Sunday, June 19, 2011

Field Negro Targets "Color-Arousal" and "Color-Aroused" Behavior

Field Negro (AKA Wayne Bennett), recently cited by the Washington Post's "The Root" Black blog as among "Thirty Black Bloggers You Should Know," is informing the Black public about "color-arousal" and "color-aroused" ideation, emotion and behavior. 

On June 15, he wrote, for example:
For all of you wondering how much the wingnuts and the folks in the GOP will play on white folks "color arousal" issues this upcoming election season, please note that it has already started.
He was referring to the above YouTube video, using blatant color arousing imagery, whose voice over says,
To reduce gang violence, Janice Hahn [California candidate for the US House] hired hard-core gang members with tax-payer money to be "gang intervention specialists."  She even helped them get out of jail, so they could rape and kill again.  Congress has enough gangsters.  Janice Hahn.  Bad for LA.  Bad for America.
Then Black men in ghetto garb sing,
Give me your cash!  Bit so we can shoot up the street!  Give me your cash, girl so we can buy some more wheat
The Urban Dictionary confirms my immediate suspicion that "wheat" is slang for "marijuana."

The Republican candidate says, in essence the ad is not "racist" but is admittedly color-aroused.  

Meanwhile, the advertisement shows vulgar images of a white woman candidate consorting with what it presents as the prison and pre-prison population, with a white woman's barely covered ass shaking in front of a stripper's polc, while Black men put money in her skimpy tights.

Janice Hahn seems to have the support of virtually everyone who is anyone among Democrats, so the video appears to be an act of desperation.  However, Congressional District 36 is only 7% Black, 14% Asian, 29% Hispanic, 49% White, so the promoters of the YouTube video are not concerned about offending Black voters.

However, the District gave 60% of its vote to Obama in 2008, so it seems just as likely that this video will offend white voters as attract them.  The Republicans hope for a heavier color-aroused antagonist white turnout as a result of this dog-whistle anti-Black hatred YouTube video.

As for the video, here are the color-aroused and antagonistic stereotypes, in order of appearance:
  • That Black men desperately want sex with white women and see them strictly as sex objects (the black booty tights and the stripper's pole and the money in the tights in exchange for sexual behavior;
  • That white men are at risk of losing white women to Black men and therefore Black men present a profound threat, even when we are doing nothing illegal, and have no intention of doing anything illegal;
  • That donations to the white woman candidate are effectively supporting the lurid and emotionally color-arousing behavior seen in the video;
  • That white people's precious tax dollars are being paid to reprehensible Black men gang-bangers;
  • That Black men are all gang-bangers who do not deserve any representation in Congress;
  • That Black men and machine guns are synonymous and so Black men present a threat to our very lives.
  • That addressing the issue of the color-aroused antagonistic prison-industrial complex is not a worthy goal for a Congressperson;
  • That Black men are inherently criminal and incorrigible. 
Klan Master David Duke could have made a more color-arousing presentation, but the question is whether such ugly and vile characterizations both of the white woman candidate and of Black men will rally white voters or nauseate and alienate them.
    In another article, Field Negro says:
    There are no bigger race baiters in the news business than the folks over at FOX. There is good money in scaring those red state folks about the black "boogeyman" around every corner. That color arousal (thanks for the word Francis) will stir their passions every time.
    As Field Negro says, "color arousal" is about using skin color to "stir passions".  We all know that white people (and Black people) have come to experience intense emotions (fear, anger, rage, resentment, envy, jealousy) when we are presented (or confronted) with skin color-associated verbal or physical presentations and advertisements (speech), ideation (thoughts) and behavior (verbal or physical acts).

    Since politicians know just how powerful these skin-color-cues (calls to thoughts, emotions and action) can be, precisely because they are so ancient and well-worn into our society, starting during slavery and continuing in the mainstream media through the present, therefore white politicians often try to use antagonistic color-arousal "cues" to their political benefit.  These messages send a potent message against Black people just by reminding white people of what they already fear and believe.

    These messages also endeavor to demoralize and dehumanize Black people and hurt our self-esteem and identities, trying with force of their will and societal power to turn us into the very kind of people they say they so despise.  

    However, some white people are tired of being manipulated in this way and so they vote for candidates like President Obama and AGAINST the white candidate precisely because the white candidate is trying to "arouse" and manipulate people using skin color-cues and stereotypes.

    Is the above YouTube video "racist."  Please forget about that paleolithic "racism" nonsense.  Ask yourself, "Does the ad intend to arouse ideation, emotion and voting behavior based on skin color?"  Obviously it does.  Case closed, as my friend African American Pundit as well as Sojourners Place would say.

