Jack & Jill Politics

Flawed Stimulus Numbers
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/fla...

Ok, I get that some folks fudged numbers and out and out lied about jobs that were "saved." There is no question that they received the money, so what did they use it for? Has anyone seen an accounting of what happened to this money?

Looking at the Big Picture on the Recovery Act
Posted by G. Edward DeSeve on November 17, 2009 at 09:37 AM EST
Last month, in a first-ever effort by the federal government recipients that received Recovery Act funds had to file a report saying how much they had received, what they had done with it, and how many jobs these funds had saved or created. The reports were due just 10 days after the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30th, and were posted on Recovery.gov just 20 days later.

More than 130,000 such reports were filed. You can go to Recovery.gov and look them up by zip code, or search for them on a map. It’s a “real-time” update on your tax dollars at work that is unmatched by any federal initiative, ever, of this scale.

As part of President Obama’s commitment to transparency and disclosure, it’s been a huge success. When you consider the sheer number of reports that had to be filed, processed, and posted; the fact that this had never been done before; and the very short time to check reports and make sure they were right – the data collected and posted is very impressive.

Unfortunately, it would be hard to know that by reading some of what’s been written and said about recipient reporting. The Administration has been criticized for pointing out to the independent Recovery Board some erroneous reports that should not have been posted – and for failing to find all the erroneous reports. Skeptics have raised doubts about reports that show jobs created with no funds spent (although that is possible, as workers are hired in anticipation of projects starting), or funds spent with no jobs created (when materials are purchased for projects that are not yet underway).

Some filers, working with the new system, punched in the wrong Congressional district, and some just got the data wrong. And about 10% of those folks who were supposed to file a report haven’t filed it yet.

We fully agree with those who find the mistakes in the data frustrating – and we’ve been working with the Recovery Board to find the mistakes, and fix them. Just because mistakes are inevitable in any new system – especially one this large, and this new -- doesn’t mean they are acceptable. We are going through the reports with a fine tooth comb, identifying mistakes, and working with filers to correct them. That said, three big picture points should not be lost.

First, the mistakes are RELATIVELY few, and don’t change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data. Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don’t think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months – more than most experts predicted when it passed. And most leading experts agree that – whatever the recipient reported total should be – the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don’t include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.

Second, some of the mistakes are frustrating typos and coding errors that don’t undermine information at the heart of the data. Yes, it is “silly” that Recovery.gov shows that a project went to the 15th Congressional District in Arizona – when there is no such district. But a “click” on the project details gives you the address, and a check on the address shows it is in Arizona’s 3rd district. All this shows is that when people send in 130,000 reports, some will have silly mistakes. But it doesn’t really undermine the ability of the public to track and follow the data – or the fact that real jobs have been created.

Third, transparency is going to be messy – but it is better than the alternative. It would be great if every report filed was correct the first time, on time, and contained no errors. But that’s not realistic when 130,000 reports are being filed in a 10 day period. It would be great if the reviewers at the federal agencies, could have found all the mistakes in the 20 days they had to do the job, gotten the reports back to the recipients to be fixed, and reposted – but again, that isn’t realistic. And so, it’s all out there now for the public to see – because the Recovery Act chose speed and transparency as its watchwords – and the result is some data errors for the critics to pick over. But think about it this way: What government program has ever even attempted to provide this sort of information, on this scale, this quickly? In my over thirty years of government service, I can tell you without hesitation: something like this has never happened before. In previous administrations, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent without anyone being asked what happened to the money, being asked how it was spent, or being asked how many jobs were created – and some of the loudest critics of Recovery Act data today were shockingly silent. And if these questions were asked, answers would usually take months or years to produce.

Last month, something happened that has never happened before. Critics – some well intentioned, some who just wanted to discredit the Recovery Act -- have had over two weeks to try to make hay with the data. But no criticism has come close to discrediting the larger and most important point: that the Recovery Act has helped save or create more than 1 million jobs across America and across various sectors of the economy. The data will get better and better – but in the noise over counting jobs, we shouldn’t lose sight of the Recovery Act’s progress in creating them.

G. Edward DeSeve is Special Advisor to the President, Assistant to the Vice President and Special Advisor to the OMB Director for Implementation of the Recovery Act

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looki...

She is tall and those belts she is fond of makes her taller and younger.
She can be my mother and she looks younger than me.

November 16, 2009
Lou Dobbs to run for U.S. Senate? 'A lot of things are on my mind'

Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs said Monday that management there had no say in the content of his program, and neither confirmed nor denied he is weighing a run for the U.S. Senate from New Jersey.

"A lot of things are on my mind," Dobbs told Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" in his first TV interview since resigning from CNN on Wednesday.

Dobbs had been with CNN since its 1980 launch -- except for two years with an Internet start-up he joined after a public spat with his then-boss -- and over the years evolved from a traditionally neutral newscaster into an outspoken commentator.

CNN U.S. President Jon Klein, according to Dobbs, had expressed concern in recent months about whether opinion journalism belonged on the network. "He wanted to take (CNN) in a different direction, and I quite understood that and tried to accommodate him," Dobbs said, who was released with a little more than two years remaining on his CNN contract.

When O'Reilly asked if a ratings decline was the reason CNN soured on Dobbs' advocacy journalism, Dobbs said the only difference he noted was the change in presidential administrations meant his criticism of the White House on economic and immigration issues now targeted President Barack Obama rather than predecessor George W. Bush.

"An entirely different tone was taken," Dobbs said, adding that he didn't know "whether that was the distinction that triggered any sort of response or difference in perspective on the part of CNN's management."

It might not have mattered, anyway. "My contract was very explicit," Dobbs said. "I had absolute editorial control. What I reported is what I chose to report."
O'Reilly asked Dobbs if he considered President Obama the devil.

"He's not the devil, but he is certainly a man who is right now not making it easy to understand why he's making the public policy choices that he is," Dobbs said, subsequently agreeing when O'Reilly asked if his comments meant he thought the president is "mismanaging the country at this point."

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker...

November 17, 2009
Oprah Winfrey design expert Nate Berkus next protege to get own show, report says
Share |
Chicago designer Nate Berkus appears destined to be the next acolyte of Oprah Winfrey to earn his own syndicated television program.

Winfrey's Harpo Productions and Sony Pictures Television are finalizing plans to launch a syndicated weekday program hosted by Berkus next fall, according to a report from Broadcasting & Cable Editor-in-Chief Ben Grossman.
Harpo and Sony already are partnered on "Dr. Oz," the show from fellow Winfrey protege Dr. Mehmet Oz that launched this season to the best numbers of any rookie first-run syndicated talk show in seven years. "Dr. Oz" is seen locally on Fox-owned WFLD-Ch. 32.

"The Oprah Winfrey Show," carried by ABC-owned WLS-Ch. 7 in Chicago, has featured Berkus as a design expert for eight years. He also has a program on Winfrey's Sirius XM satellite radio channel and was host of last year's ABC reality show, "Oprah’s Big Give," for Harpo. He also blogs for the Web site of HSN, the TV shopping channel that carries his merchandise.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker...

Isolated location no place for such a public man to die
John Kass

November 17, 2009

Michael Scott made his living in Chicago politics as one of Mayor Richard Daley's guys out front.

The mayor put him on a series of public boards, from the Park District to the Chicago Board of Education. He made a decent living in real estate, and for 30 years he did what all front guys do:

Talk to reporters, sit in front of news cameras and lend his face to the mayor's policies and enterprise.

What's strange is that this very public man found an extremely private place to die.

The place where Scott was found early Monday, with a single gunshot wound in the head, is on the maps as part of the vibrant and high-tech River North neighborhood.

But actually, the place where he fell is a no-man's land along the North Branch of the Chicago River, a difficult place to reach, especially for a 60-year-old stumbling around in the pitch darkness, over uneven ground, with no light and no moon.

Visitors Monday to the spot where Scott died didn't see any police or security cameras that might have recorded Scott's last living seconds. With all the high-tech in Chicago, the spot where Scott died is seemingly off the grid.

It is not a place for public men like Scott. Rather, it is a place for homeless junkies and rats. It is a place to hide.

