News Flash: Wright and Obama:Not related

I’m of two minds about writing this post. And although Hillary Clinton doesn’t allow such an open perspective, I do have conflicting feelings about this topic.

That topic being that of Reverend Wright and how his views and opinions effect Barack Obama’s candidacy for the President of the United States.

The reason I am of two minds of this is obviously twofold. For one, I really don’t see what Reverend Wright’s views and opinions have to do with Barack Obama’s candidacy. Sure, to a degree we are all judged by the company we keep, but that doesn’t mean the people around him, define who he is.

On the other hand, being that I came from a traditionally religious, black family, if there is one thing I know about a church member and their pastor, it is that if the church member doesn’t like how the pastor preaches, they move along.

My mom and dad moved my siblings and me from one church to another the minute their relationship with the pastor, or his sermons, deteriorated.

Therefore, when Hillary Clinton points out that Barack Obama made a conscious decision to continue to attend the church of a controversial pastor, I certainly can understand where she is coming from. Obama can deny that he never knew of Reverend Wright’s controversial statements and opinions, some of which are in direct conflict of some of Obama’s own beliefs, but I find it hard to believe that after 20 years of attending a church he didn’t know that he and his own pastor differed on these important topics… until of course he was running for President.

Yet who cares if Obama sat idle in the pews while his Pastor preached of something that he disagreed with?

I think Bill Maher put it best when he sarcastically expressed that it’s not as if it is standard procedure to punch your pastor in the face when he says something you disagree with. And even if you continue to go back to that same church, it doesn’t mean that that pastor preaches every Sunday, nor that he says something that you differ with every time he does give a sermon.

However, if I’m forced to take a stand on this issue, then I choose to stand with those who have come to the realization that Reverend Wright is not running for President. Thus, I don’t have to vote for him or his beliefs if I find them erroneous or divisive. And to tie Obama’s beliefs to the beliefs of another person, when he says he does not share those beliefs is just wrong. I don’t think that Hillary Clinton condones cheating because she continues to stand by Bill Clinton. And I don’t think Senator John McCain condones torcher in Guantanmo Bay because he is adherent of the Bush Administration.

So in making my decision on whether to vote for Obama or not, Wright’s opinions have no bearing on that.

Now, do I question Obama’s decision to stand pat while his pastor continually said things that he did not agree with?

Of course I do, and that does play a role in my decision as to whether or not to support Barack.

But it does not mean that I associate Barack’s views with Wright’s views just because they knew each other, for the human ego of anybody supercilious enough to run for President of the United States is far too strong to be infiltrated by just one person.

Read More..

Stop the Antiquated Torch Protesting

Over the past few days, the world has been witness to several demonstrations of protests from people and groups taking issue with China hosting the Olympics when they are allegedly violating the rights of countless humans in Tibet.

I understand that protesting during the ceremonial carrying of the Olympic torch has become quite the practice of the past 50 years, but I think it is just about time for us to come up with something new that’s a little less antiquated.



Protesting a particular cause or issue during the torch carrying back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s was a big deal. Media coverage was often best acquired by the newspaper or your evening news, and the media had not settled on but a few things that could fill up a news cycle. So whenever the Olympics were fast approaching, that was what was going to be talked about in the months leading up to it, and when there was adamant protest to go along with it, that protest now had the air time and a voice to take issue with whatever cause they were protesting for or against.

But in today’s information technology era, where news gets fed to us through our phones, iPods, satellite radio’s and Internet RSS feeds, the news cycle has plenty to talk about all day and everyday. Thus, in today’s world, the months leading up to the Olympics aren’t filled with an overbearing amount of Olympic coverage. Therefore, when people decide to protest the carrying of torch, their platforms aren’t as big as they used to be, and their voices, well for lack of a better term, are more or less cut at the throat.

The only thing that makes the news cycle when people protest the Olympic torch is not the issue or cause from which the protestors are protesting, but it is the actual protest itself. Sure, when I was watching the news, on my blackberry, from an RSS feed, that I had set up on the Internet, I heard what their cause was. But the news anchor didn’t go on to discuss the cause in great detail, nor did he turn to any news contributors or commentators for further explanation. Instead, he talked about the demonstrations, the anarchy of it all, and future outrageous acts of protest to come.

