Jack & Jill Politics

Joan Walsh call out Keith Olbermann: http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/200...

What has gotten into her?

Whatever it is, I like it.

Why was Keith Olbermann "outraged" at Wanda Sykes' kidney jokes when he was yukking it up over the Sean Hannity waterboarding jokes?

I like Keith but I find his "outrage" to be a bunch of empty calories when he can put ERRYBODY on blast EXCEPT Pat BuKKKhanan.

Perhaps Keith, Rachel and the like are outraged that black ass Wanda Sykes was the one who put Rush, Hannity and their ilk on blast on national television and it got lots and lots of attention while their meek mewling nightly doesn't.

That's it RIGHT there.

Shocking, powerful interview with former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

http://dwarfurl.com/829f3

Former six term congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is interviewed by Ognir from The Info Underground on a variety of topics including, human rights in America and abroad, sex blackmail of US polictians, infiltration of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the early stages of her political career, balkanization of US political system for Israel, and more.

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!

Today's Conversation: Deploying A Little Negro Spirit: When Black Artists Flip the Script http://snipurl.com/hv3jh

Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox ad for MO Dem: "Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting"

http://mediamatters.org/research/200610240001

Gee, where was everybody when the junkie did this?

They had their noses up Limbaugh's ass.

Oh Admiral...jokes about a person with Parkinson's disease faking it are cool! You should lighten up!

They were saying thats Rush being Rush Ha Ha

News: Housing sales showed up for the time period. it is first time buyers taking advantage of rates and surplus created by foreclosure. No move ups.

Bad news: foreclosures have moved from subprime to middle class suburbs where mortgages are FHA standard.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/forec...

There was a post about young black men running a garden down in the Carolina's a day ago. I am posting this for people looking for ideas on what to do for young black men.
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/05/07/da...

Dancing With Trees.

I absolutely love that title. The content, too.

Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Good afternoon, JJP. There's a lot of heavy, but important conversations going on here today. This won't exactly qualify for intense discussion, but if you are as much a fan as I am of Obama art and comic books, Kyle Baker has a sneak peek of the art from his upcoming graphic novel on the President and First Family. The picture of him with Michelle and the girls is quite stunning.

There's also a great write-up by novelist Martha Southgate about a recent panel on "Black Authors on Writing in the Age of Obama."

Hispanics are speaking out about the appointment to the Supreme Court and protecting Sotomayor.
The important thing that the article brings up is the fact the Democratic and progressive(?) bench are thin. The lack of Democrats on the Federal bench to me is far more important than the Supreme Court appointment. On the simplest level because you have no one to appoint if you have a Supreme Court Opening. On the larger one it is a testament to how insidious the Republican were over the last 20 years. They literally created a framework to control the ideological arguement of how courts were to work. That ideology was to protect economic interests over those of the public at large, i.e. they subverted the notion of JUSTICE.
Obama really needs to have a list for the lower levels of the judiciary and the will to strike when openings occur.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Wrong post.

Hey, y'all....checking in.

In addition to my parenting stuff, I went on staff for Bob McDonnell's campaign in VA (veterans/African American coalition director). So now I have even less time on my hands.

Hope everyone's doing well...back to making phone calls and changing diapers.

CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN!

Thanks Val....and thanks for everything!

Hey D!

We were wondering how Mrs. D, little mr. D and little miss D were doing

Everyone's doing good....the oldest is all over the place, the youngest only wants to eat and sleep, and the mrs. is tired of being in the house.

Hang in there! Glad to hear everyone's doing well.

Your link is showing Error 404

Bob McDonnell *IS* an error 404.

Oops.

McDonnell's campaign site is www. bobmcdonnell.com.

Good Morning All,
Craig, way to connect Gay Marriage with Civil Rights/Human Rights. It should be a no-brainer. Todd fuckin Greta lol - a step backwards, if there is such a thing. Some of you have mentioned before on Keith following company line. 911 aside Wanda tore into Rush's ass. It was funny and way overdue. Like mentioned above Comedian v. Comedian. Right on Wanda - "Field Negro" status earned. Have a nice day.

This isn't a normal subject for for JJP but I want to see if we can have a discussion.
Arizona, blessed w/ sunlight, has built a solar panel generating station and wants to ship the power via lines that have to be built. The authority regulating power lines says no.
This strikes as me as so many ways stupid because at a minimum the economy and welfare of the area are interlinked. One, it will provide jobs. Two, assuming people keep moving to Arizona they will need the power has water rationaing will curtail power generation from the dams in the area. Three, will help California w/ its water and power problems. Four, all of this issues require regional solutions so this is a good place to start.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109...

This solar project should be built in the southern California desert as close the end user as possible.

We need to use all the alternative resources that we can get. Never doubt that the forces against us becoming ENERGY INDEPENDENT are strong. They are determined. They want to keep us as slaves to the oil and gas industry. They care not one shit about the security of the United States, and that is what Energy Independence is - it's a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.

I really have to ask why the solar array is not being built in Palm Springs, Ca. since that is where the power is being shipped via the 230 mile extension cord? Or would it be to disruptive to the golf courses and rich folks houses in Palm Springs??

This is an example how change it going to be difficult. The only way to change things is by the Left becoming independent of Obama. We need to fight at both federal and state levels.

Who's afraid of Wanda Sykes?
I love Wanda Sykes, I always have. I laughed out loud watching her White House Correspondents’ Dinner routine (on the Web; Salon has never attended that particular circle jerk of DC insularity; maybe someday we will!)

Sure it was off-color and, um, slightly out there – but that’s the point. Or it used to be. Even if I didn’t already love Sykes, my point of view would be: Once a barely elected president who started a devastating war on false pretenses can joke about those pretenses at that same dinner (Remember Bush looking behind sofas for WMDs? ) it’s hard to ever be offensive again.