It's certainly not a place for Daley's 1983 deputy campaign manager and, until Monday, the mayor's president of the Chicago Board of Education.

The Cook County medical examiner's office ruled Scott's death a suicide. But police aren't so sure.

"We know what the ME ruled," said Police Superintendent Jody Weis. "But there are a lot of questions out there."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/c...

Dude was murdered.

Sound like an Outfit hit to me. It's plausible if he was a Daly front man.

even Daley had to admit, when asked by reporters, that he didn't believe that Scott committed suicide.

This was in response to Amaya downthread, but it posted here.
well I know about the military.

First, each soldier, whether married, single, male or female and with dependents are REQUIRED to have in place what is called a Family Care Plan. This FCP spells out how dependent children will be handled, financial issues, wills, arrangements for child care etc.

I have personally known single soldiers, who, when they had extenuating circumstances and informed the proper authorities BEFOREHAND and well before a deployment, they were NOT deployed. I even had one of my friends, who gave birth to a child with Down Syndrome right before her husband was deployed and they allowed him to forgo his deployment to support his wife and other children.

It is very likely that in this particular case, she did NOT inform her commanders of what was was going on....and yes I feel for any parent who has to leave a child behind, but there are thousands who do it, both male and female, and if she wants to continue to be a part of the military in this day and age, then deployment is part of it...she is no exception. Otherwise, she has the option to EXIT.

Another thing I ask is....most units, especially an Infantry unit that she was part of, participates in training before a deployment, and are often away from home for weeks at a time.......who kept her young infant then? There had to be someone designated to care for the child then.

From the article:
Hutchinson had such a plan — her mother, Angelique Hughes, had agreed to care for the boy. Hughes said Monday she kept the boy for about two weeks in October before deciding she couldn't keep him for a full year....
Hughes said she returned Kamani to his mother in Georgia a few days before her scheduled deployment Nov. 5.

I know things happen, but this still does not sit right....hopefully she will be able to exit the military.

What the Future May Hold

By BOB HERBERT
Published: November 16, 2009

What will the United States be like in 20 years when today’s toddlers are in college or trying to land that first job or maybe thinking about starting a family

The answer will depend to a great extent on decisions we make now about the American infrastructure.

This came to mind as I was reading about yet another closure of the problem-plagued San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, which is more than 70 years old. In 20 years, will today’s toddlers be traveling on bridges and roads that are in even worse shape than today’s? Will they endure mammoth traffic jams that start earlier and end later? Will their water supplies be clean and safe? Will the promise of clean energy visionaries be realized, or will we still be fouling the environment with carbon filth to the benefit of traditional energy conglomerates and foreign regimes that in many cases wish us anything but good?

The answers to these and many other related questions will depend to a great extent on decisions we make now (even in the midst of very tough economic times) about the American infrastructure. We’re trundling along in the infrastructure equivalent of a jalopy, with bridges rotting and falling down, while other nations, our competitors in the global economy, are building efficient, high-speed, high-performance infrastructure platforms to power their 21st-century economies.

We used to be so much smarter about this stuff. A recent publication from the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution reminds us that:

“Since the beginning of our republic, transportation and infrastructure have played a central role in advancing the American economy — from the canals of upstate New York to the railroads that linked the heartland to industrial centers and finally the interstate highway system that ultimately connected all regions of the nation.

“In each of those periods, there was a sharp focus on how infrastructure investments could be used as catalysts for economic expansion and evolution.”

Policy makers all but gave up on that kind of thinking years ago. America’s infrastructure, once the finest in the world, has been neglected for decades, and it shows. Felix Rohatyn’s book on the subject, “Bold Endeavors,” opens with: “The nation is falling apart — literally.”

It’s almost as if we no longer understand the crucial links between infrastructure and the health of the American economy, the state of the environment and the viability of the nation as a whole. We’ve become stupid about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/opinion/17her...

N.A.A.C.P. Prods Obama on Job Losses
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: November 16, 2009

With unemployment among blacks at more than 15 percent, the N.A.A.C.P. will join several other groups on Tuesday to call on President Obama to do more to create jobs.

The organizations — including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group— will make clear that they believe the president’s $787 billion stimulus program has not gone far enough to fight unemployment.

They will call for increased spending for schools and roads, billions of dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments to forestall more layoffs and a direct government jobs program, “especially in distressed communities facing severe unemployment.”

In speaking out on jobs, N.A.A.C.P. leaders say they are not trying to pick a fight with the first African-American president. Rather, they say, they are pressing Mr. Obama in an area where they believe he wants to be pressured.

“It’s time for us to really stoke this issue up,” said Hilary O. Shelton, the N.A.A.C.P.’s senior vice president for advocacy and policy. “We’re not so much trying to convince him to do something he doesn’t want to do, but urging him to move forward on an issue we have agreement on.”

African-American leaders say it makes sense to pressure the president on jobs because the unemployment rate for blacks has jumped to 15.7 percent, from 8.9 percent when the recession started 23 months ago. That compares with 13.1 percent for Hispanics and 9.5 percent for whites.

The black unemployment rate has climbed above 20 percent in several states, reaching 23.9 percent in Michigan and 20.4 percent in South Carolina.

In recent months, the N.A.A.C.P. has lobbied Mr. Obama on numerous issues, including the hate crimes bill and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for employees to sue over pay discrimination. But this is the first time in Mr. Obama’s presidency that the organization is throwing its full weight into the economic debate.

It is being joined by another group that fought for civil rights during the 1950s and 1960s, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

“Make no mistake, for us this is the civil rights issue of the moment,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference. “Unless we resolve the national job crisis, it will make it hard to address all of our other priorities.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17labor.ht...

Hoffman 'unconcedes' in N.Y.-23 House race
By Jordan Fabian - 11/16/09 06:34 PM ET

Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has "unconceded" in New York's special House election after reports that the vote margin narrowed between him and Rep. Bill Owens (D).

Hoffman conceded the race on Election Night after learning he trailed Owens by 5,335 votes. But the Syracuse Post-Standard reported last week that the margin had shrunk to 3,026 votes after recanvassing.

Hoffman appeared on conservative commenatator Glenn Beck's radio show this afternoon. Beck asked the him if he would "unconcede."

"Yes, if I knew this information at the election night, I would not have conceded," Hoffman said. Beck asked him again if he was "unconceding" and Hoffman replied, "If that’s possible, yes."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/new...

Too late, Hoffman! No take-backs!

It's Ok If You're A REPUBLICAN.

Monday, November 16, 2009
Democrats finding their spine on healthcare reform
The Senate appears to be poised to undertake a crucial healthcare vote as early as this week. Republicans have been signaling their intentions to try and delay the bill as long as possible through various amendments and parlimentary nonsense. Not to be outdone, the Democrats are saying two can play at that game. One possibility is that Republicans will force the entire 2000 page bill to be read on the floor, which the Democrats will require all members of the Senate to sit through. If anyone leaves 24 hours a day, they can stop the reading and move on. It is going to be a very interesting few weeks. Remember, Republicans called this Obama's Waterloo, i.e. beat him here and he is a one term crippled president. But I haven't heard any of them talk about the flip side and how they counter being in the opposition of a popular major domestic initiative that helps every single American, at every income level, Democrat & Republican. I'm interested to see their strategy. The money being spent? Doubt it. $2 Trillion plus on the Republican war in Iraq so far. That is healthcare reform two times over.

posted by Brian Francis

http://www.politicalinaction.com/2009/11/democr...

Reform still has very little chance of passing the senate.

I'll believe it when I see it. Senate Dems EXCEL at TALKING a big game and that's about it.

Goldman Sachs: God’s Work is Chasing Money
By: masaccio Monday November 16, 2009 2:10 pm

(via Carrie Sloan)

(via Carrie Sloan)

The London Times got an interview with a bunch of Goldman Sachs people including its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. The headline quote was “I’m doing God’s work.” It’s so Gordon Gekko, you can feel Blankfein’s nostalgia for the 80’s. But the article reads more like a Stephen King novel, with creepy crawly things sliming the reader.

“We’re very important,” he says, abandoning self-flagellation. “We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle.” To drive home his point, he makes a remarkably bold claim. “We have a social purpose.”

The GS 10-Q tells a completely different story. For the nine months ended 9/30, GS derived 82% of its total revenues from trading and principal investments. Every penny of that came out of someone else’s pocket, and some unknown part came from $1.71bn (at 9/30) in borrowings guaranteed by the FDIC. See note 6, p. 50. About 10% of revenues came from investment banking, the business of raising capital. A big part of that seems to come from securitizations. See Note 4:

During the three and nine months ended September 2009, the firm securitized $18.75 billion and $35.22 billion, respectively, of financial assets…, including $18.75 billion and $34.63 billion, respectively, of residential mortgages, primarily in connection with government agency securitizations….

They packaged up a bunch of mortgages, sliced and diced them, sold them and included the profits in investment banking income. That doesn’t create jobs.

Here’s a better description of Goldman Sachs’ hard work:

You can’t see the cash whizzing around 85 Broad Street as you walk through the place, but you can feel it being shuffled 24 hours a day between central, commercial and investment banks, vast companies, Russian oligarchs, Middle Eastern movers and sheikhers, Texas oilmen and secretive billionaires in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

I’m not feeling the hand of the Almighty in this. And since Blankfein and the Company Pastor, Lord Griffiths, invited it, let’s look at the morality of all this money-shuffling.

Most of the people in the world work and play by the rules. They work for their income, they take care of their families, they do volunteer work through churches and other groups, they pay taxes, and they act responsibly. The work of the world is in their hands, and they do it, because they are socially responsible, or because their religion requires it or because mother and daddy taught them to, whatever, they do it. We all eat and sleep safely because others of us are responsible, contributing members of society.

Then there are the pirates. Some of them are Somalis, who raid ships in the ocean. Some are banksters, who raid the productive work of their neighbors. They ignore the laws, as Sanford Weil and John Reed did when they merged Citicorp and Travelers; or they get Congress to change laws to suit them. They don’t pay taxes, and they arrange transactions so other rich people won’t pay taxes either. They jack up fees and interest rates on credit cards in the face of legislation to stop them. They set up trading computers at the site of an exchange, and use them to cut in front of other traders. They trade stocks in dark pools without exposing the prices or the securities to the public. And here’s another example:

Goldman trades securities for big firms and pension funds. It also acts as adviser to many of the companies whose securities it trades. This means the firm has a view on what everyone in the market is doing. Say an investor approaches Goldman and says it wants to buy into the oil market. Goldman can offer an accurate view of what is likely to happen in that market because it knows what its own corporate energy clients are doing on its advice and what other big investors are trading. This also means the bank can do well on its own oil trades.

Responsibility and piracy define the relationship between two sectors of society. One produces goods, security and civilization. The other takes. In the entire article, Mr. Blankfein doesn’t point to a single thing he has done in his life besides making money. Well, he has saved a few kitties.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/11/16/goldman-sachs...

WashingtonTimes : Obama's Mother being attracted to men of "third world" explains why Obama lacks ..
by LaurenMonica [Subscribe]
Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:38:57 AM PST

Why Obama lacks "blood impulse" for what "America is about" and it's also due to the fact that his father was kenyan. Are you kidding me ? So Obama has no "blood impulse" for what America because a father he never knew was kenyan ? Are they for real ? They don't even hide their racism anymore, do they ?

* LaurenMonica's diary :: ::
*

I almost felt sick when I first read the article via MediaMatters. I couldn't believe my own eyes.
From Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden's November 17 :

So far it's a memorable trip. He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders - the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).

Oh really ? No other US presidents never bowed to a monarch ? So maybe Wesley Pruden is telling us that President Dwight Eisenhowner, Bill Clinton, Richarch Nixon and VP Dick Cheney (who bowed to the Saudi King) aren't americans ? For the record, Pruden should do some research, he would learn that Cheney was blasted in Japan because he didn't bow to the Emperor and showed his hand before the Emperor showed him his hand. Any way, apparently Pruden wanted to race bait.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/17/805223.....

Haven't the Moon kids destroyed this fish wrap yet.

TRANSLATION: Black people are weak slaves, it's in their nature. Only white men are real men.

People like Pruden never tried too hard to hide it:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200506300006

And let's not forget the part where he calls the president's mother a nigger lovin' whore (attracted to men of the Third World).

Of course that's what he meant. He's just couching it as "non-Westerness" rather than "non-whiteness".

O’Reilly warns of a coming ‘tax revolt’: ‘Pelosi will be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.’
By Alex Seitz-Wald on Nov 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm


Glenn Beck had Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on his radio show today to promote their upcoming “Bold & Fresh Tour,” which will take the two right-wing personalities around the country to preach “the truth — straight up, whether you like it or not.” When Beck brought up Dennis Miller’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor last week — in which Miller warned of a coming “insurrection“– O’Reilly predicted a “tax revolt” that will “get nasty” and end up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.”

BECK: Last week, I head you say that — you were on with Dennis Miller. … You two were talking about an insurrection coming.

O’REILLY: Tax revolt.

BECK: He used the word insurrection. And not in a comedic way.

O’REILLY: Yeah, tax revolt. I think people, when they figure out how badly they’re going to get hurt in the next few years, there’s going to be a tea party on taxes and its gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi’s going to be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/16/oreilly-dro...

ABC poll: 72% support Public Option
by charcharczar [Subscribe]
Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 05:49:00 AM PST

GoodMorning America(ABC News) reported the results of their new poll this morning. They focused on Obama's approval rating which is 56% AND they reported on support for the overall health reform Bill which is 48% FOR and 49% AGAINST.

For some reason they did not say what the support was for the Public Option(something they have always did recently), so I looked up the results of the poll myself and found out why.

* charcharczar's diary :: ::
*

16. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?
-------- Support --------
53%
--------- Oppose --------
43%

17. What if this government-sponsored plan is available only to people who do not receive insurance through an employer, or through the existing Medicare or Medicaid programs – in that case would you support or
oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with
private health insurance plans?

------- Support -------
72%
--------- Oppose --------
28%

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/17/805234...

Palin's Prayer Leader Hinted Terrorist Attack Could Make Her President
by Troutfishing [Subscribe]
Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:47:27 PM PST

In the final weeks of the 2008 presidential election, one of the religious leaders closest to Sarah Palin hinted that the Alaska governor might soon get an unexpected career boost... from a terrorist attack.

Independent Charismatic Christianity vexed the McCain campaign throughout the 2008 campaign, first in the debacle that followed John McCain's decision to accept a long-sought political endorsement from Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee, when an anti-Semitic 2005 sermon by Hagee surfaced, then through infighting between Sarah Palin and McCain campaign campaign staffers.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/16/805113...

Sarah Palin being president is a terrorist attack unto itself....now that would be cause for a war.

Glee, a new series on Fox, shows just how far portrayals of teen social life have evolved since the angst-ridden era of Breakfast Club.

by Alyssa Rosenberg
The Rise of the Band Geek

On May 19, Fox did something insane: immediately following the finale of American Idol, it aired the pilot of Glee—an offbeat new series about the formation of a show choir in an Ohio high school—with no plans to air another episode for three-and-a-half months. Yet on the strength of that single, slightly demented episode, and the soaring rendition of Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing” that ended it, Glee has become the most highly promoted and hotly anticipated new series of the fall.

The show might seem to have come out of nowhere. But for all its quirky energy, unusual cast of characters, and virtuosic, joyful musicality, Glee is in fact the next logical step in an argument that teen movies have been making about high school life for the last ten years.

In the now-distant world of 1980s teen movies, stark barriers were the order of the day. The teenagers in The Breakfast Club, the classic that embodied ‘80s teen angst, were locked into rigid cliques defined by class. Those groups might be temporarily permeable during a Saturday detention session, or for an exceptionally pretty girl, but the essential barriers were understood to be rigid and permanent. The next generation of teen classics, starting in 1999 with 10 Things I Hate About You and culminating with Tina Fey’s Mean Girls, refuted this assumption, and instead assigned the responsibility for the formation of cliques to the teenagers themselves. In an era when, for many, after-school activities were evolving into virtual full-time jobs (especially for those trying to impress colleges), these movies placed a new emphasis on the bonds formed by mutual talents and interests – even among students who were otherwise very unalike.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909u/teen-mov...

