The Problematic Posterior

     So my cousin is a personal trainer. Not the spot you at the gym type, he's the headset mic while wearing a spandex riding suit teaching 5am spin-warrior class type. After my first yoga class (that's another story) he told me about a woman that contacted him about some booty shaping help. When she came in for the consultation. He noticed she was fit and her butt was firm, naturally lifted, almost sculpted. She was a single professional type, she oozed corporate, sans the stuffy conservatism.  Pretty, healthy, smart, single, shapely, but that was just it. In her mind, her shape had crossed the line.
     She told him although she eats well and exercises regularly she can't seem to shrink her butt, and if she loses weight it actually looks bigger. He tells me usually this is followed by some talk of how it effects the way dresses hang, problems when buying jeans or just annual vacation season, but this was different. She was happy with the aesthetics. It was what image she thought it projected.  She said, guys that are compelled to talk to me because of the size or shape of my butt are usually not my type of guys. Sure I meet my share of normal guys when I'm in surroundings with like-minded people, but what does that really say. I have to be at work to meet a good guy? And in public I'm wolf bait? She wondered if her body made men think she would only be attracted to the type of guy who is mesmerized by an amazing booty. It is kind of just out there, and we know who goes for that first. "It makes me feel like that's all that I am" she says. "So let's just tone it down a little. See what happens." Really?
     I didn't know how to feel. I always thought that a smart single black dude was like a commodity. My theory always was, since so many black men are in jail or dead it gives the rest of us better odds at women that are open to the prospect of dating black guys. It always seemed good on paper. But I never thought about the way the aforementioned effected my odds. She probably side-eyes all black dudes or at least not seem to be as nice to some after dishing out countless rejections. Being black, whenever you meet a non-hood affiliated woman her eyes read you differently. Innately she racially profiles you. Is this a nice guy?  Maybe he's being nice so he can mug me in the parking lot later?  I know he want's something, he can't just be regular. I know, I know all smart women do that to all men. Justifiable or not, black male intentions are held to a different level of scrutiny than other guys. It takes a little longer to accept that we may just be a regular guy.
     Is this my theory's equal and opposite reaction? There is definitely a larger pool to choose from. Now we have to overcome the image of the dudes that made the numbers so lopsided to begin with. There's always something. The apprehensiveness is understandable for women towards any guy nowadays. But when you get women, black women that want to physically alter their shape as to not attract black guys that becomes kind of problematic. What if the training doesn't do it. Is surgery an option? Her conviction did seem to suggest it but I'd be speculating. Still the effort it takes to re-mold ones body is huge. And doing it to ward off the advances of posterior admirers who in her experiences happen to be black hood-wolves is a statement, and not a good one for the home team. I still got the impression from not being there that it was the guys who were wrong, not their affinity for booty. I bet if she met a man she liked who liked bodies like hers it would be ok.  I feel kind of bad for her, but worse for me. Even if I'm not the guy she's avoiding it still lowers my percentage with her at least sub-consciously. It's rejection evolved into a reflex. Eliminating black guys as a viable breeding option. Ok that might be a little wrong. But the whole thing seems kind of wrong.
 Right?
   
   
 

Should we make fat the new normal ?

     Nobody could really say they were that surprised when it was announced that obesity was a bigger problem in America than hunger. We all know people and their quests for the perfect diet, some of us are those people. What if it's the natural progression. It's not normal for college age people to get gout but.. What if fit is relative to the tasks ones body is to perform. Is the body we know as healthy a false necessity or a leftover from times when humans led a more active aggressive lifestyle. Some African tribesman tracking elk across the grasslands would call a western settler fat and lazy, as would the settler to a factory worker, and that factory worker to a computer programmer you get the pattern.
     We are not biologically prepared for the world we've created around us. The goal of Human kind was always to make life easier. As the most vulnerable of the big mammals maximizing caloric intakes with minimal energy output, while easing the dangers associated with gathering food. At the same time expanding our territory, what animal wouldn't get fat. It seems a bit selfish to think we can wire our brains to our electronics and think we would only inherit the good stuff. Sure a good wifi connection makes life easier, also legitimately better and it all happens so effortlessly. It really is a symbiotic connection. But at what cost? If it came to it would you rather be fit, or fat and infinitely smarter?
     Look at the little stuff eliminated from our life, albeit for good reasons there still exists a void. Shopping is like the lightest version of hunter gathering there is and we all but removed it from our lives. How long would it take to walk through a mall to all the stores that sell your amazon searches. Or even in the car, out of the car walking through parking lots, store to store, week after week. But that's too much for us. I wrote it and it sounds tiring and annoying to me. It's still is the last bastion of hope for normal daily activity. Without consciously working to keep your body fit, what else is there? Our jobs and natural life movements don't shape us any more. The average male weight has gone up 25 lbs since 1960.
     What has to happen to make this reality acceptable? If organs were replaceable after their inevitable failures, already on it.http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/stem-cell-complex-body-parts-121017.htm A realistic virtual reality to simulate the need for human interaction, almost there.http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/11/3867146/oculus-rift This is who we're becoming. And you thought it was the hormones in the food. People are just getting big. Low income, middle class folks, no ones immune from the effects of our wired world and the results from living in a no (physical) effort necessary social structure. When Humans moved animals into their immediate living spaces disease spread and people have been dying as a result ever since. In the last 120 years so many advances have been made that erase danger and ease daily life that fat is just a natural response to our rampant inactivity. Deal accordingly.
   
