Thursday, February 21, 2008
Chauncey's World of Ghetto Nerds: The Toxic Satellite has been Shot Down, but the Zombie Outbreak has Already Begun
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I am a firm believer in the existence of a collective consciousness. No, I don't mean an energy field that binds us together and penetrates us (a la The Force), but more of a collective spirit of sorts. This is something less than zeitgeist, but more than a political unconscious. When we add in the particular ways that systems of racial superiority and inequality have impacted all Americans --yes, white folks too--we are left with a collective set of symbols, images, as well as a language, which speaks both to our racial (in)securities and how we choose to think about (or not) our interactions with others.
[And if you really want to test how race, prejudice, and racialism(s) (yes, that is a word) have impacted your decision-making and subconscious mind, take one of these online tests for implicit racial bias]
I stumbled upon the following article last week and it continues to speak to me. My thought: Is this about chocolate or about something else? Is there something in our collective racial subconscious which is being spoken to in this dialog regarding the merits of white chocolate versus dark chocolate? Or is a cigar sometimes just a cigar? Accordingly, here is your assignment:
The exercise: substitute Obama/black people wherever there is a reference to dark chocolate. Likewise, substitute Hillary/white people wherever there is a reference to milk chocolate.
Please share your findings with your classmates at the end of the exercise.
The entire article,"Dark May Be King, but Milk Chocolate Makes a Move" from the New York Times, is found here.
Here are some choice excerpts (my emphasis added):
CHOCOLATE’S dark mood is lightening at last. Until recently, midnight-black, bittersweet bars with punishing percentages of cacao were, like coffee and wine, on a quest for brooding intensity. Milk chocolate was left behind, dismissed as child’s play, an indulgence in sweetness and nostalgia.
Now, some chocolatiers are fighting back, with expensive, suave “dark milk” chocolates that reinvent milk chocolate by increasing its cacao content, reducing its sweetness and carefully refining it to give it the snap and velvet of dark.
“Personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I prefer dark chocolate,” said Joseph Whinney, founder of Theo Chocolate, a small producer based in Seattle. “But there is no product on the planet that can match that lush, melted-chocolate mouth-feel of milk chocolate.”
“Producing milk chocolate,” said Andrea Slitti, a chocolate maker in Tuscany, “is much more complicated than producing dark chocolate, as you can see in the marketplace: there are far more good dark chocolates available. At each step, we have to work to keep the clean taste of milk and not overwhelm it with the strength of the cocoa mass, then balance them both with sweetness.”
“These pure origins are because we chocolatiers want people to think that chocolate is serious and adult like wine, but underneath it is not,” said Stéphane Bonnat, whose family began making chocolate in 1884. “The first thing we have when we close our eyes and taste must be the pleasure we remember from being 10 years old.” And that pleasure, almost invariably, was from milk chocolate.
“Fundamentally, the problem is that milk chocolate does not have the respect it deserves,” Mr. Whinney said. “When you have a brown, sweet commodity that people expect to buy for cheap, you are not automatically going to find interest in flavor nuances.”
Your final thoughts?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Chauncey's World of Ghetto Nerds: Connecting the Dots--Spy Satellites and the Upcoming Zombie Apocalypse
"There has to be another reason behind this," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a liberal arms-control advocacy organization. "In the history of the space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space."
No, downing this satellite isn't about deterring China because the U.S. has had anti-satellite weaponry for at least 30 plus years.
No, shooting down this satellite isn't about protecting the world (and the U.S. tax payer) from possible injury from satellite debris.
No, ordering the U.S. Navy to down U.S. 193 isn't because of the plutonium or the hydrazine carried by the satellite.
No, intercepting this satellite isn't to prevent the goodies and gadgets carried by U.S. 193 from getting into the hands of "evil-doers."
Wake up people--this is a real crisis.
The horrible truth:
The United States is downing this satellite because if it crashes into the Earth and unleashes its payload of toxic gas there will be an outbreak of the zombie undead:
We need to prepare. Me and my girl Zora have discussed at length why the ghetto underclass (and other city dwellers) is disproportionately at risk from attack by the undead. They live in areas with a high population concentration. They live in cities where one cannot legally own weapons. The State does not value their lives. Once the undead rise in Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York, or Washington D.C. we are all doomed.