There are other wince-worthy examples we never hear about: At the 1970 Gridiron dinner, according to "Nixon's Piano," by Kenneth O'Reilly, the not yet disgraced GOP president Richard Nixon and his scandal-dogged VP Spiro Agnew did a classy racist interpretive piece. "What about this 'southern strategy' we hear so often?" Nixon asked Agnew. "Yes suh, Mr. President," Agnew replied in what was known as “dialect,” adding "Ah agree with you completely on yoah southern strategy." While Nixon played a variety of songs on piano, Agnew drowned him out with his renditions of “Dixie.”

Also in that Gridiron program, a newspaper reporter sang a rendition of “Dixie Melody” with these words: “Rock-a-bye the voters with a southern strategy; Don't you fuss; we won't bus children in ol' Dixie! We'll put George Wallace in decline Below the Mason-Dixon line. We'll help save the nation From things like civil rights and inte-gra-tion! Weep no more, John Stennis! We'll pack the court for sure. We will fight for voting rights - To keep them white and pure! A zillion Southern votes we will deliver; Move Washington down on the Swanee River! Rock-a-bye with Ol' Massa Nixon and his Dixie strategy!” Hilarious, right? Move over, Wanda Sykes! Let's make room for that kind of comedy!

Reader J.K. sent me that historical footnote; surprisingly it never came up in critical coverage of either Stephen Colbert in 2006 or Sykes in 2009. The prissy MSM barely mussed their hair in response to the sacrilegious Bush jokes, let alone Nixon race jokes -- but Sykes is being accused of slander with her jabs at Rush Limbaugh -- and Obama is being attacked for barely stifling laughter at it. It’s so ridiculous. In case you’ve been in a bunker without media, Sykes is in trouble mainly for saying this:

“Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So you're saying, 'I hope America fails', you're, like, 'I don't care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.' He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason. He's not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this, sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. Obama supposedly laughed, but then took a sip of wine. "Too much?" Sykes asked him. "Rush Limbaugh, 'I hope the country fails,' -- I hope his kidneys fail."

OK, I personally wouldn’t make a joke about someone’s kidneys failing on cable news—I am a serious unpaid news pundit, and I want to be asked back! But I also wouldn’t mock Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson’s tremors, as Rush Limbaugh did, or wax hysterical about having to grab my ankles for our new black president, as, yes, Limbaugh did (I’ve never once thought about that possibility, to be honest. I really admire Michelle and their marriage.)

Watching Sykes, I was so pleased. I thought: My God, there’s never been a better match for Limbaugh. He’s an entertainer and a comedian – I despise him, but every once in a while he’s funny – and he’s regularly off color; Sykes is all those things while, in my opinion, funnier and less cruel. But let’s be honest: We had comedian and entertainer v. comedian and entertainer. She’s his match and his equal, and anyone who criticizes Sykes without sending the same criticism to Limbaugh is both a phony and a wuss.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs reportedly tried to back away from Sykes, and amazingly – according to Newsbusters.com, not the most fair and balanced Web site – so did Keith Olbermann. (I've emailed MSNBC for comment because I can't quite believe that.) But there’s been no rebuke from Obama, and that makes me happy. Much of Sykes routine was actually tweaking Obama: My favorite jokes included Sykes lampooning the president for his shirtless photos (“I know you’re into transparency but…I don’t need to see your nipples"), his race (“The first black president, I’m proud to say that, unless you screw up, and then it’s gonna be, what’s up with the half-white guy? Who voted for the mulatto? What the hell?”)

And much of Obama’s routine shockingly crossed our dull political lines as well. He described Dick Cheney’s new book, “How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People,” and welcomed John Boehner as a fellow "person of color," although “not a color found in nature.” Obama actually cut a wider swath of comedic pain across the political landscape than Sykes did – but Sykes came down hard on He Who Cannot Be Criticized, Oxycontin Man! And she's now in deep trouble.

I’m late to the faux outrage about Sykes’ edgy hilarious routine, but let’s let Jon Stewart get the last word. Like many of us on Monday he wondered how Sykes could provoke outrage while torture revelations provoke yawns and/or lame rationalizations.

Let this be the beginning of a beautiful new era of savaging Limbaugh freely and with delight – and please God, let the rumors of Olbermann’s disapproval be false!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/

How is Sykes in 'deep' trouble? I know they are yammering and ranting and in a snit, but trouble, how?

I dont think Sykes is in trouble because in the end she will tell them to kiss her black ass.I am troubled that sane people are coming to the defense of fat ass by saying she went over the line.F that if that child molesting drug addicted piece of excrement can say what ever he likes and cowardly republicans dont call him out on it then lets fight fire with fire.We have the truth and plus we are way lot more funnier

OIC....politics of 'distancing' themselves, gotcha!

I think it was inappropriate for the WH to have any opinion on Sykes content as she was invited there by the WH Correspondent Association, and for them to then turn around and attempt to make folks in the WH accountable is outrageous. It is the Correspondents, themselves...their officers and members, who should be accountable for their own guest!!

Who's spinning WHO?

The Sleuth-WaPo
In Defense (Or Not) of Wanda Sykes

While conservatives are expressing outrage about comedian Wanda Sykes's edgy (and hilarious) routine at Saturday's White House correspondents' dinner, the main organizer of the event says Sykes was a big hit.
"I thought she was hysterical, I thought she was fantastic," Associated Press reporter Jennifer Loven, who is president of the White House Correspondents' Association, tells the Sleuth.
About the wave of criticism Sykes is enduring for her racy jokes about conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, Loven says, "I'm not surprised. There's criticism of something a comedian says or does every year."

The AP White House reporter, who as president of the association presided over every aspect of Saturday's dinner, says it's "not my job to defend Sykes." However, she says, "I don't have any interest in censoring her either."
Loven says that anecdotally at least, more people seemed to like Sykes's routine than not.
Even the ex-Bush cabinet was seen laughing up a storm at both President Obama's and Sykes's jokes. Former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who sat just feet apart from one other at adjoining tables on the far rim of the ballroom in the Hilton Washington hotel, seemed to enjoy Sykes's jokes about loquacious Vice President Biden and torture.
Their mood quickly changed, however, when Sykes' went off on her riff about Limbaugh being the 20th hijacker, according to sources who were seated near the two. (Sykes joked, "I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight." She also wished kidney failure upon him.)
During his daily briefing Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn't spoken directly to the president about Sykes's jokes but said, "I think there are a lot of topics that are better left for serious reflection rather than comedy. I think there's no doubt 9/11 is part of that."
And seeking to distance the president from the edgy comedian, he added, "I don't know how the guests get booked."

