything but celebrities.

As for front runner and presumed next President, Mitt Romney, his tax plan as analyzed by the independent Tax Policy Center would increase taxes on Americans making $20,000 by 60 percent while Romney and his uber rich friends would see a tax cut of up to 15 percent. The reason behind Romney's plan: to ease the burden on job creators; yet we all know thanks to Warren Buffet cutting taxes for the super rich doesn't entice them to create jobs. Just look at our millionaire Congress, none of whom have yet to co-sign a jobs plan.

So Mitt Romney; who's putting people on food stamps now. How you rescue the rich on the destitution of the already impoverished is beyond me.

The Republican characterization of President Obama as a food stamp President is false, undeserved and as we saw in Rick Santorum's case, racially motivated. Furthermore, federal food assistance is determined by income not ethnicity. As shown in the Kate Snow piece White people are on food stamps too. It's not just a Black thing. This fact further proven by stats from the Department of Agriculture which break down food assistance by race: 5.5 million are white, 3.4 million are Black and 1. 5 million are Hispanic.

Putting paychecks into people's pockets is not party or race specific. It is ideologically motivated. And unfortunately or fortunately the Republican ideology is not aligned with putting paychecks first.

In a Florida Today op/ed journalist V. Ferguson Cocoa writes:

"The Republican message that cutting taxes for the wealthy and reducing the size of government are crucial to ensure prosperity have proven false, and regardless of the frequency of their message, Americans experiencing declining wages and lack of jobs are learning firsthand that the grand Republican ideology is a failure of epic proportion."

Eight years of Bush 43 illustrates what happens when you believe in trickle down effect economics more than in the statisticians's releases from your own Cabinet. Trickle down economics doesn't lead to more paychecks it leads to more disparities: fewer jobs, lower wages, and higher amounts of people on foodstamps. But I guess calling yourself and your own party the party and Presidency of foodstamps is off-message and counter-productive to your entire campaign.

But if true, why are you running?

Questions:

1. Why do you think Republican candidates are running on these same economic policies that have been failing us for decades?

2. Is there a way to critique the Obama Presidency without race being a factor as it so often seems to be.

3. Is the record number of people on food assistance the result of economic policies of a specific Presidency or Congress or is it more to do with the wealth and income gaps persistent in our country.

4. Will the paychecks vs. food stamp narrative end if a White Male President ends up in office even if the numbers don't necessarily change.

The Recess Appointment Issue Fully Explained

2012-01-07T14:57:00.002-05:00

Just press play:

Part 1:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 2:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

You're welcome.

Movie Reviews-Ink, Contagion and more

2012-01-07T06:40:00.005-05:00

Ink

Have you ever had a particularly vivid dream, woke up and wondered where it came from?

Do you have sudden benevolent urges to give that indigent money, help an older person to cross the street or hold the door open for someone carrying packages? Or do you sometimes have feelings of paranoia or aggression. Do you humiliate the waitress for getting your order wrong or make a co-worker feel like crap for making a mistake? Do you lie awake thinking about what you SHOULD have said or done to someone who offended you, how angry you are that you may not see that person again and how you're not going to take it anymore?

There are some flicks which shamelessly steal from other movies and yet still manage to be inventive in their own right. Ink is such a movie. It is also a film which answers the questions posed above. Like its influences The Matrix, Dark City, Donnie Darko and a few others, Ink posits a reality that exists alongside our own and has impact on us, though we may never touch it. The movie makes a nod to the strange world of quantum physics. Ink is also at the same time a real fairy tale that may touch your internal sentimental child.

Athough Ink does not use explicit religious dogma (God is only mentioned in passing) in this film it's clear that evil and good are discrete things, not just ideas. When we sleep we are visited by two distinct type of entities. The Storytellers may be selfless servants of God (angels). They provide dreams and visions which inspire our higher feelings and capacities. They appear in flashes of light. The Incubi (devils) are working for the Other Side. They give us nightmares and visions of pain and fear, designed to cause us to behave in selfish and ultimately self-destructive ways. The Incubi are twisted and foul. The Storytellers all appear human.

Under normal conditions neither the Incubi nor the Storytellers can physically interact with humanity. But they fight each other ALL the time. John (Chris Kelly) is a harried businessman who dreams of playing with his young daughter Emma (Quinn Hunchar) though in real life he does not live with the girl. In the dreamworld a monstrous entity known only as Ink successfully kidnaps Emma's soul, fighting off her Storyteller defenders. In our world this causes Emma to slip into a coma. Ink intends to hand over Emma to the Incubi so that he may become one of them and thus become numb to pain, regret, fear, and anything else that is human and moral.

The Storytellers counterattack on two fronts-sending one of their most powerful number Liev, (Jessica Duffy) to follow Ink and Emma, while they also enlist the help of the blind Pathfinder Jacob (Jeremy Make) a rare Storyteller who is able to effect physical change in our world. They want to break John out of the path he's on and convince him to save his daughter.

This independent film was written, directed, scored and produced by the husband and wife team of Jamin and Kiowa Winans. It's an excellent example of how a good story and intelligent use of camera and effects can make up for a limited budget. Ink also has a lot to say about how we're all connected to each other thru the various choices we make or don't make each and every day. The music and lighting in this film were VERY well done. Ink makes incredibly stylized usage of light and darkness, shadow and color. Much of this is achieved via judicious use of oversaturation. The SFX were all done on a Mac. Go figure. They work though. Ink is both limited by its budget and a good example of how to make every dollar count.

The quantum physics (each choice creating a separate universe of existence) was a nice touch. Give this movie a look. It is something very different from bloated effects extravaganzas like Cowboys and Aliens. It is definitely something you will think about afterwards. Although it has some action it is nowhere near as action packed as the trailer would indicate. This is definitely the thinking (wo)man's film. It drags a little from time to time; it also would have been nice to get a little more insight into the motivations of the Storytellers and Incubi. But nothing's perfect. TRAILER

Contagion

This film was written and directed by Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Syriana) and will be immediately familiar to fans of his style. Although it is about the spreading of an unknown and seemingly unstoppable disease, that's really just the hook to get the people watching. The film's real story is detailing how people react to each other in times of stress and how intimately we're all connected to each other, whether we realize it or not.

This is an ensemble cast. All of the actors get a chance to shine. Contagion opens up with a business executive returning home from an overseas trip to Hong Kong. As is often the case, being away from home has made this person a bit randy and they decide to enjoy a little adulterous sex before going back to their spouse and child. This executive , Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) has a cold/flu of some sort though. This sickness worsens until she has a seizure and dies in front of her husband Mitch (Matt Damon) and child.

Paltrow was patient zero. In a very short period of time many of the people she came into contact with have also become sick. And since we live in the era of easy cross border travel, that's a lot of people. Once the authorities figure out that this is something serious, hundreds of thousands have already been infected. And before they can even start the detective work , overseen by CDC head Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne), millions are at risk.

As mentioned, the focus is not really on the physical effects of the disease (which are not shown all that much) but on the fear, depression, paranoia, greed and also the love and sacrifice which the pandemic causes. Would you kill someone to get their vaccine for yourself or a loved one? If you had inside information would you share it with your loved ones? Could you make very cold decisions about shooting people who escaped quarantine? Those are the "horror" elements of this movie. If you're looking for lots of blood and gore, this film doesn't have that. It does have a very good story along with good actors, great sets and an increasing sense of panicked paranoia. This movie could give you OCD about touching other people or even being around folks.

Along with the aforementioned actors the cast also includes Kate Winslet, Elliot Gould, Sanaa Lathan, Jude Law, Marion Cotillard, Jennifer Ehle and Bryan Cranston.
TRAILER

Election

In any organized crime group when the time comes to select a new leader, things can get a little bit hectic. Aggressive violent men who are used to having their own way and don't mind hurting or killing to get it don't always make the best followers. The Hong Kong Triads are no different. Every two years(which seems a bit short) the Wo Sing Triad elects a new chairman. This chairman is both simultaneously a boss and a front man. Much of the real power in the Triad is held by various "Uncles" who oversee and control different aspects of the Triad's business. The Uncles are usually older semi-retired men. The chairman is always chosen from among the younger up and coming gangsters.

For this election the choice is between Big D (Tony Leung) -a brash gangster who is prone to temper tantrums and violence and Lok (Simon Yam)-a more stable hoodlum with a reputation for cleverness. Both gangsters have their subordinates plead their case to the various Uncles as well as make a few side deals or spread some cash when needed. Lok wins the election. The fact that Big D had mistakenly ordered an assault on an Uncle who he thought was moving in on his territory didn't help his chances.

However before the forward looking and seemingly genial Lok can formally be recognized as Triad Chairman, Big D, who is the very definition of a sore loser, refuses to accept Lok as chairman. Big D kidnaps some of the gangsters who voted against him and threatens to start his own Triad -thus ensuring a bloody war-if he is not made chairman. Throughout the film the police are constantly harassing the Triad members and threatening to do worse if the dispute is not resolved quickly and quietly.

The wiser leaders of any large organized crime group realize that the primary purpose of their group is to continue to exist and earn money. Feuds are bad for business though they are of course sometime unavoidable. The question in this movie is whether the calm and urbane Lok has the guts and viciousness to fight for what is rightfully his and whether the brash and violent Big D is really so proud and unyielding that he would destroy the Triad in a bloody war, rather than submit to another and make a lot of money. This film has subtitles. There is much less violence than one would expect but what violence does exist is not cartoonish. You actually feel for the people involved.
TRAILER

Outpost

This was another low-budget movie about deathless Nazi soldiers. Outpost lacked the humor and spirit that was in Dead Snow but it was also quite a bit creepier. In the present day Balkans, while a war is raging, a mysterious businessman Hunt (Julian Waldman) hires a British mercenary DC (Ray Stevenson) and his ethnically diverse group of soldiers for hire to escort Hunt to a WW2 era deserted SS bunker where Hunt intends to obtain some minerals for an unnamed consortium. Now DC didn't survive as long as he did by believing everything he was told. But the money is too good to pass up and Hunt assures them they'll be in and out in 2 days, max.