   
   

Facebook's Grid ..like it or not you're on it.

     So Facebook is starting some new graph service where you can search just about anything and get a list of related likes. Want to know what the movie title likes of people on your best friends- friends list because you think she knows cool people, look it up. If you want to know the Religious likes of all the mothers of all of the people on your friends list, just a click away. Want to know how many people in your county supports org's that are pro choice so you can do whatever with that information because you may be some kind of lunatic  you get the idea.
     I'm all for the singularity, the melding of man and machine. I already believe our phones are extensions of our brains. Example: I was talking to my uncle and his girlfriend about martinis. We didn't know the mixture but in seconds we asked one of the many available phones. In no time we had the ingredient list and  the conversation moved on without a hitch. It was quick as a thought. Faster than remembering and weighing the odds that you may be wrong. That is by definition a technological mind extension  Like it or not it is whats happening. Everybody thought it would be the RFID chips that would be the technological advancement that opened everyone's eyes. But no, it's just plain old invasion of privacy that we all invited.
     When it was just for product placement and personalized ad's it was strange but not enough to rage about . Now some might not think the possibility of knowing what restaurants the friends of their family members frequent could do. But when its the people in an area that support a political movement or unpopular agenda a ready made list is available. Some of us will go all private everything, and wait for the need to arise to once again to peel back our invisible layers of placebo privacy. There's always something.
     There's nobody to complain to, it has to happen. It's the natural progression. The ways that we are already connected would deserve it's own book. They are numerous. It's like the evolution of ideas reached a point that the next step is so different than the last that transition is not only noticeable but difficult. Sometimes in history when idea shifts happen it takes a generation for old ideas to almost be bred out of people. This transition to being connected to our tech devices will be like the Grand Canyon. Not watching a small stream become a cavernous carving by the hand of God type of evolution. It's the taking a quick nap by a river and waking up next to the Grand Canyon kind. Ready?

Real Politics Makes abc's Scandal Better

     I think we all can admit that before Obama culturally, (and not because of some inability to understand the issues) a lot of people some black some not, placed politics on the back burner to say the least. Not due to their being no relateable faces. They just added one black guy to the main stage, and he was already an employee. There have been people to look to if politics is your thing. Still most had coaches, teachers, church or rap. Even in instances where people got their motivation to from rappers Chuck D or X Clan, Queen Latifah  or whatever positivity fueled lyricist you listened to back then. You know they were't telling people to run for office. Not even to do dirt from the inside. For a long time to a certain generation politics might have well been the Easter Bunny.

     So Obama makes people like politics? Is that why Scandal is the hit and twitter monster that it is. How many "I cant"'s can be typed in one night? Whatever though. The most important thing is that a political show has people fainting and waiving church fans as they say. To truly take advantage of what the show creator placed before what you need to do is separate the Olivia/ Fitz stuff from secret meeting stuff. Shonda Rhimes had access to information and people, conversations that would get people fired thrown in jail or who knows. 

     The way she puts the story together is dramatic for sure. Justice Sotamayor isn't taking a shot at anyone any time soon. But those meetings that take place leading up to the actual Scandals are what she's emphasizing they're what gets us on the edge. She wants us to know that IS the way it goes down. You cant just blindly believe, things always go deeper. I voted  for him because he was better than Romney not some hero. To some he still shines. So you watch the show and you wonder about the deals that must go on.

     Remember the Debt ceiling (ask somebody that 10 years ago) and don't give me that stuff about, it wasn't an issue they just raised it. You know what I mean. Before it was fight on. And now they want to fight another day? Here's my Scandal moment, Obama's never been tough on Wall Street. He wins the election, talking tough claiming mandates. The whole country knows the Gop want's the fight. But through some miracle oval office meeting. Wall Street calls off their Republican attack dogs to fight another day.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/newt-gingrich-debt-ceiling_n_2408764.html Obama continues to walk tall and kill enemy soldiers and their families legally.http://www.businessinsider.com/the-presidents-new-rules-for-killing-people-with-drones-over-yemen-is-unbelievable-2012-4  All while Wall Street gets the Bonds paid off America borrowed without an actual fight over paying the debts. Tough on Wall Street, Eric Holder defended these people for a living. I digress, different story. That had to be a helluva meeting though.

     The show is like a stepping stone political course. Where people left the scene in the in the 70's. Getting back into politics for Obama must be like those people exonerated from death row after 30 years. Things seem different but in the end people are people. Look for the real scandals. Don't just wear your Obama Martin Luther and Biggie as babies shirt, do some thinking. Do you really know what your guy is all about? And do you give him a pass because he's black? Some of us could use a talking to from Harrison. So after you're done falling out after that final scene on the next Scandal you watch. Think of Obama as Fitz, and Fitz was cool til he got alone with Verna.  We don't see far more than we do. 