Loven says she has received no complaints from either offended conservatives or anyone at the White House for her choice of comedian.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/05...

Yes.

This is the rightful domain of all questions regarding whether Sykes was appropriate.

"Loven says she has received no complaints from either offended conservatives or anyone at the White House for her choice of comedian."

Maybe she needs to send out a notice to the membership and tell them there is no reason for them to be asking questions of the WH regarding SYkes as she was their invited guest!!

Exactly! Why didn't Robert Gibbs simply reply, "she was your guest...what did you think"? What I can not tolerate is the same white folks who appeared regularly on Don Imus' show and said nothing suddenly offended by "edgy" comedy. Anna Marie Cox is a prime example. She sat her ass on Imus' set countless times and laughed along with their racist and sexist jokes. On more than a few occassions he talked about killing people, including people in Bushs' administration. Nothing was said then, but suddenly she's offended. Fuck her, Olbermann, and the rest of them!

ITA!!!!

Some Gossip....


Olbermann's Girlfriend Katy Tur Joins The Weather Channel

An anonymous tipster wrote this weekend that Katy Tur, girlfriend of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, "is now chasing tornadoes as part of The Weather Channel's Vortex2 team."

Weather Channel meteorologist Mike Bettes introduced Tur on Friday as one of the Vortex2 digital journalists in a short Q&A. What is she most looking forward to? "Tornadoes...duh, Bettes," she said.

But since NBCU owns both MSNBC and The Weather Channel, questions may arise about whether the relationship helped get the job. Olbermann tells TVNewser: "Anybody who suggests so is misinformed, and/or sadly unaware that in this time when the industry is collapsing around us, nobody gets a job based on 'influence,' only talent."

Suuuuuuuure, Keith. Suuuuure.

Where is GLH to tell you to go to the bad chair?!! (as I snicker and try to control my giggling)

How does Ms. Diahann Carroll do it? I just saw her on the Bonnie Hunt show and she looks fantabulous. She is holding it down for the 'classic' diva's. You see that...I'm reframing. It's no longer old...it's classic.

BLACK DON'T CRACK

There is a basic disconnect in the attitude of Americans between what they believe to be true and what they are willing to tolerate in the name of 'public safety'. Some examples:
1. The majority of Americans believe the "harsh interrogation techniques" used on prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib constituted torture under both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law, yet they are willing to allow people to be subjected to such treatment, if it is necessary to protect 'national security' - i.e. avoid an imminent terrorist attack.
2. The majority of Americans believe racial profiling is wrong but they are willing to tolerate it to: (a) facilitate the identification of 'illegal aliens' (e.g. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's roundups in Arizona) or (b) target potential 'terrorists' (e.g. profiling of Arabs and sometimes Sikh's at airports, etc.) and (c) to justify the exclusion of "troublesome" - usually Black & Brown - youth from public spaces (e.g. malls, street corners, parks in cities throughout the U.S. of which the Maryland example is just one)
3. The majority of Americans believe we are not winning the "war on drugs" and that it is unwinnable, yet they are willing to tolerate (a) the disproportionate arrest, conviction and incarceration of Blacks and Latinos for minor drug offenses; (b) the arrest of more than 700,000 Americans annually for marijuana possession - primarlly youth of color; (c) the continued violence on our border with Mexico driven by America's insatiable appetite for illegal drugs (the majority of which are not consumed in poor inner-city neighborhoods) as well as our unwiliingness to deal with the gun lobby; and (d) the escalation of the war in Afghanistan with the mission of suppressing the cultivation of poppy to limit the ability of insurgents to use drug profits to finance their operations (didn't we try this in Colombia and Nicaragua and Boliva? How well did it work there?)
Our politicians and media would rather talk about John Edward's infidelity, Michael Steele's buffoonery and Dick Cheney's Orwellian view of history rather than address any of the above issues on anything but a superficial level and we let them. So what does that say about us?
Postscript: What ever happened to the investigation into the roots of our current economic crisis? With all the focus on the bank bailouts and various stimulus plans, the reasons we got into this mess seems to have faded from view. Unfortunately, the institutional forces that led to the crisis are still in place so it's in the public interest to understand these forces so we can develop appropriate and effective regulations and safeguards - but don't count on Washington to light the way - they're in the pockets of these forces - pay attention to the battle over the legislation to limit credit card fees.

Remember UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE too!

Meghan McCain a real pain at D.C. dinner

Sen. John McCain’s daughter — who writes online for The Daily Beast and will soon release a book about life as a Republican — lost it after getting stopped by security when she arrived at the White House Correspondents dinner Saturday. The problem? She had only two tickets, but brought two friends.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/05/11/20...

At least one member of the GOP had fun. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin couldn’t make the festivities due to tending to her state’s flooding problem, so she sent hubby, Todd, who had a whale of a time.

Todd happily lapped up the attention from his tablemates and rarely left the side of his date for the evening, Fox News anchor Greta van Susteren.
The two became so close that we caught them hanging out together well past midnight at Capitol File magazine’s annual after-dinner bash.

If ihad to sit at a table with Greta VanSustern and look at that bad plastic surgery, I would have had a bad time to the point I would have asked for a to go bag for my dinner, but, those media loving Palin's would of course enjoy it and of course make Fox News happy!

Meghan McCain? She really needs to sit down and be more like her mother, a wall flower.

Considering what Greta looked like BEFORE the plastic surgery......I believe that plastic surgeon is a miracle worker and should have received some sort of Nobel prize.

*yelling from the "bad chair"* YOO HOO! Miranda! C'mon over, girl! *points at extra chair* I got some dranks and snacks! LOL!