When the men enter the bunker they find dozens of dead bodies and one survivor, who they assume has survived the current ethnic cleansing going on in the area. This man does not talk. Later that night the men seemingly come under attack from all sides. Despite an impressive display of firepower the mercenaries kill no one. Afterwards their only casualty is a man shot with a bullet that went out of production in the 1940's. Their unease rises to panic when two of their number disappear and are found dead in the morning. And they're seeing strange things. DC demands answers from Hunt who informs him that no he wasn't looking for gold. He was looking for and has found a Nazi machine that via zero-point-energy or quantum physics was able to change the plane on which human beings existed. The Nazis successfully carried out experiments on Waffen SS soldiers (shown in a particularly spooky B&W film sequence) which allowed them to exist simultaneously in different dimensions and more or less be immune to death. And the mercs' arrival at the bunker has attracted the Nazis' attention. This ruins DC's day of course and the remainder of the movie is a combination of mercs dying one by one or making a last stand against opponents that are indifferent to bullets and not constrained by time or space.

Modest fun but not great. But it does have some legitimate scares. The bunker is very dark and exactly the sort of place where a grinning Nazi ghost materializes out of nowhere to stab you from behind.
TRAILER

January Book of the Month: Here Comes Trouble, by Michael Moore

2012-01-06T11:05:00.001-05:00

Here Comes Trouble

by Michael Moore

Michael Moore is a compassionate, funny, smart and very interesting man and all of this shines through beautifully in his unconventionally written autobiography. Moore does not use the typical style of writing as it relates to this particular genre. Instead of chronicling his life from beginning to present, he writes a series of cool, autobiographical sketches dealing with not only his life; but detailed accounts of early American settlers; his ancestors.

Each of Moore's narrative's begin a whole new chapter in the Moore family. By the end, the reader will realize it is no surprise that Moore became the influential, inspiring, artist that he is today. Moore is extremely honest and does not hide some of the more undesirable truths, of how people like Moore's family felt about things during certain time periods. I guarantee you that you won't be able to hold any of it against him or his family and you'll respect and appreciate his work even more.

If you enjoy reading about the lives of individuals with the revolutionary spirit and want to see it done in a way that is creative, inspiring and sometimes tear jerking, then you will enjoy this book. The best thing about Moore is that his genuine love for people is something that shows naturally through his work and through his personality. Moore is one of those rare celebrities that if you met on the street and ask to borrow 20 dollars he'd probably give it to you. You don't just support Moore because he is controversial or because he's entertaining you also do it because you like him and you genuinely want to see him do well. Maybe even run for office someday. Here Comes Trouble does an excellent job in describing how all this that is Michael Moore came to be.

The Return of Citizens United: Montana Strikes Back

2012-01-06T02:45:00.009-05:00

Two years ago, we wrote about the infamous Citizens United case. If you somehow managed to go the past 2 years without hearing about this case, or you simply need a refresher of the facts, it's actually worth (re)reading this post. In short, this was the case where the conservative majority on the Supreme Court held that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to free speech and that this new found 1st Amendment right to free speech includes the right to spend endless amounts of money for or against political candidates through TV ads. This decision has been ridiculed, criticized, and denounced by constitutional scholars, politicians and the general public alike because it allows corporations to dominate the political process against "We the People" in a very "David vs. Goliath" type scenario (only this time David doesn't happen to have a handy sling shot). Indeed, one former constitutional law professor (who also happens to be our President), in a rare presidential moment, called out the entire Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address before the nation, stating that:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Although we're still waiting for Congress to answer President Obama's call to pass a bill to help reverse the impact of Citizens United, one state has taken matters into its own hands:

Montana voters in 1912 passed an initiative barring direct corporate contributions to political candidates and parties, a law that like those in many states was undone by the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial decision in 2010 that gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as citizens to spend their way into political debates.
But the Montana Supreme Court last week issued a forceful rebuke of the decision that has opened the door to game-changing, free-spending corporate contributions in the current election season. In a new opinion that draws on decades of Montana's coal-mining and copper-mining history, the court upheld the state's 1912-era corporate contribution limits, concluding, "The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana."
The decision applies only to state elections. But, if appealed as expected, the case could provide the long-awaited vehicle critics have sought for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue of corporate contributions.

In other words, the Montana Supreme Court, voting 5-2, has issued a judicial equivalent of "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" to the U.S. Supreme Court's directive that corporations be afforded 1st Amendment rights to spend without limit in political elections. The Montana Supreme Court, and in particular Montana Justice James C. Nelson, gave the U.S. Supreme Court the business on this issue, going so far as to say:

Corporations are not persons...Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government...while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.

Tell us how you really feel.

Nevertheless, although "State's Rights" advocates, Evangelicals and the Occupy Wall Street crowd can all come together to celebrate this decision, this decision unfortunately presents one major problem as noted by one of the two Montana dissenting Justices:

Having considered the matter, I believe the Montana Attorney General has identified some very compelling reasons for limiting corporate expenditures in Montana’s political process. The problem, however, is that regardless of how persuasive I may think the Attorney General’s justifications are, the [United States] Supreme Court has already rebuffed each and every one of them. Accordingly, as much as I would like to rule in favor of the State, I cannot in good faith do so.... I cannot agree that [the majority’s] “Montana is unique” rationale is consistent with Citizens United....
[W]hat has happened here is essentially this: The [United States] Supreme Court in Citizens United ... rejected several asserted governmental interests; and this Court has now come along, retrieved those interests from the garbage can, dusted them off, slapped a “Made in Montana” sticker on them, and held them up as grounds for sustaining a patently unconstitutional state statute.

As much as we are likely justified in saying that Citizens United was hands down the worst Supreme Court decision of the Roberts Court, the fact of the matter is that Citizens United is still a current United States Supreme Court decision and as such it is the supreme law of the land. There are only two ways to stop it from being the supreme law of the land: (i) the Supreme Court can overrule it with a new case (obviously not going to happen with this Court) or (ii) Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment overriding the Court's decision.¹ Until either of those things happen, a state court - like Montana's Supreme Court - is not free to simply ignore the supreme law of the land. By analogy, this would be like the Supreme Court of Kansas holding that racially segregated "Separate but Equal" schools are back in business after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. It simply doesn't work that way. Such a ruling would clearly be struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional.

Citizens United adds money and corruption to a political process in a country that already has too much of both. Moreover, since it stands for the proposition that all corporations have 1st Amendment rights, it must, by its own terms, allow foreign corporations to spend money influencing our elections. Call me crazy, but something doesn't quite seem right about the prospect of the Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation, for example, having direct influence over who the next President of America will be. Nevertheless, until it is properly removed from the books, for better or for worse, we are stuck with it.

QUESTIONS:
1. What are your thoughts on the actions taken by the Montana Supreme Court?
2. The last Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992 - could there be enough consensus against Citizens United to pass another one?
3. What will it take in order for people to see that this ruling is detrimental to our political process?
4. Should Corporations have unlimited spending (i.e. "free speech") in our political process?
5. If individuals have freedom of speech, shouldn't that freedom remain intact when individuals come together as corporations?
6. Are Corporations "people"?

¹ - There is a third way that a Supreme Court decision can be overruled - Congress can simply pass or amend an Act that clarifies that corporations are not afforded 1st Amendment rights. However, like all Acts, the Supreme Court could simply choose to declare it unconstitutional. By contrast, an Amendment to the Constitution can never be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because an Amendment literally becomes part of the Constitution itself.

President Obama Sticks It To GOP!

2012-01-05T01:23:00.009-05:00

President Obama Takes Matters Into His Own Hands

President Obama went on vacation last month, took in some sun, golf, family time and came back to the oval office with a new perspective on governing - beat the GOP at their own game. The President opted to exercise his powers and put an end to the nonsense and politicking that the Republicans in Congress have been partaking in for the last three years.

President Obama made four recess appointments of key individuals who've been caught up in the gridlock of congress for over a year. The individuals were:

                    Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
                    Sharon Block, Member, National Labor Relations Board
                    Terence F. Flynn, Member, National Labor Relations Board
                    Richard Griffin, Member, National Labor Relations Board

"The American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day - whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans. We can’t wait to act to strengthen the economy and restore security for our middle class and those trying to get in it, and that’s why I am proud to appoint these fine individuals to get to work for the American people." - President Obama

Of course the GOP and big business came out in full court press attack mode. Listen to what they had to say.....

"What the president did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future president to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress."

"This was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate." - US Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell

"The President's recess appointment of Consumer Protection Chief is an unprecedented blow to our system of checks and balances." - Top GOP Aide

"We are considering all possible legal recourse. We believe it's clear the President has violated decades of precedent and possibly the Constitution." - Geoff Burr, Vice President, Associated Builders and Contractors.

During our own discussion amongst the team, we pondered on the legality of the appointment and our resident legal scholar, The Janitor, pointed out:

"Article II section 2 expressly allows the President to make a recess appointment. The only catch is that when the President makes a recess appointment - which BTW every president has done since the 1700's - the Senate has to give their approval of the recess appointment by the end of the next term or else the President's appointment will expire and then we'll have to go through this whole thing all over again."

I highly doubt that this appointment is illegal and I commend the President for taking this matter into his own hands and using the powers granted to him to ensure that this gridlock came to an end. A President shouldn't have to make these type of appointments. Congress should do its damn job and bring the individual up for a vote. The shenanigans of the US Congress needs to come to an end. There is no reason preventing Congress from doing its job other thanideological difference, concern for personal gain or outright stupidity. Keep in mind, Congress is also sitting on the appointments of judges and other key people to the administration. My response to McConnell and all those who blasted the President today - the inaction of Congress and their decision to put politics and personal gain over the best interests of the American People is a blow to our system.

In your opinion, is this appointment a legal appointment?
Does this move by President Obama add strength to his leadership?
Should the President have made more appointments than the four he made today?
Do you support the CPFB?
Do you anticipate any legal ramifications of today's appointments?

