Thursday, July 26, 2007

Ladies do you want to know how some brothers feel?

Please keep in mind this does not apply to ALL brothers. This is a honest exchange between three brothers:


Fellas, a few years ago I would have been all into this debate w/Black women. I used to really enjoy that kind of thing. Now the only things I can think about is trying to find a house I can afford, my investments, my health and last but certainly not least, hot Filippina women! Subliminally and psychologically, I am distancing myself from the madness. I stay home a lot more. I don't listen to hip-hop, watch music videos, Flava of Love, I love New York, or that new Hot Ghetto Mess show on BET, and I even try to ignore barber shop conversation now. They used to look for me to give 'an alternative' opinion; now I'm usually silent in the Barber Shop - its just too difficult to fantasize about fine Fillipina women and also engage in barber shop debate at the same time. If I get a decent house, have a little luck with my investments, improve my health and especially get a drama-free, beautiful and devoted young wife then who knows.... I may move waaaaaaay out to Winetka, the North shore or even out of state so that my future 'Tiger Woods' looking kids can go to excellent public schools and be far away from the hood. F**k that Sista/Ghetto sh**t!
Dayum Jo I hate to say it but I agree with you and support ur new initiative wholeheartily. F**k them hell raising, men hating, kids future destroying and ultimate community destabalizer! Cheers to good health, peace in the household and stable kids.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Gloves come Off Between Clinton, Obama

Gloves Come Off Between Clinton, Obama
The New York Times
Posted: 2007-07-25 13:44:24
Filed Under: Elections, Politics
(July 25) -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized Senator Barack Obama for the first time yesterday as inexperienced on national security, calling him “irresponsible and frankly naïve” for saying he would be willing to meet without preconditions with leaders of Iran, North Korea and three other nations during his first year as president.Mr. Obama responded swiftly, saying the Clinton campaign was concocting a “fabricated controversy.” He also contended that Mrs. Clinton’s skeptical view of such meetings was similar to that of President Bush.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, called Sen. Barack Obama, left, "naïve" for saying he would meet unconditionally with leaders of Iran, North Korea and three other nations during his first year as president. Obama called it a "fabricated controversy."
Mrs. Clinton’s remark was a rare instance of her personally intensifying the months-old effort by her campaign to portray her, a two-term senator and former first lady, as the most prepared Democrat to become commander in chief in 2009, and Mr. Obama, a senator since 2005, as not ready for the job. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has for months questioned Mrs. Clinton’s judgment on national security, particularly her vote in 2002 to authorize the war in Iraq.The candidates’ back-and-forth was the continuation of a disagreement that began Monday night as a flash point in the YouTube debate of the eight Democratic presidential candidates.Mrs. Clinton’s criticism of Mr. Obama yesterday came in response to a reporter’s question about an Obama campaign memorandum that was released earlier in the day. The memorandum, from Mr. Obama’s communications staff, accused her of flip-flopping on whether she would talk directly with leaders of those countries as well as of Cuba, Syria and Venezuela.Mrs. Clinton has never publicly promised to talk directly to those leaders. But on the campaign trail this spring she has repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for not dealing directly with Iranian leaders, and she has chided President Bush for saying “he will not talk with bad people.”The candidates were asked at the debate if they would be willing to meet unconditionally with those five leaders, people the Bush administration regards as hostile at best. Mr. Obama said he w
ould, citing a history of American diplomacy with enemies. It is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them,” he said.He also recalled President Ronald Reagan as excoriating Soviet leaders publicly while negotiating with them privately, an example that Mrs. Clinton has also used, almost word-for-word, in criticizing current White House diplomatic strategy.Mrs. Clinton replied next, and chose not to reach for the Soviet example. Instead she gave a toughly worded answer about the complexities of diplomacy, an answer that was not inconsistent with her past remarks, yet that conveyed sharpened skepticism about the leaders of nations like Iran and North Korea.While pledging a “very vigorous diplomatic effort” including presidential envoys “to test the waters,” she said she would not “promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.”“I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” Mrs. Clinton said.“We’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be,” she added to applause.Within hours, Clinton advisers were arguing that Mr. Obama’s response was too soft, while Obama advisers were making two points: That their candidate was not promising meetings but said only that he was willing to consider them, and that Mrs. Clinton’s response mirrored the president’s pattern of not meeting with leaders of “rogue nations,” as he calls them.By yesterday morning, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns had prepared memorandums to showcase these talking points.

