The previous blog was about several instances where after 9/11, the current Administration has used guile and deceit or incompetence to influence the minds of the American people, usually through misinformation.
But, how did this happen? How did we allow it? How did it come to this?
First let me mention the firing of US attorneys. The US attorneys that were being fired were Republicans, not Democrats. This goes back to Monica Goodling, the goober that went to Messiah "College" and (Pat Robertson's) Regent Law "School." I also provided a link showing that US News & Reports ranks every law school and Regent Law "School [aka "Fundy U"] is bottom tier(IV). I bet there were a lot of people who thought that since the current party in control of the White House is Republican, then the US Attorneys must be Dems. Wrong. Let me first say that almost every president gets rid of all the US Attorneys when they FIRST hit office. Reagan did it and Clinton as well. What you dont see, and this is the first time its EVER happened... you dont see US Attorneys replaced mid-term. Its viewed (rightfully so, in my judgment) as a political move. That is to say, "if you won't do what we want, we'll find someone who will." Even our Department of Justice is now partisan?
Even though the DoJ is part of the Executive Branch, it is thought to be independent in terms of thinking. There is no republican or democratic "twist", as far as the Justice Department SHOULD be concerned, there is only "right" and "wrong"... "legal" and "illegal"... "constitutional" and "unconstitutional." But Monica Goodling and her fellow rightwing'ers wanted lawyers who were going to play ball, and those did not. They actually believed that the law was above politics, and these Republicans who held the Constitution as more important than party loyalty lost their jobs for their actions. Again... since 1980, only two US Attorneys have been forced out of office, and both with CLEAR reason. There were memo's showing that Gonzales and Goodling wanted to remove about 20 more attorneys.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/03/15/crs-most-us-attorneys-serve-full-terms.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.emails/index.html
Just another form of control, even the law is partisan now. You're either for us, or against us...
Now, I must say that each and every US citizen must share in the culpability of events that have happened since September 11th. Soon after 9/11, I began working for the Gallup poll. I've never liked working for someone, but, this was definately one of my more BORING jobs. The reason being, there are a lot of corporations who pay a lot of good money, in an attempt to find out what you the consumer think. Smart strategy. The problem is, I dont want to spend 23 minutes on the phone with people asking them how satisfied they are with their current long distance provider. Maybe it was just because of the climate (late 2002), but there were a lot of social polls that attempted to find out the mindset of the average American. CNN polls, CBS... things like that. Not nearly as often as I would prefer, but it was always refreshing when they come up. Now, maybe its because of the average person's general apathy towards all things news, but much to my dismay, there were far more people than I thought who A) supported Bush in whatever he wanted to do and B) thought that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. So many times i wanted to "taint" a survey, but could not. But early on in the rush to war, it appeared clear to me that the average American didn't keep up with the news well, and generally believed what the President (who isn't the sharpest pencil in the box, btw) told them without question.
The first thing that these guys wanted to sell to the American people, was the idea that the world had somehow morphed after 9/11. As I stated before, that was going to be a hard sell to others (i.e. Europe) who generally sympathized with that day of tragedy, HOWEVER, had a clearer understanding of suffering, the likes of which, we as Americans, only really knew from history books and tv coverage.
Usually, when tragedy strikes, there is either utter chaos or some form of singular nationalism. Both being extremes, IMO. We were convinced that the world had (somehow) changed, we believed that something needed to be done, so we could feel safe again, and from there, the climate was created, where there would be little tolerance for dissent, which would be labelled as unpatriotic.Most people never pay attention anyway, but those that do... were afraid to speak out, afraid to question. Afraid to be labelled. The fear of the masses was used as a tool of control. Terrorism could happen again. "Mushroom cloud" "Smoking gun" "Weapons of Mass Destruction" "Chemical" "Biological" "Nuclear" It could happen at anytime. It could happen to you. What other reason could there have been for a Terrorism Threat Alert Level? What does it do? What does it mean? Used purely as a tool to instill fear.
First of all, it was never set to "low" or "guarded". It was always either "elevated" and sometimes went to "high". If everyday is elevated, is that truly ELEVATED, but more importantly, what are you supposed to do when it goes to high?
"Dude, wanna go shoot some hoops?"
"Nah, man, I can play basketball when the terror threat level is elevated, but high... nah man... thats just... too much risk for me."
It was created for one purpose: to create fear and BLIND OBEDIENCE. So, when a (un-)Patriot act gets passed, noone takes notice, noone cares, and the few that are concerned about the liberties that are taken away (even library records are now fair game?) noone has the guts to speak up about the civil liberties violations. And the minority party (at that time) the Democrats, overwhelmingly went with the tide. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, both criticize Bush now, but weren't much for dissent in the time we really needed it. At least Edwards has admitted his vote was a mistake. Hillary is still SCARED of "not supporting the troops." That fascism is powerful!