Republican Primary - The Iowa Caucus UPDATE

2012-01-04T09:03:00.004-05:00

The Iowa Caucus

Today is the day that we've all been waiting for. The Republican contenders are going head to head in the Iowa Caucus in hopes of securing the necessary momentum needed to peruse their way to the Republican Nomination. Before we get into strategy, prediction and our overall thoughts on today's caucus, I invite you to view a hilarious video I saw Monday evening. I think this video gives the most real and rare glimpse into Iowans and how they really view politics.

Let's get started.....

Today's players are.....

Willard "Mitt" Romney

Willard is making a second round attempt at the Presidency and is praying to all gods that he can turn out a win. Surrounded by the evangelical Christian right, Willard has done everything except shave his head to turncoat himself into the ideal candidate that the Iowa Caucus voters would be comfortable with. If only Willard had stayed true to his principles, stood behind his record and embraced his wealth and privileged upbringing, I think more voters would be comfortable with him. Instead he comes off as the typical turncoat politician who will say or do anything to secure a vote. I can't see a victory in the caucus for Willard and a loss tonight will put a serious damper on his campaign and overall strategy.

Newt Gingrich

Oh, who can forget Newt? Newt led the charge in the 90's to impeach President Clinton for sexual indiscretions, when Newt himself was participating in extra-martial activities himself. He is the epitome of a hypocrite. If you can manage your household and marriage, who are you supposed to run a country. Newt doesn't stand a chance in Iowa and couldn't hold a candle to President Obama in the general election. Newt has too much baggage and scandals yet uncovered that would tarnish the Republican Party and hand President Obama a victory, without much effort. By his own admission, Newt knows that he doesn't stand a chance at winning the caucus today, but has vowed to remain in the primary until the very end, regardless of todays outcome or how far he continues to sink in the polls.

Rick Santorum

Ricky Rosé! For my hip hop heads, Mr. Pretty Ricky with his seven kids, v-neck sweaters and no funds in the campaign bank account, just might pull a victory out of the bag. Late surges have many predicting a Santorum victory today. I am not buying into this dream just yet. Santorum hates Gay Americans and went on record to express his hatred. He is also on the extreme right of his party, citing that he would bans abortions in all cases, including incest and rape. Smh!

Rick Perry
Governor Perry can't remember what federal agencies he would cut, let alone the US Constitution, so he CAN NOT be trusted to hold the Presidency. He admittedly hates America and was never held accountable for his actions or words. Texas Succession Movement ring a bell to anyone? If you don't even want to be apart of the union, how can you hold the highest office in the union. Besides, Perry supports the Dream Act and the HPV shot for young girls, two absolute no no's for the evangelical right.

Michelle Bachmann
There is not enough time or space for me to give my god honest thoughts on Michelle Bachmann. You've all seen the debates and heard the interviews. Michelle Bachmann as President of the United States would get us all killed and the country wiped off the map. I do think its quite ironic that she pulled a major victory in last years Iowa Straw Poll, but has tanked in the polls since then. Michelle Bachmann is bat shit crazy and we don't need her in any public office. It's just dawned on me, that we might have an opportunity to get rid of her this year. If she's running for President long enough, she can't run for reelection in her congressional seat.

Ron Paul
Granpda Ron! Please sit down! However, on a serious note, I think Ron Paul can seriously pull an upset in Iowa today. What's unfortunate about Ron Paul is his ability to pull any voter in with just a few of his ideas, but then he messes it up by expressing discontent for landmark cases like Brown v The Board of Education or saying that "Jim Crow" and discrimination would have worked itself out, without government intervention.

Stay tuned for updates throughout the day and later this evening as the results come in.

Give your prediction, who will win the Iowa Caucus?

Will today's caucus predict the candidate who will ultimately get the nomination and face off with President Obama in November?

Is the Iowa Caucus truly reflective of the US electorate?
Are any of these candidates viable candidates and will do they have a real chance at taking the White House?

******UPDATE*******

The results are in! After all of the hype, negative TV ads, robocalls and more debates than we can count, the people of Iowa finally took to the polls in record numbers and made their voices known. So who finally won and, more importantly, who lost? The Iowa Caucus results are as follows:

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)

Jan 03, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)

1. Mitt Romney	30,015	24.6%
2. Rick Santorum	30,007	24.5%
3. Ron Paul	26,219	21.4%
4. Newt Gingrich	16,251	13.3%
5. Rick Perry	12,604	10.3%
6. Michele Bachmann	6,073	5%
7. Jon Huntsman	745	0.6%
8. Herman Cain	58	0%
9. Buddy Roemer	31	0%
No Preference	135	0.1%
Other	117	0.1%

As you can see, a very narrow victory for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney over the latest rising star, former US Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. And not to be forgotten, Texas Congressman Ron Paul established himself as a quasi-viable candidate at 3rd Place. However, the true winner in last night's Iowa Caucus is Rick Santorum. Not only did he galvanize the conservative vote and nearly beat Mitt Romney, but what's more impressive is that he did it on a shoe string budget spending a mere few hundred thousand dollars compared to the millions of dollars that Mitt Romney poured into Iowa. Moreover, due to the negative nature of Mitt Romney's attack adds on former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Newt declared during his speech last night that he fully endorses Rick Santorum and that he (Newt) will now dedicate his energies to helping Santorum take down Mitt Romney.

It is also notable to observe the sharp contrast between the top two candidates last night during their respective victory speeches. Rick Santorum went before Romney and delivered a moving speech that was from the heart. He spoke of his grandfather who worked in a coal mine so that he could support his family and he connected that to the #1 issue on voters' minds: jobs. He spoke about family values and the human condition through his daughter who was born with a disability. And last but not least, he gave thanks to God for his win in such a genuine way that it rang sincere to both evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike. In short, it was by far the most compelling speech that Rick Santorum has ever made and likely introduced him for the first time to a nation that may not really know who he was before last night's victory.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, came off as very fake, insincere, and like a bit of a used car salesman. Indeed, after seeing Santorum's speech Romney's staff quickly removed the teleprompters that Romney was going to use so that he would seem more sincere like Santorum. Had he spoken before Rick Santorum it would not have been as bad, but following a sincere heart-felt speech like the one delivered by Santorum provided an undeniable contrast that likely forced many-a-republican to reevaluate their support of Mitt Romney last night. Romney led by speaking about Iran's possible nuclear threat and eventually threw a few tid bits about jobs in towards the end. Not a good move. His speech was the antithesis of Santorum's, providing weak talking points and noticeably rehearsed stump speech lines. It was like watching Beyonce's solo in Dream Girls after watching Jennifer Hudson's solo bring the entire audience to a standing ovation.

As far as the "losers" of the evening, Texas Governor Rick Perry wasted no time in announcing his return to Texas to "reassess" his campaign. Prior to taking 5th place last night, Perry had never lost an election. The Iowa Caucus finally ended that winning streak for Perry and we will likely see him announce a full resignation from the race shortly. The only question is who will then pick up his votes? It is no secret that Perry's people do not particularly care for Mitt Romney, therefore it stands to reason that Perry's 10% will go towards the conservative Rick Santorum whether he gives a full endorsement of Santorum or not. Now that Perry is out of the race it begs the question of why he ever entered the race to begin with. His introduction into the race was surrounded by a lot of hype and, to his credit, it did manage to single-handedly relegate Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann to the single digits (where she remained last night) but at the end of the day Perry will likely be remembered for committing the worst gaffes in political history. As Rick Perry would say, "Audios Mo Fo."

Speaking of Bachmann, she finished in what was effectively dead last (6th place), beating only Jon Huntsman (who did not participate in Iowa), Herman Cain (who dropped out weeks ago) and Buddy Roemer (who nobody knows). During her "victory" speech last night, she did not drop out of the race but instead stubbornly announced her intention to continue to make sure Barack Obama (whose name she repeated about 20 times more than any other candidate) is a "one term president." In fact, you could summarize Bachmann's entire candidacy as one big anti-obama infomercial. Whereas the other candidates in the GOP primary focused on winning the primary, Bachmann focused solely on denigrating President Obama with unchecked and factually inaccurate misinformation every time she opened her mouth. Indeed, out of all the candidates, Congresswoman Bachmann probably received the official "pants on fire" award from factcheck.org more than anybody else. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Iowa is Bachmann's home state and she won the Iowa straw poll a few months ago, she received only 5% of the vote there last night. Even though she did not announce it last night, after speaking with a few donors she has decided to bow out this morning and has officially ended her bid for the White House.

In conclusion, the Iowa Caucus served its purpose to trim the fat by eliminating Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann. Ron Paul will not likely be able to recreate the magic in New Hampshire or South Carolina that catapulted him to 3rd place last night in Iowa. Going forward, the race seems to be shaping up as a contest between Rick Santorum (who represents the social conservatives) and Mitt Romney (who represents the establishment Republicans).

Welcome to Election 2012 - Races to Watch

2012-01-03T00:00:00.005-05:00

Ladies and Gentleman - Welcome to Election 2012

Races to Watch

Today marks the beginning of what we've all anticipated over the last year, the Iowa Caucus. The 2012 Presidential Elections officially begins today. As the Caucus gets underway today, I would like to draw your attention to the races across the country that I think we should all keep a close eye on. These races will grow intense as the months move forward and the strategies implemented by each campaign will give us a glimpse into the strategy we can expect by the controlling party in 2013.

Tim Kaine - Running for Senator in Virginia

Former Governor of Virginia and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine will deliver an electrifying campaign and his race his a MUST watch. He will face former U.S. Senator and Virginia Governor, Republican George Allen. By his own admission, Kaine is a slow starter and somewhat of a trailer in polls. So, don't expect to see any sudden surges by Kaine early on, but do expect to see a robust grassroots campaign and a strong alliance with the President's campaign.

