Harry Reid, Michael Steele, Negro Dialect & Political Grandstanding on the Backs of Blacks

Share/Bookmark//

Harry Reid, Michael Steele, Negro Dialect & Political Grandstanding

by Davey D

By now everyone has heard about the racial firestorm that has brewed because of some remarks attributed to Senate majority leader Harry Reid in a new book called Game Change. They were made in a private conversation during the 2008 campaign where Reid noted that then Senator Obama might be successful because he was light-skin and didn’t speak with a ‘Negro Dialect’. Obama in typical fashion avoided the mess that can come when discussing race by quickly accepting Reid’s apology, downplaying the remarks and announcing ‘the book is closed’ on the subject.

Of course Obama’s Republican counterparts seeing that Reid is in a tight re-election race have been trying their best to blow this issue up. The party of Ronald Reagan who supported South African Apartheid, the party of John McCain who said ‘No to a Martin Luther King holiday are suddenly getting all Jesse Jackson-like and riding hard for all those who have been on the receiving end of racial insults and oppression.. Thank you Republican Party-I guess…Not! LOL

Reid’s remarks have been the lead story on every news channel with news directors feverishly pouring through their rolodexes, seeking to get a Black pundit, seemingly any Black pundit to come to a studio where they would normally never see the light of day except during Black history month. Here they’re asked to wax poetic about Reid’s remarks. Some of these outlets have gone so far as to have two or three Black folks on at the same time thus violating the unwritten ‘one-Black-on-set-at-a-time’ rule.

It was good to Black scholars like Marc Lamont Hill weighin in on Harry Reid's remarks, but it would be good to see him and others weighin in on Sunday morning talk shows

To me I was more offended seeing a Professor Tricia Rose, Professor Marc Lamont Hill, BET’s Jeff Johnson and the dozen of other Black faces invited to discuss an old white man using the word ‘Negro’ versus seeing them invited on a regular basis to discuss a variety of other topics that have arguably more impact. I would’ve like to have seen some of those Black voices on the Sunday morning talk shows earlier this year dragging Harry Reid’s ass through the coals around the Healthcare debate when single payer and later public option got snatched off the table. To me the insult was seeing Black intelligence limited to just this topic whereas I might see a dimwit like Ann Coulter invited to weigh in on everything from the War in Afghanistan to what Chris Brown did to Rihanna.

I suppose I shouldn’t blame Harry Reid for that lack of Black visibility on these news outlets, but I will. As the Senate majority leader, I want him pushing for legislation that de-consolidates media and makes it more accessible to the wide array of voices and perspectives in the community. I want him to be leading the charge to undue the damage he helped create when he voted Yes for the infamous 1996 Telecommunications Bill.

Reframe the Debate and Hold Reid Accountable

In any case, while this Harry Reid saga runs its course, I think its important that folks push the envelop a bit and reframe the debate away from the narratives seemingly designed to fit the agendas of media outlets, disingenuous politicians or media darlings trying to blow up their names. I wish people who went on these shows were more aggressive in dismissing the Harry Reid vs Trent Lott angle which has resulted in wasteful discussions about who was more offensive and whether or not double standards are at play. That discussion is a trap.

Comparing Harry Reid to Trent Lott is a trap. It only serves the purpose of media outlets looking for conflict and GOP folks trying to stay in the news cycle

The thing we needed to be focused on was the rationale behind Harry Reid‘s remarks and his political relationship to an African-American community that votes to the tune of 96% for the Democrat political party that he leads in the Senate. Our discussion needed to be centered on us evaluating whether or not one of the most powerful lawmakers in the country was setting policy that met the needs and wants of our community.

What caught most people’s attention about Reid’s remarks was him using the phrase Negro Dialect.  It was used in a private conversation and it raised eyebrows because as far as most of us know Senator Reid has never publicly called Obama a ‘Negro’ Senator or President. We haven’t heard him call his African American colleagues in Congress, Negroes.. So where did this phrase ‘Negro dialect’ come from? Why did he use such an out of date word? Was his use of the word just a bad habit or was it reflective of old-time thinking filled with whatever baggage and stereotypes that many whites had stuck in their heads back in the 50s and 60s when the use of that word was pervasive?

Sadly too many pundits were falling over themselves making ding dong excuses for Reid. Some were saying he’s elderly and thats how old folks talk. Others were jumping through hoops talking how we have the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP-National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and how the word is used in the 2010 Census therefore it was ok for Reid to go there.

All thats fine and dandy, but last I checked Senator Reid is not a historic 66 year old or 100 year Civil Rights old institution. Last time I interviewed NCAAP head Julian Bond, he didn’t call me Negro and neither had Ben Jealous. I’ve hosted events sponsored by UNCF and no one walked up to me and handed me a script that would would’ve had me addressing our people as ‘Negro’. If these folks stay up to date so can Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

When I first heard of Reid’s remarks the first thing that came to mind was ‘How often does he interact with Black folks on the Capitol Hill’? Cause I’m sure by now someone would’ve checked him. He would’ve had to run into a Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison or someone else who was outspoken who would’ve said; ‘Look Senator, I know your 71 years old, but its 2010 and if my 90 year grandmother from the backwoods of Mississsippi ain’t using the word ‘Negro’ therefore you too Senator Reid can stop using it ‘.

Now unless someone is covering for him, we haven’t heard that such conversation took place. Hence that makes me think, that Senator Reid knows all about speaking multiple dialects? I guess during the day when he’s in in the Senate chambers, he has a distinguished ‘US Senator-dialect’ by night when he’s kicking it in private he loosens up a bit and becomes more Archie Bunkerish with his language?

So again, just to make sure…since Senator Reid used Archie Bunker type language then our primary concern should be examining his voting record to make sure the Senator’s not pushing Archie Bunker type policies. His slip up gave us an extra excuse to hold him politically accountable.

We need to see if Harry Reid's outdated words are reflected in outdated policies

For example, earlier this year Senator Reid voted to prohibit funding for ACORN, an organization that played a key role in helping get President Obama elected. Was Reid’s vote a calculated political decision or did he come across one too many folks from that organization who he felt spoke with a ‘Negro dialect’ thus getting him to draw some far gone  conclusions that ‘Negroes can’t be trusted to do things right’ so hence no funding?

2 or 3 years ago Reid voted to make English the official language for the country. What was going on in his head? Was there no room for Negro dialects? Did he want people to speak only ‘good ole American English’ thus inspiring to cast a vote to make sure?

Just like his political enemies we need to be looking at his voting record and making sure his private conversations of insensitive language was used is not matched by his votes and the agenda he sets for the Senate. You can peep his voting record here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53320&category=13

Dealing with Republican Hypocrisy

Moving beyond Reid, one needs to look closely at the how the Republicans are handling this. I found it funny to see RNC chair Michael Steele express his supposed outrage for Reid’s remarks when he himself was chin checked by disgruntled members of his own party who felt like he was tarnishing the Republican brand by going on televison talk shows trying to be hip by using Hip Hop jargon which isn’t too far removed from what some might call Negro/Black dialect.

RNC Chair Michael Steele is gonna have a Jesse Jackson moment, he needs to tell Rush Limbaugh to stop playing the Barack the Magic Negro song

Steele said he was trying to make the party more attractive and more Hip Hop like. That whole thing got shut down with the quickness. If you recall, Steele got a verbal ass whupping from radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh who was annoyed and later outraged by Steele’s behavior. It all reached a boiling point when Steele went on the now defunct DL Hugley show which aired on CNN. Sitting between Hughley and Public Enemy frontman Chuck D, Steele got jammed up about why he would hang with a political party that had leaders like Rush Limbaugh who at the time was underfire for saying he ‘wanted President Obama to fail’. Those remarks were coming at the heels of Limbaugh enraging African Americans by repeatdly playing a song during Obama’s campaign called Barack the Magic Negro.