There's a Fox in my Foxhole: Female Soldiers

     Its been a long time coming.  Since the birth of the plowed field and domesticated beast, women have been regarded as property, along with other less significant parts of society. As hunters and gathers women worked side by side with men as equal members of the tribe. If she was a good hunter, she hunted and if she knew where the good foliage was, she gathered. No gender specific tasks barring child birth/nursing were necessary to maintain the tribes status quo. It wasn't until private property and lineage decisions demanded that all things be given personal value, during that time the first woman (probably) reluctantly decided to relinquish her own freedom and enter into one of the oldest social contracts ever. You provide food and protection and I'll give you a healthy heir.
    Fast forward to any point in history you want and the story is the same, some guy thinks by way of winning some genetic crap shoot being born male, he is superior to women by natural selection. Its evolutionary social programming at its finest, and for the first time we are going to conduct a very telling experiment in attempts to undo this programming.  Defense Sec. Panetta  just changed the rules of combat allowing women for the first time to officially be on the front line in battle. This is where the experiment gets going. Not about some inferior female fighters, or distracted men in battle. Its all about sex.
     To start, a 2011 Newsweek article says, an American service woman is more likely to be sexually assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in battle, and that was written during two wars. Right now in the news at Lockland Air Force Base 796 cases of sexual misconduct were reported, and we know all these types of cases never get reported. So this is still a percent of actual cases. Generally it comes down to abuse of power, but in some cases like Gen. Petraeus it's just a sense of entitlement. Whatever you chalk it up to, Military life seems to be a breeding ground for sexual wrong doing. The Defense Dept. knows this and commissioned a task force to write a pretty paper about it.   http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/annual-reports
     So what does that have to do with hunter gatherers. When viewed as equals with shared sacrifices and common responsibilities, humans generally treat each other with respect. But like in the Stanford University prison exercise students given more power abused those with less, unprovoked and unmercifully. http://www.prisonexp.org/  Possibly giving women the opportunity to serve along side men in battle will cause women to be seen in their original form as equal humans, not as objects to be possessed, objectified, abused and thrown away. Not since we came in from our natural surroundings to gated gardens and hand plowed fields have women had the rights and respect they deserve. Hopefully the Armed Forces are thinking by leveling  the battlefield so to speak, and by giving the female soldiers an opportunity to embrace all of the comradery that comes from staring death in the face and surviving it. Through strength, superior training and teamwork. The person you live through that with you probably wont rape nor will instructors look to intimidate with stars and bars. Hopefully it paints a more respected portrait of the female soldier and gives us new light to see women in all together.
    
    
    

What's more personal than Suicide?

     I don't really know what this says about me but I couldn't care less about the Royal Family. Kate's baby, The Queen mother, Buckingham whatever it's all the same to me. Aren't we here specifically not to lust over the Monarchy across the pond. If hearing about Kate's royal vomit wasn't enough, add suicide to the mix and you've got a story that's made for the likes of Rebekah Brooks' News Corp.
     So a couple of radio guys call Kate's hospital posing as the actual Queen of England to nurse A, the hospitals only line of defense against unauthorized personnel.  Clearly frazzled, and showing proper respect to her majesty she puts the seemingly obvious impostor through to nurse B, who spills the beans. Successful prank til nurse A goes and kills herself. Now people are saying the Dj's are responsible, for what? A guy catches his girlfriend in bed with another man, goes out and promptly commits suicide. Did his girlfriend commit a crime? A boss fires her employee, he walks outside and kills himself. Is she, or the company responsible? No. BofA forecloses on a home, the owner commits suicide is BofA at fault, well... yes but not in court.  More responsible for the family's loss than the Dj's. In this case it's her fellow nurses and doctors that surely berated her for such a monumental blunder. Especially due to the poor impression.
     One little discussed angle are the royals themselves. This could be a warning sign to all other commoners under the employ of her majesty the Queen. Do your part to preserve our dignity or meet the gallows, or a murder staged as a suicide. It makes the same point without the calling card of a public square. There has to be more info to come, or maybe not. This is the Royal family and the message has been received, exploit our privacy and feel our wrath.
     No Radio personnel should be fired or even reprimanded for this.  Now the police are getting involved and hopefully they put as much into the investigation of the radio stations role in this, as the co-workers who shared nurse A's final conversations and interactions. They are directly responsible for the state of mind that led this woman to take her own life. A personal decision by the way.

Mandate: A free pass to what exactly?

     It seems some of our politicians haven't come to grips with the fact that we're living in a new era. An era where you can't hide behind your empty words or strategically chosen speaking engagements. It's time for one of these political party's to get a wake up call. I wont be holding my breath for the GOP to embrace the reality that America is moving on with or without them. It's the Democrats that I fully expect to get too comfortable with this victory, which was almost as much about not electing Romney as it was about electing Obama.