They don't run like hyperactive teenagers on crack. These Zombies will spread across the world exponentially, transforming the world of the living into the world of the dead.
The following is a short list of useful materials which should be consulted as essential resources:
1. Read The Zombie Survival Guide and also watch this handy video
2. Begin reading World War Z
3. Obtain a copy of The SAS Survival Guide
4. Consult the many resources available at The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency
How should we fight the zombie outbreak? Should people evacuate or remain in their homes? If you are in a high rise building with adequate food and supplies should you ride out the zombie outbreak and wait until order is restored? Do you go to designated evacuation sites or avoid them because of the high risk of violence and the likelihood that the zombies will be attracted to large groups of people? What are your tips for survival?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Behold the wisdom of Alexyss Tylor, wisdom made more clear by my helpful annotations--
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
When I decided to make this thing, I gave myself two rules: No LL and no Common. Why? Cause I’m sick of folks mentioning those pandering, yella negroes whenever someone starts talking about rap love songs.
Bonus: One Love--Whodini:
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Like two caramel hands
Intertwined, Outstretched, Supportive
Strong like steel
A king and a queen, fighting, loving, strong
Fighting white supremacy as a family
The force of negritude indomitable
Ujoma, Ujima, Kujichagulia, Nia, Kuumba
Like George and Wheezy sitting under that shade tree, loving, fighting, joying
Don't come knocking
No, don't come knocking
No, don't come knocking
No, don't come knocking till mornin' comes home
Loving, kissing, holding, supporting
Black ivory and black melanin
Everywhere and all peoples
Black Love in the hour of chaos
Black Love in the hour of peace
Black Love, oh I need me some black love
I need me some black love like Valentine's day in our month of Black History
Ohh I need me some black love
All this week we are going to share our love with you through poetry and song.
We begin today with a little taste of what is to come throughout the week:
Saturday, February 9, 2008
As The Associated Press reported:
You know what is so funny? Billary didn't shed a tear in public when Billie Bob was using his magic cigar with Monica Lewinsky, but now she cannot seem to turn off the water works. So sad. ol'Hillary we actually thought more of you:
Friday, February 8, 2008
In light of yesterday’s Victimology Blues post, this week’s Friday Five features expressions of victimology that tend to come from the relatively privileged. Since mainstream media accuse only minorities and women of “playing the victim,” the following statements are never linked to victim mentality:
1.) White people are being denied college admission and work promotions because Affirmative Action rewards mediocre minorities in order to promote diversity.
2.) Immigrants are taking all of the jobs that rightfully belong to Americans like me.
4.) When a woman accuses a man of domestic violence or rape, law enforcement and the courts are biased against the man.
5.) The secular left and the Jews are persecuting Christians by trying to remove Jesus from our government and culture.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Read Part 1 here
Throughout their great run over the last seven years, the New England Patriots have sounded like a broken record: “We get no respect…Nobody believed in us…It’s us against the world.” All successful sports teams spout these clichés, but the Patriots have perfected them. The Patriots continued to play the put-upon underdog role, even as they became the first team in NFL history to complete a 16-0 regular season, and won two additional playoff games before being upset by what turned out to be the better team in the Superbowl.
Anybody with a lick of football sense knows that the Patriots’ underdog shtick is laughable. It’s clear that
This mindset of victimology isn’t limited to the current generation of privileged white men. Throughout this country’s history, in fact, the most successful purveyors and beneficiaries of victim mentality have been elite Christian white males. Consider the American Revolution: our nation asks us to extol people who framed their taxation at the hands of the British as the greatest injustice in history (while they owned and raped other human beings and excluded from participation the vast majority of its residents. Consider the “threats” posed by Bloodthirsty Injuns, Black Brutes, the Yellow Peril, the Red Scare, and more recently, Middle-Eastern terrorists (internationally) and Mexican immigrants (domestically). I don’t wish to single out white men—many people have partaken in these various forms of fear mongering—but elite white males have benefited most from them.