And finally, what about the press? What about the role of THE FOURTH ESTATE? They are supposed to act as a skeptical fourth branch who informs the people, but independently examines the evidence that we then interpret. Well, with staged press conferences (gay male escort reporters?!!!) as the first bit of evidence, is there any wonder that press wasn't speaking truth to power. Wasn't truly investigating, but rather just acting as a sounding board for the offical Bush administration view.
Who asked the really tough questions? Why did we have Osama bin Laden, on tape in Afghanistan, telling us why he attacked the United States, and suddenly, we started focusing on Saddam Hussein. The Neo-Conservatives (uber=Republicans?) came into the White House in Januarry of 2001 OPENLY voicing their agenda of regime change in Iraq, it was no secret they already wanted to do this. Guys like Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey and Richard Perle made no qualms about their "hawkish" foreign policy. Where were the voices in the press to question the evidence and even tie it to their predisposed views of the future of Iraq? There were months when Osama bin Laden's name was never mentioned by Bush, yet Saddam was there. What really astounded me, was if you were to accept their rhetoric, WHICH I DID NOT, while Saddam was denying having weapons, you had Kim Jong IL of North Korea ADMITTING to renewing his uranium enrichment & kicking out inspectors! How is Iraq more "imminent" than that?!!
"I dont have any weapons, I swear. Come see."
(guy 1)
"I have weapons. Im trying to build more. Get outta my house."
(guy 2)
"You know, I think we need to keep our eye on that first guy, he's acting mighty suspicious."
(Maxwell Smart)
There was a fear there, and now some of these guys in the press are admitting it. In an interview with Bill Moyers (video link at the end of this entry) Walter Isaacson admits that he (as former head of CNN) felt pressured to hold back on critical news about the war in Afghanistan. There's even a leaked CNN memo referenced on the internet (couldn't find a copy) that has him quoted as saying it would be wrong to focus on the problems we're having, and that CNN should temper it with news of some of the progress.
Phil Donahue had a short lived show on MSNBC. The ratings were just as good as other MSNBC shows, yet it was cancelled right before the war in Iraq. After the cancellation, another memo leaked...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1825
"a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
Fear of being seen unpatriotic because they challenged the status quo. THATS WHAT THE NEWS IS SUPPOSED TO DO! The news organizations were having a flag waving contest? Are you kidding me? Well, they're being pro-Bush, and thats popular, we need to do it to. The news organizations. The news... the... news... the news... felt... pressured... *sigh*... by other news outlets... to be just as... flag happy pro-government... as everyone else. The... news.
"Man, screw you guys... we can wave the flag just as well. Even better. Yea! So, take that. We wave flags with the best of them. Show me what you got. Lets see your best flag wave."
*sigh*
Just last year (Nov 06), a very interesting memo leaked from John Moody, a Vice President at Fox News.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.htm
I guess leaked memo's are cool now.
"What are you doing leaking memo's proving your crazy right wing bias and your lack of credibility or objectivity as a news organization of any capacity?"
"But dad, all the other news stations are doing it!"
"If CNN jumped off a bridge... would you do that, too?"
But, this is MUCH worse than the other memo's. He's not ... we shouldn't be too critical of the government (which is bad)... he's telling his "reporters"... hey, go out and see if you can find news where terrorists are happy the Democrats took over. With that one memo, the "Fair and Balanced" (ha ha ha ha haaa!) Fox News should have closed their doors. What can be more distorted than that? I dont consider it news... its the Republican Opinion Network.
"oh this is just my good buddy Ron"
..,just an editorial television station. And even THIS didn't make much news. A year later, that should STILL be a hot news story. Until the day Fox closes its "fair and balanced" republican doors.
The information is out there. There were some reporters who actually went out and investigated. But again, the people are just as responsible. We need to demand more of our government, more of our press... more of ourselves.
*This is a good video. MUST SEE MATERIAL. If you want to see an actual Presidential Press Conference where Bush tells one of the guys its scripted, then looks at a piece of paper before calling on people... you need to see this.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Blind Obedience Part I
Its been said of the previous generation, that everyone will always remember where they were when JFK was assassinated. There's no question that the most defining moment of American history for our generation is 9/11... and especially in this day of multi-media, I'm sure everyone can remember where they were and what they were doing on 9/11. It was surreal to me, and I'm sure to others, definately a moment we won't soon forget. But did the world change after 9/11? Its a phrase, a slogan of sorts, that has permeated American culture, but doesn't seem to garnish the same response in Europe and throughout the rest of the world.