      Don't get me wrong, Obama has a healthy list of accomplishments  But that doesn't give him a pass to violate rights just because the rights aren't yours. Or are they? Under this administration minorities still get longer sentences for equal crimes. What about drone strikes, enhanced wire taps, indefinite detention of citizens, multiple war deployments without adequate medical attention. That's not Bush stuff, those are all issues Obama addressed.

     The Dems think their victory gives them some philosophical breathing room. But the vote was a victory for the people against a vision for America we didn't want, not a Democratic power grab. Progressives must know that an Obama style Patriot Act is still the Patriot Act. Americans decided not to relinquish more freedoms for the illusion of safety. But what tools do the people have against a two term President coming off of an Election win, and his highest approval rating since 09. There is no lobbyist for the people.

    Don't let him forget that we see what he does. When he does his Presidential twitter town hall meetings ask him about drones. Maybe some mainstream press will start asking him serious questions about killing citizens... after the Inauguration.  Until then people can't loose sight of what they've always known, these people are politicians they use words to make money playing games with our lives. It shouldn't be a breath of fresh air when our rights are upheld by one. Our work isn't done. The same way people used the power of information to inform themselves about the possibilities of a GOP win and acted to stop it, is the way people need to be vigilant about the Obama led American governmental machine playing its part in keeping some of the institutions alive that limit our rights as citizens to freedom and equality. 

You speak softly..Now use the stick already !

     When in recent history has speaking softly and carrying a big stick actually been effective? Isn't it all prefaced on being prepared to use it? Sure, during the birth of the statement some unassuming guy, carrying some head bashing club might seem mysteriously dangerous. It is the quiet ones you have to worry about, right. But now history is common knowledge, so if you've used that stick or carry it just for show, it will be known. The humility strategy is evolving.
     Obama's debate performance is a perfect example of speak softly. But without evidence of his willingness to use the proverbial stick, his soft spoken demeanor doesn't command the same respect. The fight many wish to see from Obama but rarely do is sometimes explained away as not wanting to seem like the angry black guy or some sort of professorial authoritarian. People want somebody that'll stand up and fight for our common goals. And the truth is people will say those things, they already do. At this point one could argue that standing up would be more understandable than intimidating to Americans. And less contrived than always taking the high road.
     Romney actively controlled the tempo and the tone of the event. He overpowered the moderator who in my opinion seemed outdated and unfamiliar with the type of information the public has and needed answers to. In the face of that reality, Obama can't only speak of philosophical differences and vague references to programs and issues we already know he stands for. Without evidence of standing up in this forum, for himself or things he believes in, Obama comes off as a quiet guy with a big stick who's afraid to use it. That's how Romney treated him. Romney: You don't like my facts, so what. What are you going to do about it? Obama: Hope somebody notices it?
   

SF Mayor Ed Lee drives away the youth vote.

     After the wave wave of power gained by the GOP in the Mid-Term elections, and the election of Barack Obama the emphasis placed on voting, from both sides is at an all time high. The outreach to gain the inner-city youth vote to match the enthusiasm of the republican base is more than important it's a difference maker. But how do you get young people to engage when overwhelmingly the impression is, no matter who's in office the general conditions where they live doesn't change. The average young adult doesn't vote for deficit reduction or medicare, they expect tangible change in their everyday lives. Realistic or not.
      But democracy is slow, and immediate positive changes are few and far between. The logical school of thought is, I more than my vote is more consequential to the direction of my everyday life. We get some comfort when a person is in office that looks like we do, or seems to support our values but that isn't always what it seems. Case in point San Francisco mayor Ed Lee.
     Lee, a Civil Lawyer. The first Chinese American Mayor of San Francisco and a Democrat. And though government is always larger than one man. One could reasonably expect our most basic fundamental rights not be infringed upon. Especially by someone who litigates civil issues. So when Ed Lee proclaimed his admiration of New York's stop and frisk program, to the point where implementation was an option. The justification of non participation begins to rear its ugly head. The implied logic that states regardless of the person or party, the important will still stand on the backs of those deemed less significant.
     How could it be viewed any other way. A person makes his career fighting for civility seeks to implement one of the most unproven cruelly  un-just laws in recent history. Off the wall for some, and par for the course for those seeking an argument to justify forgoing their right to participate. Way to rally the base Mayor Ed Lee, only you did it in the wrong direction.