    Unfortunately, too many Black people use the jargon of "racism" and "racists" that let's color-aroused white antagonists off the hook.  These Blacks will jump into the public forum to claim that the producers of the above video are "racists."  However, to prove what someone "is," you have to demonstrate that they have engaged in the same type of behavior over a period of months or years.

    No one is sure how many acts of color-aroused antagonism are required in order to declare that someone is a "racist."  Likewise, no one is sure how much anti-Black stereotyping and negative images are necessary to declare and prove that a video is "racist."  And, once having determined, based on more evidence that should ever be gathered in any case, that a person "is a racist," then it remains unclear what to do about it, if anything.  It is obviously far easier to change people's behavior than to change what they "are."  When you say someone "is a racist," you are effectively saying that they should be punished for what they are instead of for what they did.

    It is far easier to ask whether this advertisement shows color-aroused ideation (Black men are the primary characters in this video) and the the voice over specifically presents assertions about gang-bangers, rape and murder while showing Black men's faces.  Using skin-color to send a message is color-arousing, even if it only happens once.

    As lawyers, Field and I know that when you increase the burden of proof, you reduce the likelihood of a conviction. When we have to prove that a person "is a racist" before we confront a specific act of color-aroused antagonism, we set our burden of proof far too high, and much higher than white people set the burden of proof for criminal and civil convictions in general.

    For example, imagine rape statutes required proof that a man had raped several women over a period of time and therefore he is a "rapist."  If he "only" demonstrably raped one woman, then we could not punish him for being "a rapist" and he would go free.  By analogy, insisting that multiple and repeated acts of "racism" are necessary to prove that someone is a "racist" and deserves punishment is an absurdly high burden.

    In our society, we don't decide what someone "is." We decide what someone did.  If they are convicted for what they did, then they have earned the name associated with the crime they committed.  For example, when a man is convicted of ONE act of rape, then he is a "convicted rapist."   He is a rapist.

    When we assert that someone is a "racist," we put the car before the horse.  The question is, 'Did this person commit one act of color-aroused antagonism?'  If they did, then they have shown that, in that instance, they were a color-aroused antagonist.

    Here's another critical question about the burden of proof.  If instead of proving that a person committed a rape, you had to prove that he "is a rapist," then how many rapes would he have to commit before he could be punished or at least receive state intervention?  Would we have to prove that he committed six or eight rapes, before concluding that he is a rapist and should go to jail?
    Well, how many instances of rape individual instances of rape must be proved to prove that an individual "is a rapist?"

    White people resolve this issue by charging people with having committed, in ONE instance, an action that is illegal. If the person is convicted of ONE act of murder, then he is a murderer by definition, and for all time.

    So, why should we Blacks have to prove several or hundreds of acts of color-aroused antagonistic behavior?  It's because we assert that a person "is a racist" instead of asserting that they committed an ONE act of color-aroused antagonism.

    Instead, we should be focusing on the question, "Did this person commit ONE physical act or speech act that was color-aroused and antagonistic?   If the act of speech or behavior was color-aroused and antagonistic, then the person has engaged in one act of color-aroused antagonism, which is unacceptable.

    Here's an analogy: Imagine a rape statute that says that rape is "involuntary penetration with pregnancy resulting." Most rapes could not be prosecuted under that statute.  The burden of proof is too high, because it includes "with pregnancy resulting."  So, why would we increase the burden of proof by inserting "with pregnancy resulting" in the criminal statute?  The answer is that we never would include such a clause that heightened the burden of proof to the point where virtually no one could be convicted of rape.  Rapists could wear condoms and rape women all day long.

    When we try to prove that a person "is a racist," we have to prove a series of color-aroused antagonistic acts over an undefinite period of time. That burden of a series of acts is like is like the "with pregnancy resulting" burden of proof for rape.  When Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama got where he is because he is Black, who has the time to look for a series of such acts in her past before confronting her about what she has said today?  The burden of proof is too high.

    The question should always be, has the individual committed ONE (or more) act(s) of color-aroused antagonism in this particular instance?

    How many rapes do you have to commit to be a rapist? Isn't a conviction on one rape count enough? In our system it is. If you are convicted of ONE rape then you are a "convicted rapist."

    This is how our system of justice works in the United States. The question in criminal courts, except in complex cases, is "did the person commit each the crime on ONE occasion?  If so, the person is convicted.

    Let's stop trying to figure who who "is a racist" and focus on the question, "Has Sam committed an act of color-aroused antagonism today?"