Steele tried to laugh it off, talk a little hip hop slang and assure critics that Limbaugh was ‘just an entertainer’. When Limbaugh heard Steele tried to play him, he went off and smashed on Steele in the tirade of tirades. Limbaugh took to the airwaves and publicly reminded Steele he had 20-30 million listeners and that if he doesn’t start showing some loyalty to the party  he might discover that conservative will not wanna talk to him when he came calling. Limbaugh told Steele that he needed to stop going on TV and start raising money for the RNC. It was a brutal tongue lashing, that resulted in Steele apologizing to Limbaugh and being a lap dog ever since..

We won’t even mention that Steele didn’t have the guts to tell Rush to retire when he was playing the Barack the Magic Negro song. He didn’t even tell him to stop. In fact not too many of the outspoken GOP members stepped up and expressed outrage for racial insensitivity expressed by someone who claimed to be advocating for them.

Just to show you how meeley mouth Steele and his people are let’s see the lack of reaction in April 2009, one month after he got the verbal beatdown by Rush Limbaugh. In the great state of Texas, during a televised session on voter protection fellow GOP party member state rep Betty Brown said Asian-Americans need to come up with more accessible names.

She said;“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?”

Brown went further when she told Chinese-American community organizer Ramey Ko, “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”

Here’s the video of that incident…

Perhaps Senator John Coryn should clean up his own backyard and ask Texas State Rep Betty Brown to resign before stepping to Harry Reid

Like I said Steele was nowhere to be seen. He wasn’t on TV calling for Brown’s retirement. And not to make this a partisan issue but facts are facts, the Democrats in the Texas House asked only for an apology. They did not ask for her to resign. To this day you don’t hear too many Republicans talk about this infamous incident. They try to downplay it. But I guess we’ll have to bring this up now that Texas  senator John Cornyn went and opened his big mouth by demanding that Harry Reid resign.

This is the same Senator Coryn who resides in a state that is 30% Latino voted ‘No’ to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Sonia Satamayor. Coryn was all up in arms, being pompous and showing outrage at remarks Justice Sonia Satamayor made that he considered racially insensitive. I guess I can understand that if he was consistent. He said ‘No’ to Sotomayor,  but not once did he ask representaive Betty Brown to step down… Coryn has no creditibility thus nothing more needs to be said. I guess Steele, Coryn and that whole cabal are only willing to do the Jesse Jackson thing to a point.

On a somewhat lighter note one has to wonder if Senator Reid expressed concern about the use of ‘Negro Dialect’ when Senator Hillary Clinton broke it out  during her campaign. In the same vein did Michael Steele, Senator Coryn or any of their ilk ask Hillary to step down and resign for her ‘Negro speaking moments’? This of course raises the question to which the answer should be more than obvious, ‘Is what we seen expressed over this past week, righteous indignation, a genuine response to racial insensitivity or political opportunity’? As they say in the hood It’s all politics-It’s all politricks.

Return to DaveyD’s Hip Hop Corner

Sights & Sounds from the Oscar Grant Memorial-One Year Later We Still Remember

Share/Bookmark

There was a memorial for Oscar Grant, a 22 year old father who was murdered by BART police a year ago while he laid face down, unarmed on a subway platform with his hands behind his back. Many people from the community came out and spoke including his mother Reverand  Wanda Johnson and city council Desley Brooks who got into the ass of the BART officials who did show up…Here’s some of rthe sights and sounds from that day

Oakland City Council member Desley Brooks is not one to ever hold her tongue especially in the face of injustice. Here she smashes on the people who run BART for trying to give flowers to the family of Oscar Grant when they opposed every step the community took to seek justice for his murder by former BART police officer Johannes Mesherly

More sights and sounds from this past weekends Oscar Grant Memorial at Fruitvale BART. here Oscar’s Uncle Bobby speaks along with Jack Bryson who is the father of the two boys sat on the platform w/ Oscar that night. Oscar’s daughter Tatiyana was presented to the crowd. Also throwing down was Minister Keith Muhammad who let everyone know what time it is…

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff Says to Tune out ‘The Left’

Rahm Emanuel: Don’t Worry About the Left

By Jonathan Weisman

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/rahm-emanuel-dont-worry-about-the-left/

Turn off MSNBC. Tune out Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann. The White House has its liberal wing in hand on health care, says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“There are no liberals left to get” in the Senate, Emanuel said in an interview, shrugging off some noise from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that a few liberals might bolt over the compromises made with conservative Democrats.

As the White House leans on conservative Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska for the 60th health care vote, Emanuel has made the case that this generation of liberal political figures will not make the mistake of their predecessors. The late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s greatest regret was not cutting a deal with Richard Nixon on universal health care. Former PresidentBill Clinton has forever rued the day he did not take moderate Republican Sen. John Chafeeup on a compromise that could have secured a health care bill early in his presidency.

Liberal senators nearly scuttled the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program -– S-CHIP –- because Clinton compromised with Republicans and agreed to take the program out of Medicaid and involve private insurers.

“Every time they’ve gotten close to the deal, they’ve passed up the opportunity and chosen to walk away from a particular where they’ve lost the forest for the trees,” Emanuel said.

The comments may not endear the powerful White House chief of staff to liberal activists, furious that Senate Democratic leaders, at Emanuel’s urging, cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman to drop a federally run insurance policy option, then eliminate a Medicare buy-in proposal.

“I don’t think the White House recognizes how much trouble they’re in,” said one former Democratic official this morning. “I think they’re miscalaculating what’s happening with progressives and the left. They feel like they’re being taken for granted.”

But Emanuel pointed to a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman and another coming from National Journal writer Ronald Brownstein pressing for passage of the Senate health bill. “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” he said.

Obama Accepts Noble Prize &References Dr King Says Non-Violence is not an Effective Method For Heads of State

Share/Bookmark//

Posting up excerpts of  acceptance speeches for the Nobel Peace Prize by both President Obama and Martin Luther King. The natural thing is to make comparisons and perhaps demand that Obama be more King-like especially as he is sending 30 thousand more troops to Afghanistan…

I think its good to see both speeches to see how each man reflects upon what they perceive as their constituents. King talks about the 22 million Black folks who are under seige in this country. Obama talks about a country ‘under seige’ by terrorism.

What stood out for me was hearing how Obama while referencing King, did not reference the people King stood for… He also seemed to make the case that Kings approach toward non-violence is impractical. He cited Hitler’s march to war as an example.

That too me is a direct challenge for us as activists to change the dynamics and make any President or other recipient see us as constituents. As it stands now, President Obama came to Oslo, picked up his award, made a brief speech and skipped all the traditional festivities. Why? Because he was concerned about taking a victory lap while his numbers are down and critics are on his heels making demands…

Here’s the the speech in its entirety

http://www.c-span.org/pdf/intl121009_obama.pdf

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Why Is the Media So Obsessed With Horrifying Images of African-American Mothers?

Share/Bookmark//

Why Is the Media So Obsessed With Horrifying Images of African-American Mothers?

By Melissa Harris-Lacewell, The Nation.

With Michelle Obama in the White House, I expected a resurgence of the Claire Huxtable stereotype. Instead, hideous depictions of abusive, irresponsible black moms are everywhere.

http://www.alternet.org/media/144190/why_is_the_media_so_obsessed_with_horrifying_images_of_african-american_mothers_/?page=entire

Bad black mothers are everywhere these days.

With Michelle Obama in the White House, consciously and conspicuously serving as mom-in-chief, I expected (even somewhat dreaded) a resurgence of Claire Huxtable images of black motherhood: effortless glamor, professional success, measured wit, firm guidance, loving partnership, and the calm reassurance that American women can, in fact, have it all.

Instead the news is currently dominated by horrifying images of African American mothers.

Most ubiquitous is the near universally celebrated performance of Mo’Nique in the new film Precious. Critically and popularly acclaimed Precious is the film adaption of the novel Push. It is the story of an illiterate, obese, dark-skinned, teenager who is pregnant, for the second time, with her rapist father’s child. (Think The Color Purple in a 1980s inner-city rather than 1930s rural Georgia)

At the core of the film is Precious’ unimaginably brutal mother. She is an unredeemed monster who brutalizes her daughter verbally, emotionally, physically and sexually. This mother pimps both her daughter and the government. Stealing her daughter’s childhood and her welfare payments.