Porn Company Gives Carrie Prejean the Hard Sell
Posted Nov 16th 2009 9:00AM by TMZ Staff

Carrie Prejean's sex tape cost her more than a million bucks during her settlement discussions with Miss California USA, but we've learned Vivid Entertainment is officially stepping up with an offer to line her pockets with even more money.

TMZ has obtained a copy of a letter Vivid honcho Steven Hirsch sent to Prejean's lawyer, Charles Limandri. Hirsch is asking to acquire the rights to distribute "erotic footage that Carrie Prejean, former Miss California, produced for her boyfriend following their four (4) day rendezvous in February 2007." It's the same video (eight in all, along with 30 photos) that TMZ obtained but has not posted because it's just too racy.

In the letter, Hirsch tries tempting Carrie with this: "We would like to present Carrie with several options where she could certainly earn millions of dollars."

Hirsch boasts his stable of stars, including Kim Kardashian, Kelli McCarty (former Miss USA) and Shauna Sand -- the kinds of women any gal would be proud to call her peers.

TMZ spoke with attorney Limandri last night, and it looks like Carrie's not biting. Limandri says Carrie's mom/rep says, "No, at any price."

Launch audioCarrie claims she was underage when the videos were shot, but her ex-boyfriend to whom she sent the videos begs to differ.

But Carrie may have another plan to score some loot. We're told she may sue the Miss Cali pageant, along with its officials, because she believes they leaked the settlement to TMZ.




Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/16/carrie-prejean-se...

A beauty pageant naked!!! Where's the link. Sorry ladies.

I still haven't seen this tape of Prejean. I might just have to look it up on the internets.

tape?

no, try TAPES...

all EIGHT of them

Gurl, STOP.......EIGHT tapes....mercy!! Damn this chick was Paris Hilton, Kim kardashian and the Playboy bunnies all into one.

Where is CraigHickman?....Palin's a pole dancer, I'd love to know his label for this phony.

You don't say? Homegirl's got a bit of freak in her, huh?

* NOVEMBER 16, 2009, 3:37 P.M. ET

Novice Film 'Angels' Took Leap of Faith With 'Precious'
By LAUREN A. E. SCHUKER

"Precious," a raw movie about an obese black teen growing up in an abusive Harlem household, got off the ground with some unlikely angels: A wealthy Denver couple new to the film business.

The surprise success of the movie marks a vindication for Sarah Siegel-Magness and her husband, Gary Magness, a pair of novice film investors who put up roughly $12 million to finance a project that wouldn't appeal to Hollywood studios.

"No way, no studio would make a film about an overweight black girl," says "Precious" director Lee Daniels, who produced "Monster's Ball," which won Halle Berry an Oscar.

The 36-year-old Ms. Siegel-Magness runs her own clothing company called So Low, which began with an underwear line for low-rise jeans. Her parents started the tea company Celestial Seasonings, where she worked growing up. Mr. Magness, 55, whose parents began the cable company Tele-Communications Inc. that later merged with AT&T, is a cattle rancher and oversees an investment group.

Their foray into film financing and producing wasn't part of a carefully planned strategy. "When I began to get outside counseling from Hollywood about what we had done, people were mortified," remembers Ms. Siegel-Magness. "They told us we should have instead invested in this or that fund to make 11 different movies, that we were crazy for financing an African-American movie about incest," she says.

In today's cash-starved Hollywood, where the billions Wall Street poured into Hollywood between 2004 and 2008 have dried up, individual "angel" investors like the Magnesses are more crucial than ever—and one of the only ways that gritty, independent films like "Precious" ever live to see the silver screen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487...

The Assassination of Greg Craig
by Steve Clemons

The White House counsel was done in by a scurrilous leaks campaign. So much for the Obama team's pledge to be transparent, forthright and accountable for their actions.

Gregory Craig, White House counsel to President Obama and national security advisor to Obama during the presidential campaign, resigned his post this past Friday. But when rumors broke Thursday of his imminent departure, Craig had not written his farewell note and may not have planned to leave–yet.

Since the summer, word had been leaking that Greg Craig’s days were numbered and that Obama campaign legal counsel Bob Bauer would be moving in to take Craig’s spot. But the situation seemed similar to the leaks about National Security Adviser Jim Jones’ supposedly tenuous hold on his job—which were either untrue, or turned around by Jones’ performance. The leaks about Craig also seemed unfounded—especially in light of direct statements from the White House that the statements were untrue and that he was not departing.

Some observers are now calling this incident the Obama team’s first assassination by leak.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/...

Dr. Murray is done.

Oops, meant this as a reply to rikyrah's post.

Did I ever tell you I love your name, rikyrah? If I ever have another daughter...

thanks

Janet Jackson Says Dr. Conrad Murray Should Not Be Allowed to Practice Medicine Again
Exclusive: Jackson Tells Robin Roberts That No Family Should Go Through This Again
By LYNN REDMOND, MURIEL PEARSON and LAUREN SHER
Nov. 17, 2009

If Michael Jackson was still alive, he'd be midway through his 50- show concert extravaganza in London.

It's a future that would have played out if not t for Dr. Conrad Murray, Janet Jackson told ABC News' Robin Roberts in an exclusive interview that airs Wednesday, Nov. 18, at 10 p.m. ET.

And Jackson's sister said she wants to see to it that Murray is never allowed to practice medicine again.

"Not at all," she said. "So this could happen to someone else? Another family?"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/InTheSpotlight/janet-...

Ya'll know Michelle is my weakness, my kryptonite. Why do you torture me so?

AxelFoley: LOL!! :>)

Seeeeee. I gave U a "shout-out". :>)
when I posted the PICS.
+First Lady Michelle Obama talks to students about mentoring in the library at South High School in Denver, Colo. , Monday, Nov. 16, 2009. From left are, Hamza Aftah, Kellyn Craig, Michelle Obama, Linda Jimenez and Carlos Guillen.

1. AxelFoley - - -get your PAPER - R-E-A-D-Y!! :>)

Have a nice day! :>)

You know I love you, right, GLH?

AxelFoley: LOL!! :>)

+Awwwwww - - shucks!! :>)

Was it - - - THIS?? :>) :>)

It seems 2 ATTRACT the LUV a LOT!! :>) :>)

There is a whole lot of cuteness in that comment...

Aw, shucks, ma'am.

*blushes*

*well, blushes as much as a black man can*

Cause I luv you, Axel.

;-)

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/11/12/i...

i can't lie. i want an oba mao tshirt. not because i know anything about mao, but because those are some fly silkscreen designs, and since it's made by the chinese themselves instead of american right-wing wiseacres (or american right-wing wiseacres who still see the capitalist potential in importing them for profit) that makes them especially historic.


and thank you again to First Lady Michelle for not rocking a weave or fad-dreads/ropes/braids. now about the jcrew stuff, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. i wonder if the jcrew stuff makes her more approachable than the classics, though?

AM: When it's all said and done, the Wall Street Bailouts will go down in History as the biggest heist known to man. It'll be bigger than the Israelites taking all the gold out of Egypt in the bible.

Brutal Report Singles out Geithner on the Bailouts

A brutal report issued Monday by a government watchdog holds Timothy Geithner -- then the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now the nation's Treasury Secretary -- responsible for overpayments that put billions of extra tax dollars in the coffers of major Wall Street firms, most notably Goldman Sachs.

The authoritative new narrative describes how, while bailing out insurance giant AIG last fall, a team led by Geithner failed nearly every step of the way.

Instead of bargaining with AIG's numerous counterparties to resolve its billions of dollars in souring derivatives contracts, Geithner's team ended up paying top dollar for toxic assets -- "an amount far above their market value at the time," the report notes.

"There is no question that the effect of FRBNY's decisions -- indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG -- was that tens of billions of dollars of Government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG's counterparties," the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said.

Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Wachovia got full value for their derivatives contracts with AIG, and taxpayers got the bill. In total, $27.1 billion of public money was transferred to companies that did business with AIG.