Equally stopped and frisked

     Ever wonder why we still hear about the Aurora shooting, but we hear nothing about those cops that were shot in Louisiana by that separatist grouphttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/terry-smith-6-other-suspects-linked-sovereign-citizens_n_1806598.html. Or anymore about the guy that shot those Sikhs in Michigan http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0806/Sikh-temple-shooting-renews-fears-over-white-supremacist-groups-video. Did we ever hear anything about the guy that put the bomb in the path of the MLK day parade in Washington State http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/09/announcement-expected-break-through-mlk-bomb-probe/
. Is it because the Aurora shooting is a safer subject. The act seems so abstract and random, rendering all commentary speculation because clearly the shooter has mental issues and left no clear motive why. Whats leftover becomes a debate on gun control, although important, it all but excuses the shooter and whatever drove him to commit his deranged act. There could be thousands of people on the verge of walking his path, but we will never know because our analysis in on gun control not the individual who commits the act.     The Temple shooting and the other two noted cases are different animals all together. These crimes were committed by separatists and supremacists with clear visions and motives of what they thought should be done. With more facts in these cases it seems a reasonable discussion can be had on how these feelings are being nurtured and acted upon. So why no discussion? In order to properly discuss these types of crimes, the subject of racism why it exists and how it recruits needs to be placed on the table.
     Generally speaking race is a tabu subject for mainstream news, it's usually reserved for special reports or lower rated minority centric shows. The mainstream speaks of racially tinged comments or dog whistles, but subtle slurs should get the same attention as the guy who wears the I hate N-words shirt with the confederate flag on the back. In some ways the under-coverage of these organised hate groups lends them some sort of warped justification that by not exposing them it's some kind of cry for help from the masses.
     If properly covered how could profiling not be an option or topic of discussion. There's a database of these guys. Why aren't militia types stopped and frisked? Tim McVeigh, that MLK bomber and the guys that shot those cops aren't criminals, they're terrorists. What percent of citizens sympathize with these guys, without meaningful discussion we'll never know. With no applicable spin and the ongoing culture of new racists the best option is silence and hope it all goes away.

The wheel of Oppression

     The Chic-Filet controversy defines the differences between blacks and gays in their fight for civil rights in America. Neither plight is less important than the other, yet they are fundamentally different. When business owners wanted to refuse service to blacks the task was simple, don't let them in. If they complained, they would use violent tactics, and frame it as part of the blacks inherent violent nature. Then use the perception, as justification for not letting them in in the first place.
     Gays on the other hand make it harder for transparent discrimination, because unless ones sexuality is volunteered, gays can successfully assimilate into society, using silence as their weapon. A weapon unavailable to blacks in their struggle. So public love for chicken was used to express hate for gays, and as a rallying cry to eliminate their rights. It's better than beatings and fire hoses but the goal is still the same. The kiss in was ridiculous and are as effective today as marching for justice.
     So how now do we fight for our rights. Women, Gays, Hispanics and Blacks all have bounties on their rights in one way or another, and oddly enough by the same common enemy of individual freedoms. Separate we are the minorities able to be attacked on multiple fronts whenever their grip is threatened. But those four groups together become a clear majority, and are far more powerful than the regressive minds that look to retain the control they had before we realized the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
     Who will become the progressive Braveheart, and unite the clans against a common foe. Are our groups so egocentric that we can't see beyond our own path. Hate crimes, vaginal probes, self deportation, all acts that bolster GOP support. Not until the the progressive wheel of oppression randomly assigns the plight of one group to the other will we feel each others pain. Gay guys get internal ultrasound, blacks get deported, how about a constitutional ban on Hispanic marriage. And women forced to prove citizenship after being randomly stopped and frisked. Maybe then we will respect the causes that effect so many of our friends and neighbors. Until then we all stand divided, and one by one we will surely fall.

Does Obama really want my gun?

     So Barry O is coming for our guns, and by guns I mean your freedom. He want's to take away our second amendment right to defend our self.  If you don't know why people say that, but are too embarrassed to ask why. Here is the quickest rundown you're gonna get. The NRA head said if Obama is elected he's taking your guns, remember the outsider Obama complained about Americans clinging to their God and Guns. People saw that as a declaration of war on their Anglo heritage under the veil of change. Two years later, they said since he hasn't come for the guns yet, you know he's up to something.
     Reports surfaced that the Military is conducting training exercises for urban warfare and crowd control on American soil. http://patdollard.com/2012/01/election-2012-military-begins-training-for-domestic-urban-warfare-anticipated-in-the-near-future/ At the same time local police had their hands full corralling OWS protesters, as civil unrest got re-energized in the Wisconsin recall elections. If any two protest groups merge there would be problems for police. Following this Homeland security amassed a military sized amount of ammunition http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/news/31247765_1_atk-rounds-bullet.
     The Bush era Fast and Furious program opened the Nations eyes to the threat of automatic weapons, by showing the viscous aftermath of cartel killings in Mexico. Followed by the stories of the Governments failed gun plan. The news show's structure is supposed to stimulate your fears, and reinforce the notions that guns have to go.
      The theater killer, local mass murderer equipped with what, automatic weapons. Furthering the discussions of tougher gun regulations, the first steps towards trampling our second amendment rights. It's all a plan, allowing him to transform your America with his uppity European, socialist agenda. And with no guns we could do nothing to stop it. So that's the conspiracy in a nutshell. Now go and speculate with the rest of them. All of these stories have been widely reported, choose what you want to believe, but remember the truth may not be out there. Even if the Military would turn on their guns on mass groups of American citizens ( I think they wouldn't). Would the gun owners of America really be able to stand up to to the strongest Army in the world, hell, even the National guard might put up a good fight against untrained armed citizens. Who knows, one thing is abundantly un-clear Obama might be coming for your guns, and that defines your freedom somehow.