The point is that despite what certain bloated, racist drug addicts and Easter Island-headed token negroes seem to suggest, victimology is not the exclusive domain of black people or “minorities” of any sort. To the contrary, victimology is imprinted onto the very core of the “traditional” (read: Anglo, Judeo-Christian) American history and identity favored by liberals and conservatives who vehemently oppose multiculturalism and “revisionist” history.
The strategic rationale for fashioning one’s group as victims is clear: the public sympathy gained from victimhood can mean the difference between political support and indifference or opposition. Victimology allows activists to rally the troops, to build solidarity by conceiving an existential threat from outside. This strategy is often effective in the short run. Over the long term, though, emphasizing such a strategy can only be detrimental to the less privileged and to those concerned with social progress. But this strategy has different implications depending on the status of those wielding it.
When it comes from the privileged, victimology signals one of two things about the privileged victimologists: 1) that they have no respect for the intelligence of their adversaries and the public at large, or 2) that they have a tenuous grasp on facts and common sense. Either way, their victimology both reflects and contributes to a stunning disconnect from reality. It’s both disheartening and scary to know that there are people in positions of power and authority who think that elite white men are disadvantaged. Because it helps to reinforce privilege, this kind of victimology, by default, has an adverse effect on the less privileged. To return to the original analogy, not only have the Patriots played the victim; they’ve used this perceived victimhood to fuel their dominance, as their “everyone’s against us” attitude bolsters their intensity in walloping opponents.
When it comes from those who aren’t as privileged, victimology has a more insidious result: crippling political discourse and collective action. An emphasis on victimhood leaves people ill-equipped to deal with problems that do not fit the convenient “one of them wronged one of us” narrative. Because of the lure of victimology, discussions about practical strategies to put a dent in a serious problem—such as crime, low academic achievement, teen pregnancy, and fatherless children—too often turn to slavery. Victimology leads otherwise sensible people perpetuate batshit conspiracy theories. Victimology does not simply prompt political actors to exploit symbolic victims who have been harmed by those from other groups; victimology encourages actors to crave victimhood. Every year, a few bleeding-hearts stage “hate crimes,” usually on college campuses. These actions are obviously aberrant, but the mindset isn’t. Hate crime hoaxers aren’t insane; they are merely expressing pathological victimology politics taken to the logical extreme. Relying on fear and demonization of the other in order to define and build political communities is the only mode that a number of less privileged people know.
In short, I am troubled by the extent to which victimology is embedded in our culture. One need not be a Nietzschean to argue that victim mentality exemplifies rhetorical (if not psychological) weakness. While there is certainly virtue in overcoming hardship and victimhood (as the history and resilience of scores of oppressed people attests), there is no inherent virtue in victimhood. Sometimes, victimhood, while life-changing for the victim, has no broader social import beyond the person involved; sometimes, claims of victimhood are absurd, and sometimes, “victims” are idiots or miscreants who deserve neither sympathy nor millions of dollars for making the bad decisions that allowed them to be victimized. But the issue is not whether victims exist (of course they do) or whether certain figures warrant the victim label; the issue is what role victims should play in the narratives (both backward-looking and forward-looking ones) that construct our political identities and frame our political action.
Next—Victimology Blues Part 3: The Racist Duke Lacrosse Team, the Hooker, and the Suckers Who Blindly Supported Them.
 The analogy breaks down once we move beyond perceptions and outcomes—more specifically, beyond the success to cries of victimhood ratio. Because the best, most deserving teams almost always win, especially in big games, the NFL is closer to a true meritocracy than
 This does not, however, absolve those who refuse to acknowledge the brilliance, or at least the effectiveness of the rhetoric and institutions that these elitist, racist slave owners crafted.
 And as Zora correctly implies, all of us, even those who are from historically disenfranchised groups, carry some form of privilege, depending on the context.
 But this isn’t an American phenomenon either. Pick an issue locally, nationally, globally—immigration, multicultural education, The West Bank, secularism vs. public religious expression—each side of every major conflict deals in the politics of victimhood. Victim mentality pervades all societies, garroting political discourse and identity.
By the way, isn't this theme song a wonderful bit of (deservedly) forgotten hip hop history?
Monday, February 4, 2008
I love being right...
