Monday, November 28, 2011

In response 11-28-2011

Get your facts straight about Roosevelt:

"....The first thing to consider is that FDR was nothing if not a pragmatist. He spent much of his early career going after the abuses of Tammany Democrats, who were almost as corrupt as Republicans today. But when it came time to run for Governor of New York, and then President, he embraced Tammany in order to win election. In other words, FDR knew that the only way to get things done was to get elected to the office, and the only way to get elected is to appeal to as many people as possible. Sometimes, a candidate has to embrace points of view you don’t always agree with. That doesn’t mean you’re adopting their views; it means that you’re flexible, and willing to try to build a consensus...."

"....During his run against Hoover for president, FDR took what some progressives might find to be surprising positions. One of his main complaints against Hoover in the 1932 campaign was the Republican's “huge budget deficits.” Given that most latter-day progressives, myself included, would like to see more stimulus to get us out of our current economic mess, which is not nearly as dire as FDR faced when he was running, doesn’t it seem strange that a presidential candidate who is seen as a “liberal icon” of sorts by today’s progressives, complained about budget deficits when more than a quarter of the population was unemployed? That sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat, doesn't it?....."

".....Even if you don’t think his railing about deficits during a depression disqualifies him from “good progressive” status on its own, you should know that Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic platform in 1932, which, among other things called for "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," (huge spending cuts), the abolishment of "useless commissions and offices” and the "[consolidation] of departments and bureaus (small government) and “eliminating extravagances" (again, huge spending cuts). He also campaigned on a balanced budget, although he fell short of calling for an amendment to the Constitution....."


In other words, the socialists and liberals of that day hated on FDR more so than you're hating on Obama.

So "Occupy", let me get this straight,....

John Lewis, Black Civil Rights icon, Wallenburg Medal recipient, and champion of civil and human rights all over the not allowed to speak AT your events...


Glenn Greenwald, Libertarian who lives part time in Brazil, and who infamously defended White Supremacist Matthew allowed to speak FOR the movement?

...and you wonder why you have trouble attracting African Americans?

Sunday, November 27, 2011

In response 11-27-2011

"....Plants, of all things that really bother me about the Obama loyalist, the thing that bothers me the most is their tendency to smear people they disagree with, and their affinity for demagoguery in their writings and commentary. When I went and viewed some of the extremely bias commentary/ragings of this Obama loyalist who refers to herself as "Angry Black Lady" , I told myself that I couldn't imagine any reasonably intelligent person using her as a source for anything....."

Imani Gandy (aka Angry Black Lady) is an accomplished lawyer from Los Angeles. If ever there was a debate between her and Yvette Carnell, she'd run circles around Yvette. And since you haven't been paying attention, the "source" Naomi linked to was debunked two weeks ago. So was Naomi willfully spreading debunked information?

"...Even a prestigious, usually reasonable-minded professor like Melissa Perry-Harris degenerated into her own brand of mudslinging when she tried to pre-accuse White Liberals of racism with her "Obama is as competent as a Clinton" piece in "The Nation"; she, a political scientist by nature, glossed over so many significant facts in order to smear, bully and guilt White Liberals in a very slimy way. It was embarrassing...."

Not nearly as embarrassing as so-called black liberals playing house niggers for the white liberal elite. You'd think people like you, Yvette, Commie Ford, and a whole slew of blacks from the "so-called left" would welcome a debate on this subject even if you don't agree with the premise.

".....I find it interesting that Obama loyalist so cavalierly use underhanded tactics against people they strongly disagree with about the President, yet, they are the very first to rant, scream and moan when places like Fox News, right-wing blogs and right-wing talk radio use these tactics against the President. it seems with them (the Obama loyalist), very little is about decency or respect or how things are done, and everything is about shilling for the President in every way imaginable--even if it includes dirty tactics....."

Project much, kid? Remember this all started with the tweet from one percenter Michael Moore.

Friday, November 25, 2011

In response 11-25-2011

In response to Lavarrock:

".....These are demands that are currently being voting on democratically by the people as opposed to in backroom deals with corporations....."

CORRECTION: These are "demands" being voted on FOR the masses by a select privileged few in the lobby of the Deutshce Bank Building (60 Wall Street). But at least you're admitting that after damn near 3 months, there's still no cohesive demand structure that average people can rally behind.

"....Occupy actions are taking place in over 100 US cities. Which is quite impressive for a young, growing movement...."

Significantly big drop from the 2000 number you threw out there, isn't it? Now how many are those cities are in Red States? Find that out for me.

"....Even if the movement wasn’t popular it wouldn’t make any difference. The Civil Rights movement was extremely unpopular in America when it arose...."

The only similarity between the Civil Rights movement and "Occupy" is that they stated getting press coverage when brutality started to happen and sympathy was gained. All the "support" Occupy enjoyed was majorly based on sympathy to their "cause"

The biggest differences (and the key factors) between the Civil Rights Movement is that people knew exactly what they were fighting for.

They had leaders (or at least credible representatives).

And MOST IMPORTANTLY........they worked with the politicians in Washington at the time.

"....The mere fact that Obama and the democrats are trying to co-opt the movement as much as the Republicans did the Tea Party shows just how worried they are....."

And now Tea Partiers have pull and influence in Washington today. You have a problem with Occupiers having that same sort of pull and influence.....why exactly?

"....Switching to a credit union and fraudulent bank charges were some of the things OWS has been preaching since day one....."