    Latinos and Blacks Could Stay Home in 2012 Presidential Election

    Cross-filched from African American Pundit, comments and all.

    Are Latinos and Blacks Being Taken for Granted
    in Terms of Our Substantive Issues?

    Just finished reading an article in WaPo about Latinos' voters and how Hispanics loom as key bloc for Obama.

    The article notes how Hispanics were in love with Obama when he was elected — even more than other demographics — but they moved towards Republicans a little in 2010. They’ve also shown a willingness to vote for the right kind of Republican, as George W. Bush was able to take 45 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.

    They will be very important to Obama for two reasons.
    One: They don’t view him nearly as favorably as they used to.
    And two: They are entirely willing to stay home.

    AAP says: "The President should also be concerned about black voters for two reasons as well.

    One: The folks are hurting, African Americans have double the jobless rate of whites and the Obama administration has failed to support National Urban league plans to address the urban unemployment crisis.

    Take for example, the recent Clarence Lusane article in the Huffington Post highlighting how joblessness continues to rise -- above 16.5% among blacks, as opposed to 8% amongst whites -- housing foreclosures devastate black families, and criminal justice practices continue to disintegrate black family structures and prosperity, black America is openly struggling against a potentially historic social and economic collapse during the very time that the first black president is in office.

    As Clarence notes, "There seems to be little doubt, at least as Obama's first term comes to an end, that African Americans will have fared worse than when he came into office. For Obama's opponents, black and otherwise, that data will be the central theme for judging his administration." Two:  Black folks like Latinos are entirely willing to stay home," if they have a home.


    Francis L. Holland said...
    I would expect lower turn-out for Obama, except for one factor that we haven't seen mature yet: ugly color-aroused campaigning by the Republican Party and their surrogates. Just as Hillary Clinton's color-arousing campaigning and that of her surrogates pushed Blacks into supporting Obama, the same will happen in 2012. White candidates will have their "macaca moments," embarrassing those voters who had intended to support the white Republican candidate. A vote against the alternative is never as enthusiastic or positive as a vote for the candidate of our choice. That's where Obama risks losing. His ability to win in states like Florida will depend on voter turnout. If he can get Blacks and Latinos to the polls, then he can win. If we're busted and disgusted, then he loses. Obama still has great popularity among Blacks, and may support him because he fought his way into a job that no Black person had held before. That counts for something, in the same way that ten cents counts toward the price of a hamburger at Burger King. I think we'd better just hope the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin. She's not in the race yet, but I'm sure she will be. I feel sure.
    Constructive Feedback said...
    [quote]ugly color-aroused campaigning by the Republican Party and their surrogates.[/quote] Mr Hollland: Is an "Ugly Color-Aroused Campaign by WHITE REPUBLICANS" functionally any better than a coordinated campaign between White Liberal Snarling Foxes who keep an eye on what their White Brothers are doing and keep pumping it into the CONSCIOUS AWARENESS of Black people (Media Matters) with the goal of promoting RACIAL DEFENSIVENESS upon Black people - so that we VOTE OUR "PERMANENT INTERESTS" but those interests are THE SURVIVAL INSTINCT rather than: * Quality Education * Safe Streets * Thriving Local Economies DON"T YOU SEE - the challenge IS NOT "Black People Staying Home" and not voting for OBAMA. The real threat is that yet another election cycle will be conducted in America and Black folks will be ensnared into the 'AMERICAN POLITICAL DOMAIN', investing our EQUAL BLACK BALLOTS into the process - while failing to develop our INTERNAL ORGANIC INSTITUTIONS FOR COMMUNITY UPLIFT. Our Community Consciousness is FUSED TO the "American Political Domain". Our biorhythm is linked to the Democratic Party's success. Unfortunately Mr Holland - even in the places where DEMOCRATS RUN EVERYTHING (Chicago and Philly - where your buddy Field lives) our FATE AS A PEOPLE is just as BAD. WHO should be held accountable for the HIJACKING OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS in ways that MALCOLM X WARNED US ABOUT? How Do You Get Black People To Do What You Want Them To?

    There's Black Political Power in Iowa

    Cross-filched from African American Pundit.

    Black Political Power in Iowa

    I'm not sure how many black folks are in Iowa or for that matter the state of Vermont but one thing is for sure unlike Vermont there is real black political power in Iowa. Oh, and Yes, Black people do live in Iowa. Infact a black woman is running for Mayor (again) in an Iowa city. You see, Lameta Wynn was first elected mayor in 1995 and was the first black woman elected mayor of an Iowa city. She served three terms until deciding not to seek re-election in 2007.