Courtesy of Reuters News Service
By Ellen Wulfhorst
NEW HAVEN, Connecticut (Reuters) - An emotional Hillary Clinton and rival Barack Obama pushed for votes in the U.S. Northeast on Monday, the day before a coast-to-coast Democratic presidential showdown that is neck-and-neck in opinion polls.
On a visit to Yale University in Connecticut, Clinton's eyes glistened during an introduction recalling her law school days there. It was an echo of her emotional display before the New Hampshire primary, credited with helping turn the tide for her eventual victory in the state.
"Well I said I wouldn't tear up," the New York senator said. "Already we're not exactly on the path."
Obama, an Illinois senator, campaigned in New Jersey and Connecticut ahead of "Super Tuesday" voting in 24 states, the biggest single day of voting ever in a U.S. presidential nominating race.
"We cannot wait to bring change to America," Obama said in East Rutherford, New Jersey, where he was joined by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, his niece and daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.
Republican front-runner John McCain, hoping to score a knockout blow over rival Mitt Romney, invaded the former Massachusetts governor's home turf and told supporters in Boston he could win the state.
"I believe we have every good shot at carrying the state of Massachusetts tomorrow," McCain, an Arizona senator, told hundreds of supporters jammed into historic Faneuil Hall.
In New Jersey, he said Romney presided over a "big government, mandated health care plan" in Massachusetts and he promised to compete in the general election for votes in traditional Democratic bastions in the Northeast.
"When I get the nomination I will come back and compete for New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and these states in the Northeast," he said in Hamilton, New Jersey.
Romney swept through Tennessee and Georgia before dashing to California, the biggest prize, where a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll showed him taking a lead over McCain. McCain also hastily scheduled a stop in California on Tuesday.
"If I win California that means you're going to have a conservative in the White House," Romney told reporters after eating breakfast with voters at the Pancake Pantry restaurant in Nashville.
The presidential contenders in both parties are aiming on Tuesday to win a big share of national convention delegates who choose the nominees. More than half of the total Democratic delegates are up for grabs, and about 40 percent of the Republican delegates.
Obama and Clinton have waged a bitter battle for the Democratic nomination in November's presidential election, competing for votes from coast to coast after splitting the first four significant contests.
The physical toll of the campaign showed on Clinton, whose voice was hoarse and faint after days of nonstop activity.
A coughing spell also brought tears to her eyes in New Haven and forced her to pause and sip water at an event where she contrasted her universal health care proposal with Obama's, which she contends could leave up to 15 million uninsured.
"My objective is to get everybody into this system," Clinton said. "I am running for president because I know we can do better than we have."
Polls show tight Democratic races in many of the biggest states, although a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll showed Obama opening a 6-point lead on Clinton in California, which has 441 delegates to the nominating convention -- more than one-fifth of the total needed to win.
Because Democrats distribute delegates in proportion to their vote statewide and in individual congressional districts, candidates can come away with big chunks of delegates even in states they lose.
As a result, neither Obama nor Clinton are likely to deal a knockout blow on Tuesday, prolonging their battle for the nomination to March contests in Texas and Ohio and an April contest in Pennsylvania.
"The likelihood is the nomination will be decided somewhere in those states," Clinton strategist Mark Penn told reporters in a conference call. "This race will continue until someone has the delegates necessary to secure the nomination."
In contrast, many Republican contests are winner-take-all when awarding delegates, meaning a strong day by McCain could give him a commanding lead.
McCain said in Boston he hoped "to do well enough to hopefully draw this process to a close, but if not we'll be prepared to continue to go out and campaign."
Romney has tried to take advantage of conservative qualms about McCain's views on taxes, immigration and campaign finance reform. He said the race would not end after Tuesday.
"Across the country, conservatives have come together and said 'You know what, we don't want Senator McCain. We want a conservative to be in the White House,'" Romney said.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the first contest in Iowa, also remains in the Republican race, and has siphoned conservative votes from Romney in some contests. He is aiming for a strong showing in the South.
(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason in New Jersey, Claudia Parsons in Tennessee, Steve Holland in Massachusetts; Writing by John Whitesides: Editing by Chris Wilson)
(For more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)
Florida Evans said it best:
Sunday, February 3, 2008
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
February 2, 2008
Some of that is his natural personality; some, presumably, part of a calculated (and understandable) attempt to navigate a public life that impossibly asks him to be all things to all people.