Red Meat and Dog Whistles, the new Bi

     Dog whistles, code words, and the infamous gaffe. When will it just become a proven fact that all of these overtly related instances are evidence. Evidence of a collective understanding by half of the country that Obama doesn't belong in office, solely based on his genetics. Really, who doesn't understand the Anglo relationship between Europe and the U.S. It's the basis of public elementary school American history. If a Constitutional Law Professor doesn't get it who does?
     Culturally, we don't like fence riders, and flip floppers. So if the tabu subject of historical guilt doesn't allow one to accept a black president, for fear that he might offset the inequities established in the last 147 years since slavery to the detriment of white society, then own it. Embrace it, shout it from the mountain top, just be a man, or a woman, and put your name on it. The time for innuendos is past. Society craves clarity, and transparency. Obama has shown to be no saint, nor do we expect the worlds problems to be solved by the institution that created them Govt.
     The problem with dog whistle politics is that the racial innuendos and code words, woven into general conversation somehow limits high level complaints to the level of the original statement. Elected officials constantly make statements birthed from the southern strategy, arguably, but not overtly racist, and the pundits call it red meat. Oh, the base wants it's red meat, it's what they came for. We all know it's racist but short of the n-word it's all fair game.
     Racist politicians are like Bi-sexual guys, if you're a guy who likes girls and guys, you're not bi you're just gay.(It's all good, and you deserve the rights everyone else gets, it's still kind of gay). In that respect, throwing around racist code words, and calling it red meat doesn't make you some creative southern strategist it makes you racist. We all know it. But when is the last time someone in office was labeled racist.  

Fast Furious Failure

    There's been a lot of talk about this Fast and Furious program, but the facts get lost in all of the posturing. It was started under the Bush Administration, and when Holder realized it's failings and moronic premise he moved to shut it down. Since then Holder has appeared before at least eight congressional panels after a border patrol agent was killed. He presented thousands of documents on the program. So now the information Congress wants is the correspondence after the program was dissolved, to search for any kind of cover up.
     The reason this wasn't pursued earlier is because the GOP wants to attach an Obama attack on second amendment rights. Using  logic that suggests  that the crimes committed using assault rifles from this program are so egregious that some new level of gun control would have to be proposed, and private citizens guns would be taken. All of the controversy was born from the mind of a right wing blogger and Fox News Contributor. Aside from the baseless 2nd amendment claims, there is no legal consequence for Holder as he is the Atty. General and won't prosecute himself.
     The real harm is to the agents that would be exposed if the requested documents are released, that will certainly put their lives in jeopardy. So if the Administration releases the papers they risk the agents, and if they don't and go with executive privilege they give the impression that they are hiding something. Obama chose to take the hit to his reputation and protect the agents that would be exposed. For the GOP the added bonus is that the controversy, though baseless, tarnishes Holders reputation to the point that his name has to be off of the short list for the next Supreme Court Justice, whom the next POTUS will definitely choose  if not more.
     Holders actions to stop rampant voter discrimination sealed his fate as a top GOP target in their 2012 smear campaign. Knowing his family's instrumental role in the Civil Rights movement, he no doubt has been labeled radical. So as it stands for the Republicans, the loss of agents lives, acceptable damages, suppressing testimony from credible witness, all part of a days work. Are there no depths to low for the GOP to reach for.

Don't I know you from somewhere?

     If someone told you there was a gang of men who terrorized the country, who have chosen to remain unknown, with the goal of dismantling the system that allows those with lesser voices to be heard on a larger platform. And although nameless and faceless their ranks stretch across the Nation, working united to turn back the crumbling hands of time and progress. Sound familiar? Only these marauders aren't hidden by hoods, or the dark of a southern summers night sky. They hide behind the Supreme Court and it's Citizens United judgement.
     The similarities are eerily familiar to our recent past. No name homegrown terrorists intimidating voters from exercising their constitutional right. Threatening bodily harm, and delivering on those promises. This time it's a voter purge, billed as a measure to stop voter fraud, though preemptive because no major or minor cases of voter fraud inspired this movement. These days bodily harm is reduced, with exception to the stand your ground laws. These same unknown villains committed undisclosed resources to eliminate the blue collar Union voice, the only unit large enough to stand up to these National terrorists.
     Instead of eliminating the leaders of grass roots movements like before, now they effectively work to kill the whole lawn. So who are these freedom killers?  It had to get hot under those white hoods. So they removed their trademark, and somehow remained invisible. We still don't know who they are, and legally we have no right to know.
     This is no coincidence, it's the same old plan. It's why soldiers destroy ports, roads, and bridges in the early stages of war. If half of the troops can't get to the fight, the better your chances of winning the war. Our amount of available information makes it harder for a less desirable elected official to hide behind lies. The only way to keep officials in office that don't respect the will of the people, is to silence enough of the voice of the collective people to win a numbers game.  And clearly that's the path we seem to be on.

Zombie invasion: Coming to a town near you.