The mother of 5 year old Shaniya Davis

Just as Precious was opening to national audiences a real-life corollary emerged in the news cycle, when 5-year-old Shaniya Davis was found dead along a roadside in North Carolina. Her mother, a 25-year-old woman with a history of drug abuse, has been arrested on charges of child trafficking. The charges allege that this mother offered her 5-year-old daughter for sex with adult men.

Yet another black mother made headlines in the past week, when U.S. soldier, Alexis Hutchinson, refused to report for deployment to Afghanistan. Hutchinson is a single mother of an infant, and was unable to find suitable care for her son before she was deployed. She had initially turned to her own mother who found it impossible to care for the child because of prior caregiver commitments. Stuck without reasonable accommodations, Hutchinson chose not to deploy. Hutchinson’s son was temporally placed in foster care. She faces charges and possible jail time.

These stories are a reminder, that for African American women, reproduction has never been an entirely private matter.

Nobel Laureate, Toni Morrison, chose the stories of enslaved black mothers to depict the most horrifying effects of American slavery. In her novel, Beloved, Morrison reveals the unimaginable pain some black mothers experienced because their children were profitable for their enslavers. Enslaved black women did not birth children; they produced units for sale, measurable in labor contributions. Despite the patrilineal norm that governed free society, enslaved mothers were forced to pass along their enslaved status to their infants; ensuring intergenerational chattel bondage was the first inheritance black mothers gave to black children in America.

Alexis Hutchinson

As free citizens black women’s reproduction was no longer directly tied to profits. In this new context, black mothers became the object of fierce eugenics efforts. Black women, depicted as sexually insatiable breeders, are adaptive for a slave holding society but not for the new context of freedom. Black women’s assumed lasciviousness and rampant reproduction became threatening. In Killing the Black Body, law professor, Dorothy Roberts, explains how the state employed involuntary sterilization, pressure to submit to long-term birth control, and restriction of state benefits for large families as a means to control black women’s reproduction.

At the turn of the century many public reformers held African American women particularly accountable for the “degenerative conditions” of the race. Black women were blamed for being insufficient housekeepers, inattentive mothers, and poor educators of their children. Because women were supposed to maintain society’s moral order, any claim about rampant disorder was a burden laid specifically at women’s feet.

In a 1904 pamphlet “Experiences of the Race problem. By a Southern White Woman” the author claims of black women, “They are the greatest menace possible to the moral life of any community where they live. And they are evidently the chief instruments of the degradation of the men of their own race. When a man’s mother, wife, and daughters are all immoral women, there is no room in his fallen nature for the aspirations of honor and virtue…I cannot imagine such a creation as a virtuous black woman.”

Decades later, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” designated black mothers as the principal cause of a culture of pathology, which kept black people from achieving equality. Moynihan’s research predated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but instead of identifying the structural barriers facing African American communities, he reported the assumed deviance of Negro families.

This deviance was clear and obvious, he opined, because black families were led by women who seemed to have the primary decision making roles in households. Moynihan’s conclusions granted permission to two generations of conservative policy makers to imagine poor, black women as domineering household managers whose unfeminine insistence on control both emasculated their potential male partners and destroyed their children’s future opportunities. The Moynihan report encouraged the state not to view black mother as women doing the best they could in tough circumstances, but instead to blame them as unrelenting cheats who unfairly demand assistance from the system.

Black mothers were again blamed as the central cause of social and economic decline in the early 1990s, when news stories and popular films about “crack babies” became dominant. Crack babies were the living, squealing, suffering evidence of pathological black motherhood and American citizens were going to have to pay the bill for the children of these bad mothers.

Susan Douglass and Meredith Michaels, authors of The Mommy Myth explain that media created the “crack baby” phenomenon as a part of a broader history that understands black motherhood as inherently pathological. They write: “It turned out there was no convincing evidence that use of crack actually causes abnormal babies, even though the media insisted this was so…media coverage of crack babies serves as a powerful cautionary tale about the inherent fitness of poor or lower class African American women to be mothers at all.”

This ugly history and its policy ramifications are the backdrop against which these three contemporary black mother stories must be viewed.

Undoubtedly Mo’Nique has given an amazing performance in Precious. But the critical and popular embrace of this depiction of a monstrous black mother has potentially important, and troubling, political meaning. In a country with tens of thousands of missing and exploited children, it is not accidental that the abuse and murder of Shaniya Davis captured the American media cycle just as Precious opened. The sickening acts of Shaniya’s mother become the story that underlines and makes tangible, believable, and credible the jaw-dropping horror of Mo’Nique’s character.

And here too is Alexis Hutchinson. As a volunteer soldier in wartime, she ought to embody the very core of American citizen sacrifice. Instead she is a bad black mother. Implied in the her story is the damning idea that Hutchinson has committed the very worse infraction against her child and her country. Hutchinson has failed to marry a responsible, present, bread-winning man who would free her of the need to labor outside the home. Hutchinson does not stay on the home front clutching her weeping young child as her man goes off to war. Instead, she struggles to find a safe place for him while she heads off to battle. Her motherhood is not idyllic, it is problematic. Like so many other black mothers her parenting is presented as disruptive to her duties as a citizen.

It is worth noting that Sarah Palin’s big public comeback is situated right in the middle of this news cycle full of “bad black mothers.” Palin’s own eye-brow raising reproductive choices and parenting outcomes have been deemed off-limits after her skirmish with late night TV comedians. Embodied in Palin, white motherhood still represents a renewal of the American dream; black motherhood represents its downfall.

Each of these stories, situated in a long tradition of pathologizing black motherhood, serves a purpose. Each encourages Americans to see black motherhood as a distortion of true motherhood ideals. Its effect is troublesome for all mothers of all races who must navigate complex personal, familial, social, and political circumstances.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, is completing her latest book, Sister Citizen: A Text for Colored Girls Who’ve Considered Politics When Being Strong Isn’t Enough.

Naomi Klein Throws Down in Copenhagen..COP15 President Says Failure is Not An Option

Share/Bookmark//

This is Naomi Klein speaking at Klimaforum 2009… Note you will have to turn up the volume to hear her…

Last chance to save the world says Naomi Klein

Klimaforum is not about giving charity to the developing world its about taking responsibility and the industrialized countries cleaning up our own mess, Naomi Klein said speaking at the opening of Klimaforum09.

Photo: Mark Knudsen/Klimaforum09.

Speaking at Klimaforum’s opening ceremony in Copenhagen Naomi Klein expressed her doubt whether an ambitious deal would be made at the Bella Centre. “The Bella Center is the biggest case of disaster capitalism. The deal we really need is not even on the table,” she said.

The Canadian author emphasized the importance of civil society to come together to take action on the climate crisis. “There is a difference between a deal and success and Klimaforum09 needs to be the lie detector when the politicians come out with a deal,” she added.

Naomi also had critical words to say about Hopenhagen and its branding extravaganza. “The globe has Siemens logo on the bottom and the whole event is sponsored by Coke. That is a capitalization of hope but Klimaforum09 is where the real hope lies,” she said.

“Klimaforum is not about giving charity to the developing world its about taking responsibility and the industrialized countries cleaning up our own mess,” she concluded.

Klimaforum09 the peoples conference is open from Tuesday 8th till Friday 18th December. The programme features close to 200 workshops, 70 exhibitions and a comprehensive film, theatre and musical events.

The Danish organizers expect up to 10,000 daily visitors and guest speakers include Vandana Shiva, George Monbiot, Bill McKibben, Tim Jackson and Wangari Maathai.

“We would like to tell you that climate change is already seriously impacting us. It brings floods, droughts and the outbreak of pests that are all causing harvest failures,” said Henry Saragih, general coordinator of the global peseants movement Via Campesina, also speaking at the opening cermony.

Nnimmo Bassy, Head of Friends of Earth International, stressed the importance of people getting together to take action.