Woods glides through the world like one of his shots toward the green; a breathtakingly precise, yet soft-landing approach.
It takes a tough guy to criticize Tiger Woods, to demand more, to square off and to risk the inevitable backlash of challenging such a personality. In the end, you can't really win.
Jim Brown has no such concern, of course, no such fear. His approach to life – particularly in addressing social issues – is like his old football running style. He just squares his shoulders, buries his head and blasts right at you.
That's how Brown, the product of the contentious 1960s, believes it needs to be done; the same way Woods, a far calmer generation later, probably feels his way is best.
Brown recently criticized Woods for being "too politically correct" in not speaking out sooner or with more force when a Golf Channel anchor said opposing players' best bet to stop Woods was to "lynch" him.
"He should have come out right away," Brown told ESPN. "Instead, he waited until it was politically correct (to comment)."
Even then, Woods brushed the entire episode aside.
For Brown, much of the backlash for criticizing Woods was swift and thorough. In some quarters, he was as vilified as the announcer. But as you'd expect, he isn't backing down.
"Someone asked me a question and I gave them an answer," Brown told Yahoo! Sports at a Super Bowl charity golf event this week. "And the answer, I thought, was very thoughtful and very meaningful.
"And if it is understood, a lot of people will go into their history and learn something about who developed this country, who helped develop it, who are the people who made it as great as it is today and at what cost."
Here's the thing with Brown, he asks questions and gives answers that few of us in comfortable positions sometimes want to hear. This includes me.
It's not that you have to agree with him, but simply contemplating his point can take energy, thought and even study in a day and age that prefers instant, simple-minded agreement or dismissal.
But life isn't "Hannity & Colmes."
Brown's point is that in the fade of history the true meaning of lynching had been forgotten.
"Lynching was the weapon of the greatest terrorist group in this country, the Ku Klux Klan," he said. "That was their weapon of choice. So if you don't know that, then you should really become educated because a lot of people have suffered many years because of the sickness of that terrorist organization."
To Brown "evil is evil." To joke about lynching is no different than joking about a hijacked plane on 9-11 orphaning a child, a roadside bomb in Fallujah taking out a Marine's knees, or an explosive-packed car murdering innocent shoppers in some far off land.
It's not just about race, it's about rememberance and perspective. It's a point that, at the very least, makes you stop and think.
Woods has been criticized for not being as socially outspoken as many great athletes of Brown's era. Clearly, Woods has the kind of immense power that was unattainable a generation ago.
His response is that he is socially active through his charities, which is a fair point. And he certainly doesn't have to apologize for not being Jim Brown or thinking like Jim Brown.
Brown has no more the final say on this than anyone else. If Woods thought Kelly Tilghman's two-week suspension was enough and this was, indeed, no big deal, then that's fine.
But Brown certainly can have a say. The worst thing that happened from the lynching fallout was some of the instantaneous, outright dismissal of everything Brown and others articulated.
The powers that be, especially in golf, wanted no part of looking in their sport's historical (or current) mirror. So they rallied with a simple message, "Just move on, it's no big deal, just an innocent mistake."
It would seem that at least some in the golf establishment and some of its lock-step media were as angry with Golf Week at attempting to continue the debate than the magazine's terrible choice of cover art.
But that's always the moneyed-power reaction; kill all discussion, protect the status quo. Woods – knowingly or not, purposefully or not – became their perfect spokesman on the issue.
That's Tiger's right, of course. But doing what Brown demanded – examining the past, educating people to history, challenging Woods' approach and opinion – can never be a bad thing either. Even if it becomes rarer and rarer in a sports world now mostly devoid of socially outspoken stars.
"(Athletes don't speak out today) because the most difficult part of the struggle is over," Brown said. "Now an African-American athlete can enjoy pretty much everything that everyone else can enjoy.
"When you are in an era when you can utilize the fruits of someone else's labor, it takes a thoughtful person to think the battle still goes on, the struggle still goes on and there (are) still barriers that we still have to break down."