     Does the Govt. use TV and movies to familiarize the public with future dilemmas. Does propaganda desensitize the public at large to events that are unexplained, or threatens the infrastructure of control that the Government possesses. You don't need to be a skeptic to realize that when the Govt. goes out of it's way to downplay an event or questionable occurrence, or says there is nothing to worry about, it's probably time to start worrying. After Roswell when a metallic craft crashed, with parts never seen before, the news published eye witness accounts in the local paper. The following day the Military came changed the reports and described the crash as a weather balloon, even though the new story contradicted the eye witness accounts.
     The so called balloon was then dismantled and loaded into many boxes, and taken to an undisclosed location. The usual nothing to see here was repeated. Even though a balloon was put into many boxes. As the reports show, top scientists were brought in to reverse engineer the foreign technology, they contained some names that would become very prominent. Soon after the head of what would become Motorolla would invent a way of wireless communication that enabled us to communicate with astronauts in orbit, even on the Moon. All of the recordings from moon landings were made possible by Motorolla. Also scientists who would design Concord Airplanes took the world from propeller planes and primitive jets to routinely breaking the sound barrier, a huge milestone. That's a lot to gather from a balloon. There are more than a handful of these events, but if the Military says no worries, then no worries right.
     Their newest claim is, there's no need to worry about zombies. 18 minutes of recorded face eating, no worries. 2 women eat live babies, coincidence. A guy throws his guts at arresting officers, bad drugs...really, drugs. The CDC gave it's official statement, don't worry. I was fine til that now i'm worried. They actually referenced Zombies. There's not even a such thing as zombies right? Brain parasites maybe, remember all the netty- pot brain infections, or the kids that got parasites from swimming in stagnant water. Birds fall from the sky, fish, whales and dolphins washing up on shore dead. Is it the water? Chemically treated clouds bring rain to Dubai and China. We all are paying the price but if the Government says don't worry, then I guess i'll move on nothing to see here, only the zombie apocalypse. All zombies don't rise from the dead. Some are created through infection. So maybe that's why Homeland Security bought all of that ammo.

What does good ol' boy even mean.

     I've been listening to ESPN radio leading up to the US Open. The hype regarding the threesome including Tiger, Bubba Watson and Phil Mickelson was just what the PGA and ESPN (which airs the event) needed. With Tiger winning 3 of his last 5 tournaments, the PGA has to be hoping it's cash cow has returned, and they're doing a good job of selling that. While listening to Amy Lawerence, one of ESPN radio's hosts it became clear just how they wanted this thing marketed.
     This all star trio is a reflection of Golf, and it's place in America today. The way she spoke of Bubba Watson told the whole story. He's a good ol' boy from Florida,went to college in Georgia, helped win the SEC title, and never had a lesson, he just goes out and plays hard. Then they play a clip of Watson joking about Tiger being to big to follow guys like him on twitter. Innocent enough, but I wonder, why aren't Tiger and Phil good ol' boys. What does she even think good ol' boys means. They aren't saying this is some good ol' boy threesome. Is Phil part of the elite because he is covered in corporate logos. Is it because he is one of the higher paid, premier names in the game. Phil is the1%. The most compelling story line is the everyman vs. the big bad 1%. Aside from the fact nobody's calling Tiger boy after Fuzzy Zoeller did, and never heard the end of it. You kind of have to fit in to be one of the ol' boys and Tiger just doesn't .
    It's the GOP southern strategy PGA style. You want to beat Phil because he thinks he's better than you, and he's trying to take all of your money. He looks like you, but he's not like you. Probably even took golf lessons. Tiger is the other other. He's done more for golf than anyone since the Ming Dynasty. The only thing louder than the cheers as he fell, were the tears that fell when it was truly understood that golfs fate and his were connected. His recent surge makes golfs relevancy visible but distant. Nothing a little suggestive marketing can't help. Its what golf has always had, and wanted to keep. The PGA thinks its ora of exclusivity makes it special, it openly looks for the next Tiger while the real Tiger is winning, because the real Tiger doesn't fit.
     So the pressure is on Bubba, like Rory Mcilroy or Luke Donald, all once the next Tiger, all missed the cut. But the marketing, it worked, I watched and enjoyed it. Tiger is tied for first. Guys like Hootie Johnson still run golf, ESPN plays games with race, nothing new.

Will somebody please connect the dots. .. ..