Let’s face it, if there is a cause that people are going to hear about and get behind, the media is already going to be talking about it, without centering the issue around the torch bearing.

Look people, the Olympics of today are just about sports and marketing. It is not the grand, unifying, symbolic event that it once was. Not since drugs, cheating, and mass corporate marketing became heavily involved with the Olympics has this event been the place to raise issues. So take your signs and attack of the torch elsewhere. Protesting the Olympics will not get your cause on the map anymore than it already has. It will be a drop in the news cycle, and the second the Olympics are over, nobody will mention it if the only platform you have taken is attacking some innocent torchbearer.

Besides, is your cause so important that is only worth taking up once every 4 years? If it is, then that in itself should speak volumes about your own loyalty to your own cause.

Read More..

Bailing Out the Rich

Over the weekend, JPMorgan Chase, the Federal Government, and Bear Sterns all came to an agreement that JPMorgan would purchase Bear Sterns for a mere $270 million ($2 per share), with the Federal Reserve guaranteeing all of the obligations that JPMorgan will assume from Bear Sterns.

Well, I don’t know how you feel about it, but I’m certainly not okay with the fact that the government is bailing out Bear Sterns.

Granted, I understand that Bear Sterns is the fifth largest investment bank in the nation, and they are a tremendous asset to our economy, but the bail out of that company is quite contradictory to what I have heard from this administration time and time again.

Correct me if I am wrong, but all I ever hear from the government is how imperative it is that we allow the economy to run its course (where have we heard that one before…?). The President, Greenspan, and to some extent present Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, have been preaching about how private enterprise will lead us out of the recession. That was supposed to be the message behind their stimulus plan and tax reimbursement checks they are sending out, in that the extra $600 is supposed to be used in buying American products and boosting private enterprises.

Yet, that is not the message they are sending out when they help Bear Sterns out of a jam.

In fact, they are sending out the exact opposite message. They are saying that given the extremities of the times and the “slowing economy” that the government will do whatever it can to save the economy from ruin, even if that means (heaven forbid) getting involved in doing something like backing a loan or purchase.

However, that message doesn’t apply to the mom and pop stores that are being gutted, abandoned, bought out and eventually eliminated across this nation. No, if they get in trouble, they can’t even get financing from their local Savings & Loan if their credit has been damaged by their lack of business. Yet now, a company like Bear Sterns, who invested in one of the biggest financial follies of the past quarter century, is getting a pick-me up.

Now I understand that bailing Bear Sterns out was pretty much necessary. And it is not that I am not in favor of bail outs, because in the end it will hopefully save jobs. That said, this particular bail out won’t save the right people. With Bear Sterns essentially selling the clothes off their back for a penny on the dollar, there will naturally be some layoffs on their way, despite the federal government’s involvement.

And that’s where I have the real issue. If taxpayer dollars/paper-money/credit or whatever you want to call it is going to support this transaction, then it should support all of the taxpayers who work at these companies, and not just the shareholders, officers, and board directors who got them in this mess. But that is what’s happening here, because with the $270 million coming to the shareholders of Bear Sterns, they are getting something out of their fledgling investment, and officers will still get to exercise their stock options, all the while workers and the people on Main Street suffer the consequences.

If the Fed wants to bail out companies, I suggest they come up with a new way of doing it, because this isn’t it. JPMorgan, Bear Sterns, and the Fed, each get something out of this, while many of Bear Sterns employees don’t get anything. I don’t know what to suggest (a favorite columnist of mine Paul Krugman does), but I wills offer this. And that is that the government needs to start helping out the taxpayers before it starts helping out the institutions. If the government continues at this extreme macro level instead of trying to fix this problem in the states and communities where the economic troubles can’t be fixed by paper money, then this system of bailing out large institutions will ultimately fail the majority of Americans.

Read More..

Spitzer, Prostitution & Politics

I recognize that I am not the only one who feels this way, but I am certainly apart of a minority in thinking that prostitution is not a deed worthy of losing political office by itself.

Of course, that opinion comes in the wake of Eliot Spitzer’s resignation from his position as the Governor of the state of New York. Clearly, Spitzer read the writing on the wall and realized that his involvement in prostitution was just too much of a political misstep for him to recover from. However, I feel as if that should not be the case.