At age 71, Brown refuses to stop challenging athletes to think about the world outside of endorsements, parties and public relations. No matter how much it costs him in all of those things.
"That's the life I live," he said. "The life I live is to try to be a part of change. A lot of youngsters, once they become educated they become advocates. They really try to do the right thing."
It's too simplistic to say Brown's approach is always right or always wrong; just as it would be to say about Woods'. Both have their merits.
Here's what is wrong in discussing race in America: taking the easy route and just say be quiet, just say it's over and no one cares anymore, to just say the other side's opinion has no merit or meaning.
The thing is, it takes courage to listen.
Jim Brown, no doubt, has that courage; the courage to fight even against an overwhelmingly popular conventional wisdom articulated by no less than Tiger Woods.
Maybe, in the end, he changed few minds in golf or anywhere else, but America remains a better place because Jim Brown, all these years later, keeps trying to fight these mostly un-winnable fights.
Thanks again Jim.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Boyd goes on, though, to say that such representations — especially those like 24's, beamed weekly into American living rooms — "may have unconsciously made some things in society seem less troubling" than if there'd been no pop-culture pictures of a black president.
I'm betting that a lot of folks will take issue with Dr. Boyd's response. Leaders within the African-American community have been pushing for decades to have more positive representations of Negroes in the media. The result is that we regularly see African-Americans playing the roles of well-to-do professionals who are in positions of power. (For some reason, television casting directors love seeing African-American women in the role of judges -- the Law & Order spin-offs must be the most consistent employer of middle-aged, black female extras in the industry.) The irony is that the majority of the most blatant stereotypical imagery we see in popular culture today is produced by ourselves and for ourselves --> T_ler P_rry.
With Hollywood favorites like Denzel Washington, Bill Cosby and Will Smith, we've been looking pretty damn good on television and film over the last two decades (local news broadcasts not included). Some might say, too good. The problem is that the progress we've made on the cinematic screen does not reflect the progress we've made on the street. Liberals in Hollywood are producing symbols that are not grounded in reality. These symbols may actually be negatively affecting African-American progress.
The power of the media in shaping American perceptions of reality has been a regular theme on this blog. Because we are still a very segregated nation, most white Americans get a lot of their information about black Americans from the television. In places with marginal black populations like New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, Utah and New Mexico, media images are even less likely to be balanced by real life interactions with African-Americans. If all they're seeing is images of well-off, powerful Negroes, then tales of black poverty and racial discrimination must fall on deaf ears.
I live in a small, New England town where I can count the number of African-Americans on my fingers and toes. All of us are professionals who are associated with the local college. We are surrounded by a lot of deep and profound poverty. It is nearly impossible to talk with Whites who have grown-up in this area about racial inequality and discrimination. From what they can observe, African-Americans have actually moved ahead of Whites. Most of them barely have a high-school education, so you can forget about discussing symbolic imagery and media manipulation with them.
All of the positive images of African-Americans are surely feeding what social theorists would term realistic group conflict. This is especially likely in this time of economic difficulty with the competition for jobs and benefits growing more fierce each day. We should not have been surprised at all that Obama lost in New Hampshire. Bill Clinton wasn't surprised. He knew immediately why Obama lost and sought to nourish the seeds of conflict with his comments on the "race card." The Clinton camp knew that they couldn't win the South Carolina battle, but they are looking long-term at the war. For all of Obama's talk about "hope," he has to also acknowledge (at least among his strategists) that he also inspires a lot of fear.
With all of the black presidents we have seen on screen, only African-Americans are more likely to elect a black president. For them, the symbols represent possibilities that were perhaps unimaginable before: "Maybe we can win? Maybe we can be successful?" For other groups, the media symbols of Negro success are more likely to inspire fear, or apathy at the very least. I would argue that the lack of support for Obama among Latino Democrats is further evidence of this.
Does this mean that we should go back to being portrayed as maids and field hands? Of course, not. We do, however, have to make sure that we are portrayed in a balanced and realistic manner. It doesn't serve any of us to live in a "fantasy land."
Fittingly, 2 songs were running through my head during the debate.