     How does one of the biggest shams in all of politics go largely unnoticed. This week the GOP presented it's Republican women's policy committee in Congress, to show their solidarity with women. As long as they don't adjust policy positions that don't support women's interests. It's really no different than running Sarah Palin for VP as a quick grab for women's votes. The same as allowing Michael Steele to head the DNC as a response to Obama being a black first, they needed a black first. Or now suggesting Marco Rubio as VP to lure the Hispanic vote. As if Hispanics don't know what he really stands for.
     They are all poor attempts at seeming like a party in the midst of a shift towards inclusion, but in reality the policies tell a different story. Rather than a boring recap of bad policy, I really wonder what the GOP sees in the average American citizen. What leads them to believe that they can promote policy against a particular group, then trot out a Republican member of that group to give the impression that they feel their pain or support their needs. At the same time implementing contrary to their cause laws that aim to slow that groups progress.
     In any other instance in life, a blatant attempt at false advertising would immediately be called out, and the perpetrator would get no support. In this case, the GOP does it with every group and it is largely ignored. Is it because we know politicians are corrupt, and we accept the lies as just part of the game. It's ok because it's expected. Is that what it's come to?
     Sadder still there's no end in sight. It's a winning strategy. They win elections, and not just with votes from those who benefit from their policies, they get support from all groups across the board. Sure talking heads do their spots on pandering politicians, and inevitably someone says, it goes on constantly with both sides being guilty. That may be true, but nobody has it mastered like the Grand Old Party, and nobody separates the dots like the mainstream media. If the groups the Republicans pander to would unite under the cause of being nobody's fool, the wool pullers wouldn't have the power. Until then, they will continue with the wooden nickels, and we'll continue to be the fools who look to cash them in.

Would an Obama loss Re-reshape Mainstream Media

     If Obama never became President, one thing would definitely be true. Cable News would be a lot less diverse than some would say it already is. Aside from being as close to a monopoly as possible, with predictable leanings and scripted talking points, one thing remains a fact. Since 08' more brown cable anchors began showing up on TV.

     I'm sure the Networks would say, it shows the American people that their stations were ready to have staff who better understand the social change to come due to the historic nature of the election, or maybe offer some new perspective on political issues since they lived the minority experience. All kind of meaningless because the news is scripted. So its just to put hosts on air who people feel comfortable looking at, and the more diverse the audience, so goes the hosts.

     The real change though isn't the hosts, its the guests. Since 08' the amount of young black professors we see discussing daily political issues, or current events is staggering. Melissa Harris Perry even got her own show where she introduces us to even more of black academia. Yet this phenomenon begs one question. If McCain was elected would we know Melissa Harris Perry,  Michael Eric Dyson or Marc Lamont Hill? I could fill a page with the names of smart Black professors from prestigious schools around the Country, some more recognizable than others, but none would have remotely become household names without POTUS.

    That's the problem, did these people spontaneously materialize on election day. These are professors from Tulane, Georgetown, and Colombia University, respectively. I'm pretty sure they were smart prior to the Obama Administration. Even putting intellectual perspective and experience aside, the image these people project that you can be a young, cool, urban influenced intellectual is needed in society. With all I've learned from Dr. Cornell West, he looks like a guy who should be teaching you something. This younger crop bridges the gap, and should be the new faces in our much needed public role model category.Only time will tell but, if Obama looses this next election we'll see if cable news continues to see the value of the black academic perspective, or if this handful of role model scholars vanishes as quickly as we were introduced to them.

   

     

Do you have a better plan? The move for unity.

    There seems to be a general problem anytime someone tries to do something different to bring about some sort of change. Inevitably more people tell you it won't work with no reason why, than people who say they support the effort your putting out. Hundreds of people have read my post about No McDonalds in October and the overwhelming response has been, why would hurting McDonalds be ok to advance the cause of people of color. Now I think I  laid it out pretty well in the first post, http://buildbackwards.blogspot.com/2012/04/no-mcdonalds-in-october.html but people see things differently.
     Most people see the amount of money McDonalds makes from the black community and that's all they see. Once again there's no way to measure where the money would be spent if we retained the over 400 million dollars in one month as a community. The suggestion would be to spend the money at local businesses, but the purpose is to come together, and enact some sense of measurable change as a group. Clearly the powers that be are working to diminish our rights. The fact that we have a President of color, and the efforts are still to shift laws and ideals back to a time where minority rights are limited necessitates us coming together as a block. To protect what symbolism of rights we do have.
     The President can't protect you. The best case for strength we have is in our numbers, but as a community we have been fractured for so long that its the norm. So how do we come together? The amount of people who don't participate in things because they say other people won't is staggering. A unified act of any kind Political or Economic justifies the group be taken seriously. So simply put a one month ban on McDonalds is not to hurt McDonalds, its to learn to come together as a group for common causes. McDonalds gets 18% of its revenue from 13% of the people 5.2 Billion per yr. McDonalds also heavily promotes it's 365 program that targets underprivileged areas and people of color, they rebuild playgrounds and offer scholarships to many needy people. Having said that, one would expect that McDonalds would be all for the community it works to help using any legal means available to better its self, for the good of all of society. If not they do all the other stuff because we buy the product at rates higher than our population percentage. And they're playing us.
    To offset the cost, McDonalds could limit black advertising for as long as it takes. People will still eat there with a few less commercials. I wonder if people really don't want to hurt McDonalds or just enjoy having something to complain about. To unify would mean everybody would have to do their part, and it seems as I have recently been told some people just enjoy being sheep. For too many the idea of sacrifice is something that's inherently difficult. In this case all you have to do is spread the word  through social media and don't eat McDonalds in October. The show of unity will speak for it's self.