Throughout the bailout of AIG, the report says, the New York Fed failed to develop appropriate contingency plans; failed to properly assess the impact of its decisions; and generally engaged in negotiation strategies that were doomed to fail.

Then, after Geithner's team paid off AIG's counterparties on Wall Street, it imposed "onerous" terms on the troubled insurer, the report says.

"[T]he decision to acquire a controlling interest in one of the world's most complex and most troubled corporations was done with almost no independent consideration of the terms of the transaction or the impact that those terms might have on the future of AIG," the report finds.
Geithner, now the nation's chief financial officer, just didn't bargain hard enough with Wall Street's biggest companies, the report concludes:

[T]he refusal of FRBNY and the Federal Reserve to use their considerable leverage as the primary regulators for several of the counterparties, including the emphasis that their participation in the negotiations was purely "voluntary," made the possibility of obtaining concessions from those counterparties extremely remote. While there can be no doubt that a regulators' inherent leverage over a regulated entity must be used appropriately, and could in certain circumstances be abused, in other instances in this financial crisis regulators (including the Federal Reserve) have used overtly coercive language to convince financial institutions to take or forego certain actions. As SIGTARP reported in its audit of the initial Capital Purchase Program investments, for example, Treasury and the Federal Reserve were fully prepared to use their leverage as regulators to compel the nine largest financial institutions (including some of AIG's counterparties) to accept $125 billion of TARP funding and to pressure Bank of America to conclude its merger with Merrill Lynch. Similarly, it has been widely reported that the Government, while arguably acting on behalf of General Motors and Chrysler, took an active role in negotiating substantial concessions from the creditors of those companies.
Meanwhile, the Fed was attempting to keep the details of AIG's counterparties hidden from public view -- another big mistake, according to the report:

The now familiar argument from Government officials about the dire consequences of basic transparency, as advocated by the Federal Reserve...once again simply does not withstand scrutiny. Federal Reserve officials initially refused to disclose the identities of the counterparties or the details of the payments, warning that disclosure of the names would undermine AIG's stability, the privacy and business interests of the counterparties, and the stability of the markets.

After public and Congressional pressure, AIG disclosed the identities. Notwithstanding the Federal Reserve's warnings, the sky did not fall; there is no indication that AIG's disclosure undermined the stability of AIG or the market or damaged legitimate interests of the counterparties. The lesson that should be learned -- one that has been made apparent time after time in the Government's response to the financial crisis -- is that the default position, whenever Government funds are deployed in a crisis to support markets or institutions, should be that the public is entitled to know what is being done with Government funds.

While SIGTARP acknowledges that there might be circumstances in which the public's right to know what its Government is doing should be circumscribed, those instances should be very few and very far between.

READ the full report:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/aig-ba...

"Fredo, you broke my heart!"

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

ROFL!

"AM: When it's all said and done, the Wall Street Bailouts will go down in History as the biggest heist known to man. It'll be bigger than the Israelites taking all the gold out of Egypt in the bible."



that's one hell of lead-in. but speaking of....

oops, repeat.. sorry Guns3000 :)
i will delete mine.

Black Muslim veterans speak out in Charlotte

Julie Rose

The Department of Defense estimates there are about 3,500 Muslims in the U.S. military. Many of them struggle with misconceptions about their faith. A group of Black Muslim veterans gathered at a mosque in Charlotte today to talk about those challenges and to make clear their allegiance to the United States. WFAE's Julie Rose reports:

Nasif Majeed flew more than a hundred Air Force combat missions over North Vietnam. He's a proud American veteran. He's also a Muslim American. And sometimes people ask if those two things conflict when his country is at war against other Muslims.

"No, I don't see any conflict when you're fighting against . . .what are they fighting against? I don't see them fighting against Muslims. Muslims don't harm innocent people," said Majeed. He and half a dozen other Charlotte-area Muslim veterans at the commemoration at Mosque of the Witness said they constantly struggle to separate their peaceful religious beliefs from those of Muslims with extreme political or religious ideology.

They also said religious insensitivity is a problem inside the military. Statesville Vietnam veteran Salahuddin Hasan recalls a phone call he got from his son who was serving in the Persian Gulf.

"He was in tears," said Hasan. "He said, 'Daddy, what am I going to do?' He was loading bombs on airplanes, that was his job. He said 'We got bombs here that say vile things about Mohammed written on the bombs and I gotta help load these bombs. I said, 'That ain't our law. You can't kill God, son. You gave your word to your country. Stand up and be a man.'"

Hasan says his son completed the assignment and was later commended by his captain.
Muslims remain a small percentage of the American military at just 3,500 out of 1.4 million soldiers.

http://www.wfae.org/wfae/1_87_316.cfm?action=di...

good article .

Palestinians warned over UN move

Erekat said the Palestinian move was due to frustration at the peace process [File: GALLO/GETTY]

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has warned the Palestinian leadership against any attempts to unilaterally declare statehood for the Gaza Strip, the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

West Bank-based Palestinian officials said on Sunday that they were preparing to ask the United Nations Security Council to declare their backing for the Palestinian quest for an independent state.

In a radio address on Sunday evening, Netanyahu said: "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

"Any unilateral action would only unravel the framework of agreements between us and can only lead to one-sided steps on the part of Israel."

Netanyahu did not specify what "steps" Israel could take, but Israeli legal experts have said that if the Palestinians were to move forward on their own then Israel could cancel interim peace accords.

"Israel could say there has been such a gross and major violation that the agreement itself is no longer in force," Robbie Sabel, a former legal adviser to Israel's foreign ministry, told The Associated Press news agency.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/20...

Report Indicates Nearly Half of Homeless Veterans Are Black

(November 15, 2009) - Nearly half of the nation’s homeless population that are military veterans are also Black, according to a new study.

According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy organization, 45 percent of the country’s estimated 131,000 homeless veterans are Black. Overall, 42 percent of the nation’s homeless population is African-American, according to the report, which was published on BlackAmericaWeb.com

The report was released days after President Obama pledged to end homelessness among the veteran population in the next five years.

The report was prepared by M. William Sermons, director of the group’s Homelessness Research Institute, and was based on a study that incorporated statistics from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Data from medical facilities serving veterans was also included in the report.

Based on data from 2008, the institute found that roughly 1.6 million people used the homeless shelter system and an estimated 664,722 Americans were homeless at some point during that year, BlackAmericaWeb.com reported.

There is no data available assessing homelessness among Black veterans before 2008.

In an interview with BlackAmericaWeb.com, Sermons said a number of factors contribute to the high rate of homelessness among Black veterans.

"Some of the risk factors affecting African-American men are high unemployment rates (almost double that of whites) and highly disproportionate rates of discharge from prisons and the foster care system," Sermons said.

Although the data collected by the alliance does not include breakdowns for individual cities and states, Sermons said California and New York have the highest homeless populations in the nation, while Detroit is home to the highest number of homeless people per capita in the U.S.

Sermons also told BlackAmericaWeb.com that “homelessness tends to be more of a problem for African-Americans in urban centers because Blacks [tend] to live in urban areas.”

While the report also found extreme poverty in rural locations, homelessness was not as high because housing tends to be more expensive in urban areas.

"A lot of people live in poverty and substandard housing in rural areas, but they aren't homeless to the same degree because the cost of housing is much cheaper in rural areas," Sermons said.

http://www.afro.com/tabId/551/itemId/5287/Repor...

China's rising nationalism troubles West


South AsiaChina's rising nationalism troubles West

By Damian Grammaticas
BBC News, Beijing

Chinese rock band, Ordinance
Liu Li Xin and his group Ordinance depict a new mood of nationalism

While US President Barack Obama has been sitting down with China's leaders seeking ever closer co-operation, some observers are concerned as to how China will behave as it gets stronger.

Beijing is building up its military forces, while some fear that popular nationalism is a growing and worrying force.

In the dark, cavernous space of a rock club in Beijing's university district, Liu Lixin is warming up. Crashing chords resonate from his electric guitar.

It is the sound of China's stirring underground. Mr Liu and his group Ordinance are at the radical edge of Chinese music. Their latest album, Rock City, has been banned from the airwaves.

The lyrics criticise the government, they tell of democracy, corruption. They say: "Taiwan is ours, Tibet is ours. Compromising with the United States and Japan is a disgrace".

"Our lyrics are aimed at our government," says Mr Liu.

"It takes a very tough line towards its own people. But outside China it is very soft. When your people are being bullied by others, you should stand up for them. Right now they are being very soft."

Liu Lixin articulates a new nationalism that is a growing and increasingly powerful force in China.

It is almost always hostile to the US and Japan, apt to believe that other nations are bent on thwarting China's rise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8363260...

The more powerful they become the more of an enemy they become to the United States. I think with the restrictions(internet, freedom of speech) they put on their own people and the over 300 million people that are living in abject poverty they are going to have a lot of internal disruptions. The average Chinese person is going to want a bigger piece of the pie. China is also manipulating is currency to keep it very cheap to give their exporters an advantage. Tawain is another issue. Tibet is a problem. Japan is going to want to build their military again because there is a longstanding hatred between those two countries. Japan is uncomfortable with China becoming more powerful. China is not building it's military for only defense purposes. Who do you think is responsible for all these computer attacks on US defense computer systems? They are also grabbing up natural resources in Africa and other parts of the world China is no friend to the United States. The US government is not going to sit back idly and allow this to happen. If I can see these things I'm sure military planners see them as well. Unfortunately, these problems will have to be dealt with on the battlefield. Obama know this.

China has always been a very nationalistic country. Look at what they've done to Tibet. They are displacing the native population by moving millions of Han Chinese in to dilute the number of Tibetans. Strangely enough this really started when Hu Jintao was the regional head there prior to becoming General Secretary.

anyone who doesn't believe China is a threat doesn't know how to read.

They certainly have us by the short hair economically. Damn both Bushes and Clinton for this.

Anything and anyone that does not recognize the [white] supremacy of the "West" troubles the "West."

Truth!
They will tell you to forget the past.

Chinese = humans, at least i think.

I knew someone would respond like that to my post. Anybody, that can open up a history book knows of ills of this country. If you want to hold on to the racist acts of the past and pray for the destruction of the US for the betterment of China be careful what you wish for. I don't know you and I don't know your history. But maybe you need to do research on how the Chinese treat the Uighurs, Tibetans and anyone else that is not Han Chinese. Any black person that wants to undermine the United Sates for the progression of China is a uninformed fool. There are a lot more geo political issues at stake than that big chip on your shoulder. Black skin is looked upon as disgusting. You are an outsider. Ask the girl who has a black father and was born and raised in China how she was treated by the public after that beauty pageant. The majority of Chinese population doesn't consider her Chinese. Research how black Africans are treated in China TODAY. If you want to throw in your lot with them because they have a little color in their skin. Knock yourself out. Don't say I didn't warn you. It's not just the "West" that is concerned about China. India knows this. Japan knows this. Tawain know this. And you will know it soon AM2k9.

As someone who's lived NOT in one, but in TWO countries that have been invaded, bombed, and occupied by the U.S military (composed of white, black and brown folks at the request of white politicians in Washington, DC), only to later install local puppets that "jump" when Washington says "jump", I think I have a different perspective on what it means to be an American or what I understand as the proper role of U.S foreign policy.

I'm not a fan of China. Never have been. Never will. I have worked with missionaries, both Chinese and Americans, that smuggle Bibles into China. I'm aware of the treatment of ethnic minorities, Christians, Tibetans, Uiguhurs, and others. If China is the way of the future, then I sure as hell want NO part of that future. But let me ask you: if the Chinese are so bad, why does our country still do business with them? Why does everything you buy (from shoes, t-shirts, underwear and TVs) is made in China? Why, given their treatment of Black people (and I'd argue that the way they treat Blacks does not come close to pre-civil rights America), does our country has amicable relationships with them? Why do you still go to walmart, and target, fully knowing that their products come from China?

Having said all of that, let's focus on 500 years of Western exploitation of blacks and brown people of the earth. Let's focus on more than 110 years of the projection of U.S hegemonic all over the world. Let's talk about the fact that American foreign policy is centered on the evil tenets of Greed, and Racism (that's why I cringe every time I hear Obama talking about "let's reassert American "leadership" in [insert whatever part of the world you wish]" as if American "leadership" has been blameless. Let's talk about the war in Vietnam that left more than 5.4 dead Vietnamese people dead just because some mother@@## in Washington, DC (Was it Kennedy? Mcnamara? Lyndon Johnson? I dont know..) decided to start a war with them. Let's talk about coups and authoritarian dictatorships in Latin America orchestrated by the United States throughout the 70s and 80s, all so American corporations can reap mighty profits. Let's talk about the coup in Iran (orchestrated by the CIA at the request of the U.S President) so that "Western" oil companies can reap the benefits off other people's lands and natural resources. Let's talk about the Iran-Iraq war in which more than 1.5 million Iraqis and Iranian died, in a war we now know the U.S was backing both sides. Let's talk about the latest Iraq war that has resulted in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis just because [again] some Mother@#@# in Washington, DC decided that they wanted to start a war.

Now, let's talk about YOU as an American (if you're Black, then as a Black American): What did the Vietnamese ever do to YOU that you had to invade their country? (did they ever call you the "N" word like the Great Cassius Clay said at the time?) What did the Philipinos ever do to YOU that you had to invade and colonize their country? What did Panamenians ever do to YOU that you had to invade and bomb their country? What did Haitians and Dominicans ever do to you that you had to bomb and invade their country? What did the Iraqis ever do to you, for you to cause so much misery to them?

That is your history; you own it. Me? Personally, I dream of an America that isnt centered on Greed and the projection of hegemonic White Supremacy. Unfortunately, present-day America will have to wither in order for a better America to emerge.

So you spent 90% of your post on American History 101. Thanks, I needed a review.

"if the Chinese are so bad, why does our country still do business with them? Why does everything you buy (from shoes, t-shirts, underwear and TVs) is made in China?"

It's called business AmK. Cheap goods and they buy US bonds. Here's the thing it's not that "China is so bad." I dont know what your background is because obviously I'm looking at this from a different perspective than you are. My original post about China wasn't even from a racial perspective you are the one that took it there. It was from a national security standpoint. It's all about China's intentions. Now you can dismiss China's intentions because of the racial disharmony in US over past hundred years but I do not because doing so would be at my own peril. You have multiple black people on this blog and in the black community that dismiss other countries' transgressions because of America's "racist" policies of the past. If those other countries do harm to the United States they are not going to differentiate between white americans, black americans or hispanic americans. They are going to try to destroy us all. The US' enemies don't care about our racial squabbles or dynamics. That's why Iran tells Obama to fuck off just like they told Bush to fuck off. They are both seen as the "American tyrant." We have a black president, black generals, black military officers and black people in the highest offices of the land. I think someone can make the case AT THIS POINT black americans are partially or in the least complicit for the "ills" that America is doing overseas. I am a black immigrant who's parents came to America. I have served in the US military and pulled triggers for "Amerikkka" as some of you would say. And some of our family members have served in the military and other capacities involving the US government. Black America can't just point the finger about "racist policies overseas" because we have had a hand in carrying them out. I'll never throw in with China, Iran or any other country that is the enemy of this country because when the bombs start dropping on American cities it is not going to make a difference what color you are or the racial history of this country.

The problem is, when Iran tells Barack Hussein Obama or George Walker Bush to "fuck off", they have every right to do so. Walk in their shoes for a minute: Let the Iranian govt. overthrow the democratic-elected President of the U.S and then install a dictatorship that, for 40+ years, will work to protect the interests of Iranian corporations: All of us will be telling Iran to "fck off." In many ways, the same thing can be said of the Chinese. Go and read about the British's occupation of China. If you do, then you'd probably take articles talking about how "'Western" "British" and "Americans" are "troubled" by China's "rise"" (like the one you posted) and laugh at it.

Now, before you talk about America's "enemies", you have to think critically and ask yourself: Why are they our "enemies"? Who gets to design them as such? I mean, we were told that the Vietnamese were our enemies; right? We were told the Iraqis were our enemies? Now we are told that the Iranians are our enemies or that Hugo Chavez is our enemy. Come on? Please, think critically; decolonize your mind... it may do you some good.

Am2k9, are you going to "think critically" if a enemy of America drops a bomb and kills one your family members. Are you going to simply say, "Oh, they have right to do that because the things America has done it the past."

Don't be silly. If someone is trying to kill me I don't care about his reasons. When the next World War starts which is going to happen. Your foolish textbook outlook of the world will be meaningless. I don't care what your logic is. If you are an American(of whatever color) you are the enemy. Ahmadinejad will not look fondly on you for "trying to walk in his shoes." BWAHAAHAHA What type of fantasy land do you live in because I'm coming so I can hang with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. And lets say I take your advice. What should America do? Jump in a time machine and undo the past? Foolish girl, thank God there will be men like me that picks up a weapon and defend your ass so I can come home and be lectured about US foreign policy of past centuries.

Edit: And one last thing. Contrary to what some may believe Obama doesn't think like you either. He will pull the trigger if it's in America's best interest. Hopefully one day your mind will mature into the real world. May God bless you and may God continue to bless the United States of America with its greatness and its shortcomings. HAHAHAHAHAHHA

Great answer guns. United we stand.

Vdrome, what some blacks don't understand is that other people in the world looks at them like Americans especially now with a black president. Some blacks in America separate themselves as "African" Americans which I don't get but that's another post. When terrorists took down the World Trade towers they didn't stop and make sure all the "blacks" left the buildings. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they didn't stop and make sure there were no blacks on those ships. And if another country attacks us again the perpetrator of that attack will not make that distinction either. So yes I say "United We Stand."

United with whom?

Americans united with Americans.

Which Americans united with which other Americans for what reason, and for whose benefit? You know, it's not about "throwing in with China", and I don't think that was what AM2K was doing. It's about remaining cognizant of the fact that generally, the most jingoistic and imperialistic Americans don't look upon us much differently (at best) than they look upon "them".

When you put it like that Plant I don't disagree. But if as an American of any descent you are going to be defender of China because of US racial history that is where I have a problem. Do you think the countries that want America destroyed care about US' citizens racial squabbles? I don't think so.

No, I'm not going to become a defender of China, but I'm also not going to become jingoistic and imperalistic. Somewhere on this thread, you say that you've earned the right to be an American". It seemed odd. I wondered what you meant by "American". I wondered if you meant you've earned the right to be as xenophobic as all the white Real Americans. Well, for one thing, you could have been alive at any point during the history of this country, and Real Americans wouldn't have rejected you cosigning their xenophobia because you're black. That's something you didn't have to "earn". Of course, at least in modern times, including today, they also wouldn't have told you that they look upon you in the same way they look upon those other people.

If that's becoming an "American", then I'll never be one, and the thought causes me no consternation whatsoever. I'll remain a Black American, and retain the different, and many times, wider and more accurate perspective that psychic distance affords us. I value that much more than Real Americaness.

I here what you are saying Plant. And being a black person and calling yourself an American without some hesitance is understandable . But I was trying to make a wider point. This whole "discussion" started with my comments on China from a national security standpoint. Another person made it a racial one. Now I'm not dismissing what they said. My larger point is no matter the differences you may have with race in this country other countries are not going to care if they choose to do harm to American citizens. No one is cosigning xenophobia. What I am saying is don't let internal problems cloud your judgment when dealing with external problems. Does the Chinese government or the Venezuelan government care about racial disagreements amongst American citizens? I don't think so. You may not consider yourself an American. But the world considers you an American. When I travel and I pull out that American passport and the country I'm in doesn't like America everything that you said in your post is a moot point. You are the object of their hatred and you may disagree with the US government but you or your family members may be punished for it.

Anyway, I think I made my point on this China thing. I want to clarify my statements on the "American" thing. I don't equate being an American with the worst of this country. And I said this other day I'm not concerned with what white people think I am or what "Real Americans" think I should be. Those "Real Americans" don't decide who I am or what think of myself and too many us black people are concerned about what white people think we should be.

It seems to me that you (and vdrome) went beyond China, and the possibility that it may become a military aggressor beyond its own back yard. It seemed to be offered as a "reason" for blacks to cheerlead the U.S. on to do...the same thing you're afraid China is going to do, and that cheerleading will help us to "assimilate".

This is where China has the one up on us: They don't have the racial and ethnic fault lines we do.

Agreed, but they have their own fault lines as well.

Of course China is a threat. That doesn't negate what the poster said, though.

doesn't negate what the poster said, but there's no need to trade White Supremacy for Asian Supremacy. those countries in Africa getting all this money from China better watch out. they're getting colonized again.

I see I've caused a stir up in here(as usual). The point I'm making is that black people more than anyone has "earned" their right to be Americans. And America's prosperity is Black America's prosperity. I'm not going to let some uncultured phoney intellectual negro come in here and give China a pass because they are "colored."

Guns: Whose prosperity? [White] America's prosperity is based on greed and Racism, why do you want to be a part of that?

You could look at "any" country's prosperity and see impropriety. One thing I do know my grandparents were dirt poor and came to this country and made something of themselves. In America with an abundance of opportunities the last thing that is on my mind is "White America." Nobody stopped me from enrolling college. Nobody stopped me from having a career. Nobody stopped from working hard. So you can concentrate on "Greed and Racism" but I'll concentrate on opportunities and that is the beauty of America. It seems like you are stuck in a "past" mentally. American's success is my success because it provides the opportunities for people like me (YES BLACK PEOPLE) the opportunities to be successful.

China has tendency to support the worst governments around: North Korea, Burma, Sudan. Hell, they even gave an award to Mugabe!

Look, black people are the world's trash. Doesn't matter what country you go to, black people have always, are, and will always be at the bottom of the heap. Indians blacker than any African/black person look down on us. That's never going to change.

What needs to change is black people need to stop whoring ourselves out to Asians and Whites and Latinos and whoever else is disrespecting and taking advantage of us.

That could have come from David Duke Town. With that attitude maybe you will be at the bottom of the heap. As a black man I haven't been at the bottom of anything.

"black people are the world's trash"

If you don't think much of yourself you will never accomplish anything.
Now I know why every post you make you mention racism or white people. It's instilled in you. Who taught you to hate yourself Town? You should know better than that.

Guns, Town obviously meant that black people are looked upon as the world's trash. I know you don't believe she really thinks we are. Come on.

I agree with this statement. Who said that 'don't nobody want to be Black'. Town definitely doesn't hate Black people.

My people. My black people, can't we all get along? Por favor?

A nationalist leader quoted in that article sounds like a garden variety nationalist until this...
And Li Nan offers a view of how a future crisis, such as one over energy supplies, might spur on nationalist sentiment in China.

"In the future, energy supplies will become more and more scarce. Today each American consumes 10 times as much energy as each Chinese person. So every nation will have to think about their own survival. At that time, nationalism will be the mainstream."

Now, we know he's not talking in terms of keeping other countries away from China's energy supplies. He's talking about competing with other powers for the energy supplies (and other natural resources, I'm sure) of other countries. If people like him controlled the government, would China be more inclined to coerce African countries out of their natural resources, or would they be more likely to just go take them through military force?

China has a huge population, but they are not rich in natural resources; hence, they are making deals around the world to corral as much as possible. That usually means dealing with dictators or supporting dictators. That makes the process easier for them.

Right. I'm asking...in the context of the conflict set up in this article, which side would be less likely to make deals with whomever, rather than just take what they need?

And...can I assume that you're talking about China dealing with dictators from a position of realpolitik, rather than right and wrong? Because, the U.S. has done the same thing.

I believe China supports dictatorships for political as well a practical reasons.

Isn't the effect the same? And umm...it's not as if the U.S. hasn't supported dictatorships for purely political reasons.

I'm sure that is your wish.

But unlike IMF incompetence and bias, China impose no policies, they bring money and invest unlike the West.

And Africans know Africa best than you.
Strange how in the end A.A. are the ones carrying the USA and West's imperial standard.

och, you are an African and you are falling for the trickery as well. What are they investing in? Those natural resources are being taken out of the continent. And your greedy corrupt leadership is keeping the money for themselves to enrich themselves and their families. What are talking about?