“At Klimaforum09 we find the real people taking real action. Poluters must be hold accountable and policy makers must start listening to the people,” he said.

For more information and coverage of Klimaforum go here:  http://www.klimaforum09.org/

———————————————————————

Below is a story from the UN Conference COP15.. This is where all the delegates and big time honchos from all the developed countries will be meeting. here a lot of politics will come into play and alot of deals will be cut.. We will try and drop news from both places… here’s the link to their official website http://en.cop15.dk/

Here’s where u can find live webcast of  COP 15

http://www2.cop15.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15/templ/ovw.php?id_kongressmain=1&theme=cop15

Failure in Copenhagen is not an option

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2257

Connie Hedegaard

If the world fails to deliver a political agreement at the UN climate conference in December, it will be “the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century”, says incoming COP15 president, Connie Hedegaard.

Will there be a global climate deal at the UN climate conference COP15 in Copenhagen in December? With the clock ticking and a host of major political issues yet to be solved, some people have voiced their doubt.

One hand that is not shaking, however, is the one belonging to Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy. As incoming COP15 president, she faces the daunting task of swinging the baton in front of delegates from all over the globe, thereby making them play the same tune and hopefully, after a concerted effort, end with an accord.

And while thousands of negotiators are still struggling to narrow the score down to something playable, Hedegaard is adamant that Copenhagen will “seal the deal”.

“If the whole world comes to Copenhagen and leaves without making the needed political agreement, then I think it’s a failure that is not just about climate. Then it’s the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century. And that is and should not be a possibility. It’s not an option,” Connie Hedegaard tells cop15.dk in an interview.

She calls Copenhagen a “window of opportunity” which should not be missed, arguing that it may take years to rebuild the momentum.

“If we don’t deliver in Copenhagen, then I cannot see when again you can build up a similar pressure on all the governments of this world to deliver. So I think we should be very, very cautious not to miss the opportunity,” says Hedegaard, adding that “it would be irresponsible not to use the momentum now”.

Connie Hedegaard is basing her optimism on the fact that nations, after months of political stalemate, began to come forward in September and show their positions. Japan, China, India and Indonesia are some of these “key players” who, according to Hedegaard, have brought new momentum to the climate negotiation process.

“In that sense,” she says, “Copenhagen has already delivered results. If we hadn’t had that deadline, these governments would not have come forward with their targets. They are doing so because they know the deadline is coming closer, and they must start to deliver.”

To effectively break the deadlock, however, two more requirements must be fulfilled. Politicians, including heads of state, need to become more actively involved. And developed countries need to come forward with specifics on finance.

“They cannot just continue to talk about finance. They must show – prove – to the developing world, we know that we are going to pay, or there will be no agreement. And the sooner the developed countries deliver on finance, the better.”

Hedegaard admits that the technicalities of the negotiation process are extremely complex, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for not striking a political, binding deal.

“We know what we ought to do on mitigation, on reductions, on adaptation, on technology and on finance. Well, yes, it’s difficult. But my bet is, it’s not going to get any easier by postponing decisions.”

In order to reach an agreement in December, “as little as possible” should remain to be solved when negotiators arrive in Copenhagen. The high-level section of COP15 is only three days, four at the most. Therefore the negotiation text must be rid of “square brackets” – at this point there are still 2,500 remaining  – and the political options must be made very clear before the politicians arrive on the stage, says Connie Hedegaard.

Her personal success criteria for Copenhagen?

“I think what matters is that we, when we depart from Copenhagen, with credibility can say we brought the world on the right track, on a track that makes it credible that we can stay below the two degrees average increase in temperature worldwide. That is basically the success criteria we must try to deliver on.”

During the actual conference, Connie Hedegaard sees her own role as that of one who will be trying to mediate, find solutions and look for possible compromises. And provide a push or a nudge where it’s needed.

“It’s not so that the COP president, the host country, can just tell China or the United States or India what they are going to do. They will decide for themselves. But of course we will argue as strong as we can, push as strong as we can and try to seek solutions as much as we can.”

All through the year, Connie Hedegaard has been working to grease the climate wheels by participating in bilateral talks and informal meetings, thereby making herself acquainted with the positions of as many players worldwide as possible. Her own Greenland Dialogue is one of several series of climate discussions running parallel to the main UN track.

It’s a round-the-clock job and the fervent dedication Hedegaard demonstrates as a minister and one of the world’s chief climate whips carries into her personal life as well.

“You can’t separate that. When you have a job like this, it’s a hundred percent. If you didn’t think that this is really, really important, then you couldn’t work as much, and I also think that your family wouldn’t let you work as much. I’m not only talking on my own behalf, but on behalf of the whole team behind me. People are doing this because they think it’s the most important issue in the world.”

José Manuel Barroso, re-elected President of the European Commission, has announced that he would appoint a climate commissioner under his new presidency. Connie Hedegaard, a 49-year-old conservative politician, mother of two and former journalist, has been mentioned as a possible candidate. Would she be interested, once COP15 is wrapped up?

“I’m really not thinking about what is going to happen after this. A lot of things will still have to be done, and Denmark will actually be president of the COP throughout 2010. These weeks and months are not suited for concentrating on anything else but how to land a deal in Copenhagen.”
 

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Singer Jennifer Hudosn Sparks Controversy in South Africa-SA Actors Don’t Want her Playing Winnie Mandela

Share/Bookmark//

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091207/wl_africa_afp/entertainmentsafricausfilmmandelahudson

JOHANNESBURG (AFP) – South African actors want to stop Oscar-winner Jennifer Hudson from playing Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in a new film on the ex-wife of the nation’s first black president, reports said Monday.

The Creative Workers Union of South Africa said using foreign actors to tell the country’s stories undermined efforts to develop the national film industry.

“It can’t happen that we want to develop our own Hollywood and yet bring in imports,” the union’s president Mabutho Sithole said in The Citizen newspaper.

“This decision must be reversed, it must be stopped now,” union secretary general Oupa Lebogo said in The Times. “If the matter doesn’t come up for discussion, we will push for a moratorium to be placed on the film.”

Hudson, who scooped a best supporting actress Oscar in 2007 for the musical “Dreamgirls”, landed the role of Madikizela-Mandela last month.

The film will be directed by South African film-maker Darrell J. Roodt, whose films include “Cry, The Beloved Country” and “Sarafina.”

The criticism comes just days before the opening of the Clint Eastwood film “Invictus”, a drama about Nelson Mandela and South Africa’s 1995 rugby World Cup victory which united the nation.

Morgan Freeman plays the president and Matt Damon is the rugby team captain.

Madikizela-Mandela campaigned tirelessly for her husband’s release during his 27-year imprisonment in the apartheid era.

However, her image was tarnished by a series of scandals including her links to the kidnap and murder of a young activist and a 2003 conviction for fraud.

She separated from Nelson Mandela in 1992, two years after his release.

————————————————————————————–

Here’s a couple of articles I found in South African newspapers.. I wanted to see what they were saying. First, I didn’t see a whole lot of info on this controversy via the papers on line..but here’s a couple of columns that give this story more context..-davey D-

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/music/2009/12/07/actors-gun-for-jennifer-hudson/

Right, so the Creative Workers’ Union of SA is having a go at Jennifer Hudson because she’s been cast to play Winnie Mandela in an upcoming film about the “mother of the nation”. In an article by Sipho Masondo in today’s The Times, he writes “The union said foreign actors should not play leading roles in South African movies because it undermined the growth of the local creative industry.” Read the rest of the story here.

 Now I’m waiting to find out more about the casting process of this role and how Ms Hudson got it, but you know what I’m pretty sure it’s because of her talent. As an actor, one is expected to transform into any given character, be it speaking with a different dialect or a change in one’s physique in order to pull off the role. Charlize has done it in America, so why can Hudson not do it in South Africa? Why was this not an issue when Morgan Freeman was cast as Nelson Mandela in Invictus? Come on, the double standards here are priceless.