Oh damn............here I come! LOL

As ugly as she is, it's hard to imagine what she looked like before.

is that not the weirdest shit in the world? a tv show anchor goes to a very high end event with a governors husband? who their husband works for? what type of crazy shit is that? i know damn well that one time senator obama wouldnt be going to an event with with say tamron hall or cambpell brown

Campbell can stay home.Now Tamron,cookies ahhh.My wife just slap me telling me to get my mind right

Rich white girl had a tantrum.Boo hoo.No class

did yall see liz cheney on morning Joe trying to defend her shit? lawd please dont get me started on this. i seriously want to slap some of these commentators and journalists.

She was lying her pale azz off.She stated that the bush/cheney regime didnt know anything about bin laden but when Clinton left office he gave them a dossier stating that bin laden was the #1 threat to America and they ignored it.We were warn before something was coming and bush told the briefer you covered our ass now watch this golf swing.I sent an email to the morning hoes saying if you do not call the liars out then you shouldnt talk policy you should do cooking segmonts.

I do not and will not watch Morning Joke anymore. I'm trying to get my blood pressure straight and ish like that does not help.

it amazes me their logic. gay marriage taxes and public health care are tearing our country apart but torture and illegal wars are saving it. i do need to stop watching some of it though. they are giving me a headache

Love the Tuesday Open Thread’s picture – very appropriate and it looks like Obama has about as much experience handling the family dog as he does in running a country, i.e. none, nada, zip.

Worried about your job? You should be. Also, State jobs are beginning to weaken some more, and after their total collapse, the Federal Gov’t should start bleeding jobs within the year. States to Cut More Jobs…

Were you born an idiot or did it take years of hard work?

Something that deeply ignorant had to get it through genetics.

Duh...that was part of the President's plan. You and Pete Sessions done gone and spoiled PBO's plan to rule the world. *Cue Dr. Evil's evil laugh*

thats right he planed on making everyone lose their jobs so they would vote for him to not have one?

Karmi you are a day late and a dollar short. President Obama stated at the beginning of the year and at the start of his Presidency that although they would work hard to shore up the economy the fact is that we would continue to lose jobs until the latter part of this year and then employment would begin to climb again.

I would go into the details to explain the reasoning and facts behind that assessment but I am sure you did your reading and can figure it out yourself.
Oh yea . . . about the GOP budget . . .

lol how very clever of you.

I put this in Jill's thread, but I'm reposting it in the open thread as well.

When we consider that our ancestors couldn't have their marriages to each other honored because they were considered property and had no individual rights, and therefore, our families weren't considered important enough to keep together when it was time for one of us to be sold to another master, one would think Black folks wouldn't want to see anybody's marriages go unrecognized by the state.

You might not know this, but there are lots of gay people who have no interest in this issue at all. While they don't come out against it, they don't support it and think gay people who do are just selling out to the majority culture.

Go figure.

I must admit that being involved in marriage equality wasn't something on my plate years ago, either. Even though I was married in the eyes of God, I was perfectly fine with that and sought nothing more from the state. But as I've aged, my life experience as an adopted person and as an adult adoptee rights advocate raised my consciousness. You see, in most every state in the union, an adopted person who's an adult has no right to access his original birth certificate. That is, the birth certificate the state impounded when the child was adopted and a new birth certificate was created to include the name of the adoptive parents. The birth certificate is a person's legal DNA. I was adopted in the late 60s, during the time when everything around adoption was about shame. Adopted people know that their birth certificate is a lie -- my mother did not give birth to me as my birth certificate says she did. It was important to my psychic healing to be able to see my original birth certificate after I found my birth mother, but I needed her permission to see it. A grown man needed the permission of a woman he may have never even met just to see a copy of what is rightfully his. All across the nation, grown people are treated like children by the state, like little pieces of property moved from one family to another, a move they had no say in whatsoever, and when we're grown and we want to know where we came from, the state tells us it's none of our business, and if we REALLY want to know, we need to get permission from some stranger we may never even want to meet or crawl before a judge on our hands and knees and beg the judge to open up our adoption file and our birth records just so we can see that piece of paper that includes our original identity, and if we're lucky, it will help us heal.

If you can see a connection between this and our experience as Black people in this country, then you're with me. If not, I don't know what to tell you.

What does any of this have to do with gay marriage?

Walk with me, and I'll try to explain. But first you're going to have to set aside any negative value judgments about homosexuality you might harbor. Just for now. You can pick them back up when I'm finished, if you must.

One of my gay friends, in the wake of the most recent high-profile firing of a gay soldier said, “There are not laws that prevent a openly gay couple from sharing a life together. In most states, they cannot currently get that certificate of marriage, but they are not affirmatively prevented by law, or other government action from being a couple. Under Don't Ask Don't Tell the law is that if you are openly gay, you're out. That's why I consider DADT more repugnant, and a more serious battle than marriage equality.”

He’s not in a relationship, nor is he in the military, so I couldn’t really understand why he wanted to elevate the importance of one issue over another. For me, civil rights is civil rights is civil rights. Equal protection under the law is equal protection under the law. In employment. In housing. In public accommodations. In adoption. In civil marriage. Either we ALL have it or we don’t.

So I told my friend this:

When a person has no recourse to force an undertaker to come and take a corpse out of their home because the survivor is not legally considered the next of kin despite their 30-YEAR RELATIONSHIP and the dead person's next of kin is thousands of miles away and, because of Alzheimer's, doesn't even remember who the dead person is anymore, but she is the only person alive who, by state law, can force the undertake to remove the corpse from their house; when you wrap your mind around all of the practical and emotional turmoil that results in this situation because of this discrimination, I would argue STRONGLY that that certificate of marriage is way more than just a piece of paper.

This is but one example. It's not a hypothetical, either.

I could provide many others, several much more devastating.

A marriage certificate is akin to an adoption decree and an altered birth certificate: it creates a LEGAL FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP.

Short of one grown person adopting another grown person and having the relationship legally defined as parent and child, and I’m not sure what two grown people in a loving and committed relationship would want to jump through THAT hoop just to become a legal family, the STATE DENIES GAY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO BECOME A FAMILY UNIT THROUGH CIVIL MARRIAGE.

That, from where I sit, is an affirmative prevention of something afforded every other citizen.

It must end.

My friend had no reply.

Adoption and civil marriage are the only two ways the state allows unrelated people to create a LEGAL FAMILY UNIT in this country. Both are established by a certificate – a piece of paper filed with the office of vital statistics – which protects that FAMILY UNIT against all sorts of madness and bullshit from other parties.

As Black people whose ancestors’ families were ripped apart by the institution of slavery, HOW CAN WE STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THE CREATION OF A FAMILY UNIT and the safety and SECURITY, emotional and otherwise, that ensue for all of its members?

Tell me, Black people.

HOW?

I never understood homophobia in general, because where's the wrong in loving someone (sorry if that sounds trite)? Some of my relatives hide behind their religion on this, and I try to make them see sense but that's not working out so well. I just hope their kids will ultimately break through that and be more tolerant.

Thanks for the food for thought.

You earned your Redtail today Craig. I am surprised this hasn't blown up totally out of control as you framed the topic so succintly that the only response against has to be out of control. It says a great deal about the readers at JJP as well.

Thanks, RobM.

Craig,

This is one black person you don't need to convince. I went to your blog a couple weeks ago and saw Toni's book, "A Mercy" featured. So I got the audio and listened on the weekend. That book is about this issue...how families form. It struck me how vulnerable that loose family unit was when the white couple fell ill. They had NO legal rights. The women "servants" could be assaulted, the farm taken away...
Toni shows how it wasn't just blacks who were slaves...there were white and Native indentured servants whose situation was comparatively only slightly better than blacks. Blacks got the harshest treatment of all, but there's all kinds of bondage in the world.

As black people, how soon we forget that we're vulnerable too. And those fat preachers dressing up on Sunday, and leading the flock astray....don't get me started!

There are many levels to this. And it strikes me that this is about human kindness...it is A MERCY...in addition to the harder: A RIGHT.

I haven't finished the novel yet, sidetracked as I've been by planting season, in-laws, and activism, but your comment will force me to get back to it.

100% Co-sign. More later!

I have no issues with gay marriage and am for it if two people find and want to love and spend the rest of their lives together, they should have that right and no one should be telling them they are not worthy of it. The only thing I do tire of is the constant and incorrect comparisons to blacks and inequality that still exists and flourishes in many parts of the county. And, the fact that blacks are singled out as being the most homophobic in this country, when that isn't true.

Blacks are VERY homophobic...particularly black men. Black women who are homophobic seem to be so in relation to the instruction they receive from the pulpit....from a preacher...who's usually a black man.

Wow that was HARSH! But.....the bigotry of some Black women in the name of a male-identified religious belief system that they insist is Biblical doctrine is a huge beast to fight. I can guarantee if some of these "ministers" were actually held to Biblical standards they wouldn't be on a pulpit. If more women would answer their calling and take leadership roles (that whole women not being "allowed" to teach men is a LIE) maybe others wouldn't cling so tightly to dogma.

Also I think a lot of it has to do with people not knowing who they are. We need to be researching our ethnicity and legacies to gain a sense of pride in ourselves that I think is sorely missing.

Maybe, maybe not, what about the Christian right, that pretty much runs the country from board rooms to school districts. Most of them are WHITE. A few loud, uneducated, hateful, buffoonish black "preachers" hardly speak for a whole race of people. My point is that why are blacks always the worse of the worse, when most social and wedge issues in politics are driven by white men?

Roman Catholics and Muslims both denounce homosexuality. In Islamic countries governed by Islamic laws, homosexual behavior is punishable by death.

I AM black...and I KNOW we are homophobic...and I KNOW that homophobia found most of it's power via the pulpit. We can't allow our sensitivity at being blamed for everything blind us to the truth about ourselves.

In 2004, Karl Rove, a white man, targeted the Black vote in Ohio by ensuring that a gay marriage initiative was put on the ballot and then did extensive outreach to the Black Church.

The rest is history.

I'm not interested in the discussion of what group is the most homophobic. It only yields division and nonsense.

My question is: why are we homophobic at all?

Calling any individual or group homophobic is a false paradigm. People are not afraid of homosexuals, rather they are intolerant.

Big difference.

Many folks who are not religious are intolerant of homosexuality.

There you go preachin' truth again, Mr. Hickman.

Ignorance and the need of people to follow and to belong to something.I get that people feels religious but what if they truly follow the teachings of their savior, feed the poor,care for the sick instead of giving money so their preachers look good and teaching something that Jesus never once said.Do onto others as you would like others to do onto you.That is all.

I tire of misunderstanding and closed-mindedness, no matter the source.

Sitting at the crossroads of Black and Gay, I have to address blindness, ignorance, and dogma in many forms across many communities.

Thank you Craig. This is a reminder how much we forget. No group should tell two consenting adults that they have no right to marry. It's simply arrogant to do so.

Slavery nor adoption equate to gay marriage. Very disparate issues. Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges are both edible fruits that grown on trees.

You've made yourself very clear on the issue and you're not going to change. That much seems certain.

But just to be clear: I didn't EQUATE slavery and adoption to gay marriage, just as I didn't EQUATE adoption to slavery.

But as a Black, Gay, Married, Adoptee, Activist, Poet, Artist, History Lover, I can see the connections.

What does edible fruit have to do with a commentary that uses adoption and slavery as an analogy for gay marriage. Or is this just more pears and kumquats?

You as well have made yourself very clear on this issue and you are not going to change. That much seems certain.

Were you the author of the piece, is that what you meant when you referred to having posted it elsewhere?

You are right that slavery and adoption were not equated to gay marriage as the issues are not at all similiar. The 'parallels' that were made were quite an emotional stretch and in no way similiar in context ...the connections were solely emotional.

For you it appears the topic is emotional and thus those emotions are projected onto other topics which have no similiarity in reality UNLESS you are emotional about it. Folks can cry about a lot of things, like getting a traffic ticket or being physically abused or robbed.

No one however would even deign to suggest that because all those situations made someone cry that getting a traffic ticket was in anyway analogous to being beat up or robbed.

Just because they cried about every single one of those events does not mean traffic violations should be criminalized like assault and robbery.

If we start making laws based on emotional connections, all black folks behavior will be criminalized and rednecks will rule the emotional day. Racial profiling is nothing except emotional 'connections'.

IOW's ...our country has had more than enough of emotionally connected laws, like driving while black, jim crow and institutionalized racism.

So spare me these trumphed up emotional connections as raison d'etere for legal changes or justifications.

Geeez!!

"So spare me these trumphed up emotional connections as raison d'etere for legal changes or justifications."


http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#sensitive

This is fucking brilliant.

Here's my favorite part:

Don't You (WE) Have More Important Issues To Think About?

When you're beginning to feel backed into a corner, you could do worse than to trot this one out.

As with the best of all these techniques, this step operates on several levels. First of all, it communicates to the Marginalised Person™ that you think the entire debate is trivial and below consideration, indicating you entirely disregard their feelings and emotions. Secondly, you disown responsibility for your part in the debate and anything that you've said that may have been discriminatory or offensive.

Finally, you reinforce your Privilege® by suggesting that it is Privileged People's® job to set the agenda for the Marginalised Group™. After all, how could they possibly know what issues they should prioritise for themselves, they're far too inferior and stupid! You, with your objective, rational Privileged® perspective, on the other hand, know exactly what is most important and it is definitely not confronting you with your own bigotry and ignorance!

::

You as well have made yourself very clear on this issue and you are not going to change. That much seems certain.

::

You parrot me a lot.

I'm flattered.

But it reveals just how lacking are your debate skills and how unoriginal your thought.

You can't address the details of the subject matter, so you make false claims and refer to apples and oranges and then you ask ME what they have to do with the subjects at hand?

You're hilarious.

Are you adopted? Are you gay? I'll ask the questions again: if you are NOT adopted and you are NOT gay, then how can you know anything about what it is to be adopted and gay unless you open your mind and listen to those who are and try to learn something about what you obviously don't know?

If you ARE adopted and gay and you still see things the way you see them, then all Ii can say is bless your heart and good luck.

I do mirror others communication style back as it appeals to their own mindset and establishes clear communication, given that they already agree with it.

My goal is not flattery but enhanced communication, points of agreement have a way of creating common ground. I choose not to resort to attempts to marginalize by disparaging a person's ability's as you do here:
"But it reveals just how lacking are your debate skills and how unoriginal your thought."

That is call a tangent an attempt to emotionally divert from the topic, if the attacked is easily unfocused. It is only effective if the attacked chooses to become emotional about it. I don't. I disregard such statements, knowing full well that any remarks off topic are due to a lack of facts to support the contention. Thus, the need to derail the focus, emotionally.

You write:
"You can't address the details of the subject matter"

False, I did address the subject matter details, succinctly by noting they fell into one category in terms of connections, i.e. it was all emotional. EMOTIONS. There were no facts it was an emotional discourse where disparate situations, events and topics were connected by the individuals FEELINGS as the "substantative" glue.

Given that we all have feelings, I found the connection to be wholly capricious and extremely subjective; like beauty solely in the eyes of the beholder. It held no meaning unless your were emotionally persuaded.

Then:
This is what you write to demonstrate superior 'debating skills':

"Are you adopted? Are you gay? I'll ask the questions again: if you are NOT adopted and you are NOT gay, then how can you know anything about what it is to be adopted and gay unless you open your mind and listen to those who are and try to learn something about what you obviously don't know?"

Given that is, once again an emotional level, you choose to presume to engage at let me ask you:

Are you ugly? Are you a slave? Are you educated? Are you short or fat? If not how can you opine on any of those topics? Do you write legislation or sell newspapers, how about being independently wealthy? If you do none of these things how can you ever know what they feel like or address those points. Basically, if we limit you to what you do or are, then the only thing you can speak to is being gay, right? After all, it is the only identity you claim so all other subjects are barred topics when it comes to your opinions on the matter, no?

All I can say is that dealing with matters from an emotional context seems to be where you excell. Bless your heart. Most individuals understand that outstanding polemic skills are not emotional as that is rudimentary and lacking cognitive or deductive reasoning. Playground. Sandbox rules of engagement are all emotional..no substance, no facts.

Hopefully one day you will respect facts enough to know that reasoned intellects find them far more convincing.

Good luck.

That is call a tangent an attempt to emotionally divert from the topic, if the attacked becomes unfocused. It is only effective if the attacked chooses to become emotional about it. I don't. I disregard such statements, knowing full well that any remarks off topic are due to a lack of facts to support the contention. Thus, the need to derail the focus.

::

Now you're just flatout lying.

If you disregard such statements then you would regard such statements. You wouldn't respond to them at all.

The only person derailing is you.

You may have the last word, since it appears you need to.

Bless your heart and good luck.

No lying.

I straight up copied and pasted what you wrote.
It is written for all to read.

You wrote about my debating skills, my lack of original thought, as if that were the topic it isn't.

I derailed nothing.

I clearly communicated that your 'connections' of those disparate topics, were solely EMOTIONAL.

No facts, no substance, just subjective emotions.

Your emotions are flatout uncompelling and unpersuasive.

Bless your heart and good luck to you as well.

"Apples and oranges are both edible fruits that grown on trees."

Ha...that's way too nuanced for some people. Some people think the only comparison is "type".
So much for the educational system.

The problem is that slavery, adoption and gay marriage are NOT fruits nor fruits from the same tree...and no one would ever consider consuming them for nutrition.

Whereas apples and oranges do belong to the larger classification of fruit. Not so with slavery, adoption and gay marriage.

Or maybe it is just so nuanced that only you can comprehend it.

How about you help us out and tell us all what is the larger group classification for slavery, adoption and gay marriage? Could you please share the factual vs. emotional connection being made?

You ever hear a discordant song? You can tell when there's a chord that doesn't sound quite right to the ear...that's how it is with your comments.

Your commentary is discordant. Were you unable to explain the nuance you claim was there? Your commentary creates cognitive dissonance, perhaps you are reading the notes to the song wrong.

IOW, your comments will benefit from learning to read music rather than simply playing your own tune and claiming you hear discordant notes, from the rest of the orchestra.

Do you know anything about how the hugely profitable corporate international adoption industry currently facilitates the modern slave trade of young girls and boys sold into sexual slavery outside of their borders of origin?

I didn't think so.

Did you know that early adoption laws governing our domestic adoption industry were set up to protect the criminals who literally STOLE babies from families and sold them to adoption agencies and lawyers so everyone could make a profit?

I didn't think so.

Do some research before repeating the lie that adoption and slavery aren't connected.

Boy you are really grasping for straws. Chattel slavery in this country for centuries have zip, nada, zilch to do with adoption and it certainly was not what you wrote about with regards to gay marriage.

Maybe, there is some substantive point you will eventually make but so far, you are not there.

Control and power.What if I told you this is the only person you can marry or fall in love with?I would have control over your life and the power to deny you your freedom.

No its not.The same voices against gay marriage are the same ones who defended slavery by quoting the bible.They are the same voices who were against interracial marriages by quoting the bible.Do we see a pattern here.Cloak yourself in the bible to justify hatred just because someone is different.

Ah...that's awfully insightful of you, djchefron.

This is a story about Cookie Gilchrist, who led the black player's boycott of the 1965 AFL All-Star Game.

Jack Kemp, who organized the AFL Players Union, helped to move the Game from New Orleans to Houston.

Gilchrist and Kemp were teammates on the Buffalo Bills.

http://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2009/05/12...

I've never used Disqus comments and don't know if I can use html -- I hope the link works. This is a story about young people, mostly black, being denied access to a mall for suspect reasons, i.e., such as carrying a ball.
Jim Crow in Silver Spring, Maryland

First of all, the kids in the video clip sounded way too young to be at the mall without a parent or responsible adult. Second, most shopping malls are private property that are open to the public under certain conditions. When people allow their under-aged kids to trapse off to the mall without parental escort, then the minimum-wage mall cop becomes the de facto baby sitter and rule maker.

Don't like the way Paul Blart enforces the mall rules against our kids? Then either keep they narrah asses at home, or supervise them ourselves.

RonnieB, you nailed it. Young kids have no business being alone in malls.

I agree that malls are not playgrounds where kids go to play. Malls are not street corners where teens can hang.

Those kids were NOT too young to be at the mall, and they were NOT younger than the many groups of white kids who come through there with no problems.

Are you really fine with that? My kids should be harassed and kept out and white kids should be just fine?

You sound as if you believe mall cops can legally discriminate based on race. They cannot.

Children under the age of 18 are TOO YOUNG to be at the mall by themselves, whether they are white or black. I will agree that it is wrong to target the black kids for punishment while letting the white kids roam free.

I, personally, as an adult DO NOT like going to malls where there are lots of kids. If the mall has these type stores:

Up Against the Wall
DEB
Old Navy
Body Central
Foot Locker
Hot Topic
RAVE
Forever 21
Charlotte Russe
DTLR
Journeys
Abercrombie & Fitch
American Eagle Outfitters
Claire's
Shoe City
CITI Trends
Spencer's

If the mall has any of the above stores in abundance, I stay away from that mall. Why? Because that mall will attract a lot of kids.

A lot of kids = an unpleasant shopping experience. A lot of kids = trouble. The people I see getting hauled off to Mall Security are usually kids.

I have seen malls run down to the ground because they let the kids roam free in packs in the mall. I don't want to shop someplace where there are roving packs of kids, screaming, yelling, running down the hall, slobbering all over each other, radiating attitude, doing their mating calls in the corridors of the mall.

No kid under 18 unless they are working there should be allowed to roam the mall without someone over 18 supervising them.

What were the kids doing at the mall? Why did they have a ball with them?
How did they get to the mall? Were they going to purchase something or just hang out and disrupt the mall? How were they going to get home?

All of that is not yours, not mine, and not the security guard's business. But since you must know, just so you can be sure the kids weren't up to no good...they WALKED to the mall, and they were going to BUY SHOES.

Since we have such pathetic, pitiful expectations of our children, when they haven't done anything wrong and just tried to go to a store, it's no wonder white people do to.

There's no point in fighting white people on racism. Because the disease lives at home.

How White parents supervise their kids is not the standard. Moreover, if we already know that unsupervised Black children are going to be harassed more than White ones, then we've really got no good cause to be put our kids in that position in the first place.

The real problem here is that parents have allowed shopping malls to become de facto child care for teens.

How anyone supervises their kids is not the issues.

You're defending racist behavior. No other way around it. We're talking about ACCESS to a PUBLIC place that is being denied based on RACE -- NOT behavior.

How anyone supervises their kids is not the issues.

That is THE issue. Its the ONLY issue when we're talking about KIDS.

Miranda, I'm speaking in reference to someone being stopped before they even enter a mall.

How did this conversation go from the fact that black boys were not allowed into a mall, the same mall that groups of white kids go into each day with no problem -- how did we go from there to all of a sudden focusing on what black parents aren't doing? I'm assuming neither you, I, or the security guard would know from looking at a group of children whether they would behave themselves in a mall or not. I'm assuming we can be honest enough to admit that.

And since we can't, how on earth is it okay to deny access to black children because they're black...regardless of whether or not they know how to behave?

I'm so tired of feeling like people seem hell-bent on only expecting negativity from black kids, from assuming they're up to no good, and thinking they should only ever be allowed out of the house with their parents, and if they're not with parents, they must really up to something bad.

How are we not surprised when black kids become criminals, since that's what everyone seems to expect, criminal behavior? Because some black kids behave badly we think it's fair, and okay to now judge them as a group based on that?

Why even fight the power? If we're thinking like this, we are being the power. And we are certainly not helping our kids to grow into the people they need to become.

All of these negative expectations that people have in their minds and their hearts...kids feel that. Whether we speak it or not, they pick up on it. And they internalize it.

No kid becomes bad by themselves. And yet we justify other people treating them like their sense of pride does not matter at all, and as if they have no feelings.

I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that Muffy and Brad are hanging out at this City Place Mall.

First off "City Place Mall" sounds ghetto, so I decided to do some checking. The anchor stores are Marshalls, Gold's Gym and Burlington Coat Factory. The mall is supposedly half empty and has stores like hair salons, gold jewelry places, sneaker stores, Payless and some little small stores mixed in with mid-to-low price national chains.

I've never been to City Place Mall as I live in VA, but if I had to guess, I'd say that this is a ghetto ass mall most likely frequented by black people. I'm willing to guess most of the white people are probably going to White Flint or any of the other malls in and around Bethesda, and NOT "City Place Mall."

That doesn't excuse Paul Blart from kicking out the black kids while letting the white kids roam free, but you're trying to make City Place Mall sound like it's Tysons Galleria or Pentagon City where they need to keep black people out* when in reality it sounds like black people are the primary demographic shopping there.

*I do not know if Tysons Galleria or Pentagon City keep black people out; I've never been kicked out of either of those malls.

I'm not trying to take away your racism "a-HA" moment. I'm trying to explain to you that the racist behavior by the mall cops is a moot point ... if you're supervising your kids.

Now, I understand that some folks want their kids to have the right to act as much of a got damn fool as White kids do.

But that's a race-to-the-bottom that intelligent grown folks want no part in.

Why do you keep talking about kids behaving badly? Do you assume every black kid acts like a fools? Because all of your arguments are based on that one, ridiculous assumption.

THOSE KIDS DID NOTHING WRONG. They tried to go inside a mall, and yet you continually equivocate for the blatantly racist reason for their exclusion.

I'm talking about kids behaving badly in the context of supervision--specifically, the lack thereof.

Show me a case where our Black kids are being excluded while in the presence of their Black parents, and I, Rev. Al and Jesse will be rollin' 3-deep to said mall to protest in person.

Okay. So you have NO problems with black kids being excluded from things because they're black.

Since they're not with their parents.

I think I get it now. Although I wish I didn't.

I don't mean to, or want to, defend the actions being taken to keep these kids out of the mall.

But I live in DC, close to the mall in question. There IS a problem with "bad behavior" from young people, usually African American.

I don't like using the term Jim Crow, that is a very specific type of racism.

This is a clear case of racial profiling. But the only reason this profile exists is because so many kids are fitting the profile.

Very sad to see, in any case.

Ok see I didn't even see your post but from checking out the mall website and seeing what kind of stores they had I had pretty much figured this was probably a ghetto ass mall having trouble with youths and this was not a racial thing but a roving band of kids thing.

You say you don't want to defend the actions being taken, but then you do defend them, saying some African American young people behave badly. But in the video, the kids say they were stopped BEFORE going into the mall -- they didn't even have a chance to behave badly. They hadn't gotten their feet in the door before they were kicked out.

How can it ever be okay, regardless of age, to keep someone out of a public accommodation because they are black?

Because some black kids behave badly (some kids of every race do) then it's okay to keep other kids, because they are black, out of the mall?

Riddle me this: how are you going to get kicked out of the mall before you come up in it?

Was security standing by on the sidewalk waiting for these kids to attempt to come in?

You aren't telling the whole story and you're coming up on this site trying to rile people up.


In Hampton, VA they TORE DOWN Coliseum Mall and part of why the mall died is because they had roving bands of kids driving out all the paying customers. Security even had BOOKS of kids' pictures who were banned from the mall.

You ain't telling the whole story.

I am not defending the actions, rather, I am trying to explain them.

I've been a victim of racial profiling (DWB, even walking wb), so I understand your concern.

But it's a fact: a lot of kids go into malls without parents. And lacking parental supervision, these young kids... well, they act like unsupervised young kids. I'm just saying, that's a problem too.

I don't know what the 'happy medium' is in this case.

If kids are ALLOWED into a mall, don't you think ALL kids should be allowed in?

You don't find it outrageous that black kids are being singled out and kept out?

Is it okay to assume that every black kid has behavior problems and can't control himself?

If we keep expecting negativity from our kids, and excusing authorities who do the same, that is what we'll get. Our kids deserve better from us.

MG, Intellectually and morally, I understand your outrage and agree with it.

But emotionally, I'm just not feeling it. If I had a dime for every time I've seen bad acting black kids in a mall, on a bus, or down my block, I'd be rich enough to buy a mall for myself.

You talk about the problem of "expecting negativity from our kids."

Well, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing a million times and expecting a different result.

I've expected unsupervised black kids to act right since... well... I've been alive (and I'm in my mid-50s). It's romantic to expect the best from them, but reality has disappointed me too too often.

But hey, don't let my cynicism stop your own outrage. I'm just saying, I'm not feeling it.

So only black kids were denied entry or all kids? I know there are a few malls here that have an across the board rule that anyone under the age of 16 must be accompanied by an adult and they enforce it religiously....black white brown or yellow.

There is NO RULE about age at this mall, and yes, from what I can tell, this only happened to black kids.

And it's really disgusting how so many black folks think it's okay to treat black children like criminals, and assume negativity before they even stepped foot in the door.

I hear you. Thye malls here in Durham, NC have made it so the patrons must be accompanied by an adult. This was done because of the behaviors of children. having sex in the bathrooms and dressing rooms, and in general running off paying patrons. I understand the rationale of the mall for wanting to protect it's assetts. However, if this is their policy they need to post it.

No one is having sex in bathrooms here. We're talking about INNOCENT children -- they had not done a thing except try to get into a mall. And because they happen to be young and black, they were denied access.

This is a whole lot more than not fair.

You are correct.? What have the Black patrons tried to do about this?

I'm just trying to get the word out now because a lot of people don't know, so I don't know yet if anyone has done anything. But it's very possible they've tried and hit a brick wall, like I did. No response to email and voice messages when I tried to contact mall management.

Where did you find this picture? Is it inside the family living quarters?

Pete Souza is the Official Photographer of the White House. For the anniversary of the First 100 Days, he released some of the photos he had taken. This was one of them. I do believe that is the President and Malia in the private residence with Bo.

Good Morning.Here is your Tuesday track.Enjoy
Natalie Cole--Annie Mae (1977)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5vo_bZAX3Y