Granted, there are a number of other specific reasons for which I don’t find Spitzer to be worthy of a political post any longer. For starters, the people didn’t want him to be governor anymore after that. I don’t have any specific data, but unofficial online poll after unofficial online poll had people clamoring for Spitzer to step down. And if the majority doesn’t want you, regardless of any unbiased reasoning, then perhaps it’s time to step down (ahem, Mr. President).

Another reason for Spitzer to step down that has nothing to do with paying for sex, is the fact that he was unfaithful to the person he has essentially told the world he is most faithful to. Look, we all know that politicians lie in the faces of the public all of the time, but we have to assume that every blue moon there is a moment of clarity where they are actually speaking about something with some truth. Well, if that same politician can be deceitful with the one he loves and cherishes the most, then how can we ever expect him to be forthright with the general public, for which he has no real attachment other than a collection of paper ballots?

Spitzer also could have stepped down for the mere fact that he is officially a hypocrite. As a person who pledged to take down Wall Street, you cannot violate the law yourself. As bad as the people on Wall Street are, for the most part, they don’t “want to” break the law, they just want to make more money. But we call them the biggest scum on Earth, and we can objectively say that when they break the law. Well, I know Spitzer didn’t want to break the law, he just wanted to have undeniable access to sex. The problem with that is also that it is against the law, which makes Spitzer a lawbreaker, just like any wrongdoer on Wall St.

Going back to my original point though, Spitzer could have resigned for any of the above three reasons (hypocrisy, the will of the people, disloyalty), but let’s face it, he didn’t resign because of that. He resigned because of the political pressure put on a man who did something that way too many Americans find egregious.

Look, prostitution ain’t that bad. I’m not saying this as some regular John, not that there is anything wrong with being a John, but I just have never personally paid for sex…

Or have I?

In this American society, there are many practices and traditions that we have progressed on in an array of different arenas. However, the practice of seduction is an age-old tradition that will always be suspect to the dollar.

Sure, in this day in age, nobody pays dowries for brides and sex anymore. But dinner and a movie sure hasn’t surpassed inflation for no reason. And while I know that many more women are paying for their meals and picking up the tab, that doesn’t mean the art of paying for a date has died. In fact, it’s quite the contrary. There are a plethora of women who are fitting the bill at dinner, and they are doing it for a number of reasons. Now, I am no psychologist, but I did major in sociology and pre-med (please stop laughing), and at least one of those reasons has to include the fact that women also want to show their “tail feathers”, if you will, and put themselves out there as a matriarch in an act of seduction.

Is it presumptuous of me, a guy, to think that some women are thinking along the same lines as men?

Maybe.

And maybe I’m wrong. But I’m probably not.

The fact of that matter is that you will always have sugar daddies like J. Howard Marshall, and sugar mommas like Britney Spears, but society won’t call their relationships, and the millions like them, prostitution, even though it would be hard to imagine that such relationships would conjure up if huge wads of cash and coin weren’t involved.

But that type of sexual relationship/arrangement is not illegal. That said, the prostitute-John relationship is not illegal in Nevada. So had Spitzer committed this act in Las Vegas (and assuming he didn’t use public funds for these purchases), would he still be asked to step down as Governor?

I hope not. But with the clamoring that I heard for his job and the disgust with which I heard people discuss prostitution over the past week, I’m almost certain that the people and politicians would ask Spitzer to step down for buying sex, even if he had done so legally.

Now that seems hypocritical on the part of the American public, but then again that’s only a hypothetical situation, and we can never truly know the answer to that. Except last I checked, it was perfectly legal to have sex with a person of the same gender, but that premise has ousted more than its fair share of politicians and public figures.


Question: All of you have already weighed in on the Spitzer incident, so I want to speak to prostitution specifically. Do you think prostitution is a victimless crime (in theory), and do you think that had it not been for the illegality of prostitution, would Spitzer still have his job?

Read More..

About Blackonomy...

Blackonomy is more than just a blog. It’s a forum for creativity, ingenuity, discussion and the raising of awareness. Through Blackonomy, we hope to create a sense of community for blacks across the nation and world. With our blog posts, news pieces, forums, book clubs, poetry readings, and open mics, maybe- just maybe- we can achieve our goal.

Read More..