    LaMetta Wynn

    Wynn told a small group of supporters and family she had been asked by several residents, business leaders and city officials to seek a return to the mayor's office and said she was "humbled" by their support and encouragement. Congratulations to Lametta Wynn, and good luck on the election.
    Francis L. Holland said...
    Good for her! According to US Census Quick Facts, there are only 3.7% Black people in Iowa City, so LaMetta Wynn has surely shown white people that she is the best woman for the job. I wish her well.

    Mitt Romney Jokes about the Unemployed

    Cross-filched from African American Pundit.

    Mitt Romney got jokes: The Unemployed

    Multi-millionaire, Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney got jokes: The Unemployed

    After listening to a group of out-of-work Floridians tell their stories, Romney started this way: “I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed.”

    AAP says: Yes, Mitt Romney got jokes: The unemployed are a big joke to him. Read more HERE

    With All His Wars, It Must be Hell Being President Obama

    It must be hell to be President Obama, with a perceived responsibility to direct or at least manipulate and influence the so-called "democracy movements" in so many countries simultaneously.  I admit that I haven't researched any of these countries enough to provide convincing back-stories to the chaos that is breaking out all over the Middle East and North Africa.

    As African Americans, we certainly should be concerned that three countries--Tunisia, Libya and Egypt--are in some state of chaos as we speak, while the pink and purple revolutions driven by conservative US think tanks and facilitated by Facebook and Twitter are setting snowballs in motion, in the US' arrogant belief that chaos is better than the strong and stable leaders of the present.

    As CNN says,
    Nearly four months ago, longtime Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak finally yielded to political reality and stepped down from power. Mubarak's fall -- coming on the heels of the ouster of neighboring Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali -- was seen by many as part of a domino effect.
    The Arab world, it seemed, was finally on the brink of a peaceful democratic transition that had eluded the troubled region for generations. 

    Today, however, the promise of a peaceful Arab Spring appears to be yielding to the reality of a long, violent summer as dictators across the Middle East and North Africa draw a line in the sand and fight to maintain control of their countries.
    In fact, CNN has a round-up of the many "powder kegs" where CIA and neo-conservative "democracy movements" that are really just destabilization movements  are taking their tolls

    What in the world could ever have made conservative American think tanks and the Government believe that strong and well-established leaders in these countries would go without a fight?  Would President Obama leave office because NATO and the UN said he should?

    The truth is that, with the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing, it should have been obvious to all that dictatorial regimes maintained peace and order, while destroying these regimes in the absence of a clear alternative just leads to chaos and mass deaths, refugee movements and . . . chaos.

    And yet there are those neo-conservatives in Washington and Virginia who have been yearning for "regime change" in these countries for decades.  They seem finally to have gotten close to their wishes in a number of countries, but the CIA and Defense Department cannot control what fills the voids when these regimes are changed.  Before you ask your daughter to go change her clothes before she goes to a party, shouldn't you have some way to predict and influence what she changes into?  What if she changes a skimpy dress for a bra and panties?

    That's the problem the US is facing right now, from--let's look at the map--from Tunisia (in African) west to Pakistan and from Syria south to Yemen (in Africa).  Will all of these countries adopt western-style democracies, or will they end up like Iraq and Afghanistan:  failed states unable to control their borders and impossible to contain warring factions, some or all of which are supported financially and sometimes militarily by the US Government.

    When you consider that the very existence of the European Union is in doubt because of the world banking crisis whose architects hailed from the USA, and add that to chaos potentially throughout northern Africa and the Middle East, Obama may be creating an election strategy that he hasn't yet perceived:  turn the entire world into a war zone or an economic basket case, and then say:
    'I'm a "war president" and no one has faced (created) as many crises as I have, while successfully preventing them from reaching our borders.  The potential for regime change in every country that annoys us has never been better, but the challenges are so complex that there is no time for a governor with no foreign policy experience to get up to speed on all of this mayhem.
    There is a method to our map-changing madness, but I am the only candidate who knows what that method is.   Not everyone can play sixteen dimensional chess the way I can."
    I'm sure that's true.  People who have worked on far simpler political campaigns have felt more overwhelmed than the President does in the midst of all of this madness.  Obama is steady at the wheel, even when the wheel spins out of control.

    Meanwhile, the CIA and Defense Department know that the best result in all of these countries is for the competing factions to kill each other off entirely, so that the US can have unfettered access to all of the oil and other raw materials, with no local populations to get in the way.

    Who ever imagined that the US would go to war again Libya this year.  But it is!