Elizabeth Warren - Running for Senator in Massachuetts

This race will tie with the Kaine race for excitement. Elizabeth Warren is a public voice for the people and someone who stands to be a formidable force in the U.S. Senate. Her passion and courage will be most reminiscent of the late Ted Kennedy. She will face the incumbent "I'll pretend to be a moderate/liberal republican" to win an election, even though I embraced the Tea Party to win the seat in the first place, Senator Scott Brown. Scott Brown has played the game very well, but has proven he is not representative of the ideals and values that Massachusetts voters hold most dear to them.

Olympia Snowe - Three Term Incumbent Senator from Maine

Senator Snowe, don't we all love having her in the Senate so much. On one hand, its apparent that her moderate views and willingness to negotiate and compromise are identical to the values of her constituents from Maine. On the other hand, Senator Snow is frustrating to most of us and it worries me that she will eventually become a target for the more extreme members of her parties. Either way, Senator Snowe faces two primary challengers, Scott D'Amboise a conservative and Andrew Ian Dodge a Tea Party Conservative.

Scott D'Amboise

Andrew Ian Dodge

Claire McCaskill - Senator from Missouri

The incumbent Senator is currently polling ahead of her potential opponents. However, this is by no means a safe seat and will prove to be a tough reelection for McCaskill. This race will heat up by mid-March. Its still too early to predict if McCaskill will embrace the Democrats and their record or will she attempt to distance herself from the party and the President, in an attempt to appeal to independent voters.

Bob Casey Jr. - Senator from Pennsylvania

Senator Casey beat Republican incumbent Rick Santorum in 2006, turning this seat blue for the first time in over forty-years. After the White House inflicted disaster that was Toomey/Sestak/Specter, let's hope that the Obama White House gets this endorsement right and throws their support early on, behind the right candidate. This race is a key race, as it's directly tied to the Presidential election. If all parties act accordingly and get this right, we should expect to see an alliance between the Obama reelection campaign and the Casey U.S. Senate reelection campaign. Again, I anticipate a robust grassroots campaign focusing on voter registration, galvanizing of union workers, blue collar and working class voters. My prediction, if Casey looses this race, Obama looses Pennsylvania and vice versa.

Retirement or Not Seeking Reelection

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska both announced in 2011 that they would be retiring leaving their seats up for grabs. Rumors circulated that Barney Frank's consistently blue congressional district fell victim to redistricting, making it harder for the Democrat to hold on to the seat. Ben Nelson had long been a thorn in the asses of all Democrats across the nation. It will be interesting to watch the elections of both seats, especially Nelson's Nebraska seat. Will Nebraskan's move forward and put a real conservative in the seat or will they opt for a moderate to right-leaning Democrat has they had in Nelson. Mike Pence is will not seek reelection to his 6th District Indiana Congressional seat. Pence is expected to go head-to-head against current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels for the Republican Gubernatorial nomination. You may recall Governor Daniels creating quite a bit of negative attention over the last few years with his support of anti-union worker and anti-women's reproductive rights legislation. Ron Paul is running for President and we finally have an opportunity to throw him out of public office once and for all. It will be very interesting to see how the elections turn out for each of these seats.

Lastly, the ultimate race to watch is the Presidential Election. At some point today, we should be somewhat closer to knowing who President Obama's possible opponent could be. In a later post, I will delve into details of what I expect to see from the President's Campaign as a reelection strategy. In the meantime, ladies and gentleman - Let the Games Begin!

Welcome to Election 2012!

Which races are you most excited about?

Will the Presidential Election of 2012 unify the country again?

Which races should the Obama reelection campaign partner with?

Are there any candidates listed above that you would like to see lose their bid for reelection?

Will the candidate embrace the records of their party or will they attempt to distance themselves? if so, who do you anticipate and what will their strategy be?

112th Congress Year-One: An Epic Failure

2012-01-02T03:40:00.004-05:00

November 2010's midterm elections gave the Republican Party control of the House of Representatives and sent John Boehner straight to the top of the party, by handing him the Speaker's gavel. Boehner came to power and immediately proclaimed the Republican win, a mandate from the American People. Boehner stated the following:

“I think that it’s a mandate for Washington to reduce the size of government and continue our fight for smaller, less costly and more accountable government.”

In preparation for the the election, then Minority Leader Boehner famously asked President Obama, "Where are the Jobs Mr. President?" So with the mandate talk and an early expressed interest in the employment prospects of the American People, one would think that the Republican Party would have come into office and saved the day - PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BACK TO WORK!!!! We already know how this story ended, an epic failure.

Everyone should know by now that I love to take trips down memory lane. I think it's very important that we take these trips down memory lane, it forces us to remember things that politicians are hoping that we forget. Especially considering that this year is an election year, I think it's key that we examine speeches like the speech that Leader Boehner delivered below.

"The people’s priorities will be our priorities. The people’s agenda will be our agenda. This is our Pledge to America, this is our pledge to you!"

What A Successful 112th Congress Year-One Would Have Looked Like:

Unity and communications are key and over the last couple of years prior to the Tea Party, the Republican Party proved that they are masters of both, giving them a leg up on the Democrats. The American People, through their votes in November 2010, delivered a mandate and the Republican Party was chosen to answer the calls of all issues and concerns.

On day one, Speaker Boehner should have galvanized his caucus and passed a comprehensive Jobs Act, one very similar to what President Obama proposed in early September. They would have beaten the President to the punch and at his own game.
Save all ideological fights for a later time. It makes no sense to pick these ideological fights when your party only controls one chamber.
Negotiate internally with the Tea-Party Caucus and help them to understand the bigger picture at hand - control of all three bodies, the House, Senate and White House.
On normal procedures, such as the debt-ceiling increase, renewal of tax cuts, and appropriation bills, pass clean bills and prepare to unload the ramifications on the Democratic Party in 2012.
Avoid passing useless legislation that doesn't have direct impact on the people. (ex. H.CON.RES.13"In God We Trust")
Collectively reprimand national Republican figures who attempted to negatively impact the collective bargaining rights of public workers. Even better form an alliance with those figures early on and tell them to hold off. These issues are much better resolved through federal legislation.
Make common sense decisions like funding FEMA for earthquakes and wildfires and leave the debt debate out of those decisions.

Starting the session with just two or three of these suggestions would have put the Republican Party ahead of the Democratic Party. There would be a more believable opportunity for the Democrats to be painted as the party of "big spending" liberals. Instead the Republicans allowed President Obama and his party to set them up for failure. The Republicans took the bait each time and fell into the Obama/Democratic set traps. So now, what would have been an easy walk in the park to 2012 for one side, is now on schedule to be a knock down dragged out fight - all because Speaker Boehner failed as a leader. Instead of success, the Republican controlled house decided to pick meaningless fights and introduce legislation that made absolutely no sense. Effectively the Republicans could have taken the Democratic blue print set by Nancy Pelosi and the last Congress, made a few tweaks, passed it as their own and taken all of the credit for the positive impact.

My Favorite Pieces of Legislation Introduced by the US House of Representatives in the First 100 Days of the 112th Congress

H.R. 1 - Latest Title: Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 / Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 2/11/2011)

H.R. 2 - Latest Title: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act / Sponsor: Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] (introduced 1/5/2011)

H.R. 3 - Latest Title: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act / Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] (introduced 1/20/2011)

H.R. 4 - Latest Title: Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011 / Sponsor: Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] (introduced 1/12/2011)

H.R. 5 - Latest Title: Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011 / Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 1/24/2011)

H.R. 10 - Latest Title: Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 / Sponsor: Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] (introduced 1/20/2011)

H.R. 11 - Latest Title: Build America Bonds to Create Jobs Now Act of 2011 / Sponsor: Rep Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry" [VA-11] (introduced 2/10/2011)

H.R. 12 - Latest Title: American Jobs Act of 2011 / Sponsor: Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] (by request) (introduced 9/21/2011)

Was Year-One of the 112th Congress a success or failure?

What do you expect from the Republican controlled House in 2012?

Will John Boehner retain his Speakership?

Movie Reviews-Straw Dogs (2011), Fright Night(2011) and more

2011-12-31T07:33:00.002-05:00

Straw Dogs(2011)

This remake tells the story of a man , David (James Marsden) and his wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) who move to Amy's culturally distinct Mississippi home town-Blackwater. (Shades of backwater or Blackwater Group??) David is a screenwriter and Amy is an actress. David is writing a book on the 1943 battle of Stalingrad.

Like its 1971 predecessor, Rod Lurie's remake poses some questions.
What does it mean to be a man? Can you change a tire? Re-roof a house? Break down and clean a firearm? Overhaul a transmission? Do you even know the proper color of your car's transmission fluid? Put up a fence? Kill an animal? Stand up for yourself? Fix your refrigerator coils? Physically intimidate other men? Enjoy or perform physically violent sports? Speak directly and with bass/baritone in your voice? Bench press multiples of your body weight? Are you a good partner for your wife/girlfriend/friend with benefits? Can she rely on you for protection?

David can't do any of these things. This almost immediately invites the contempt of the town's workers, including his wife's ex-boyfriend. This being the South though their contempt is initially expressed under a thin veneer of excessive politeness, deference and blink-and-you'll-miss-it-sarcasm. When David tells Charlie that Charlie and his crew are taking too long to re-roof the barn, Charlie replies with seeming actual kindness and curiosity "How long, in your experience, should it take to re-roof a barn, sir?".
The story is roughly faithful to the 1971 version discussed here with a few changes.

As I suspected, the portions of Peckinpah film which so troubled some viewers, especially feminists, have been toned down or removed altogether. Amy is still provocative in her dress (going braless for a lengthy run and later deliberately flashing the workers) but this is explicitly tied up with some sort of grrlpower activism. The infamous rape scene still occurs but it is clearly depicted as rape-there is NO enjoyment or ambiguity expressed. It can not possibly be thought of as crude seduction. When the couple is besieged David does not slap his hysterical wife and tell her to do as she's told. These changes probably make the film a bit more palatable to modern filmgoers but they do rob the movie of the shock value and intensity that the original had. Lurie said “I think you will see that one of the reasons for remaking was to turn it into a feminist film.” He may have succeeded in that goal but it wasn't needed. The film is thus deliberately neutered.

Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) is more of an eye candy object than Amy is in this film. In addition, the remake removes the slight tension between Amy and David. We never get the feeling that she thinks she settled, which was rather important to the events. There isn't a real hint of Amy's revolt against David's prissiness and peculiarities.

In the original David was more or less clueless to the cultural norms of the small English village he was visiting. In this film he is still clueless but is willing to at least try to adapt. This makes him a more sympathetic protagonist while more openly painting his tormentors as stereotypical good old boy bullies.

The movie's irony is that both David and Charlie react to what they think each other's stereotypes are and then in seeming self-defense, become those stereotypes. Under different circumstances the self-described "rednecks" might actually have been interested in the minutiae of World War Two battles while David could have learned to enjoy high calorie down home chili and the rhythmic cadence of a Southern preacher. Marsden is not as slight or nebbishy as Hoffman so the ending violence lacks the original's surprise.

Word to the wise: the best time to handle problems is when they start. If a strange man who you later find out is your wife's ex walks up to her, ignores you and calls her by an obviously sexual diminutive while trying to play with her hair, you might as well shoot him right then and there. Start as you mean to finish I always say. Save yourself some time and hassle. If this film's story interests you, just see the original instead. James Woods and Dominic Purcell also have roles.
TRAILER

Fright Night (2011)

Another remake, this movie tells the story of a vampire living (and feasting) in suburbia.
Like Straw Dogs this version makes some important changes to the storyline but unlike Straw Dogs these changes actually work. I wouldn't say it was better than the original just different. Financially however, this film was pretty much a flop.

The primary difference is that the hero Charley Brewster, (Anton Yelchin) a former geek who is transforming into one of the cool kids, discovers VERY early on that his next door neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. The film's most impressive scene has Charley realize this fact when Jerry -who is unable to enter a home without invitation-does his best to manipulate Charley into inviting him in. The slight Farrell does a bang up job of conveying menace and increasing frustration while Yelchin shows growing panic that there is a monster on the other side of the doorstep. This movie also precisely captures the sad emptiness of some of these semi-rural suburban subdivisions.

Unfortunately I guess when you show all the goods early there's no excitement left. This film had no tease. Perhaps it's because modern viewers have such short attention spans?

The film has some great special effects but there just wasn't enough fright or humor to have made this worthwhile for a theater viewing. It may find a second life on VOD and DVD. Who knows.

The vampire hunter Peter Vincent (David Tennant) is reimagined as a somewhat fey Las Vegas magician. Toni Collette, Sandra Vergara, and Imogen Poots also star. Chris Sarandon (the vampire in the original version) has a cameo.

TRAILER

Brotherhood of the Wolf

For fans of the fine feminine form of Monica Bellucci this French film is worth watching for her alone. For everyone else this isn't a bad little adventure/drama/mystery/period flick that is chock full of court intrigues, duels, forbidden romance, sexual perversion, murders, supernatural(?) events and martial arts-18th century style.

This kitchen sink approach would normally make a movie feel ridiculous but I think it worked for this film. The cinematography of the film is quite close to Blade 2 or even The Matrix, with similar action sequences and lighting. The film has lots of blue or dark scenes occasionally transposed with lighter more upbeat ones. This film won a host of awards and was financially successful in the US as well, no small feat for a subtitled movie with a running length of over 2 hours. The film hit the sweet spot of being able to appeal to both men and women, drama fans and action fans, conspiracy theorists and romance junkies, film snobs and people that just want to escape reality for a while. And the costumes weren't bad either. The film is based on (really more extrapolated from) real events.

The opening story is that a French knight , Fronsac (Samuel Le Bihan) and his Iroquois partner Mani (Mark Dacascos) return to France from North America in order to hunt and kill a strange beast that is terrorizing the countryside. They also intend to enjoy the favors of the sort of women that aren't found in North America. Fronsac in particular is something of a player and almost immediately takes up with the mysterious Italian prostitute Sylvia (Monica Bellucci) while simultaneously romancing a local young noblewoman Marianne (Emile Dequenne). Mani knows kung-fu and is something of a a$$-kicker. Like the Starks in A Game of Thrones, Mani has a wolf as his totem animal and is virtually psychically linked with wolves. And he doesn't think the beast doing the killing is a wolf.

This beast seems to primarily attack and kill young girls. Fronsac and Mani find this strange to say the least. Additionally the footprints and bite marks of the beast are much larger and more powerful than any wolf. Some witnesses have sworn the beast was controlled by an evil wizard. The killings have become so common that people are attempting to use them as a religious symbol that God has withdrawn his favor from the French king. So the pressure is on Fronsac and Mani to solve this case FAST. They are overseen and occasionally mocked by the one armed Jean-Francois (Mr. Monica Bellucci aka Vincent Cassel), Marianne's brother, who seems to know more about the beast's behavior than he should. And the plot thickens from there. I don't want to say more because that would involve spoilers. I'll just say that this was a very satisfying film. Check it out.
TRAILER

Final Destination 5

This sequel closes the loop and does so in some pretty ingenious ways. If you've never seen any of the Final Destination movies I won't say you've missed a whole lot. It's basically an upscale Faces of Death. The storyline is always the same. One member of a group of attractive well scrubbed ethnically diverse youths has a premonition of impending death, freaks out and convinces some of his/her friends to get off the plane/bus/train/rollercoaster/ship or whatever they are on. The friends do so reluctantly, primarily so they can complain to each other about what a loser their freakout friend is. After the small group has left the area then the exact catastrophe which the psychic friend foresaw occurs.

The person comes to the attention of the local authorities or more usually the FBI, who can't believe the person didn't cause the tragedy somehow. Soon after the brush with death though, the survivors all start to perish in seemingly random and quite improbable ways. The local coroner (Tony Todd) who may or may not be an avatar of Death, shows up to warn the psychic that Death won't be mocked and the group's only hope of survival is to somehow break the pattern.

The real appeal of these movies is to detail all the numerous ways in which death can strike us all at anytime. Food that goes down the wrong way causes choking and asphyxiation instead of a cough. You slip and fall the wrong way on a wet bathroom floor and hit your head. Everything that can go wrong with a LASIK treatment does. The guy sitting next to you at a baseball game doesn't catch the foul ball but you do-right in the face. This may or not be your cup of tea but FD5 is consistent and is exactly like the previous four movies. See one, you've seen them all.
TRAILER

Silencing Progress One Youth Vote at a Time

2011-12-27T10:16:00.008-05:00

It's Tuesday. One week from the Iowa Caucus. 7 days from the true and official start of the election season. So what do we have to greet us on this seventh day away from when Americans will go to the polls and exercise their right to vote? We have more Republican shenanigans to bar eligible voters from voting.

It's the 1960s all over again, only this time the target group under legislators' discriminatory ire are college students. The optimistic few who have yet to become disenchanted by our government, frustrated by our policies and ready to say to hell with the whole way of Washington.

An editorial in Monday's New York Times details the Republican led effort in seven states to restrict people from voting based on new identification requirements. The Republicans at the head of these campaigns say it's to cut down on voter fraud.

Let's just stop right there. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran where stuffing the ballot box to keep the autocratic regime of an ultra-conservative Islamist regime is as simple as "Rachel" on Glee trying to get "Kurt" in all of his unicorn glitteriness elected Senior Class President. The days of hand writing, hand counting, taking three weeks to certify an election commission this is not. This is the United States of America where elections are wrapped up -- for the most part -- the same day they begin.

But what about Florida and those hanging chads of 2000 you say? That was not an instance of voter fraud. That was an instance of votes lost. Votes not being counted and our high court appointing a President against the will of the people who in the popular vote proved George W. Bush wasn't it.

The author of the article calls B.S. too.

"Republicans usually don’t want to acknowledge that their purpose is to turn away voters, especially when race is involved, so they invented an explanation, claiming that stricter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud. In fact, there is almost no voter fraud in America to prevent."

He goes on to say that Republicans want to ban college students new to the electoral process because Blacks, Hispanics, and of course the youth tend to vote liberal. I guess if you're Black and young and Hispanic and young you're twice the thorn in the Republican side than just someone Black and old or Hispanic and old.

These types of laws stir an anger in me so deeply it's hard for me to even comprehend. But I'm going to try and explain.

Being younger than the rest of my blog partners here at The Urban Politico I still remember vividly my first voting experience. I was sitting on my extra-long twin bed in my oversized dorm room at my off-campus dorm -- how cool was I -- with a manila envelope of all the materials I needed to fill out my absentee Illinois ballot for the 2004 Presidential election. I voted for Kerry with pride. I voted for Illinois state legislator Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate. The rest of the ballot is a blur but those two votes I know I cast. 15 whole punching minutes later, I voted, sealed my completed ballot in the postage-paid envelope and set off to the first floor; avoiding the elevator that got stuck between floors.

In 2008, now out of college, I cast another absentee ballot for the state of Illinois. In this instance I simply refused to register in Texas because I actually wanted my vote, the way I was voting, to count.

It did.

The one time Senator I voted into office in 2004 became President.

My faith in the electoral process, which was shattered at 13 with the election of Bush 43, was restored. All was right in the world and things were as they were supposed to be. Swing state's swung in their respective directions, people voted instead of dying, the other candidate conceded when he saw that he could not win and no state reported any problems with ballots, votes or people not being able to exercise their right.

This is the way things should go. Not to say that the electoral process only works when a Democrat is elected to office. Rather, there were no bumps, no hiccups and no idiosyncrasies to call the election of Barack Hussein A.K.A. Blessed King (that's what his name means) Obama into office.

But the smooth election of 2008 made way for the rocky term that is the Obama Presidency. The term was marred by beggings of his birth certificate, Salem witch-hunt like quests to invalidate him as President and even as a man fit to lead the free world. His term has been marred by more concern of whether or not he's smoking rather than how well he's leading. It's been marred by more focus on his "questionable intellect" than his capacity or even incapacity to navigate certain political fields with a prowess that leaves him unscathed in all outcomes.

Because of these distractions, Republicans have now taken it upon themselves to silence the voting voice of the young and minorities because "voting as a liberal is what kids do."