9/11 was the first time American faced an attack on its soil since Pearl Harbor (1941). It was the first on our "mainland" since the civil war. We, as Americans, are not truly aware of the specter of war. Compare that to Europe, which, even in only the last 100 years, has experienced two World Wars fought mainly on their lands. About 25,000,000 people died during World War 2. Those in the military. Not even counting civilian casualties. Now, I believe every life is precious, and I in no way mean to take away from those who died (less than 4,000) on September 11th, but in no way can that day compare to millions upon millions... UPON MILLIONS... who died during that half a decade in the early 1940's. But we as Americans, are use to seeing war overseas, on tv... on the internet... in film, and when experienced up close... it was like a boxer who's not use to being punched. We panicked.
Add these factors to an incoming administration (Spring 2001) who already held a unique view of the role of the Executive branch of US government, and the role of the US in relation to the world, and you begin to see the wheels set in motion for a period of what CAN be described as fascism.
I know there are several different views on fascism. I'm defining pseudo-fascism as a lack of dissent. Not necessarily totalitarian or explicitly authoritative, but a climate or environment that does not tolerate opposing views or opinions. One nationalist party of sorts. That seeks to form and influence the people into a singular view, rather than a democracy that welcomes multiple forms of thought.
One way this administration seeks to control the people is by controlling the information. There have been Presidential press conferences longer than I have been alive. But they are no longer really conferences, more staged and scripted exchanges. This President does not allow live/random questions. The entire press conference has been pre-planned. People raise their hands, but this is only for show to the people. The truth is, George Bush has a list of names of reporters in the White House corp he will call on. They are aware. At the end of this, I will have a link to a video showing Bush admit this in the middle of press conference.
This brings me to Jeff Gannon. A former "reporter" from Talon news. In the first term of this administration, Gannon was a regular in the press room asking "softball" questions to Bush promoting the Republican agenda. What the majority of the people did NOT know now... Jeff Gannon was a fake name by a man who was not a reporter at all.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/10/gannon_affair/
One must ask how such a fellow was able to get in to these briefings. Noone had ever heard of Talon news... how did they get access small news outlets all over seek? This wasn't open to the public, there are levels of security. Screening and whatnot. Yet, this fake guy, with the fake name, and the fake job... with conservative views... who happened to be from middle America, and happened to ask questions the Bush administration liked... he somehow SNUCK into the White House? Why was this story not bigger in the (so called) liberal media? Fake reporter planted by the Bush administration to influence the people's perception of whats going on during these press conferences.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27730-2005Feb15.html
And when he was outed as ANOTHER hypocritical gay republican. A male escort no less... I... I... just dont know what to say. A gay male escort. A gay male escort. We're talking about a guy wrote negatively about gay issues, criticizing liberal Democrats to his middle American audience. And then it turns out that James Dale Guckert (his real name) was... a gay male escort. Am I the only one laughing at this? The irony of a socially conservative fake reporter being a gay male escort. A gay male escort had direct conversations with the president of the United States. How does the Christian Right feel about that?
Not only were there fake reporters, but fake REPORTS! Philip Cooney was a Senior White House Official who worked extensively on issues regarding environmental quality. When a White House report on global warming (gotta keep big business happy, right?) was found to have been purposely distorted by Cooney himself... people began to research his background. Philip Cooney, who worked in government on environmental issues...
(long pause)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646
...was a former Oil Lobbyist! Im going to let that marinate for a moment. Ha ha ha ha ha haa... you kidding me? The Bush administration is so bold... I almost begrudgingly admire it. But in all seriousness, what that means... of all the people that the Bush administration could have found... ON THE PLANET... the best person they could find to protect our planet... was as former Oil Lobbyist? Yeeeeeeesh! Trees beware. The grinch is coming for you. And after his former job became public knowledge... where do you think Mr. Cooney went for his next job? He helped decieve the people ("global warming needs more study"?) for as long as he could, and went back to lobbying for those who are directly opposed to business regulations to protect the environment. These people really know how to control the information.
Monica Goodling... come on down! You're the next contestant on the goober is right! Who is Monica Goodling, you may ask? She was the number 3 person in the justice department. Worked as a liason to the White House. She very recently resigned in the midst of the attorney firings scandal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964.html
Now, I'll get back to the firings themselves, in a moment. But... lets focus on her for a second. How does someone 33 years old get the third highest office in the entire Department of Justice? With no law background, no less? One must assume that her collegiate background must be off the charts, right? Oh, its off the charts. She went to Messiah College. Yes... Messiah College. Are they even accredited? And after that.. she went to Regent Law School. A school founded by...
(pause)
...Pat Roberston. Oh... my... God... are you kidding? Televangelists can start colleges? Pat Robertson has a law school. Pat Robertson has a law school. PAT ROBERTSON HAS A LAW SCHOOL!!! This lady is, 33, has never worked as a lawyer, and graduated from "Fundy U." Its like I keep pinching myself but I'm still sleep. Like Im trapped in the Matrix ;)
"This is not happening, this is not happening... this is not happening." (Mo-Pheus)
Well, at the age of 33, with no job experience in law, being one of the highest ranking officials in the Justice Department, high enough to give input on firing US Attorneys, at least Pat Robertson's school is highly regarded? Right? Right?
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_tier4_brief.php
Its a tier4 grad school. The lowest ranking they give. And how many Regent Law School... and I use the term "school" very loosely... how many "Fundy U" alum work in the Justice Department? 4? 5? Oh, please... dont let it be more than 13. Correct answer: 150+. Uuuugh...
Restoring honor and integrity to the White House. Thats hysterical! What amazes me, all of these cases garner little to no attention in what is always accused of being a liberal mainstream media.
What about the Military Act of 2006? Does anyone even know what habeas corpus is? I guess it doesn't matter anymore since its been taken away by "George the Fascist."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03gitmo.html
Habeas corpus is the right to appeal or question your confinement. Its a fundamental pillar of democracy that predates the United States. It was TEMPORARILY suspended during the civil war, but now.... who knows? And who does this apply to? Anyone. Anyone that Bush labels an enemy combatant. They talk of foreign terrorists, but Jose Padilla was an American citizen. An American citizen was taken to Guantanamo Bay (aka "camp liberation") and was held indefiantely without charges for over 3 years. They didn't want to prosecute him. They didn't (and dont) feel they need to PROVE anything to anyone. If you're suspected of being a terrorist, you can just disappear. And since this isn't a definable war, we will be fighting terrorism indefinately. For all the goobers who believe we're fighting terrorism, when does that war end? When do we go.... "whew... finally got them all. Its all over now. We have killed the final terrorist." We might as well have a war on jealousy. "We want to stop envy throughout the freeworld!" I'm thinking about starting a war versus hate. Or maybe a war versus sadness. We can go around spreading smiles. So, we have an indefinate war, against an undefinable enemy, and habeas corpus will be gone during the interim.
And noone cares. I thought the terrorist hated freedom? I thought we were spreading freedom? It appears that our new plan is to get the terrorist to leave us alone by being as against freedom as possible.
(to be continued)
9/11 was the first time American faced an attack on its soil since Pearl Harbor (1941). It was the first on our "mainland" since the civil war. We, as Americans, are not truly aware of the specter of war. Compare that to Europe, which, even in only the last 100 years, has experienced two World Wars fought mainly on their lands. About 25,000,000 people died during World War 2. Those in the military. Not even counting civilian casualties. Now, I believe every life is precious, and I in no way mean to take away from those who died (less than 4,000) on September 11th, but in no way can that day compare to millions upon millions... UPON MILLIONS... who died during that half a decade in the early 1940's. But we as Americans, are use to seeing war overseas, on tv... on the internet... in film, and when experienced up close... it was like a boxer who's not use to being punched. We panicked.
Add these factors to an incoming administration (Spring 2001) who already held a unique view of the role of the Executive branch of US government, and the role of the US in relation to the world, and you begin to see the wheels set in motion for a period of what CAN be described as fascism.
I know there are several different views on fascism. I'm defining pseudo-fascism as a lack of dissent. Not necessarily totalitarian or explicitly authoritative, but a climate or environment that does not tolerate opposing views or opinions. One nationalist party of sorts. That seeks to form and influence the people into a singular view, rather than a democracy that welcomes multiple forms of thought.
One way this administration seeks to control the people is by controlling the information. There have been Presidential press conferences longer than I have been alive. But they are no longer really conferences, more staged and scripted exchanges. This President does not allow live/random questions. The entire press conference has been pre-planned. People raise their hands, but this is only for show to the people. The truth is, George Bush has a list of names of reporters in the White House corp he will call on. They are aware. At the end of this, I will have a link to a video showing Bush admit this in the middle of press conference.
This brings me to Jeff Gannon. A former "reporter" from Talon news. In the first term of this administration, Gannon was a regular in the press room asking "softball" questions to Bush promoting the Republican agenda. What the majority of the people did NOT know now... Jeff Gannon was a fake name by a man who was not a reporter at all.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/10/gannon_affair/
One must ask how such a fellow was able to get in to these briefings. Noone had ever heard of Talon news... how did they get access small news outlets all over seek? This wasn't open to the public, there are levels of security. Screening and whatnot. Yet, this fake guy, with the fake name, and the fake job... with conservative views... who happened to be from middle America, and happened to ask questions the Bush administration liked... he somehow SNUCK into the White House? Why was this story not bigger in the (so called) liberal media? Fake reporter planted by the Bush administration to influence the people's perception of whats going on during these press conferences.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27730-2005Feb15.html
And when he was outed as ANOTHER hypocritical gay republican. A male escort no less... I... I... just dont know what to say. A gay male escort. A gay male escort. We're talking about a guy wrote negatively about gay issues, criticizing liberal Democrats to his middle American audience. And then it turns out that James Dale Guckert (his real name) was... a gay male escort. Am I the only one laughing at this? The irony of a socially conservative fake reporter being a gay male escort. A gay male escort had direct conversations with the president of the United States. How does the Christian Right feel about that?
Not only were there fake reporters, but fake REPORTS! Philip Cooney was a Senior White House Official who worked extensively on issues regarding environmental quality. When a White House report on global warming (gotta keep big business happy, right?) was found to have been purposely distorted by Cooney himself... people began to research his background. Philip Cooney, who worked in government on environmental issues...
(long pause)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646
...was a former Oil Lobbyist! Im going to let that marinate for a moment. Ha ha ha ha ha haa... you kidding me? The Bush administration is so bold... I almost begrudgingly admire it. But in all seriousness, what that means... of all the people that the Bush administration could have found... ON THE PLANET... the best person they could find to protect our planet... was as former Oil Lobbyist? Yeeeeeeesh! Trees beware. The grinch is coming for you. And after his former job became public knowledge... where do you think Mr. Cooney went for his next job? He helped decieve the people ("global warming needs more study"?) for as long as he could, and went back to lobbying for those who are directly opposed to business regulations to protect the environment. These people really know how to control the information.
Monica Goodling... come on down! You're the next contestant on the goober is right! Who is Monica Goodling, you may ask? She was the number 3 person in the justice department. Worked as a liason to the White House. She very recently resigned in the midst of the attorney firings scandal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964.html
Now, I'll get back to the firings themselves, in a moment. But... lets focus on her for a second. How does someone 33 years old get the third highest office in the entire Department of Justice? With no law background, no less? One must assume that her collegiate background must be off the charts, right? Oh, its off the charts. She went to Messiah College. Yes... Messiah College. Are they even accredited? And after that.. she went to Regent Law School. A school founded by...
(pause)
...Pat Roberston. Oh... my... God... are you kidding? Televangelists can start colleges? Pat Robertson has a law school. Pat Robertson has a law school. PAT ROBERTSON HAS A LAW SCHOOL!!! This lady is, 33, has never worked as a lawyer, and graduated from "Fundy U." Its like I keep pinching myself but I'm still sleep. Like Im trapped in the Matrix ;)
"This is not happening, this is not happening... this is not happening." (Mo-Pheus)
Well, at the age of 33, with no job experience in law, being one of the highest ranking officials in the Justice Department, high enough to give input on firing US Attorneys, at least Pat Robertson's school is highly regarded? Right? Right?
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_tier4_brief.php
Its a tier4 grad school. The lowest ranking they give. And how many Regent Law School... and I use the term "school" very loosely... how many "Fundy U" alum work in the Justice Department? 4? 5? Oh, please... dont let it be more than 13. Correct answer: 150+. Uuuugh...
Restoring honor and integrity to the White House. Thats hysterical! What amazes me, all of these cases garner little to no attention in what is always accused of being a liberal mainstream media.
What about the Military Act of 2006? Does anyone even know what habeas corpus is? I guess it doesn't matter anymore since its been taken away by "George the Fascist."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03gitmo.html
Habeas corpus is the right to appeal or question your confinement. Its a fundamental pillar of democracy that predates the United States. It was TEMPORARILY suspended during the civil war, but now.... who knows? And who does this apply to? Anyone. Anyone that Bush labels an enemy combatant. They talk of foreign terrorists, but Jose Padilla was an American citizen. An American citizen was taken to Guantanamo Bay (aka "camp liberation") and was held indefiantely without charges for over 3 years. They didn't want to prosecute him. They didn't (and dont) feel they need to PROVE anything to anyone. If you're suspected of being a terrorist, you can just disappear. And since this isn't a definable war, we will be fighting terrorism indefinately. For all the goobers who believe we're fighting terrorism, when does that war end? When do we go.... "whew... finally got them all. Its all over now. We have killed the final terrorist." We might as well have a war on jealousy. "We want to stop envy throughout the freeworld!" I'm thinking about starting a war versus hate. Or maybe a war versus sadness. We can go around spreading smiles. So, we have an indefinate war, against an undefinable enemy, and habeas corpus will be gone during the interim.
And noone cares. I thought the terrorist hated freedom? I thought we were spreading freedom? It appears that our new plan is to get the terrorist to leave us alone by being as against freedom as possible.
(to be continued)
Friday, December 28, 2007
Plight of the African-American Woman
As opinionated as I am... Im surprised I've never considered this before. Letting you into my cerebral cortex, as it were. I wont bore you with the details of how I came across it, but I must credit [ http://melperry.blogspot.com/ ] with the creation of THIS blog. I've read plenty of blogs before... but this is the first time I've considered doing one. This is all still very spur of the moment, lets see how long this holds my (very short) attention span. Anyone who knows me, knows just how opinionated I am. On a variety of subjects. I will keep my "Seinfeld-esque" comic adoration or sports obsession off of these pages... and spend most of my time ranting about politics, economics, social issues, and the like. So many retards... so little time... *sigh*... trying to promote logic, and rational thought (over the illogical emotions of the right hemisphere of the brain) has NEVER been so fun!
So, in her honor(?) I shall kick this off with one of the MANY topics that frequents my brain but is never truly discussed. The plight of the black female in America.
The African-American experience is very unique. Former slaves, who make up a fair percentage of that nation's population... who live in "relative" peace with their former slave masters. That may sound surprising to some who hear me harp on social issues in this country, and there are definately things that need to be improved... but in comparison... I'd much rather be black in America rather than Palestinian in Israel. (future topic, btw) People complain about race in America, but noone ever proposes leaving... thats all I'm saying. And while issues with our slave past (future topic, btw) cause self-inflicted wounds in our community on a regular... this gender issue is a relatively new problem... and I dont know where it originated.
As a man, I hear things about women all the time that women dont hear from us directly. I've been going around asking people (mostly men) why a country that thinks its so progressive (which its not!) has never had a female president... and I've gotten a lot of surprising answers. It makes me wonder what whites and hispanics say about blacks and others... when only they are around... I wouldn't mind being the proverbial fly on the wall for that convo, but thats another issue for another day. Anyway, back on task... there is no secret... that regardless of race... gender was, is, and ALWAYS WILL BE a big issue. With people of all backgrounds. It just seems to be a larger issue in the African-American community.
We, as African-Americans... make up only 12% of the population of the United States. Twelve percent. Why are we 50% of new (annual) AIDS cases? Why are we 40% of total AIDS cases? (Astounding!) Why are more than half of our children growing up in single parent homes? We are the only community that has more children growing up with one parent rather than two. The only group. The only group. Lets try that again... THE... ONLY... GROUP! That alone should make you cry. A generation of children who dont have the example of a proper family structure. And of those black single parent homes... why are 90% matriarchal? If you look at white or hispanic single parent homes, they are always majority female, however, its usually 60/40 or 65/35. Somewhere in that ballpark. Not 90/10!!! So, we're the only group that has more than half of our kids in single parent homes, and NINETY PERCENT of those single parent homes are run by women. Where have all the brothers gone?
Why have 40% of black women NEVER been married? Compare that to... I believe its like 11% of the white women in this country. There was a recent survey done that showed sexual habits and broke them down by race, age and gender. Why were the African Americans having sex a few years younger (on avg.) than all of the other races... and having significantly more sexual partners (on avg.) than the other groups?
I dont know when it started... but you can go back (census) and see that there were far more two parent homes in the black community 30 and 40 years ago when the socio-economic climate was SIGNIFICANTLY more adverse and antagonistic. I also find it interesting, that even though hispanics are in a very comparable economic situation, there social structure is not nearly in the same shape... which, I must admit... was initially a shock to me.
The African-American community has a crisis in terms of how we view sexuality, promiscuity, and masculinity. Is it cool to be the race that has the most sexual partners? Is that something to brag about? Is it any wonder that we are 40% of AIDS cases? I'd also like to thank Black Exploitation Television, for permeating this view of sexuality to our people... even our children... as early as 10am everyday.
"Hey kids... you ready to learn how to be pimps and hoes?"
"Yeeeeeaa." (children in unison)
I find it interesting when I hear black men speak ill of black women based on some shared behavior. How is it logical (a recurring theme in my brain, sadly not for everyone else's brain) to say that "she is a hoe because she let me..." when you are engaging in the same act?
Lets try and break this down...
If its TRULY okay for men to have sex with someone they just met... and simultaneously... its NOT okay for women to have sex with someone they just met... then... apparently there is this large underground of gay black men humping (and respecting?) each other on sight. When will we as black men take some responsibility for our actions? We are the quickest to label women hoes (and Im not denying that there are unfit women out there)... the quickest to accuse them of not being responsible... that is to say "she let me do it... so im gonna do it... but that doesn't make me bad... it makes her bad." Thats illogical, stupid. If you view women as hoes... then why marry? You wont. Could this be a major reason why almost half or our women never get married? What makes you fit? Why are you worthy? It can't be your judgment. You just slept with a woman you just met, now you have two kids you dont stay with, and you've had several different STD's. Why are you marriage material? I'm glad I dont have any sisters, and I'm hoping I dont have any daughters, because I do not feel like dealing with this crap. [I wont even get into the financial benefits our community would see if far more of us were married, rather than trying to play the field.]
The weird thing is... its almost 2008, and... in terms of the statistics... they're getting worse. Even compared to the 80's. Remember the 80's? When a retarded novice republican governor (foreshadowing?) ran for president. Good ole Reaganomics. But our structure was better then! This seems like an issue for the 1300's or something. Something that should have been resolved 500 years ago. The idea of race and gender still being an issue should have died with the enlightenment of the 1800's. Just further proof that people aren't as smart as they think they are. That whole... "she let me, so its her fault" thing still has me livid. We're trying to win the... "least responsible mo'fo's on the planet award" or something.
Speaking of responsibility... if people believe that the men are the head of the household... why dont we take some responsibility? So many guys sound like the youngest sibling. "They let me do it." If our family structure will be revitalized... it needs to start with the man. We need to take responsibility for our actions, make better decisions, and LEAD (yes... its a crazy concept... LEEEEEAAAD!) rather than pointing and blaming those we CLAIM to be superior to. You have to love that irony. I look down on her, but I expect her to hold all the responsibility. *sigh* Just let that concept MARINATE on the brain for a moment. If I think Im superior to someone, yet give them all the responsibility... which one of us is truly working with inferior equipment?
The BIGGEST IRONY in all of this... in terms of all around responsibility, there's no question that black men... ON AVERAGE... are far behind the sisters. There are more black women than black men in colleges... and from a financial/social standpoint... there are black women who have a hard time trying to find a (economically) "successful" male-counterpart... and not the other way around. Im not a proponent of either group attacking the other, but if we're going based purely on merits, achievements, assimilation, social evolution and the all that comes with it... who really has the better LOGICAL gripe with the other gender? Hmmmmmm... a lot of prideful men wouldn't like that answer.
What happened to black love? 70's soul? Its US against them... not... me versus you. What happened to the black family? Those who were for Jim Crow, segregation, separatism, second class citizenship and the like... they have to be absolutely GIDDY right now. They dont need to actively try to destroy the black community... in-fighting has us destroying the family on our own. If we're gonna claim to be men, we're gonna need to take some responsibility. I'm sick of this bull...
:(
Next probable topic: Why most American's are now FASCISTS and why the world did NOT change after 9/11.
So, in her honor(?) I shall kick this off with one of the MANY topics that frequents my brain but is never truly discussed. The plight of the black female in America.
The African-American experience is very unique. Former slaves, who make up a fair percentage of that nation's population... who live in "relative" peace with their former slave masters. That may sound surprising to some who hear me harp on social issues in this country, and there are definately things that need to be improved... but in comparison... I'd much rather be black in America rather than Palestinian in Israel. (future topic, btw) People complain about race in America, but noone ever proposes leaving... thats all I'm saying. And while issues with our slave past (future topic, btw) cause self-inflicted wounds in our community on a regular... this gender issue is a relatively new problem... and I dont know where it originated.
As a man, I hear things about women all the time that women dont hear from us directly. I've been going around asking people (mostly men) why a country that thinks its so progressive (which its not!) has never had a female president... and I've gotten a lot of surprising answers. It makes me wonder what whites and hispanics say about blacks and others... when only they are around... I wouldn't mind being the proverbial fly on the wall for that convo, but thats another issue for another day. Anyway, back on task... there is no secret... that regardless of race... gender was, is, and ALWAYS WILL BE a big issue. With people of all backgrounds. It just seems to be a larger issue in the African-American community.
We, as African-Americans... make up only 12% of the population of the United States. Twelve percent. Why are we 50% of new (annual) AIDS cases? Why are we 40% of total AIDS cases? (Astounding!) Why are more than half of our children growing up in single parent homes? We are the only community that has more children growing up with one parent rather than two. The only group. The only group. Lets try that again... THE... ONLY... GROUP! That alone should make you cry. A generation of children who dont have the example of a proper family structure. And of those black single parent homes... why are 90% matriarchal? If you look at white or hispanic single parent homes, they are always majority female, however, its usually 60/40 or 65/35. Somewhere in that ballpark. Not 90/10!!! So, we're the only group that has more than half of our kids in single parent homes, and NINETY PERCENT of those single parent homes are run by women. Where have all the brothers gone?
Why have 40% of black women NEVER been married? Compare that to... I believe its like 11% of the white women in this country. There was a recent survey done that showed sexual habits and broke them down by race, age and gender. Why were the African Americans having sex a few years younger (on avg.) than all of the other races... and having significantly more sexual partners (on avg.) than the other groups?
I dont know when it started... but you can go back (census) and see that there were far more two parent homes in the black community 30 and 40 years ago when the socio-economic climate was SIGNIFICANTLY more adverse and antagonistic. I also find it interesting, that even though hispanics are in a very comparable economic situation, there social structure is not nearly in the same shape... which, I must admit... was initially a shock to me.
The African-American community has a crisis in terms of how we view sexuality, promiscuity, and masculinity. Is it cool to be the race that has the most sexual partners? Is that something to brag about? Is it any wonder that we are 40% of AIDS cases? I'd also like to thank Black Exploitation Television, for permeating this view of sexuality to our people... even our children... as early as 10am everyday.
"Hey kids... you ready to learn how to be pimps and hoes?"
"Yeeeeeaa." (children in unison)
I find it interesting when I hear black men speak ill of black women based on some shared behavior. How is it logical (a recurring theme in my brain, sadly not for everyone else's brain) to say that "she is a hoe because she let me..." when you are engaging in the same act?
Lets try and break this down...
If its TRULY okay for men to have sex with someone they just met... and simultaneously... its NOT okay for women to have sex with someone they just met... then... apparently there is this large underground of gay black men humping (and respecting?) each other on sight. When will we as black men take some responsibility for our actions? We are the quickest to label women hoes (and Im not denying that there are unfit women out there)... the quickest to accuse them of not being responsible... that is to say "she let me do it... so im gonna do it... but that doesn't make me bad... it makes her bad." Thats illogical, stupid. If you view women as hoes... then why marry? You wont. Could this be a major reason why almost half or our women never get married? What makes you fit? Why are you worthy? It can't be your judgment. You just slept with a woman you just met, now you have two kids you dont stay with, and you've had several different STD's. Why are you marriage material? I'm glad I dont have any sisters, and I'm hoping I dont have any daughters, because I do not feel like dealing with this crap. [I wont even get into the financial benefits our community would see if far more of us were married, rather than trying to play the field.]
The weird thing is... its almost 2008, and... in terms of the statistics... they're getting worse. Even compared to the 80's. Remember the 80's? When a retarded novice republican governor (foreshadowing?) ran for president. Good ole Reaganomics. But our structure was better then! This seems like an issue for the 1300's or something. Something that should have been resolved 500 years ago. The idea of race and gender still being an issue should have died with the enlightenment of the 1800's. Just further proof that people aren't as smart as they think they are. That whole... "she let me, so its her fault" thing still has me livid. We're trying to win the... "least responsible mo'fo's on the planet award" or something.
Speaking of responsibility... if people believe that the men are the head of the household... why dont we take some responsibility? So many guys sound like the youngest sibling. "They let me do it." If our family structure will be revitalized... it needs to start with the man. We need to take responsibility for our actions, make better decisions, and LEAD (yes... its a crazy concept... LEEEEEAAAD!) rather than pointing and blaming those we CLAIM to be superior to. You have to love that irony. I look down on her, but I expect her to hold all the responsibility. *sigh* Just let that concept MARINATE on the brain for a moment. If I think Im superior to someone, yet give them all the responsibility... which one of us is truly working with inferior equipment?
The BIGGEST IRONY in all of this... in terms of all around responsibility, there's no question that black men... ON AVERAGE... are far behind the sisters. There are more black women than black men in colleges... and from a financial/social standpoint... there are black women who have a hard time trying to find a (economically) "successful" male-counterpart... and not the other way around. Im not a proponent of either group attacking the other, but if we're going based purely on merits, achievements, assimilation, social evolution and the all that comes with it... who really has the better LOGICAL gripe with the other gender? Hmmmmmm... a lot of prideful men wouldn't like that answer.
What happened to black love? 70's soul? Its US against them... not... me versus you. What happened to the black family? Those who were for Jim Crow, segregation, separatism, second class citizenship and the like... they have to be absolutely GIDDY right now. They dont need to actively try to destroy the black community... in-fighting has us destroying the family on our own. If we're gonna claim to be men, we're gonna need to take some responsibility. I'm sick of this bull...
:(
Next probable topic: Why most American's are now FASCISTS and why the world did NOT change after 9/11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