The Obama campaign released its memorandum first, arguing that Mr. Obama would pursue “tough diplomacy” but also use carrots like leader-to-leader talks; Mrs. Clinton, the document asserted, disagreed with using “every tool at the president’s disposal to address problems before they become threats.”A half-hour later, a reporter from The Quad-City Times, in Iowa, asked Mrs. Clinton about the Obama campaign memorandum. According to the newspaper, Mrs. Clinton said that she had not reversed herself on leader-to-leader talks — and that she would not rule them out. But she also asserted, according the paper, that Mr. Obama was regretting his answer at Monday’s debate, an answer, she said, “that was irresponsible and frankly naïve.”Obama advisers said yesterday that they had struck a nerve, prompting Mrs. Clinton to attack. While the Obama memorandum came first, it is another thing for the candidate, in this case, Mrs. Clinton, to go on the offensive herself.The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, arranged for reporters to interview Madeleine K. Albright, a secretary of state under President Bill Clinton. Ms. Albright, who supports Mrs. Clinton, said her answer in the debate was “very sophisticated” and showed her “understanding of how the diplomatic tool needs to be used.”While Ms. Albright declined to comment on Mr. Obama’s response, the Clinton campaign released its own memorandum doing so yesterday afternoon.“Senator Obama has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world’s worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office,” it argued. “Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America’s presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment.”Mr. Obama chose to respond by doing his own interview with The Quad-City Times. “I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.“From what I heard, the point was, well, I wouldn’t do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chávez to score propaganda points,” he said, referring to the Venezuelan president. “I think that is absolutely wrong.”According to the newspaper, Mr. Obama also said that, in terms of national security, an example of “irresponsible and naïve” action was voting to authorize the Iraq war, as Mrs. Clinton had.Both campaigns declined requests to interview the candidates yesterday.
Copyright © 2007 The New York Times Company

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Opression Happening Today:

Dear friend,
I just learned about a case of segregation-era oppression happening today in Jena, Louisiana. I signed onto's campaign for justice in Jena, and wanted to invite you to do the same.
Last fall in Jena, the day after two Black high school students sat beneath the "white tree" on their campus, nooses were hung from the tree. When the superintendent dismissed the nooses as a "prank," more Black students sat under the tree in protest. The District Attorney then came to the school accompanied by the town's police and demanded that the students end their protest, telling them, "I can be your best friend or your worst enemy... I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen." A series of white-on-black incidents of violence followed, and the DA did nothing. But when a white student was beaten up in a schoolyard fight, the DA responded by charging six black students with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
It's a story that reads like one from the Jim Crow era, when judges, lawyers and all-white juries used the justice system to keep blacks in "their place." But it's happening today. The families of these young men are fighting back, but the story has gotten minimal press. Together, we can make sure their story is told and that the Governor of Louisiana intervenes and provides justice for the Jena 6. It starts now. Please join me:
The noose-hanging incident and the DA's visit to the school set the stage for everything that followed. Racial tension escalated over the next couple of months, and on November 30, the main academic building of Jena High School was burned down in an unsolved fire. Later the same weekend, a black student was beaten up by white students at a party. The next day, black students at a convenience store were threatened by a young white man with a shotgun. They wrestled the gun from him and ran away. While no charges were filed against the white man, the students were later arrested for the theft of the gun.
That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black students "nigger." After lunch, he was knocked down, punched and kicked by black students. He was taken to the hospital, but was released and was well enough to go to a social event that evening.
Six Black Jena High students, Robert Bailey (17), Theo Shaw (17), Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Mychal Bell (16) and an unidentified minor, were expelled from school, arrested and charged with second-degree attempted murder. The first trial ended last month, and Mychal Bell, who has been in prison since December, was convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery (both felonies) by an all-white jury in a trial where his public defender called no witnesses. During his trial, Mychal's parents were ordered not to speak to the media and the court prohibited protests from taking place near the courtroom or where the judge could see them.
Mychal is scheduled to be sentenced on July 31st, and could go to jail for 22 years. Theo Shaw's trial is next. He will finally make bail this week.
The Jena Six are lucky to have parents and loved ones who are fighting tooth and nail to free them. They have been threatened but they are standing strong. We know that if the families have to go it alone, their sons will be a long time coming home. But if we act now, we can make a difference.
Join me in demanding that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco get involved to make sure that justice is served for Mychal Bell, and that DA Reed Walters drop the charges against the 5 boys who have not yet gone to trial.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