Voting as a liberal is not just what minority kids do. Just like voting as a conservative is not just something old White men do. Voting is something people who care about the future of their country do; it matters not the race or age of that person. Voting is something people who want to be involved in the civic creation of their country do; it matters not the race or age of that person. Voting is something people who want to see change come to their country do; it matters not the race or age.

At 13 I knew there was something wrong with the Gore - Bush outcome. You can bet your sweet behind that four and a half years later, with more knowledge to boot, voting was a chief priority in 2004 even if my candidate did not win.

The Republican push to invalidate the voting voice of the young is a direct assault on the Obama campaign. It is the Obama campaign in 2008 that mobilized the youth vote through five dollar donations given to grassroots organizers on street corners. It is the Obama campaign in 2008 that made use of this new craze we call social media by drumming up support on Facebook and MySpace that now extends to Twitter and YouTube. It is the Obama campaign that an entire cable network supported -- in true bias -- during the biggest night of their year when many young minority voters would be watching. (BET Awards '08)

As a young college-educated Black woman I don't necessarily feel attacked by this latest Republican push to silence my voice. This issue is bigger than me. This GOP push is an attack on the entire electoral process. It would be the same if Democrats were doing it to silence the voice of young majority Republicans ignorant though they may be.

Attack ads. I can honor that. The Supreme Court decision allowing constant giving by corporations to campaigns in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission I can also stand behind because it went through the judicial process even if the outcome is one I disagree with. But this legislative push to stop something, to curb a right that is given in the constitution, reinforced by the 15th amendment and further bolstered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one I can't get behind.

This is some Diddy "bitchassness" if I've ever heard, seen or read it before. But giving this push a childish name, calling Republicans out on their B.S., even getting it blocked by the Justice Department won't make this push stop. Unfortunately the only way to make it stop is if Obama were not a candidate. But that's not going to happen.

So what now?

Elections season begins in 7 days.

What are the young, the minorities, those with a dissenting voice from the old guard supposed to do? Vote with out of state I.D's? Yes. Register for an express passport just in case their I.D. is rejected? Yes. Vote via absentee ballot vote? Yes. Call into question the constitutionality of barring a student's vote because they pay out of state tuition? Yes.

This really is a matter of life or death. Not being able to vote and the election having an outcome undesired by so many bangs the final nail into the coffin of disenchantment with our government, our electoral system, and our future.

Disenchantment leads to death.

Therefore; Vote or Die.

Questions:

1. Is there a way to stop the voter ID laws from going into effect?

2. If they were to take effect do you think they'd be repealed immediately after the 2012 election thus showing just how biased they are?

3. Do you feel attacked by the laws or do you feel the issue is bigger than just those that seem to be the target?

Holder/DOJ Score 1 Against Bank of America for Home Loan Discrimination

2011-12-26T13:53:00.004-05:00

Underneath all of the Payroll Tax Cut news that flooded the airwaves last week was another story that was just as important: the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), led by Attorney General Eric Holder, successfully sued sub-prime mortgage lending giant Countrywide Financial Corp. (owned by Bank of America) for a record-breaking $335 Million for discriminating against over 200,000 Black and Latino home buyers during the height of the 2004-2007 mortgage bubble. As you may recall, after the housing market collapse jump-started our current recession in 2008, an intense session of finger pointing ensued. Conservatives like Michelle Bachmann took the position that the problem was caused by poor first-time home buyers (read Blacks & Latinos) who were forced upon the banking industry by big government interventions such as the Community Reinvestment Act. Progressives like Chris Dodd & Barney Frank took the position that Wall Street preyed upon minority first-time home buyers, often giving them more profitable sub-prime mortgages even though they qualified for regular mortgages. This victory by the DOJ against the banks finally settles that debate:

According to the DOJ's complaint, Countrywide charged over 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers with a similar credit profile. The complaint says that these borrowers were charged higher fees and rates because of their race or national origin rather than any other objective criteria.
...

The United States' complaint says that Countrywide was aware that the fees and interest rates that its loan officers were charging discriminated against African-American and Hispanic borrowers, but failed to impose meaningful limits or guidelines to stop it.
By steering borrowers into subprime loans from 2004 to 2007, the complaint alleges, Countrywide harmed those qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers. Subprime loans generally carried costlier terms, such as prepayment penalties and significantly higher adjustable interest rates that increased suddenly after two or three years, making the payments unaffordable and leaving the borrowers at a much higher risk of foreclosure.
"Countrywide's actions contributed to the housing crisis, hurt entire communities, and denied families access to the American dream," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.
The settlement amount will be used to compensate victims of Countrywide's discriminatory mortgage loans from 2004 through 2007, when Countrywide originated millions of residential mortgage loans as the nation's largest single-family mortgage lenders.

In order to put this law suit into context, it may be helpful to revisit some of our previous discussions on the topic of sub-prime mortgages.

What Is a Sub-Prime Mortgage?

In The Storyteller's post Working For Less: Returning to Chains (Part 1) we took a look at what separates the regular mortgage scenario from the sub-prime mortgage scenario. In the comment section we said the following:

In normal times (ie. BEFORE the free market created the sub-prime mortgage fiction out of thin air) if a person wanted to buy a home they went to a bank and took out a loan. In exchange for the home loan, the bank placed a lien on that person's home that entitled - but did not obligate - the bank to foreclose on the home in the event that a person became delinquent in making their monthly loan payments. It should be noted that under this standard model, there are only 2 parties involved: (1) The Home Owner and (2) The Bank. In the event that the home owner fell on hard times, the bank had the option to work with the Home Owner on lowering or deferring the monthly payments until the Home Owner got back on their feet. This is key.

Under the sub-prime mortgage backed security system created by the free market (not to be confused w/ the government), a third party was introduced into the Home Owner-Bank model: The Investor. This changed everything. Under this system, if a person wanted to buy a home they went to a bank and took out a loan, and the bank now had the choice of giving that person a traditional loan or a sub-prime loan (a loan that starts off with low payments but that balloons to higher payments after X years) which the bank could then turn around and sell to Wall Street which in turn took that loan, bundled it with other loans and then marketed them as a package to investors and leveraged their proceeds at rates as high as 35 to 1 (lending out 35 dollars for every 1 dollar in their possession) when banks normally only lend out money at rates around 9 to 1. Under this model, if a Home Owner fell on hard times the Bank had no flexibility to work with the Home Owner because now the Bank has to answer to the Investors. Whereas before, missing a monthly payment meant sitting down with a loan officer at the Bank and working out a plan, under this new model missing a monthly payment means that the Bank is defaulting on its obligations to the investors. Thus, homes that would not necessarily have been foreclosed on were now being foreclosed on because of the obligations to investors.

Multiply that a million times and now you have the housing market crash followed closely by the near collapse of all the banks that financed the housing market.

As you can see, it was more profitable for the banks to issue sub-prime loans than it was for them to issue regular loans which were not sold to investors. This set the stage for what ultimately ended up happening in the Countrywide case.

How Does the Community Reinvestment Act Play Into All of This?
Good question. As this law is often cited frequently by conservative politicians as a scapegoat to our current recession, it is important to understand what role it played in the housing bubble. The Community Reinvestment Act ("CRA") was passed by Congress in 1977 and then amended under President Bush 41 and President Clinton to require federal agencies - not the banks - to dedicate a portion of their operations to affordable housing. This meant encouraging banks to lend to lower-income first-time home buyers. The criticism of those on the Right is that this "forced" the banks to give loans to poor minorities who had no business receiving a home loan. However, when we look beyond the sound bites, the facts do not support this position.

First, it is notable to observe that "lower-income" does not mean lower credit score. It simply means lower-income. Thus, it is possible to make quality loans to those with lower-incomes without giving loans to people with credit scores in the 300's. Second, and more importantly, the government cannot require or force private banks to make loans. Period. This fact strikes at the heart of the criticism taken by those like Bachmann because in order for her claims to be true, the government would first need to be able to control the lending decisions of banks. It simply does not have this power.

What the CRA did was to offer federal funding incentives to those banks which loaned to qualified low-income home buyers as a means to encourage home ownership among minorities and disadvantaged Whites who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to own a home. What the CRA did not do was require lenders like Countrywide to issue sub-prime mortgages when it could have chosen to issue regular mortgages. If such were the case, Bank of America would have had grounds to automatically dismiss the entire action here. Instead, they had to settle this suit for a record amount.

The Take Away:
If there is a take away here, it is this: the banks -- and not poor people -- wrecked our economy in 2008 through their reckless and predatory lending practices. This law suit confirms that fact. Despite which side of the fence you may come down on with respect to the Occupy Wall Street crowd, it is difficult to take the position that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the banks are completely blameless in causing the recession or the housing bubble which preceded it. From the predatory lending practices against minorities, to betting against their own clients' investments that the banks knew would fail, to attempting to hedge the losses of assets that they knew to be toxic by using credit default swaps, to taking bail-out money from the federal government and then paying themselves record-level bonuses in the same year, the American people have seen the Banks get over on "We the People" time and time and time again without so much as a slap on the wrist. Thanks to Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, the people have finally scored one against the banks.

QUESTIONS:
1. Will this case change the behavior of the free market predatory lenders?
2. Why is this case not receiving more publicity in the press?
3. Did the housing market crash due to too much government regulation?
4. Did the housing market crash due to too many unqualified minority home buyers?
5. What is your position on the housing bubble?

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays from The Urban Politico

2011-12-25T08:40:00.003-05:00

From:

Godson in Philly

The Janitor in New York

The Fed in DC

Shady_Grady in Michigan

The Storyteller in Florida

GrandCentral in New York

Old Guru in DC

Book Reviews- Night Watch, Salem's Lot and more

2011-12-24T05:00:00.083-05:00

Night Watch
by Sergei Lukyankenko

There are of course just tons of books about the battle between Good and Evil. You might say in some respects that's a central human feature. What makes an act good or evil? Is there any real difference? Who has enough foresight to tell? Is it all a question of point of view or does actual good and evil exist independent of our actions? After all if cattle could talk they would no doubt say, with some justification that human beings are pure evil and nothing but that. These questions and many more are explored in Night Watch, an entertaining opening to a fantastic fiction tetralogy by Russian author Sergei Lukyanenko.