@ Oupa Lebogo. This is a legitimate question… besides Florence Masebe, who else would play the role better? Also if you look at the caliber of actresses she beat out at the 2007 Oscars, who are we to judge how good she is an actress if she won an Oscar
(Fellow nominees included Adriana Barraza (Babel), Cate Blanchett (Notes on a Scandal), Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine) and Rinko Kikuchi (Babel)

Yes I agree that the arts aren’t given nearly enough credit that they’re owed, but perhaps instead of pouncing on J Hud, the union should pounce on the president, the arts and culture minister. Tell them to put more money into the arts. Tell them to provide more funding to filmmakers who want to compete (technically) with the rest of the world. In that way film producers won’t have to go out and abroad to look for funding. Film director Anant Singh and actress Florence Masebe make good points, “From a creative point of view we have a great wealth of talent locally. However, it’s very difficult to prescribe how a movie should be made. There are commercial imperatives and if you want a movie to be made you have to do it a certain way. It’s all about balance.
“The integrity of the South African film industry can be maintained. Look at Sarafina. I had [American actress] Whoopi Goldberg, but I also had Leleti Khumalo playing a leading role.” (Singh)

—————————————————————————

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-12-07-hollywood-se-voet

Have you heard? American star Jennifer Hudson will be playing Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in an upcoming biopic. I’m not sure what your first reaction to that is, but mine was: Winnie can sing?? Not the Creative Workers’ Union of SA, however. In true trade-union style they immediately decried this Western imperial domination of a local industry and demanded national auditions and free hats for everyone. Or something like that.

Union general secretary Oupa Lebogo said: “This decision must be reversed, it must be stopped now. If the matter doesn’t come up for discussion, we will push for a moratorium to be placed on the film being cast in South Africa. We are being undermined, there is no respect at all,” TimesLive reported.

And of course, middle-class South Africans everywhere were disgusted. They probably stopped listening at the word moratorium.

“Im sick and tired of all this B@#LS&^T that’s going on in SA,” said one commenter ferociously. “These people keep on complaining of all the wrongs, yet they are so tired to lift their ass up and do anything. Why didn’t they think of it and do something before the foreigners did?”

Hear hear! I’m sure you’re saying right about now. Followed immediately by that favourite argument: Oscar-winning and bankable Hollywood stars will draw in the audiences! This is good for us. The same commenter thought so. “Name just one actor/actress that will generate money and lure people to the movie house in South Africa … NOT ONE and that is a fact.”

I’m almost sad for the Creative Workers’ Union. I wished they could’ve been a little more, well, creative. Demanding people take you seriously is so nineties revolutionary. Because all they had to do was consult a list of South African films starring big Hollywood stars and take a look at their box-office results. Wham bam — argument won.

Remember Goodbye Bafana? It’s OK if you don’t — no one else does. The story of Nelson Mandela’s friendship with a prison warder was brought to us by the acclaimed director of The House of the Spirits and starred Hollywood star Joseph Fiennes. The numbers say it all. It cost a whopping $30-million to make and brought in under $3-million and received virtually no release in the US.

You think Winnie director Darrell Roodt would have learned from Cry the Beloved Country. It made even less in the US with $676 525, despite starring heavyweight James Earl Jones.

Taye Diggs

And then there’s Drum which, though it featured the fabulous Taye Diggs, failed to make much of an impression at the box office here or abroad.

The logic has not worked for them and it certainly didn’t work when incorporated into Hansie, as anyone who had to sit through the accent of the American actress playing his wife in that flop can attest to.

So urgent is our desire to be vindicated by Hollywood that we forget the massive irony at work here. The movies that have been massive successes — District 9, Tsotsi and Jerusalema — for example, featured South Africans in all the lead roles. District 9 was most notable for its disregard of American expectations and unashamedly South African accents, actors and themes. If you haven’t heard that movie’s success story I can’t help you out from under that rock but I can tell you that as of November it made a worldwide total of $200-million, more than six times its estimated production budget of $30-million.

Is it because there were South Africans in the lead? No, it was because it was a damn good film. But the presence of Hollywood actors in important movies about our past have historically been failures, and ones that are stupid to repeat.

“I don’t think [anyone but a South African] can even begin to understand what we mean when we say Winnie is the mother of the nation,” actress Florence Masebe sniffed. Winnie is no mother of mine, but if I were to see a movie about her I’d like to spend my time immersed in a good plot. Not cringing at the accent.

————————————————————————

http://www.weekendpost.co.za/article.aspx?id=507086

SOUTH African actors have criticised a decision to have American R&B singer Jennifer Hudson play the role of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in an upcoming film.

The Creative Workers’ Union of SA (CWUSA) at the weekend called on local movie maker Darrell Roodt to rethink Hudson’s role as lead actress in the film about Madikizela-Mandela’s life, reported The Times.

“The decision must be reversed, it must be stopped now,” said union general secretary Oupa Lebogo.

“If the matter doesn’t come up for discussion, we will push for a moratorium to be placed on the film being cast in South Africa.

“We are being undermined – there is no respect at all.”

Production of the film is set begin on May 30 next year.

Lebogo said South Africa had “people who can the play the role far better than Jennifer”.

Actors John Kani, Florence Masebe and Mpho Molepo said CWUSA was heeding a call by President Jacob Zuma to take action and unite on issues affecting the entertainment business.

“Every time there is a movie that tells a South African story, it is done by someone who must be taught the right way of pronouncing Sawubona. Enough is enough,” said Kani, according to The Citizen newspaper.

The CWUSA called for the reinstatement of working permits for international producers who want to make films in South Africa.

Film director Anant Singh said he agreed South Africa had a wealth of talent.

“However, it is very difficult to prescribe how a movie should be made. There are commercial imperatives and if you want a movie to be made, you have to do it a certain way. It’s all about balance,” said Singh. – Sapa

Actress Florence Masebe said the issue was far bigger than “Winnie and Jennifer. Why do Americans and foreigners play the roles we hold so dear? The roles of people we respect. I don’t think [anyone but a South African] can even begin to understand what we mean when we say Winnie is the mother of the nation.” Again I go back to my point on Morgan Freeman playing Madiba….

This is a tricky and rather sensitive subject, I get that. We all know this movie is going to happen, no matter what. So here’s a possible solution I have in mind. Why not have Hudson share some of her skills, secrets into being an A-list actress with local talent when she’s here. Set up a workshop, funded by government one day during shooting, empower the artists by knowledge-sharing? I think instead of lambasting this talented woman, we should look at suggestions and possible solutions rather…

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

December 4th 1969: 40 Years Ago the FBI Murdered a Black Panther-We Remember Fred Hampton

Share/Bookmark//

December 4th 1969: 40 Years Ago the FBI Murdered a Black Panther

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/%e2%80%98i-am-a-revolutionary%e2%80%99/

“I am … a revolutionary” was the rallying cry of Chairman Fred Hampton, a leader so powerful that he could draw tens of thousands on a moment’s notice and therefore such a threat to the system that he was assassinated at the age of only 21, on Dec. 4, 1969. – Photo: Paul Sequeira

On Dec. 4, 1969, 40 years ago, Chicago police led by Cook County prosecutor Edward Hanrahan as part of an FBI Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) operation stormed into Illinois Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton’s apartment at 4:30 a.m. Armed with shotguns, handguns and a .45 caliber machine gun and guided by a floor plan of the apartment provided by an informant, the police killed Defense Captain Mark Clark and critically injured four other Panthers.

They gunned their way through the apartment into Fred Hampton’s bedroom. There he lay sleeping, having been drugged earlier by an FBI informant. As he lay there, the cops stood over him and put two bullets in his brain, at close range.

Other Panthers, including Fred Hampton’s eight month pregnant wife, Deborah Johnson (aka Akua Njeri), were beaten, dragged into the street and charged with assault and attempted murder. Not one officer ever spent a day in jail.

Fred Hampton was assassinated by the police and dragged by his wrist to the door December 4th 1969

Following this murderous attack – where the police fired 99 rounds in the house and were completely uninjured themselves – Hanrahan brazenly lied that the police were under heavy fire from the Panthers. Among all the many thousands and thousands of actions that show why the Black Panther Party correctly dubbed the police “pigs,” few compare to the viciousness and lies surrounding the assassination of Fred Hampton.