Then you need to have a talk with Congressman Brad Miller, who seems to deserve a little more credit than OWS on this:

"....After BofA announced the fees, Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) introduced legislation urging consumers to move their deposits from BofA to smaller, more consumer-friendly institutions. Miller's move, not surprisingly, prompted outrage from big banks. "Great, now we have a member of Congress encouraging a run on a major U.S. bank," one bank lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said at the time....." LINK

And by your own logic, the president deserves, at least, as much credit as OWS on the debit card issue.

(YES, I'm using HuffPost since you like it so much) ;)

"...Also, considering that JP Morgan donated 4.2 million to the NYPD and then a couple hours later the NYPD arrested 400 protesters proves that they are obviously influencing someone...."

Assuming that's true, how does that prove that OWS had any significant influence on BofA changing their minds on the $5 debit card fee?

"...Read the actual article. Not just the title...."

I did read it, and from what I gather Van Jones' only crime is that he's a democrat, he supports the president, and he wants people to vote. In other words, he's like tens of million of people in this country. Tens of million of people who evidently can't join the little social club that is the Occupy movement. If that's the case, they don't represent 99% of anybody

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Bring in G. Fordy and you'll have a trio

To Tavis and Cornel

make it happen guys

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Obama represents the Destruction of The B.R.A.B.A.N. Mentality

This is for people who need an education as to why the Obama presidency, whether you approve of him or not, has changed African America for the better.

Over at Jack and Jill Politics, I get into numerous heated clashes with certain posters who claim to be strong critics of President Obama. One poster in particular, who goes by the moniker dthomas_85, not only doesn't like President Obama, he doesn't like the fact that 90% of African Americans support him. He calls it an "irrational devotion to the president". When I asked him to clarify this, his response was:

"....Black people's desperate need to "belong" to, and have more power in the White Power Stucture in America; a black man gaining the White House fufills these collective needs in way we have never seen before....."

The thing that seems to escape dthomas is that Black people aren't getting "emotionally attached" to an individual (see O.J. Simpson as an example), but rather a high concept. A big picture.

Sherri Shepard of The View says it best here:

However, the idea that dthomas, even after 27 months since November 4th, 2008, still lacks any clue as to why a majority of African Americans support President not important at this time.

What is important is the mentality behind his above statement. It's a mentality I've seen my whole life of 38 years. It's a mentality that permeates the Black community, in particularly our young men and women, that guises itself as independent thought. In reality, however, it's nothing more than a branch off of what I call the BRABAN Mentality.



The most famous BRABAN moment is MalcolmX talking about when his grade school teacher told him to " realistic about being a nigger, and give up trying to be a lawyer and get a job doing something with your hands. Like a garbage man, because that's a respectable job for a nigger". This of course led to Malcolm being a train porter, a criminal, a pimp, and eventually a convicted felon. It was in prison where he was introduced to his second BRABAN talk and became a disciple of Elijah Muhammad. Only after his pilgrimage to Mecca did he discover that every "truth" he ever believed or was told was from the prism of someone else's ideology. He learned that the world was not as black and white as he was led to believe.

There are 40 million African Americans in the US, and you can be damn sure the 99.99% of them have received or will receive the BRABAN talk. It will either come from your parents, your peers, or your mentors, and it tends to come in different varieties:

"Black people don't do this, you need to do this"

"Why you sound like a white boy/girl"

"You're not good enough to do this"

"You're not smart enough to do that"

"Boy/Girl, you're dreaming. You need to get you a REAL job"

Basically, if it's not sports or music, you not being realistic.

In modern day Black society, the BRABAN mentality mutates itself into the guise of "Black Pride" and "Black Empowerment". In reality, it's telling you how a black man/woman should think and act, and to reject and persecute anything and anyone that is even a remote deviation of the ideal image.

Which brings me back to dthomas' comment above:

"....Black people's desperate need to "belong" to, and have more power in the White Power Stucture in America; a black man gaining the White House fufills these collective needs in way we have never seen before....."

It reminds me of the episode of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air entitled "Blood is Thicker than Mud". Will and Carlton are trying to pledge a black fraternity. However one of the "head brothers" takes an instant disliking to Carlton because he didn't fit the image of what he though a black man should be. But rather than just tell Carlton he didn't want him in the fraternity, the "head brother" decides it would be funny to make Carlton go through some extra hazing with no intentions on letting him join the fraternity. In other words, he felt he needed to "punish" Carlton for being who he was.

It should be noted at this point that one of dthomas' mentors of Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report, who admittedly has hated Obama since his introduction on the world stage in 2004. Ford "listened" to Obama keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention and concluded that Obama did not like black people. Never mind that Obama has a Black wife and Black children. In Glen's eyes, Obama is the antithesis of what a black man should be, so therefore he should be "punished".

Glen Ford is a textbook example of when the BRABAN Mentality mixes with envy and personal regret. It forms the infamous "Crabs in a Bucket" aka Bucket Crab Mentality that the Black community is often described with.

This clip from The Boondocks is a uniquely accurate description of the Bucket Crab Mentality:

Bottom line, the BRABAN Mentality is all about limitations. It has been these limitations, the stifling of dreaming big, that has been a lead blanket on the Black community for over a century. Obama becoming President of the United States, to the vast majority of African American, represent the destruction of those limitations. That yes, it's okay to pursue the American dream, because we are, whether some people admit it or not, just as American as any white person.

To go back to that Fresh Prince episode, Carlton ends up educating the head brother that "black is not something I'm trying to be, it's what I am." The head brother ends up looking like a douche, and the other brothers vow to kick him out of the fraternity.

The episode ends with Uncle Phil, after finding out what happened saying the following line:

"....When are we going to stop doing this to ourselves?"

When indeed.