One great parody came to mind as well--just substitute Obama and Hillary as needed:
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Wrestlers, Black Elvis, and our 2008 Presidential Candidates--You Know, Sometimes You Can't Make This Stuff Up
The stars must have really aligned because it seems that professional wrestlers are now giving endorsements to candidates. In this corner, we have Hulk Hogan endorsing Obama (I don't know if this is a gift or a curse):
If we were taking bets here at We Are Respectable Negroes who would you pick to win this battle royal?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
But, we have to feed our Obama fever first.
1. Obama wins, no he dominates in South Carolina. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Obama did a Lamont Sanford on Hillary. Jesse won South Carolina in '84 and '88 so Obama's victory wasn't a total surprise. However, this victory will be remembered as the moment where Billy Clinton got his ghetto pass revoked. He hated on MLK, he cast the Obama campaign as being a "fairy tale," and accused Obama of playing "the race card" (whatever the hell that is--I think we need to do a whole post on non-sense statements such as this one). Billy Bob, as The New York Times and The Washington Post have suggested, you need to be reigned in lest you do more harm to ol' Hillary's campaign. Apparently, there are still some black folk who think Bill was right for having his wife's back. You know what, and please readers help me out with this one, am I the only person who is starting to suspect that Bill Clinton is maybe, just a little bit, jealous of Hillary? Could his foot in mouth syndrome be rooted in a little resentment for his wife? And now with the Chapaquitic/bootlegger/family dynasty of funky ol' dirty drawers wearing Marilyn Monroe lovers/Kennedy endorsement, Hillary and Bill are going for blood--I suspect Bro'Bama may eventually need to get his razor out for the big payback.
2. My boy Edwards may play the kingmaker. I sincerely hope that Edwards does well enough on Super Tuesday to hold up either Hillary or Obama in order to make sure that his platform is represented. Bob Novak, rumor monger extraordinaire is hinting that an Edwards-Obama deal is in the works where Edwards, in exchange for his support, becomes Attorney General in the Obama administration. Interesting prospect, but I think Bro'Bama may have to groom Edwards a bit for the position:
I can see it now, "My name is Olive Branch, you are all living in a digital simulation. This world you take to be 'real' is only a simulation. My father is not a 'terrorist,' no, he is your liberator, a man sent to wake you from your slumber. Please, come with me and be witness to the desert of the real." Readers, if you would like to join Junior Laden's peace crusade you must stop here and pick up some appropriately styled clothing.
4. I interrupt this news update to bring you a damn, dirty ape news update. It seems that one of these damn apes outperforms us upright walkers on tests of basic memory. If true, this test does give me some solace, because the ape's ability to retain simple information (in all likelihood to the exclusion of more complex data) explains the popularity of minstrel-hop and crap-rappers:
10. Random news happenings. Holy Sand is apparently a drug. Oprah, my least favorite handerkerchief head is being reminded that she is black. Apparently, Oprah's viewers are upset that she has ostensibly "chosen" race over gender in supporting Obama for president. Ha Ha! Sacha Baron Cohen padded his pants for his role in Sweeney Todd. Thank goodness because after seeing Borat and then Sweeney Todd I was beginning to develop an inferiority complex. We have discovered a source of anti-matter (Scotty I need more power!) Astronomers have discovered a new blackhole of unimaginable denseness and mass at the heart of a quasar (doesn't that sound sexy?). Guess what the quasar's name is? OJ287..insert joke here.
11. The near shooting incident between Iranian speed boats and the U.S. Navy in The Straights of Hormuz may have been orchestrated by a prankster with the nom de guerre of "Filipino Monkey" (which takes Crank Yankers to a whole 'nother level doesn't it?). It could still have been a misunderstanding, or maybe a set-up, sort of like The Gulf of Tonkin incident which "provoked" The Vietnam War. In related news, researchers have documented how Bush and Company orchestrated a campaign of truth distortion prior to the 2nd gulf war. FYI, "truth distortion" is Neo-Con speak for lying. Did you know we will be in Iraq until at least 2012? Not a surprise to us respectable negroes and thinking people everywhere, but lest the unwashed masses (and many Republicans) be fooled again, we suggest that all citizens annually watch both The Fog of War and Eisenhower's prescient speech where he warns against the dangers presented by the military-industrial complex.