On Rudy Giuliani

Date Posted: July 09, 2007
If you're going to be judged by the company you keep, then Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani should inspect his inner circle a little more closely.
Giuliani, who is the only major presidential candidate whose campaign is being run entirely by whites as revealed in "Which Presidential Campaign Is Worst for Diversity?" in DiversityInc's June 2007 issue, is being slammed by the Democratic National Committee for his selection of Arthur Ravenel Jr., a former U.S. congressman who is the new co-chair of his campaign in South Carolina. According to the DNC, Ravenel has a long history of making insensitive, racist comments toward blacks, comments that Ravenel has dismissed as mere "slips."
Among Ravenel's various "slips" are:
Referring to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as the "National Association for Retarded People" at a flag rally in 2000
As a member of Congress, he said a white committee chairman was "operating on black time"
Speaking in 1993 to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), the country's largest white nationalist organization—which, according to The Post and Courier, opposes "all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called affirmative action"
Missteps apparently occur frequently in the Ravenel family. Ravenel was only appointed co-chair after his son, South Carolina state treasurer and former state campaign chairman Thomas Ravenel, was suspended and later indicted on a federal cocaine charge. Giuliani appointed the elder Ravenel as co-chair six days after the indictment.
"This is a wonderful family that's contributed a great deal to South Carolina," Giuliani said after the younger Ravenel was indicted. "I think everyone knows that in families, no matter how big they are, tragedies happen, bad things happen. The most important thing is [if they] can they rally around and turn something bad into something good," Giuliani told MyrtleBeach Online.
Giuliani has yet to respond to the DNC's concern about Arthur Ravenel's comments, which include describing black lawmakers as "venomous" in an interview with The New York Times and proclaiming his support for secessionists delivered on the House floor on June 25, 1991.
"Giuliani doesn't understand that as president you need to represent all Americans and bring the country together," DNC spokesperson Karen Finney said in a statement.
The appointment of Ravenel gives more credence to those who accuse Giuliani of running a racially divisive office during his two terms as mayor of New York from 1994 to 2001. A recent article in the Washington Post, "Giuliani's Ties to Black New York Troubled," was painstakingly thorough in describing Giuliani's "toxic," often contentious, sometimes vindictive relationship with both black leadership in New York and black citizenry during frequent police shootings during his administration. According to the Post, when Giuliani won a second term in 1997 with more than 55 percent of the vote, he received just 20 percent of the black vote.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Affirmative Action in a Revisionist Society