The media took up and spread these lies from the authorities as if they were the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But the Panthers in Chicago – still shocked and grieving from the terrible loss of their key leader and with many of their core members now in jail – refused to give up. Instead, they turned to the people and mounted a defiant political counter-offensive.

The Panthers organized “people’s tours” of the apartment. Thousands came, first from the ghettos and then more broadly. Film crews and reporters were brought in. People saw with their own eyes. And the evidence was clear: All the bullet holes were coming IN. The famous picture supplied by the authorities and run in the Chicago Tribune at the time, showing a door supposedly riddled with bullets coming from the Panthers, was actually a door with nail holes. Even mainstream commentators felt compelled to speak out. Hanrahan had claimed that it was only through the “grace of God” that his men escaped with scratches.

The cops stood over Chairman Fred Hampton as he lay sleeping and put two bullets in his brain at close range. This is Chairman Fred’s bed after his murder. – Photo: Paul Sequeira

Mike Royko, then a columnist at the Chicago Daily News – and no Panther supporter – wrote in response: “Indeed it does appear that miracles occurred. The Panthers’ bullets must have dissolved into the air before they hit anybody or anything. Either that or the Panthers were shooting in the wrong direction – namely, at themselves.” (See “The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther,” page 102, by Jeffrey Haas, Lawrence Hill Books.)

 Fred Hampton was a 21-year-old leader of the Panthers who inspired all kinds of people to take up revolution. As Bob Avakian says in his memoir, “Many people throughout the country had been moved by Fred Hampton and had made a leap in their revolutionary commitment because of his influence – the whole way in which, before he was killed, he boldly put forward: ‘You can kill a revolutionary, but you can’t kill the revolution.’” (See “From Ike to Mao …  and Beyond: My Journey from Mainstream America to Revolutionary Communist,” Insight Press.)

In one short year from the founding of the Black Panther Party in Illinois to the time of Fred’s murder, there was a transformation in the culture of society in Chicago. Based on the teachings of Mao Tsetung, the leader of the Chinese revolution, there was a “serve the people” ethos and culture the likes of which Chicago had not seen before.

 The Panthers set up free clinics in neighborhoods of the oppressed, where before health care had been virtually unavailable. The Black Panther newspaper was sold everywhere. Posters from the paper were used for political education sessions in the communities and on campuses. Former gangbangers and student intellectuals became revolutionaries. The culture was so widespread in Chicago that conductors on the el and subway trains would announce, “All power to the people!” when calling out the stops where revolutionaries were getting off the train.

When the Panthers conducted “people’s tours” of Chairman Fred Hampton’s apartment after his assassination, thousands of followers lined up in the cold, and film crews and reporters were brought in

Hampton’s assassination was part of a broad campaign to smash the Black Panther Party and the burgeoning revolutionary movement that burst onto the scene in the 1960s. In September 1968, notorious FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called the Panthers “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country,” and by 1969 the Panthers were the number one target of the FBI’s COINTELPRO operations, which included 233 different documented operations, from assassinations like those of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark to attempts to turn street gangs against the Panthers, efforts to create divisions within the BPP and setting up Panthers on false criminal charges.

Hoover specifically aimed to prevent the rise of what he called “a Black messiah” – that is, he focused on taking out leaders and potential leaders of the masses. Revolutionaries like Malcolm X, George Jackson, Bunchy Carter and John Huggins in LA, and Fred Hampton were either directly murdered by the government or set up. These were counter-revolutionary criminal acts – not only were innocent people murdered by the U.S. government, but the ability of the masses of people to raise their heads and liberate themselves was grievously set back.

Fred Hampton drew out the best from all these sectors of the people, inspiring them with a revolutionary vision and calling on them to rise to being revolutionaries. And many thousands heeded the call. His famous chant, “I am…a revolutionary,” was transformative, as people would take it up, thinking seriously as they did so about what they were committing their lives to when they said it.

Leadership is critical to making revolution. Although revolutionary leaders like Fred Hampton were taken from the people and others capitulated to capitalism and gave up on revolution, the spirit of devoting your life to making revolution and doing all you can to hasten the day when revolution can be made still lives.

This story first appeared on Revolution, the voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

Accomplishments of the Illinois Black Panther Party

• Breakfast for Children Program – Chicago

• Breakfast for Children Program – Peoria

• Free People’s Medical Clinic

• Free Sickle Cell Anemia Testing

• Political Education Classes

• Community Control of Police Project

• Unified the street gangs of Chicago

• Multi-racial united front among the Black Panther Party, Students for a Democratic Society, the Blackstone Rangers, the Young Lords and the Young Patriots that was called the “Rainbow Coalition,” a phrase later taken by Rev. Jesse Jackson

40th anniversary events

In Chicago, “40 Years Later, 40 Years Strong! We Will Never Forgive! We Will Never Forget!”

4:30 a.m. – exactly 40 years later at the same address – at 2337 W. Chairman Fred Hampton Way (previously Monroe at Western): candlelight vigil with speakers

12 noon, same place: vigil with speakers

5:30-10 p.m., at Winnie Mandela School, 7847 S. Jeffrey Ave. (enter from parking lot): premier screening of “Chairman Fred Hampton Way,” produced and directed by Ray L. Baker Jr.; keynote speakers Akua Njeri, widow of Chairman Fred Hampton and chairperson of the December 4th Committee; Chairman Fred Hampton Jr. of the Prisoners of Conscience Committee; solidarity statements from Black Panther Party members, POCC Minister of Information JR, POCC New Orleans and other POCC chapters, James Clark of the Mark Clark Foundation and brother of Mark Clark, Pam Africa of the ICFFMAJ, Ramona Africa of MOVE and the Last Poets; panel discussion

For more information, call (773) 256-9451.

In San Francisco, “Fred Hampton Commemorative Film Festival”: Illinois Black Panther Party Deputy Chairman Fred Hampton was killed by Chicago Police and the FBI on Dec. 4, 1969. Commemorate the history and inspiration and the lasting impact of our revolutionary leaders!

7-9:30 p.m. at 522 Valencia St., San Francisco, near 16th Street, one block from BART: a showing of films on Fred Hampton, revolutionary and servant of the people; his enemies: how they murdered him 40 years ago today; and the lessons for today. Chairman Fred Hampton said, “You can kill a revolutionary, but you can’t kill the revolution!” Sponsored by Collision Course Media, It’s About Time BPP, Freedom Archives, ILPS-Bay Area Grassroots Organizing Committee, Committee to Free the SF 8, Haiti Action Committee, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, BAYAN-USA (NorCal)

Bruce Dixon of Black Agenda Report: ‘Remembering Fred Hampton, 40 years later’

Bruce Dixon, a member of the Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1969 and 1970, offers a personal recollection of Fred Hampton, murdered by the Chicago Police Department and the FBI in the pre-dawn hours of Dec. 4, 1969.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

America’s Obsession with Extramarital Affairs Are Used As Distractions to the War

Share/Bookmark//

Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods-What have you done?  Word of his sordid affairs is all anyone can talk about. From coast to coast  on every single local and national newscast, squeaky clean Tiger Woods cheating on his wife is the lead story. Sadly,we’ve seen this film way too many times. Whether it’s South Carolina governor  Mark Sanford, basketball great Kobe Bryant, former president Bill Clinton or Civil Rights leader Jesse Jackson, such sagas more often than not have me asking,  ‘What are ‘they’ trying to hide from us?’

All this Tiger Woods talk has me suspicious. Something is up.  

It was just two days ago, that we had a sobering conversation with Congressman and former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich about what he anticipated President Obama would say in his speech about increasing troops to Afghanistan. A very impassioned Kucinich noted that the anti-war’s collective upset to Obama’s proposal was a few steps too late. He reminded us that key hurdles were cleared a month ago in early October around the 8th anniversary of the Afghan War. According to Kucinich, on October 8th, the House  approved a bill that authorized the expenditure of $130 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He noted that the democratic dominated Congress had already taken a pro-War stance and many in the anti-war peace Movement were quiet.