You scream the trumpet of ignorance nonchalantly …

In the end it was your countrymen who almost drown the West economy, so who is greedy and keep the money for themselves to enrich themselves and their families?

But if stereotype is your surname why should i bother?

"You scream the trumpet of ignorance nonchalantly …"

LOL, I gotta admit that was funny.

Change the subject och. It's funny how you didn't even address anything that I posted. I've been telling Black Americans to drop the African for years. First off, most blacks outside of Africa are multiple generations removed from Africa and second Africans like you have no kinship to Black Americans which is evident by your posts insulting them everyday.

---

…
I've been telling Black Americans to drop the African for years
…

---

Your EGO is as BIG as yr. ignorance
Do not generalize my views to africans, it is a stupid thing to do.

You cannot read me, we do not share values.

You still telling lies, i was borne and raised in Guinea-Bissau, i do not have a portuguese passport, and you know why?

My answer is in the link above your 1st post addressing me.

My country is the example of what China is doing for Africa, for its interest also but it has done more than any european country or Bush with his dubious morals regarding condom.
But you know what?
In my country people only respect the same people WHO DO nothing, europeans, so the chinese just went back to china living behind a BIG hospital and many farming machinery that some people sold to neighboring countries.

You at least should check what you're talking about otherwise you'll be known as a liar.

"The more powerful they become the more of an enemy they become to the United States."

Who is "they"? Your response to the BBC article seems a lot less complicated than the situation described in the article. On the face of it, your "they" seems to be the current Chinese government, not the nationalists who are criticizing the government for being "soft", and as a result, are being suppressed by the government. It's hard to get a fix on the precise nature of this nationalist movement. Is it isolationist, like the popular (white) nationalist movement here in the U.S.? To me, that's an important question.

"They" is the present Chinese government.

Ok, then...if these nationalists get their way, would the resulting Chinese government...the resulting China...be more or less of a threat to the "West"?

Plant, it doesn't matter who is charge there. They want to "take over."

China was a super power before Rome.
The only occasion they dare to invade a country, Japan @ the time was under a mongol dynasty.
some historians say based on old documents that china reached Oriental Africa before europeans, and it was just to tell the world that china has a new emperor. There was NO intent to rob goods from any other foreign land.
… And actually it was Great Britain and France who oppressed China before Japan invasion, while China was practically the peaceful country on earth, you can blame Confucius for that.

Your ignorance and bias is as big as your ego.

If history can teach a thing you should be more preoccupied with Japan hardline conservatives.

Och before you get started. If you don't believe me. Why is Japan trying to negotiate with United States to reverse the treaties they signed after WW2 about having a military for defense purposes only. Japan understands like all the other Asian countries in the region why China is growing militarily. Fighter jets, submarines, air craft carriers. These are for offensive purposes. Peaceful? They have a million man Army. Don't be foolish och.

I am not paranoid (@ least about this), i DO NOT know all, contrary of you!
I am not fond of looking over my shoulders.

But it is really easy to unswear yr. question, just put USA instead of China and imagine a paranoid chinese (they have reasons to be careful about the West, because the past teach them to, and the present too, UN goes where USA want it to go, and OTAN is there for WHAT?).

You should learn to put yourself in the shoe of others, you'll learn quite something.

The current government is a threat to the west and an even more nationalist government would probably more of a threat.

Yes, a more nationalist Chinese government would probably be more of a threat. That was my point. Again, in the conflict described in the article, there is no "side" we can take, but we should still be mindful that the nationalists would probably be more of a threat.

Guns is on the money on this. America is not exceptional when it comes to racism. See Brazil, China, hell, just about any country on this Earth.

Aren't those you call "blacks" racists, to their ilk and others or even by reverse racism, hate themselves?

I mean aren't we all Human?
Isn't racism (fear, ignorance) humane (a human characteristic)?

See Brazil?
Some call them latinos, they look in the mirror and see european, even asian descendants in Brazil are getting rid of any trace of asian characteristics thru plastic construction.

Isn't that basically what I said? Hence, the "just about any country on this Earth."

No need to defend yourself, i add:

---

Aren't those you call "blacks" racists, to their ilk and others or even by reverse racism, hate themselves?

---

Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for baby
By RUSS BYNUM

SAVANNAH, Ga. – An Army cook and single mom may face criminal charges after she skipped her deployment flight to Afghanistan because, she said, no one was available to care for her infant son while she was overseas.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders because the only family she had to care for her 10-month-old son — her mother — was overwhelmed by the task, already caring for three other relatives with health problems.

Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.

"For her it was like, 'I couldn't abandon my child,'" Sussman said. "She was really afraid of what would happen, that if she showed up they would send her to Afghanistan anyway and put her son with child protective services."

Hutchinson, who is from Oakland, Calif., remained confined Monday to the boundaries of Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, 10 days after military police arrested her for skipping her unit's flight. No charges have been filed, but a spokesman for the Army post said commanders were investigating.

Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child.

"I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_soldi...

I'm a little conflicted on this one. It's the military you deploy child or not but if there is really no one to take care of her child and it's not a ruse. What is she supposed to do?

And where is the father?

She should have submitted a family care plan....you know the checklists......where was hers?....the question will be, why did she NOT inform them of no proper caregiver for her child beforehand, that is one of the MAIN components of a family care plan, what becomes of dependent children.

It will be interesting to see the timeline of when she notified her commanders of this.....I know many peple take issue with the military, and are ready to criticize them, but his case does not add up... I have not known personally, and I met lots of people, who were forced to leave their children behind when no care was available. I actually know a few cases where single moms, especially overseas have used the lack of a FCP to keep them from deployment, since all of their family is stateside.

Well, according to the news story, the young woman Spc Hutchinson had submitted the proper plan regarding what to do about her son for the year ... and followed through on her part. However, her mother, Ms. Hughes felt overwhelmed about taking care of her own grandchild while also taking care of 14 other kids, and two other relatives. Ms. Hughes says because her grandson is an infant it's too much work for her.

The news account doesn't say whether the 14 other kids in her child care are relatives are not, or 'special needs'.

My own opinion (pre-warning, everything that follows is going to be offensive): Spc Hutchinson is trying to make a better life for herself, but it's kinda hard to do so when nobody else around you is doing better, either.

My own thoughts part ii (long story why I'm going here): I wonder how much government money Ms. Hughes is getting for taking care of the two relatives and the 14 kids. I wonder if Ms. Hughes got a check for taking care of Kamani, if she would have a found a way.

My own thoughts part iii: the cycle continues - Pfc Hutchinson and her mama don't share the same name; Pfc Hutchinson's son's father is no longer in his life. That shouldn't mean that little Kamani's father's family can't be in his life, trying to provide care for this child. Unless they're not only ghetto and worthless, but child snatchers too.

My own thoughts part iv: my people: STOP HAVING SEX WITHOUT PROTECTION. PUT A RING ON IT. BE INVOLVED IN A CHILDS LIFE. DONT SABOTAGE YOUR MAN/WOMAN's ATTEMPTS TO BE INVOLVED IN A CHILDS LIFE BY SAYING 'i'm the only one you should care about now'. BE LIKE THE MEXICANS (extended family) AND BLACK FOLKS BEFORE THE 1970s, instead of this latchkey ghetto you're on your own crap we got going now (and the past 30 years).

my thoughts part final: The military is full of SHIAT. And whomever told Pfc Hutchinson to put her child in foster care needs to be OUTTED. How many other mothers were told to put their child in foster care? And I wonder if there's a racial or socioeconomic breakdown to being told that?

I don't know much about the military; it sounds like things are always on the move........ but is it really so much on the move that the military can't set up a permanent childcare facility on base (with rotating personnel) for those it's sending out to die for this country? or would that cut into the Big Toys for Big Boys budget too painfully? Again, never been in the military, and not immediately close to anyone who is. For those who are, what are the true logistical problems against that?

Anyway, with the headline I was all ready to hate on Pfc Hutchinson, but after reading the full story, I'm more mad at her mother, and I'm angry at the backpedaling the military is doing now that this has gotten national attention.

The father needs to be outted.