By: Barbara J. HolmesJul 16, 2007,

America has always sent the double-binding messages to its Black citizens: Get a good education and work hard, and then you will become the master of your own destiny. Yet at the same time, the doors to a quality education have been largely closed to Black Americans.
But a quality education is the key to opening the door to full participation in an economy based on the principle of free enterprise. So before we abandon the objectives of a broad affirmative action policy in employment and higher education, we should recall some of the factors that moved us toward this now widely disliked policy in the first place.
In 1961, John Kennedy used the phrase "affirmative action" in the context of a discussion about the employment of Black Americans in the nation's workforce. The use of the word "affirmative" implied that racially motivated "negative" prejudgments about the qualifications of Black candidates should be suspended. Racially motivated negative prejudgments have never been problematic for White Americans -- who, in fact, have enjoyed a preferential status since the founding of this country.
Just as Prof. Frank Wu reminded us recently (Black Issues, June 25, 1998 edition), 20 years ago in the Bakke v. University of California case concerning admission to higher education, the Supreme Court recognized that the real issue was a regular and entrenched racial discrimination. In that case, Justice Lewis Powell offered a pragmatic balance between the opposing opinions of the court. Under his opinion, affirmative action was justifiable to promote educational diversity. But in the 1995 case of Adarand, the court was more concerned with the formal, legal logic of its decisions. Lost was the urgency of responding to racial discrimination, or any sense that it might be dealt with systematically.
Although many current African Americans have gained a degree of economic achievement with the help of affirmative action, that achievement pales in comparison to what was achieved by a country that gained its strong economic independence through the control of a captive workforce for nearly three centuries.
A particularly significant outcome of the Civil Rights movement was the demand of African Americans for equality and equitable access to all sectors of employment and education. Access to public facilities and transportation had been won, but the means for attaining self-sufficiency and economic independence had yet to come under the scrutiny of the country. With affirmative action, this final barrier to full participation for African Americans was named and confronted.
But over the past several years, the country seems to have developed a covert and insidious attitude about those individuals who have benefited from affirmative action. It appears that racially motivated "negative" prejudgments about the qualifications of Black candidates have made a comeback. Candidates hired under affirmative action policies are not qualified; and if they are qualified, they certainly are not the best qualified. This attitude has often been engendered by the hiring agency or authority, and in turn, it has contributed to the myth that preferences and quotas are needed to accommodate African Americans.
Unfortunately, our country often finds itself attempting to rectify situations that were predicated on a false set of premises about equality and equity. Thus, when legislative action either grants or rejects the notion of preferences, the fact that the nation has functioned throughout its history on the assumption that Whites should be preferred over non-Whites is conveniently forgotten. This is an illustration of the revisionist arguments used to repeal affirmative action.
Additionally, one of the problems with acting affirmatively to groups historically denied equal access is that new immigrants and others attempting to don the mantle of "minority-hood" desire these same preferences. And as a result, definitions are gradually altered until simply being a member of a group that is not considered in the majority entitles one to the benefits of affirmative action.
Throughout the recent debate, the real reasons behind affirmative action have been obscured by rhetoric over preferences, quotas, and market forces. There has been a lack of acknowledgement that the reason the country created affirmative action programs was to create equitable access to employment and education for Black Americans. But we can fill this void by gathering data to show that affirmative action programs do work. We should be calling for thoughtfulness and research. And when we do this hard work, we will then revise the debate on why America needs affirmative action.
Dr. Barbara J. Holmes, Associate Professor Department of Communication, University of Colorado-DenverCOPYRIGHT 1999 Cox, Matthews & Associates

Thursday, July 12, 2007

The Truth Will Set You Free

I once told some Sisters that Luther Vandross seemed like he was gay, and they wanted to string me up. I said the same thing about Tyler Perry, and they also reacted very emotionally. Stevie Wonder can see that he's gay! I now believe that the majority of Sisters do not want a man with traditional values from a two parent household. Sisters live in a self-imposed state of relationship denial. They deny themselves the chance to have what they always tell you that they want. They choose to reward thugs and losers with their time, love, and their bodies. Sisters are now choosing to date men that are obviously gay, and then blame the men for being that way! Do they ever except any accountability for their actions, inactions, or choices?
S. Badtwin

Hot Ghetto Mess!

Hot Ghetto Mess a hot-button issueNew BET program is demeaning, argue some critics
By ANDREW GUY JR.Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

lWhat, exactly, is ghetto?
An Austin woman, fed up with negative media images of African-Americans and women, doesn't want to know. Gina McCauley has launched a campaign against an upcoming show on Black Entertainment Television that she feels degrades and demeans.
She's had some success: Earlier this week, State Farm Insurance pulled its sponsorship from Hot Ghetto Mess, pleasing McCauley, a 31-year-old African-American. And Home Depot, saying it had never agreed to sponsor the show, asked for its ad to be removed from BET's Web page promoting the series.
"It's the concept of the show," McCauley said Wednesday. "You're basically holding people up to scorn them. It's a modern day freak show, and I have a problem with my insurance company paying for the show, or my soap company paying for the show or my cell phone company subsidizing the show. If I think it degrades African-American people and women, why should I buy the products of the companies that are helping subsidize the show?"
Officials at BET didn't immediately return phone calls to the Houston Chronicle Wednesday. But the Hollywood Reporter quoted BET entertainment president Reginald Hudlin as saying, "Is my goal to discuss these issues in a format and context that makes people who don't watch the channel comfortable or do it in a way that engages the 18- to-34-year-old viewer and makes them really think about these things?"
Hot Ghetto Mess, a six-episode series hosted by comedian Charlie Murphy, is set to premiere July 25 on BET.
Social behavior is a volatile subject in the black community. And the network often has been criticized by African-Americans who say it promotes racial stereotypes by airing racy videos and low-brow shows.
The new show is based on a Web site started two years ago by a Washington, D.C., lawyer. Ironically, Jam Donaldson began the site for the same reasons that McCauley began her protest: To prompt African-Americans to reject thug lifestyles and images.
"We got to do better" is McCauley's plea to fellow African-Americans.
Donaldson said she was flabbergasted when she heard advertisers retreated from the show, adding that "it's kind of sad, because people are missing the context of the show."
"They think it's going to be ... demeaning to all black people," Donaldson, 34, said. "That's not how it's going to be at all."
Donaldson said she started the Web site because she was tired of receiving forwarded e-mail that including photos of African-American women with outrageous hair, black men with gold teeth, barely dressed black children making gang signs. These are issues and behaviors that African-Americans laugh about in public, but scorn in private, Donaldson said.
"People talk about things in the barber shops and the beauty shops and with our friends," she added. "But I decided that I was just going to put it on out there. For too long, our images were controlled by other people and our destinies were controlled by other people."
State Farm spokesman Jeff McCollum confirmed that the insurance company asked BET that its ads not appear during Hot Ghetto Mess. He noted, however, that the company was merely shuffling its advertising presence and not pulling its sponsorship of other network shows.
"It certainly sounds like it's going to be graphic," McCollum said of the show. "It would portray values that don't align with the values that State Farm wants to support."
The company also asked that its online advertisement be removed from a page promoting the show.
In a statement released Wednesday, Atlanta-based Home Depot said, "A Home Depot banner was inadvertently placed by next to a promo for the BET program Hot Ghetto Mess on Such placement of the Home Depot banner was never approved by Home Depot. ... The Home Depot is neither a sponsor nor has it committed advertising to this program."
The statement said the company does advertise on and "views the site as a very important and valued medium to reach our customers."
McCauley, who started her own Web site to advocate against negative media portrayals of women, said she isn't against the Hot Ghetto Mess Web site, adding that it "presents a nuanced argument that comes across well."
But the television show is another matter.
"At the end of the day, non-black people are going to see the show," McCauley said. "International people are going to see the show, and they're not going to get the joke. They're not going to have the context, and they're going to have one more reason to stereotype African-Americans."
Houstonian Bernadette Brown said she often receives e-mails from friends who tell her to go to
Brown said some of the photos are so crazy that she's not sure what to think of the Web site.
"Well, it's certainly a hot mess," she said jokingly of the site. "I would hope that it's not a reflection of our culture. And if it is, well, that would be a mess."

Latest Fashion Trends

E- Mail Stories, Issues, and Events ..To..

African American Cinema(Purchase Now!)


Pageviews past week