David Letterman's extramaritial affairs were big distractions from war issues

Folks may not recall this particular bill because back in early October while our government was pouring all this money into the war effort, the rest of the nation was besieged with endless news stories and punditry analysis about another sordid extramarital affair and its accompanying baggage including attempted extortion. This of course involved late night TV host David Letterman. 

 Instead of hearing from an enraged Kucinich, Barbara Lee or Texas Republican Ron Paul, we were subjected to all sorts experts taking up valuable airtime debating whether or not Letterman having sex with another consenting adult was appropriate.

 Adding to this distraction was Barack Obama being awarded  the Noble Peace Prize the day after the October 8th date Kucinich referenced.  Ron Paul took some time out and expressed his concerns about the Noble Prize sitaution. he talked about it being a waste of time and distraction and that it awarding Obama such a prestigous award would not move him toward peace. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbcDk-bNoc8&feature=player_embedded

But getting back to this country’s obsession with cheating spouses. They’ve long served as perfect covers for serious discussions about issues that have far-reaching impact on our lives. Last month it was Letterman, this month its Woods. The Woods story is now eclipsing important news coverage of the dozen or so anti-war protests yesterday from around the country. Instead of seeing or hearing man-on-the-street reports soliciting the opinions of young people about the escalation, we’re hearing them weigh in on Woods. Instead of hearing from celebrities like actor Danny Glover talking about his oppposition to the war, we’re hearing basketball great Charles Barkely‘s take on Tiger.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting a conversation about Tiger Woods is an indication that one is un-intelligent or un-interested in more serious subjects. What I am cautioning us to keep in mind, that all this news coverage may be a distraction  to keep our eyes off some important balls. We have to ask ourselves; ‘What are we not talking about today?  Is it the President’s Job/Economic Summit being held today? Is it the debate to re-appoint Fed Chair Ben Bernacke? Is it the latest developments surrounding the Oscar Grant trial? Is it the controversy surrounding the conclusion of the mayoral election in Atlanta or the upcoming hotly contested run off mayoral election in Houston? As I’m typing this the Today Show is tripping all over itself to report how yet another woman is coming out to hold a press conference with famed lawyer Gloria Allred to possibly admit she had an affair. Her press conference comes at the heels of two other press conferences including one the other day where several law enforcement officials announced that they are not going to be further investigating Woods.

I’m thinking to myself, if such stories are being  done because the American public is hungry for salacious and intriguing reports, why not bring on journalist Jeremy Scahill of RebelReports.com to talk about how the worlds largest and most notorious private army Blackwater has been waging a secret War in Pakistan where they been assassinating and kidnapping people. If you wanna get heads turning and tongues wagging make note that this is happening on the watch of a President who promised rto abandon all those disturbing George Bush-Dick Cheney type tactics  that painted America in a bad light.  Secret war in Pakistan vs Tiger Woods being an undercover player? You decide what’s more important.

Ron Paul Kicked up dust around the escalation of the War in Afghanistan

Another glaring omission I see missing from national news coverage is yesterday’s Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee discussion on Afghanistan It was there that Congressional Black Caucus chair Barbara Lee and Progressive Caucus co-chair Lynn Woolsey were not allowed to speak  and express their staunch opposition to the Obama’s escalation. Fortunately Ron Paul got a chance to speak and really went in on the committee hitting them pretty hard, but that was barely covered. You can peep Paul weighing in on the C-Span video. He starts his round of questioning at 88.17 minutes into the hearing.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/216172

It’s interesting to note that it was just 3 weeks ago that Pittsburgh rapper Jasiri X hit us off with a song and video that raised similar concerns. He asked the question about whether or not we are staying up on the news. His video is a good note to end on and reflect.

written by Davey D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v2Ju74i2dU

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

30 Million Small Businesses: The Army President Obama Has Yet To Deploy

Share/Bookmark//

Update: We interviewed Cedric Muhammad on Hard Knock Radio about the economy and how its looking under what many see as a New World Order of sorts. He expounds up on his article and gives some keen breakdowns..Here’s a link to the archived show

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/56677

30 Million Small Businesses: The Army President Obama Has Yet To Deploy

by Cedrick Muhammad

President Barrack Obama’s decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan should be a reminder and not a distraction that the country is involved in a two-front war. Not only one where the battlefields are Iraq and Afghanistan, but also a domestic economic war where saving an ailing banking system, is one front, while the struggle of small businesses to grow and expand is the other.

So far, that second war is only being waged on one battlefield.

It may be a generalization but not an oversimplification to say that when push came to shove, during and after the Financial Panic of 2008, the United States government – both Congress and two Presidential administrations – decided the interests of Wall Street and only a small portion of America’s 10,000 commercial banks, along with a handful of auto companies, were more important than the needs of approximately 30,000,000 small businesses [There were 6.1 million employer and 23.1 million nonemployer firms (a nonemployer firm is defined as one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more and is subject to federal income taxes.) in the U.S. in 2008 according to Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) data from the U.S. Census Bureau].

The commercial banking sector is important – especially those smaller and community-oriented institutions that have been an after-thought in the plans of both Presidents Obama and George W. Bush. And if money is the lifeblood of a nation, then the financial system is somewhat like a circulatory system moving capital and credit wherever it is needed throughout the economic body.

This crisis was a financial one for sure, and its roots can be found in four areas.

First, a fractional reserve banking system which allows banks to lend out (or extend credit) several times the actual amount of money they actually have on deposit.

Second, a fiat currency (money with no sound backing) created gradually in three stages – initially when the Federal Reserve was born in 1913 giving a private central bank control over the issuance of America’s currency, a responsibility the U.S. constitution reserved for Congress. And then, when the gold standard was ended in two stages – in 1933 under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and 1971under president Richard Nixon.

Third, the out of control growth of a derivatives market initially built upon the legitimate need of farmers and businesses to insure themselves from disasters and unpredictable circumstances (like storms and poor crops) which grew to dwarf the real economy (the physical and digital goods and services that we need to survive and want to enjoy) in size. It should be noted that the first major derivatives market was in foreign currency and it grew out of the instability of a world where the dollar was no longer on the gold standard and investors, entrepreneurs, farmers and corporations had to guess and gamble each day over what the world’s currencies were worth.

Fourth, the birth of the modern securitization market in 1970s, started by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) or ‘Ginnie Mae’ which allowed private institutions to gather mortgages extended to different customers and owned by different banks into large bundles to be resold to other institutions – like pension funds and investment banks. With the help of institutions like Salomon Brothers this practice grew to the size of trillions of dollars and saw bundles as large as 5,000 mortgages and up, sold all over the world. By 2009 loans of all kinds – mortgages, bank, student, credit card and business – were being made not because individuals and entities qualified for them but because banks could make more money off of securitizing and re-selling them to Wall Street investors and institutions and governments all over the world. When these loans could not be repaid the whole house of cards tumbled.

For the most part, first under President Bush, and afterward President Obama very little has been done to effectively address these four fundamental aspects of the financial crisis. When you combine this reality with a national debt of $12 trillion (around $60 trillion when you add in the money owed for Social Security and Medicare payments) it is not hard to see the hand-writing on the wall – the American economy is headed for a painful day of reckoning.

But there was an equally important problem to be solved, aside from the financial one. In fact, it was already in effect and looming on the horizon before the Panic of 2007-2008. It was the challenge of how the American economy was going to transition through the era of globalization that was eroding its foundation due to two practices – offshoring and outsourcing. Offshoring is the decision of a company to relocate an entire business process from one country to another and outsourcing is the subcontracting of a service or business process to a third party.

Former Federal Reserve Governor and Princeton University Professor Alan Blinder, before the recession, estimated that 30 million to 40 million American jobs have the potential to be offshored. These include such professions as tax accounting, film and video editors, computer programming, bookkeepers, architects, lawyers specializing in contract law, mathematicians, graphic designers, financial analysts, actuaries, microbiologists, and even economists.