Night Watch is thematically somewhat similar to Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising series but Night Watch is quite firmly written for adults. There is a subset of superhumans who have always existed alongside humanity. These people call themselves Others and are the source for all of the myths about angels, demons, and other supernatural creatures. Others may not initially be aware of their powers but by natural events or training usually become familiar with them before adulthood in most cases. Others are divided into good (Light) and evil (Dark) and have roughly equivalent powers.

Thousands of years ago the Light Others and Dark Others gathered for a final cataclysmic battle to decide the fate of the world. However each leader realized that the two sides were too evenly matched and to fight it out would destroy the world. A truce was reached and a treaty signed. This allowed each side minor licenses to behave according to their nature-for example a Light Other Magician could heal people but then a Dark Other vampire could get a free hand in attacking someone. Each side created police forces to monitor the other side for treaty violations or unauthorized magic. The Light Others created the Night Watch while the Dark Others created the Day Watch.

The book opens in Moscow with the cynical Light Other, Anton Gorodetsky, being taken from his mundane desk job and thrust into field work-something he claims to be no good at but soon develops surprising aptitude for. Anton's first assignment involves a normal seeming human boy who can nonetheless enter levels of reality that should only be accessible to Others as well as trying to find out who cursed a beautiful young woman and if that curse is powerful enough to destroy all Moscow.

Anton is cynical because his ultimate boss, Gesar (head of the Night Watch) never tells anyone the whole story and will not hesitate to manipulate or sacrifice his troops if that is what some unknown objective requires. Anton's cynicism deepens when he learns that some of the good he does rebounds to the Dark's benefit. And Anton nearly loses it when he discovers that some of the 20th century's worst regimes, wars and genocides were actually started or helped along by the Light, which was ineptly attempting to bring about heaven on earth. The Dark is always growing stronger, thanks in part to the nature of humanity. Anton and his fellow Night Watch agents are always struggling not to break the Great Truce or just take control of people and MAKE them do right-which is of course exactly the sort of thing that Dark Others do. Night Watch is an interesting read which places some deftly hidden philosophical musings inside of urban fantasy.

Salem's Lot
by Stephen King

This was the second Stephen King book I ever read and probably hooked me for good on his prose style. King has an uncanny skill to depict realistic characters, get inside their heads to let you know what they're thinking and make them react in very honest ways to some fantastic situations. In some respects this is a resetting of the Dracula story in 1970's America but it's not just about supernatural evil.

It's also about all the everyday evils that occur day in towns large and small across America whether they are acted upon or not: greed, spousal abuse, adultery, bullying, child rape and abuse, bigotry and closed mindedness, lust, poverty, substance abuse and murder. These things all have more impact on us than a singular Evil. In one of the book's ironies, before the true nature of the supernatural evil visiting the town has before apparent, a Catholic priest, Father Callahan bitterly resents the newfangled Church , which is concerned with feminism and civil rights and anti-war issues. He wants to confront Evil with a capital "E". Later, he gets his chance but the results are not quite to his liking.

If you haven't read this book, well you should. And if you have already, heck it's worth a read again.The book is divided up into four sections:

a) the introductions of the main characters and a sketching of the past evil that afflicted the town and may have attracted Barlow;

b) the unsettling arrival of Straker, who is a sort of John The Baptist to his vampire master Barlow, in that he prepares the town for Barlow's coming;

c) The arrival of Barlow and the growing number of dead or turned citizens even as most people can't believe what's going on;

d) The rejection of subterfuge as Barlow openly declares himself and battle is joined.

The vampire here, Barlow, is not one of the modern pansexual pretty boy vamps that flitter and flutter in and out of Twilight or True Blood. Barlow is made of much meaner, uglier and forceful stuff. He's not looking for his lost love nor he is going to fall in love. He does not simper. He's an undead killing machine who enjoys doing what he does-pure monster. It's a shame that the modern version of the vampire myth has swung so far away from its core-a dead thing that drinks blood-but thankfully that's the trope that King used here.

Again, King created a very wide array of characters who all deal with this threat in different ways. Some deny; some leave town, some hide, and a very few decide to fight back. This book was a very worthwhile addition to the modern vampire mythos. Salem's Lot is one of the scariest vampire books ever written and if you have an overactive imagination it's probably not something you should read at dusk or at darkest midnight.

Frenzy
by Rex Miller

The late Rex Miller was certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Although he was associated with the splatterpunk genre, that description was too limiting. His writing as he freely admitted, came from some painful places, some of which he didn't care to describe in depth. As he wrote in a Dark Muse piece, "..evil exists. [It] needs to be cut out of the herd and incarcerated."

Frenzy is a short novel that is a battle of wits between two Midwestern men, Jack Eichord, a detective who specializes in taking down serial killers and Frank Spain, a mild mannered St. Louis based man who also happens to be the country's best hit man. Spain is primarily associated with the Midwest Organized Crime Families (St. Louis, Kansas City, and ultimately Chicago). Spain takes no pleasure in his job. It is just something that he does. Spain does not let his wife know of his business which unfortunately turns out to be a mistake and later a tragedy for Spain.

His wife Pat, is tired of Frank's constant absences and infrequent amorous attention. She comes to believe he's a wimp so she cheats on him with their insurance salesman. He catches her but does not kill her as he still loves her and Frank only kills on business. Pat leaves and takes their teen daughter Tiffany with her. Under her mother's less than attentive care, Tiffany falls in with a fast crowd. On a visit from Tiffany , Frank tries to correct this but overreacts. Tiffany runs away with her no-good boyfriend who turns her out into prostitution and later much worse activities. Ultimately she's murdered. Frank is devastated.

However Frank is beyond enraged when he discovers that the people who murdered his daughter ultimately worked for the same Mafia group HE did. As far as Frank is concerned they're ALL responsible and they're ALL going to pay. The Mafia's number one murder machine goes off the reservation, leaves sanity behind and comes to the attention of Eichord, who doesn't understand at first that this is an intensely personal killing spree that he's trying to stop.
This book was short (300 pages) and to the point.

332nd Fighter Group-Tuskegee Airmen
by Chris Bucholtz

Something that many black professionals hear starting out is that you have to be better than your white counterparts in order to get the same level of recognition. This is real. And although Herman Cain's aborted farcical Presidential campaign shows the custom may be subsiding somewhat this requirement was almost literally law in the 1940's.

The fact that the men of the 332nd Fighter Group rose to this unfair and harmful rule was impressive. That they did so while literally fighting for their lives was actually amazing. The Tuskegee Airmen experiment was actually designed to fail. Many people wanted to show that blacks lacked the ability to lead, the intelligence to process vast amounts of information quickly, and above all the guts to tangle with the enemy.

The 332nd Fighter Group-an all Black group proved all of their doubters wrong and actually made a reputation for themselves as an elite fighting group. They were able to boast of over 111 confirmed aerial kills, the sinking of a German destroyer and most importantly of never having lost any bomber they escorted to enemy attack (though this last has recently been questioned by some revisionist historians).

This was an enjoyable book to read and showed a side of World War 2 that is virtually always left out of history books and movies-the dashing, devil may care, cigar chomping, flight scarf bedecked fighter pilot-who is black. This book makes liberal use of primary and secondary interviews with Tuskegee Airmen as well as tons of photos and information from the National Museum of the United States Air Force. One reason for the success of the 332nd Fighter Group, besides the intense desire of the men involved to prove their detractors wrong, was the command presence of the group's leader, Colonel Benjamin O. Davis (pictured here) who made it crystal clear to his men that their primary mission was to protect the bombers no matter what.

The Wall Street Journal PWNS House R's/Boehner Over Payroll Tax Cut UPDATED

2011-12-23T07:04:00.001-05:00

The Wall Street Journal, which could never be confused with anything Left-leaning, is calling shenanigans on the House Republicans (read: the Tea Party) and the man who apparently is unable to lead them, Speaker John Boehner. The issue - the Payroll Tax Cut which, in case you didn't know, you have been receiving for the past year.¹ In a nutshell, both Democrats and Republicans want to pass the Payroll Tax Cut for middle class American workers, but they disagree about how it should be paid for and they also disagree on how much longer it should last (it's set to expire next month). Nevertheless, the Senate recently passed a measure to extend the Tax Cut for another two months, but, for some strange reason, House Speaker Boehner is unable to get the House Tea Party Republicans to get in line and support the Senate's extension. This has painted the Republicans as anti-tax cut for the middle class and, conversely, has painted Obama as the champion of the middle class. And that, my friends, was the last straw for establishment Republicans.

Enter the Wall Street Journal:

GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected. Given how he and House Speaker John Boehner have handled the payroll tax debate, we wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest.
The GOP leaders have somehow managed the remarkable feat of being blamed for opposing a one-year extension of a tax holiday that they are surely going to pass. This is no easy double play.
Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter, although he's spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013. This should be impossible.
...
Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension, but House Members revolted over the weekend and so the Speaker flipped within 24 hours. Mr. Boehner is now demanding that Mr. Reid name conferees for a House-Senate conference on the payroll tax bills. But Mr. Reid and the White House are having too much fun blaming Republicans for "raising taxes on the middle class" as of January 1. Don't be surprised if they stretch this out to the State of the Union, when Mr. Obama will have a national audience to capture the tax issue.
If Republicans didn't want to extend the payroll tax cut on the merits, then they should have put together a strategy and the arguments for defeating it and explained why.
But if they knew they would eventually pass it, as most of them surely believed, then they had one of two choices. Either pass it quickly and at least take some political credit for it.
Or agree on a strategy to get something in return for passing it, which would mean focusing on a couple of popular policies that would put Mr. Obama and Democrats on the political spot.
...

After a year of the tea party House, Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have had to make no major policy concessions beyond extending the Bush tax rates for two years. Mr. Obama is in a stronger re-election position today than he was a year ago, and the chances of Mr. McConnell becoming Majority Leader in 2013 are declining.
At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

*UPDATE*

House Republicans Caved on the Payroll Tax Cut extension for 2 months. From ABC News:

A muted House Speaker John Boehner announced today that Republicans have decided to accept a short-term extension of the payroll tax cut, preventing a hike in taxes just nine days before the tax break expires for 160 million Americans.
House GOP leaders appeared to be adopting a compromise suggested by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to pass the two-month extension in exchange for the Senate appointing members to a conference committee, which will negotiate a longer-term solution. The proposal won a nod of approval from President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
But Boehner was visibly unhappy with the deal.
"Kicking a can down the road for a couple of months does cause problems," he said at a news conference today.
House Republicans had originally wanted a one-year extension but faced mounting pressure from conservatives and their Senate counterparts to come to an agreement on the short-term deal.
"Sometimes it's politically difficult to do the right thing," Boehner said.
He admitted that the House Republicans' refusal to compromise on the short-term extension, which received backlash even from conservatives, politically "may not be the smartest thing in this world... but our members waged a good fight."
The deal entails a new bill with language protecting small businesses from a measure in the Senate bill that creates temporary new caps on the wages that are subject to payroll tax relief, a Republican aide said. Reid accepted the House Republicans' proposal late this afternoon.
The bill will be passed by unanimous consent, which would not require all the members to return for a vote.

And an interesting editorial by Eugene Robinson:

Finally. After a year of artful camouflage and concealment, Republicans let us glimpse the rift between establishment pragmatists and Tea Party ideologues. There may be hope for the republic after all.
...
More sensible Republicans have been so eager to take advantage of the Tea Party’s energy and emotion that they have essentially allowed the inmates to run the asylum. You will recall that it was the GOP, led by the Tea Party types, that threatened to send the Treasury into default last summer rather than approve a routine and necessary increase in the debt ceiling.
In the current imbroglio, nothing resembling a principle was involved. Boehner said that House Republicans wanted to extend the payroll tax cut for an entire year, rather than just two months. But even if you accept his claim at face value, it ignores the fact that the two-month deal was approved by the Senate for one reason only: to allow time for negotiation of a one-year extension.
In other words, the measure that House Republicans were so reluctant to pass, or even vote on, was crafted as a step toward the specific outcome that House Republicans claimed was their goal.
...

There are only two possible reasons for House Republicans to behave the way they did. Maybe they are so blinded by ideology that they no longer care about the impact their actions might have on struggling American families. Or maybe their only guiding principle is that anything Obama supports, they oppose.

Questions:
Did the Wall Street Journal get it right?
Did the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by being the party of "No"?
Can John Boehner get his House in order?
Will the Payroll Tax Cut get passed?
Does this help Obama in 2012?

¹ - If you weren't aware that your taxes have actually gone down over the past year it should come as no surprise because, as usual, the Democrats fail at marketing any of their accomplishments.

Am I in the Tank for Obama? Part 1 of 2

2011-12-22T15:31:00.002-05:00

Am I in the tank? Am I drinking the kool-aid? If I am, I try not to. Please let me know. Every once in a while I require a sanity check. This is one of those times. I pride myself in trying to apply logic and understanding to various political positions. I make an attempt to understand where the other side of an argument is coming from; often, I may not agree with a counter argument, but I can understand the position. I mean, it isn't like I haven't criticized Obama for some of the things he's done. There is a reason I’m an Independent. I have some liberal beliefs and I have some conservative beliefs. I generally like to see the country prosper, and I while I have my opinions, I don’t care how we get there – generally speaking. What I mean is, if the end result is a win, then I don’t get too tied up in one argument or the other. That doesn’t mean I don’t argue one side or the other, but I will cheer a win for the country none-the-less.

Unlike the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, I don’t apply the Chicken Little approach to evaluating the president. I understand that much of the right wing rhetoric is political theater - I got that. If they want to win, one side must paint the other as the worst thing to ever happen to this country since Cochise was killed, but there appears to be an undertone to the rhetoric that seems to be…sticking. I’m not sure why. And that uncertainty has me asking this question. Look, I’m not one to disagree with EVERYTHING that Dubya Bush did, nor did/do I agree with EVERYTHING Presidents Clinton and Obama did/is doing (Shady, excellent job on that NDAA piece!). But for the life of me, I can’t understand the – what appears to be – growing perception among moderates and on the left, that Obama is one of the worst presidents in history. Really? Currently, 6 in 10 voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy. Why?

Challenge my logic!

Okay I must have someone challenge my logic! Am I WAY off base? Am I blind to the horrible way President Obama is running our country? Am I drinking the Kool-aid? Am I in the tank? Is he really that bad and I’m just refusing to accept that as reality? What’s going on?

I’ll admit it. I’m one of those that feel the economy would be much worse if Obama hadn’t acted when and how he did. Unfortunately, this, to some, is negative proof. I can hear them now, “Obama saved the economy and I believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Me? I’m not convinced that this is negative proof. If we look at where unemployment was when Bush left office, I think it is clear that it was heading in one direction. Up! Towards the end of 2008 and into 2009, unemployment started to rise. From April of 2008 to January of 2009 (10 months), the unemployment rate increased by more than 2 percentage points. Obama took over a runaway freight train, and the conservative argument is that he didn’t do a good job stopping it even though it has clearly slowed down. Really? In my opinion, there was nothing ANY ONE could do – well...short of Superman…oh…and Denzel – to stop this out of control train. By the end of 2009, the unemployment rate blew up to over 10 percent. Since 2010, the unemployment rate has been on a slow decline. It dropped from above 10 percent to the just over 9.5 percent. In 2011, the unemployment rate dropped to a hair over 9 percent; the year ended with the unemployment rate below 9 percent. Again, I may be in the tank, but this isn’t a sign of bad economic policies or even bad leadership. To me, the numbers paint a completely different picture. I see an economy that was completely compromised at the end of the Bush administration, and an Obama administration doing all it can to successfully get it back under control. The administration should be praised, not criticized. But again, I may be in the tank! Am I?

Source: CBO report - click to enlarge

As for the deficit, I’m STILL trying to figure out what the hell is going on with THIS argument. WTF!!! This is nothing but a byproduct of the powerful right wing propaganda machine. Seriously, they give Gingrich credit for the Surplus in the 90s, but blame Obama for the current deficit!! Isn’t that a tad bit inconsistent! Either Clinton deserves the credit for the Surplus in the 90s, or congress is to blame for the current down turn….

But I digress…

All you hear today is how Obama’s policies are SO terrible that they’ve created this huge deficit that culminated in the country's credit down grade. Again, I’m either in the tank, or this is complete bullshit! We have the numbers. Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no delusion that President Obama’s policies didn’t add to the deficit, but to say it is all Obama’s fault means you are willfully ignorant, or just an outright liar.

The CBO has already PROVEN that the Bush tax cuts blew a huge hole in our economy. We know the tax cuts – which Obama continued – took $1 trillion out of the government. We also know that while the government's revenues went down, spending went UP under the Bush administration: Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare Drug program, and stimulus programs (I actually agree with the Medicare and Stimulus plans). We can argue all day about whether or not Obama should have continued with some of these things – I would argue he had to in the cases of Iraq and the stimulus plans – but to say it is ALL his fault is a flat out lie. Unless, of course, I only believe that because I'm in the tank. Am I?

Next: International Policies and Republican obstruction.

Question:
Is it me? Or is Obama terrible when it comes to the economy? Are his economic policies making it worse?

The Urban Politico

Free Birth Control!!! (Whether you want it or not)

Join The Urban Politico Team: Live Chat - GOP Presidental Debate on CNN

President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address: Full Speech and Synopsis

Join Us Tonight - Live Chat: State of the Union Address

Red Tails, Black in Hollywood, What's Next

Willard's Tax Returns

Is Mitt's problem Region or Religion

Don't Call it a Comeback, I Been Here for Years!

Music Reviews-Songs in the Key of Life, Hardcore Jollies and Etta James

Breaking News: Etta James, Dead at Age 73

Reality for Black Women in Corporate America

BREAKING NEWS: Perry out of Race!!

The US Military: Is it bereft of discipline?

Detroit City Council President-Broke and Busted

The Republican Base Boos Juan Williams: Who Are These People?

The Urban Politico: Open Politico Discussion Forum

Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere

The Legacy of Dr. King: The Memorial and Celebrating His Life Through Service

Book Reviews-Rethinking A Dance with Dragons, Just After Sunset and more

Does Libertarianism Trump Decency?

Worst. Judge. Ever.

Guest Post: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul...Oh My Enter the Future of the Progressive Party, Meet this year’s NLC Fellows

Romney Wins New Hampshire Primary - Is it a Wrap?

How Romney Destroyed Jobs and Why It Won't Matter in the GOP Primary

Ron Paul Calls Out the Criminal Justice System as Unfair to Blacks

Who's Putting Paychecks in People's Pockets Now

The Recess Appointment Issue Fully Explained

Movie Reviews-Ink, Contagion and more

January Book of the Month: Here Comes Trouble, by Michael Moore

The Return of Citizens United: Montana Strikes Back

President Obama Sticks It To GOP!

Republican Primary - The Iowa Caucus ***UPDATE***

Welcome to Election 2012 - Races to Watch

112th Congress Year-One: An Epic Failure

Movie Reviews-Straw Dogs (2011), Fright Night(2011) and more

Silencing Progress One Youth Vote at a Time

Holder/DOJ Score 1 Against Bank of America for Home Loan Discrimination

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays from The Urban Politico

Book Reviews- Night Watch, Salem's Lot and more

The Wall Street Journal PWNS House R's/Boehner Over Payroll Tax Cut *UPDATED*

Am I in the Tank for Obama? Part 1 of 2

Republican Primary - The Iowa Caucus UPDATE

The Wall Street Journal PWNS House R's/Boehner Over Payroll Tax Cut UPDATED