    Who imagined that the US would be firing missiles into Pakistan?  But it is!

    Who imagined that Obama, who said he would have voted agains the war in Iraq, would nevertheless create and amplify more wars than George W. Bush?  But he has!

    I think I can see a way to support Obama for President in 2012.  Like it or not, President Obama has created, catalyzed and/or meddled in more intra-national and international wars than any other Black President in the history of the United States and even the history of the world.  That has to stand and be counted for something, even if nothing good comes of it.  At least it's one for the history books.

    Saturday, June 11, 2011

    Can Blacks Elect Two US Senators from Vermont?

    There's something missing from this article entitled, ". . .Alabama Set to be US Whitest  State, over at Rippa's blog.  What's missing is proof that Alabama is "about to become the nation's whitest state."US Census Quick Facts says that whites are 68.5 percent of Alabama, while Blacks are 26.2% and Latinos are 3.9%.

    I know the article title, "Alabama Set to Be Whitest State" is intended as an exaggerated criticism of the State of Alabama, but the assertion risks misleading and misinforming people, like foreigners, children and people who don't use US Census Quick Facts.

    The question of which state has more Black people is vitally important because it figures into the question of what state we should move to in order to become a majority and gain two Senators in the US Congress (instead of ZERO now), as well as gaining House seats, a governorship and many other elected officials in the one Black state in the United States of America.

    For example, if six hundred thousand voting age Black people moved to Vermont, Blacks would become the voting majority in Vermont and we would politically take over a state and its political apparatus and representation in Washington, with two Black US Senators from Vermont.

    Does this sound like a crazy idea?  If anyone can come up with a more reliable way of having two Black US Senators instead of none, then I am all ears.

    Quick Facts says there are approximately three million Black people in the state of New York.  On average 75% of the state of New York is of voting age, which would mean that there are about somewhere around 2,250,000 Blacks of voting age in the State of New York.

    If about one third of the voting-age Blacks in the state of New York moved across the border to the contiguous state of Vermont, then Vermont would become a majority Blacks state and send two and send two Black US Senators and a couple (?) of House member to Washington, as well as elect a Black Governor.

    If anyone asks you why there are no Blacks in the US Senate, tell them the real reason: Blacks in New York have not realized how important it is that one in four of their voting age population move across the border into Vermont.

    Now, readers will demand to know how Blacks could find jobs and housing in Vermont.  I Black seniors with Social Security Insurance (SSI) moved, then would have to work in Vermont at all to support themselves, just as they do not work in New York at all to support themselves today.  Their income comes from an entirely mobile sources and changing their state of residence would have no effect on their income.

    Likewise, Blacks who receive Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) and private pension could move to Vermont with no need to work and only positive effects on their cash flow.  Real estate, bought or rented, is less expensive in Vermont, and so Blacks would see their incomes stretch further by moving to Vermont than by staying in New York.

    Based on past patterns, it is reasonable to assume that some Vermonters, who have never seen Black people up close, would be spooked into selling their homes to escape neighborhoods that became increasingly Black.  This would actually help Blacks because the increased available housing on the market for purchase would drive down housing prices and enable Blacks to purchase housing in Vermont for a fraction of what the same house would cost in New York State.  By moving out, whites would make it less expensive for Blacks to move in.

    So, be careful how you characterize demographic information.  The only reason we won't have two Black US Senators is that Black in New York state have not studied the census numbers in New York and Vermont, and so they haven't realized the national impact they could have by moving across the border into Vermont.

    White people don't seem to care that we have no representation in the US Senate.  But, when we start moving to take over a state and turn its politics brown, they will take a strong new interest in our franchise behavior.

    Our perfectly legal but revolutionary voting strategy would drive SOME white people completely out of their minds.  That alone is a good reason for doing what the Census numbers recommend:  Make Vermont the only majority Black state in the entire country and win the electoral benefits that come along with that demographic change.

    Friday, June 10, 2011

    "Enough of Weinergate," Says Field Negro, to a Metaphorical Round of Deafening Applause

    A photograph of Atty. Francis L. Holland's pubic area, in which his sexual organs would be entirely exposed, in a public fountain, no less, but for his use of his skimpy $20.00 swimming trunks.
    Francis 90% naked in a Brazilian Fountain.
    I have exposed one photograph of me ninety percent nude and another in which my sexual organs are covered only by a little black and white swim suit.  Should I be stoned in public, or in the halls of the US Congress?

    Gratuitous photograph of anonymous woman's glutinous maximus (buttocks), covered only by a shoe-string bathing suit.
    I also confess that I have posted a photograph of an anonymous woman's remarkably full buttocks at my blog, for no other reason than to show that people sometimes engage in this behavior and it is not inherently evil, although entire blogs ought not be devoted to objectifying women's body parts.

    I have not hidden the series of twenty (20) photographs of this woman (all of her behind) from my wife, but I have explained that they were taken by a close friend using my camera and, although I find the photographs amusing, but I wouldn't have taken these pictures, (unless the woman also had brown skin and long natural Braids or Rasta locks). 

    Times are changing and we are acknowledging the images that we entertain sometimes and even sharing illustrative photographs.  Some of us are learning that women don't want to receive these photos by e-mail and that public revelation of them can be embarrassing.

    If Congressman Anthony Weiner used his elected official position to compel women to submit to sexual harassment, then he should be expelled from the Congress if he broke a law.  The reality seems to be that he used a personal Twitter account for some playful sex-related foolishness, and now everyone wants to hang him as if none of us has done the same thing at some point.

    Weiner's adolescent children already understand perfectly well what he did, and it's up to Weiner to apologize to his wife and promise not to get caught doing it again, even as millions of other people continue to do what he did every single day.

    Field Negro addressed the Weiner weenie "issue" so I might as well do so as well, even though I could immerse myself in news about Brazil, where I am resident, and never hear about this  petty and pathetic entirely personal faux pax at all.

    Yahoo News says:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Pursed lips. Frosty glares. Polite demurrals. Icy silence. Women in politics are grappling with the distinctly unfunny choice of restraining themselves or letting rip what they really think about Rep. Anthony Weiner's X-rated online conduct and whether he belongs in Congress.
    Field Negro says, and I agree whole-heartedly:
    . . . I wish these phony dumbocrats would stop calling for Weiner's head. Unless he broke a law he should stay right where he is. His constituents like him, and from the looks of the latest polls they want him back. So Mr. Weiner, screw those phonies in Washington and focus on the people who sent you there.
    They previously supported law breakers and Bubba when the chubby brunette was wetting his whistle, they should support you.
    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says there should be a House Ethics Committee investigation to determine whether any laws or House rules were broken. 
    Rep. Anthony Weiner should not look to fellow Democrats to be understanding about his widening Twitter scandal.

    Shortly after Weiner fessed up during an emotional New York City press conference that he lied about sending one lewd photo to a Seattle college student, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for the House Ethics Committee to immediately launch an investigation into Weiner's conduct.
    "I am deeply disappointed and saddened about this situation; for Anthony's wife, Huma, his family, his staff and his constituents," Pelosi said in a written statement. "I am calling for an Ethics Committee investigation to determine whether any official resources were used or any other violation of House rules occurred."
    Congressman Weiner shouldn't have lied about this, but lies about things that are irrelevant to the case at hand don't usually constitute perjury, even in a court of law.  The case at hand is whether sending photographs of his groin makes Weiner unfit for Congress.  I think that's something his constituents should decide, since obscenity is a subjective matter to be decided according to a local community's standards.

    While Pelosi's call is a call for public embarrassment, which is inevitable and is already occurring, these House investigations almost never proceed to a decision by the House to unseat the miscreant.  Only convictions for violating laws lead to that result, and it seems like a stretch at this point to say that Tweeting a picture of a clothed groin is a criminal act.

    I think President Bill Clinton realized after his Lewinsky ordeal that he had made a big mistake by appointing a special prosecutor to examine the semen stains under his desk.  When Democrats call for investigations, the whole Party sometimes gets wound up in nonsense while the business of law-making is put off, or proceeds with a Republican public image advantage.

    No one American should get a letter or e-mail from a Congressional e-mail account that is filthy or illegal.  Anyone who does receive such a letter can out the Congressperson involved and let the process of evaluating the behavior and our attitudes toward the behavior take its embarrassing but sometimes elucidating course.

    For example, we learned through Newt Gingrich's Lewinsky prosecution that nobody really gave a damn, but America was angry that valuable time and money had been wasted on the non-issue.

    People can call for Weiner to step down if they want to, but I think he should ignore them, unless he sees an overwhelming outrage erupt against him in his own district.  And even then, he can wait until a recall movement starts or he is thrown out in next year's Congressional election.

    Sunday, June 5, 2011

    Sylvia Harris: "My Bipolar Life, and the Horses Who Saved Me"

    Can Blacks have mental illnesses?
    I am certain that my older brother, Danny, died of bipolar/manic-depressive illness and the psychosis that so often accompanies the illness. I, too, have been diagnosed as manic-depressive or "hypo-manic" (kind of manic but not all the way out there).

    "Danny" was last seen alive in 1989.  When I think of him, I wish I had learned earlier what I see mirrored in the book I review today.

    Sylvia Harris, with an amazing autobiography just out, is a Black woman who achieved her dream of riding a winning horse in a nationally famous derby, in spite of (and perhaps partially because of) her bipolar/manic depression.  She outlines her struggle in the two preface pages below, but her entire autobiography holds details and experiences that can help all Americans better understand bipolar/manic-depressive illness.

    I've been diagnosed with bipolar illness, but I've learned (as Sylvia Harris did) to be suspicious of my flights of fancy, my whims and grandiosity, and to be sure that I do not outrageously exaggerate my abilities to myself and others.

    Like Harris, I've also learned to have a healthy doubt of the voices in my head that tell me that I'm worse than not worth anything at all, and that I would be less unhappy if I were dead. 

    The author and I have both learned that the appropriate medication can be as crucial as the steering wheel in your car:  It's no guarantee against accidents, but your a lot safer having it than not.

    bipolar,bi-polar,manic-depressive,mental illness,psychotic,mania,depression,Black,African-American,jockey,horse,downs,Chicago,race,racing,Irish,Spanish,Pedro Almodovar

    bipolar,bi-polar,manic-depressive,mental illness,psychotic,mania,depression,Black,African-American,jockey,horse,downs,Chicago,race,racing,Irish,Spanish,Pedro Almodovar,Sylvia,Harris

    Sylvia Harris autobiography is a road map of bipolar illness, but it signals the way clearly so that other bipolars, their families and friends need not spend Sylvia's forty years learning what they could learn by reading her autobiography in a couple of afternoons.

    Some people are so fortunate as to learn by reading of others' experiences, and thereby avoid some of the hurt and pain that they would otherwise cause to themselves and others. If you are one of those who can learn from others, then this book is for you and for the bipolar people you love.

    Palin's Big Lies Strike Big Targets While Her Assurances are Reminiscent of (Election-Winning) "Compassionate Conservatism"

    Palin's Nonsense About Debt-Ceiling WarningsSarah Palin is the kind of Republican candidate who drives the press insane, because she keeps making statements that are barely true or completely false, but her supporters eat it up and there's nothing the press can do about it.  They try to juxtapose her with assertions with their realities, but she has become smart enough not to lie and exaggerate about things that are easily fact checked.

    She goes for the high-profile issues about which neither the public nor the politicians are sure and honest, and she makes signature statements that defame the opposition while crystalizing her in the minds of her supporters as someone who tells the truths that the politicians refuse to hear.

    For example, The Root says that:
    The Republican mischief maker is at it again, and this time her target is the Treasury secretary.
    Earlier this week, Sarah Palin demonstrated why certain stars should never dabble in politics when she said the Republican Party platform is "best for America" because "[i]t's all about respecting equality." Never mind the document calls for etching discrimination into the Constitution with an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Well, yesterday, Palin was at it again.
    This is precisely how Ronald Reagan won the presidency:  by conjuring Black welfare queens who were at the heart of all of America's problems, while promising that America (not the Republican Party) was a land of liberty and freedom.  Likewise, Sarah Palin knows how to tell the big lies with a straight and even enthusiastic face, insisting that the Republican platform is about "respecting equality" even though it specifically singles out gays for unequal treatment.

    Likewise, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan said America had equality for all, while winking to his color-aroused antagonist supporters that, if necessary, he would send US troops to South Africa to maintain the "normalcy" (of apartheid).  When Reagan refused to acknowledge the contradictions inherent in his pro-American but anti-Black nonsense, there was nothing the press or Black politicians could do to turn the truth against him.  Americans wanted to believe his nonsense, and they weren't going to let mere human beings from the media spoil their party.

    More substantively and truthfully, Sarah Palin (let's start calling her Governor Palin, lest we underestimate her) points out that Treasury Secretary Geithner has issued deadline after deadline on the debt ceiling, without any obvious proof that missing his deadlines had any clear effect on anything in the nation.  She has a point when she asks why we should be hurried into something like the bank bailouts that were far more expensive than necessary and haven't proved to fix the mortgage crisis or high unemployment.

    The Root continues:
    This time sputtering nonsense about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's warnings about the danger of not raising the national debt limit.

    Palin took time out from stomping all over Mitt Romney's announcement in New Hampshire that he is running for president to cast aspersions on Geithner while she was at a clambake in New Hampshire.

    "If the debt ceiling were to be increased based on what I believe to be Timothy Geithner's false statements to the American public -- that a catastrophe would befall us all if the debt ceiling isn't raised -- a failure of leadership in the House would be if we were to cave and believe that."
    And what did Palin mean by "false statements"? The half-term governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee explained that Geithner has "given us now four different due dates where catastrophe would befall us if the debt ceiling is not raised. ... Well, once bitten, twice shy. How many more times are we going to have to hear this date change?"
    I've always been against Obama's white guy economists and bankers; they showed no concern for Blacks and homeowners or the lower and middle class when they were raking in the dough as bankers, so why should we believe that they have our best interests at heart now.   Nothing they have done has benefited much of anyone but themselves and their collegial banking cronies.

    This is a serious weakness for the Obama Administration and Palin can't be faulted for pointing it out.  There are billions of dollars left in program coffers to help the people losing their homes, and Geithner can't be bothered to work out a populist program to spend the money that has already been approved by Congress.

    Obama's upper-crust banking friends are a liability for him today and in the future, just as they were when they came on board.  The tone was set publicly when Obama chose Lawrence H. Summers as his chief economic adviser, even though as President of Harvard University Summers had very publicly, in a speech to a women's forum, doubted the relative intelligence of women and Blacks.

    I'd hate to see the Republicans win in 2012, but the Summers/Geithner axis is as good a reason for change as any.  I wish I could argue that Palin's advisers would be even worse, but with extensions for tax cuts for the richest and a full-on Government refusal to help those whose mortgages are under water, it's harder to imagine (at the moment) how the Republicans will be considerably worse.

    Palin might be the Republican nominee.  I'm saying so again today, and I said it on July 30, 2009, as Palin resigned the Alaska Governor's Office
    Some blogs are saying her resignation speech was terrible and will exclude her from contention for the Republican nomination in 2012, but I think they're probably wrong.

    In spite of the fact that I don't like Sarah Palin anymore than I would have wanted McCain for president (see my Truth About McCain Blog), I think Sarah Palin's speech was actually pretty good.

    She mentioned the troops and the military several times. She described the state of Alaska in glowing and engaging terms that would make people less resistant to having a president from Alaska.

    Palin talked about her commitment to all of the issues are seen as most important by the extreme right voters who decide the Republican presidential nominee: small government, low taxes, helping and respecting small businesses, opposition to abortion, commitment to family (she said that was part of the reason she was resigning).

    I actually think that, for what she was trying to accomplish, which was to announce her candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, the speech was very effective. Remember: She's not trying to convince liberals, leftists or the media. She's trying to create a coalition of right-wing hate groups who will support her candidacy in 2012, and I think she's doing that. At least, I think her speech was a successful run at it.

    Don't count Palin out. The very fact that she is known all over the Internet for disparaging Blacks and Native Americans will HELP HER with the Republicans who vote in Republican primaries.

    She's got an entire dead bear in her office in Alaska, which gives her the 100% support of the NRA going in.
    The press ridiculed Ronald Reagan because he got his facts wrong.  The Republican right-wing extremists adored Reagan because he was willing to tell such big lies in the defense of right-wing interests.  In Massachusetts, Palin invented gunfire and ringing bells to go along with her comments about the Ride of Paul Revere.

    Listen closely to the last phrase of her comments, to the effect that, "the Revolution was fought with guns and we're not giving up our guns".  In other words, 'Revolt against the present Government (led by President Obama) and Sarah Palin supports your right to keep and bear arms.'  If that wrong-facts sound-bite gets her the support of the gun rights lobbies, then it was worth it no matter how badly she garbled the facts of Paul Revere.

    Pay attention!  Paul Revere is more "American" with guns blaring and bells ringing than without them, even if these details are more Star Wars than reality.

    Palin has never taken an official action that was manifestly liberal or non-conservative.  She showed the appropriate Republican disrespect for Native Americans as Governor of Alaska and she was as ruthless as Karl Rove when dealing with those who crossed her, even accidentally.

    The only reason for Republicans not to nominate Palin is that she's a woman, but then they nominated her once in spite of that, and the sitting President is a Black man.  If Republicans come to feel that Palin is the heir to Reagan's legacy of telling big lies and making the media and liberals apoplectic, then Republicans will nominate Sarah Palin.

    The only question is whether she can stick to Republican generalities (support for guns; robust imperialism; anti-abortion; love for the middle class combined with opposition to policies that would help the middle and lower-class), then Sarah Palin could be a formidable candidate for the presidency.  "Morning in American" platitudes will get you everywhere with 51% of America, in the middle of a recession.