And who was on the front lines of this battle best positioned to win it and create the jobs that will replace those being lost, but also suffering the greatest casualties?

Without question, it is the country’s 30 million small business owners.

According to the Small Business Administration (SBA)’s 2009 “Small Business Economy: A Report To The President,” ‘…since the mid-1990s, small businesses have generally created 60 to 80 percent of the net new employment, but in 2008 there was a net loss of 3.1 million jobs. While it is not yet possible to know how many were lost in smaller businesses, it is likely they were a significant share of the losses. In the first three quarters, the United States lost 1,695,00 jobs, of which 60 percent were in small businesses.’

And what has been the official policy response to this recognition?

Virtually none of the over $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) under President Bush went to small businesses (including most of the nation’s 8,000 smaller community banks) and while President Obama signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, funding to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) was increased by only $730 million. An SBA plan designed to generate $10 billion in loans to small businesses has been crawling for months.

When one considers other steps taken by the administration of President Obama including putting $2 trillion on the line in order to jump-start the previously mentioned securitization market (through the Federal Reserve-engineered Troubled Asset Relief Facility or TALF), it can be argued that while the U.S. government has put an estimated $4 trillion on the line to help revive the commercial banking sector and securitization markets, its best efforts to help small business may have not even reached $10 billion.

To make matters worse, the economic pain is not being distributed evenly across racial lines.

While the overall unemployment rate in the country was 10.2% in October it was 15.7% for Black Americans, with Black males 20 and over at an unemployment rate of 17.1% and Black teenagers of both sexes unemployed at the rate of 41.3%. This is all the more troubling when one considers that prior to the recession, it had already been determined that Black male unemployment in cities like New York and Milwaukee was over 50%.

With all of this doom and gloom what should President Obama do?

First, he should be applauded for hosting this week’s Jobs Summit.

But summits, meetings and conferences are only as good as their agenda, the quality of the dialogue and debate, and the follow-through on the best ideas, policies and decisions that emerge.

To that end here is a nine-point platform for consideration at the Jobs Summit that could jumpstart the American economy from the ground up:

1) Cut the Payroll Tax. In his November 18, 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Michael J. Boskin makes the case, “…to evaluate the stimulus properly we should consider not just what we got for the $787 billion cost but the effects of alternative policies that might have been enacted. My Stanford colleague Pete Klenow and Rochester economist Mark Bils estimated that cutting the payroll tax by six percentage points (of the 12.4% Social Security component) would, under standard assumptions, increase employment by three million to four million workers—an amount equal to all the job losses since the stimulus was passed. The payroll tax cut would have reduced firms’ costs by roughly the same amount as from the entire decline in employment. It would have cost less than half as much as the stimulus bill, gotten far more income into paychecks quickly and, most importantly, greatly reduced incentives for firms to lay off workers. In fact, it would have created incentives to hire. Even using the administration’s claims of one million jobs ‘created or saved,’ the stimulus program passed in early February is millions of jobs short of what a cheaper payroll tax suspension would have delivered.”

2) Enact Job creation tax credits (as proposed by the Economic Policy Institute: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp248/).

3) General capital gains tax rate reduction to 10%, indexed for inflation and made permanent.

4) Reduce the holding period to qualify for capital gains tax elimination in distressed rural and urban areas from 5 years to 6 months. This will encourage investors to make investments in struggling inner cities because they know they don’t have to wait 5 years to see a return. Entrepreneurs don’t want patient capital (what makes 5 years a magic number for the government anyway – especially since most small businesses have failed by then?) as much as they want smart capital.

5) Expand of the number of Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities that receive incentives for economic development in distressed communities. If, since the financial crisis, the rest of the country has been receiving incentives that were previously reserved for these areas, something must be done to maintain their comparative advantage.

6) Increase incentives and worker tax credits for any business which hires a previously incarcerated person. This gets at the core of the unemployment problem (aggravated by state laws that make it illegal for ex-offenders to be employed in certain jobs) in the poorest areas, and in communities where the social fabric is the frailest.

7) Complete capital gains tax elimination for investment clubs which invest in businesses with less than 5 paid employees, and an increase of the limit from 99 persons to 250 on the size of an investment club before it falls under SEC regulations. This may inspire the merger of several successful existing clubs – increasing their scale and reach – and fill the void in areas of the economy where venture capital and private equity are unavailable or unwilling to invest (the government’s SSBIC program to bring venture capital into the Black economy has been a failure, as Senator John Kerry has so duly highlighted, and which I discuss in my book, The Entrepreneurial Secret). If something is not done to move these areas away from debt-dependency and toward equity capital, a mass of small businesses are set to go under as the government fails to re-start lending and unfreeze credit, even in programs it sponsors through the SBA.

8) Reduce combined state (of course with the assistance of Governors and State legislatures here) and federal corporate tax rates. Perhaps the problem with the corporate tax is that only an elite group of corporations has the resources to avoid paying it. The motivation here is not only to produce shareholder earnings, capital investment, higher wages, and lower prices for goods and services but also to increase the attractiveness of the limited liability company to sole proprietorships. Utilizing the corporate legal form of business will allow them to raise capital more efficiently (only 10% of Black businesses utilize the C or S corporate form of business), share and spread risk, and develop a managerial hierarchy (about 90% of these businesses do not have more than a single paid employee).

9) Reduce regulations that hamper entrepreneurship and create a burden on cash strapped and employee-thin small businesses. As John Berlau and William Yeatman wrote recently in a Washington Times op-ed, ‘Solutions: How To Reduce Unemployment’: “Congress also should pare back job-killing mandates like those embedded in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was rushed through Congress in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals. This law has showered business with massive accounting procedures that may have created jobs for auditors — the law is often called the Accountants Full Employment Act — but discouraged business expansion by making it so costly for a firm to raise money by going public.” Sure enough, according to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the Small Business Administration (SBA)’s Office of Advocacy has noted, “Very small firms with fewer than 20 employees annually spend 45 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations. These very small firms spend four and a half times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and 67 percent more per employee on tax compliance than their larger counterparts.”

The above proposal is an eclectic mix of policies favored by some on the Left, Right and Center, members of both political parties and Independents. It is a framework that would invite creative compromise and deal-making – always a function of the political processs. What is required to help this economy can only be advanced with this kind of electoral coalition and a wide cross section of support from others, which the skillful and gifted President Obama can uniquely convene, organize and build.

Paul Ryan

If President Obama could enlist the support of a leading pro economic growth Republican like Congressman Paul Ryan (who I know understands the economic challenge from past discussion with him: http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=591) and a liberal, business conscious Democrat like Senator Charles Schumer (surprisingly the strongest political voice on the crisis of Black male unemployment: http://jec.senate.gov/archive/Hearings/03.08.07BlackMaleUnemploymentHearing.htm) , and have the initiative spearheaded by the rare embodiment of compassion for the poor and understanding of the rich – the brilliant and nimble Jared Bernstein (Vice-President Biden’s Chief Economist and co-author of the penetrating ‘The Benefits Of Full Employment’: http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/books/full_employment-intro.pdf) – the country would find if not these, then other realistic and radical solutions that the time demands.

With these policies – the nation’s army of small businesses will have more of the weaponry, ammunition, and moral support they need to do what they do best – innovate, and create jobs.

It should be noted that there are one and not two wars underway that will determine the future of America. What is more obvious are the war underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is less obvious is that the battle to save the American economy has a second front.

An army – 30,000,000 million strong – awaits its orders from the Commander In Chief.

Cedric Muhammad is a business consultant, political strategist, and monetary economist. He is author of the book, The Entrepreneurial Secret: To Starting a Business Without A Bank Loan, Collateral Or Revenue (http://theEsecret.com/). His talk show, ‘The Cedric Muhammad and Black Coffee Program’ can be viewed every Wednesday from 12 to 5 PM EST (USA) at: http://www.cedricmuhammad.com/media/. He can be contacted via e-mail at: cedric(at)cmcap.com

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner