Rihanna’s Greatest Hits

No comment. No comment at all.

- ACL

Tough Love Hate

Pop quiz, Unmitigates: What is the best way to teach women about the consequences of sexual promiscuity?

Give up? The answer: Let their children contract HIV.

This week, the Colorado State Senate overwhelmingly voted 32-1 on Senate Bill 09-179; legislation which would, in part, require those providing health care services for pregnant women HIV testing. The goal of the bill was to protect unborn fetuses from contracting the virus. Incidentally, the bill also allows for the woman involved to decline such testing.

On the surface, this appeared to be a slam dunk piece of legislation.  Who – in their heart of hearts – could oppose legislation that protects children from inheriting HIV? Enter, Sen. Dave Schultheis, the lone voice of dissent. Frankly, it was not his role as the opponent of a pretty reasonable bill that was disturbing. Most unnerving about his opposition was what he had to say about it:

Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.

As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.

You can hear the full audio transcript here (you’ll need Apple Quicktime).

Wow.

To put this whole thing a little more bluntly, Sen. Schultheis believes that the best way to punish promiscuous women who contract HIV is through their unborn children. To make matters worse, this wasn’t the end of his diatribe. From the Rocky Mountain News:

“What I’m hoping is that yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that. The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years … begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior. We can’t keep people from being raped. We can’t keep people from shooting each other. We can’t keep people from jumping off bridges. People drink and drive, and they crash and kill people. Poor behavior has its consequences.”

Yes, you read that correctly. And to think: this is all coming from a person who boldly declared that “All life is precious, from conception to natural death.”

As to be expected, Schutheis was on the receiving end of opposition from his colleagues in the Senate.

Now on the one hand, I can actually understand the basis of some of his argument. There are indeed thousand of knuckleheads out there popping out babies with no consideration of the consequences involved. Even in my own family, I have boneheaded cousins, not even out of high school yet who have children (in some cases, MULTIPLE children). To that end, by not choosing to ”reward” irresponsible behavior , the Senator was on to something. But suggesting that children should contract a deadly and incurable disease as a lesson to their knuckleheaded parents has to go down as the most insane and vile thing I have ever heard.

I am utterly speechless.

- ACL

The Official Presidential Fruit

The other day, I was involved with a pretty intense argument with the folks over at Mirror on America and – for that matter – most of my black brothers and sisters regarding the controversial strip in the NY Post; allegedly comparing Obama to a chimp. I maintained that while the strip evoked horrific and racialized imagery, it was at least possible that no racist intent was involved; especially considering how the strip juxtaposed a real story of a chimp that was shot and killed for mauling a woman. While it was indeed racially insensitive, I personally ruled in favor of the Post; offering them the benefit of the doubt. 

But I have no defense for this story.  Much like the good people who brought us the Obama bucks, Los Alamitos mayor Dean Grose has lost his damn mind.  From the HuffPo:

The mayor of Los Alamitos is coming under fire for an e-mail he sent out that depicts the White House lawn planted with watermelons, under the title “No Easter egg hunt this year.”

Local businesswoman and city volunteer Keyanus Price, who is black, said Tuesday she received the e-mail from Mayor Dean Grose’s personal account on Sunday and wants a public apology.

“I have had plenty of my share of chicken and watermelon and all those kinds of jokes,” Price told The Associated Press. “I honestly don’t even understand where he was coming from, sending this to me. As a black person receiving something like this from the city-freakin’-mayor – come on.”

The Orange County Register first reported the e-mail on its Web site Tuesday night.

Grose confirmed to the AP that he sent the e-mail to Price and said he didn’t mean to offend her. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.

He said he and Price are friends and serve together on a community youth board.

“Bottom line is, we laugh at things and I didn’t see this in the same light that she did,” Grose told the AP. “I’m sorry. It wasn’t sent to offend her personally – or anyone – from the standpoint of the African-American race.”

Grose, who became mayor in December, said he sent an apology e-mail to Price and her boss and also left her a voicemail apology.

Regardless, Price said it will be difficult for the two to work together.

“Now I am like – wow, is this really how he feels?” Price said.

Los Alamitos is a 2¼-square-mile Orange County city of around 12,000 people. The mayor is elected by fellow members of the five-seat City Council.

Since he seems to like watermelons so much, maybe we should treat Mayor Grose like one:

Gallagher, where art thou?

- ACL

Wait for it. Wait for it…

$787 billion, be damned.

While economists and talking heads are wasting our time pontificating with numbers and charts, bears and bulls, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman provides a pretty simple and straight forward way to end a recession: By being patient. Says Dr. Krugman:

Consider housing starts, which have fallen to their lowest level in 50 years. That’s bad news for the near term. It means that spending on construction will fall even more. But it also means that the supply of houses is lagging behind population growth, which will eventually prompt a housing revival.

Or consider the plunge in auto sales. Again, that’s bad news for the near term. But at current sales rates, as the finance blog Calculated Risk points out, it would take about 27 years to replace the existing stock of vehicles. Most cars will be junked long before that, either because they’ve worn out or because they’ve become obsolete, so we’re building up a pent-up demand for cars.

The same story can be told for durable goods and assets throughout the economy: given time, the current slump will end itself, the way slumps did in the 19th century. As I said, this may be your great-great-grandfather’s recession. But recovery may be a long time coming.

The closest 19th-century parallel I can find to the current slump is the recession that followed the Panic of 1873. That recession did eventually end without any government intervention, but it lasted more than five years, and another prolonged recession followed just three years later.

I suppose this makes about as much sense as anything I’ve heard up to this point.

After WWII, Europe found itself in shambles.  But it was through the European Recovery Program, coupled with strategic policies with the U.S. that Europe was able to rebound fiscally. Job creation and idle resource development were  key to restoring the economic stability of the continent when war nearly pulverized any hopes of recovery. The parable of the broken window – it would appear – has some credence. In certain circumstances, the road to recovery starts with simply fixing stuff that is broken.

Had President Bush not jumped the gun, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been perfect economic recovery tools (though some would argue that irresponsible spending like this is a part of what goe us in this economic turmoil in the first place). Not that I would want to see profiteering at the expense of lives, but WWII provided a succinct model of how the war machine (and the eventual rebuilding efforts) can indeed boast an economy.

On the far less sadistic side, I think President Obama is on to something with his increased interest in public works projects, green technologies, and education. While we can still boast international leadership in many respects, there are certain other areas where we are falling well behind what has been achieved by other contemporary societies. Investing in the people is a good start.

- ACL

Be Careful What You Wish For…

A few days ago, some friends and I (mostly female, I should point out) were talking about the work Chris Brown did on Rihanna. I felt completely dead inside when I read the reports of how battered and bloodied she was after the attack. But when the images were released, a much deeper part of me was affected. I don’t know Rihanna personally, but my heart hurt for her when I examined the photos. I don’t care what she may have done, she did not deserve this. Whatever respect I once had for Chris Brown was tossed out the window when this story surfaced.

But then I made the mistake of looking at this situation from a different perspective; a perspective for which I was vehemently attacked later. Instead of doing the responsible thing by making Brown pay for the unforgivable crime of hitting her, she dropped the charges. At that moment – and in my book – she went from being a victim to an enabler. What should have been an open and shut case of “guy hits girl, guy gets arrested, guy’s public image is forever tarnished for being a nitwit” quickly turned into a laughable and disgracefully concerted effort between the attacker and attackee.

Before I could even finish my argument, the ladies were ready to tie me to the stake. I was getting burned for putting the victim on the stand by asking the simple question: “Why is she accepting his behavior?” As it turns out, it was apparently a capital offense to make Rihanna; or the scores of other women who condone bad boy behavior; complicit in the act.

Truth be told, a part of me was expecting to receive this opposition. I’m no clairvoyant, but I knew well in advance that I would get attacked for having the gall to even assign a tiny morsel of blame to Rihanna for (1) her decision to be with a bad boy and then (2) to pardon him for beating her up. I’ve always maintained that this enigmatic lifestyle has become so commonplace that it increasingly and predictably accepted by other women, especially in the so-called “Black Community”. But when somebody like me to criticizes the women’s decisions to be with these thugs while REFUSING to make excuses for their irresponsible behavior, I’m labeled the bad guy. Whatever. Besides all that, the Angry Independent (A.I.) over at one of my favorite blogs: Mirror on America made an argument almost identical to mine. Based on the responses he received, it was all too predictable that I’d be subjected to some of the same rejoinder. The women folk did not disappoint on that end.

A.I. made a great point when he examined how history has bore witness to both the evolution and de-evolution of women. Prior to the Suffrage period, women were viewed as feeble, vulnerable, and powerless; dependent on men and – in many instances – reduced to nothing but property. Then the Women’s Suffrage emerged, where women proactively gained social, political, and economic independence. From there, women took on a more domestic and subservient role; leading up to World War II. The brief period during the war (iconized by Rosie the Riveter), women once again assumed an important – albeit limited – role as they became the manufacturing muscle of the War. After WWII, it was back to the kitchens they went. Decades later -between the 60’s and 70’s – a second wave of the Women’s Liberation movement emerged, allowing women to once again recapture their independence and sense of self-empowerment; lasting up until somewhere in the 90’s. But it seems like this new century represents a trip back in time where women are victims and incapable of making sound decisions. At least, that’s what many women’s activities seem to suggest.

So when stories like Rihanna’s start to surface, victimization is the first and only thing we consider. True, she is a victim of hypermasculine aggression. She was victimized in so far as not being able to physically defend herself against a much stronger man. But, again, where she lost me was when she decided to look the other way.  If you don’t listen to another word I say, PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS: From a man’s perspective, it is very, very, very difficult to view women as strong, self-sufficient, and responsible when they allow themselves to be treated like powerless children who need to be taken care of and occasionally “put in their place.” You can’t have it both ways. *Side note: This oddly reminds me of the phenomenon of men being required to pay on dates, even if the woman claims to be “independent”. End of digression.*

I suppose what bothers me most about circumstances like this can be summed up in three points:

(1) In the “Black Community” especially, there is an increasing disinterest in decent, nice, sensitive and perhaps even “corny” brothas. I often get put on blast for having Celtic Woman in my iPod, but not 50 Cent. Or for watching CSPAN and not B.E.T. Or for spending my spare time at a museum or at a bookstore instead of ‘tearin’ the club up’. Or for trying to be considerate enough to make my lady happy instead of trying to regulate things. To be fair, I get the idea that black women want their men to be black in both color and spirit. But at the same time, I challenge women folk to redefine for themselves what “blackness” means for their men. On top of that, I challenge them to recognize that in certain environments (i.e. the workforce, the suburbs, or any other places where blacks are still struggling to assimilate), toting around our “blackness” is not always prudent, given the racially ignorant nature of some of those institutions. Simply put: y’all remember the episode of the Fresh Prince where Carlton and Will were both arrested driving Uncle Phil’s car?  Carlton’s Tom Jones Discography, Princeton connections, or blue blazers were not enough to prevent him from being perceived as another troublemaking n**** in the police’s eyes. We may not all have cornrows, wife beaters, blunts, or hypermasculine aggression. But we are all still black nevertheless. Diss the “corny” brothas in favor of the thugs all you want. But you can most assuredly expect to get attacked for it – in Rihanna’s case, quite literally.

(2) On follow up to point (1): From a social standpoint, cultured and refined black men are often viewed by black women as people who have stripped themselves of certain “black” behaviors and thought processes in order to achieve a certain level of mainstream validation in a culture made by and sustained by white America. Oppositely, the thug is seen as somebody who operates outside of that culture and is not restricted by those societal norms. The fact that thugs are usually angry and untamed tends to appeal to black women largely because – at their core – black women are also pretty combative against “the system.” Women, however, are generally able to justify going along with “the system” because of being women. When black men do it, there are spineless “sellouts” and are “not being a man.” In short, the more dependent on or assimilated to “the system” black men appear to be, the less attractive they are.

(3) There is an unfortunate tendency for the greater society to overlook the perils of validating negative black male imagery and defending women who embrace it. Due to their celebrity status, impressionable young people, especially our little girls, are watching the growing phenomenon of “Thuggin’ Love” blossom right before their eyes. Our young black boys are aspiring more and more to be those hardcore roughnecks on TV who supposedly don’t compromise their “blackness”. Our young girls think that kind of attitude is what it means to be a “black” man. In the end, this is merely setting up the stage for more thugs, more attraction to thugs, and the constant proliferation of Rihanna/Chris Brown, Ike/Tina storylines.

**I know toward the end here, I shifted the conversation from women in general to black women. But I’m speaking directly to my experiences which – up to this point – have exclusively been with women of color. But I suspect many of this can also be applicable to women in general.**

Call me insensitive to victims if you want. But I only wish more people would offer a fair and honest assessment of this situation instead of covering it up or trying to offer nonsensical excuses for it.

What say you?

- ACL

Stimulus in…Cuba?

While most of our attention has been fixed on the recently signed Stimulus bill, the U.S. House of Representatives has been quietly making moves to offset some of the country’s economic woes. Last week, former Presidential contender Ron Paul (R-TX) co-sponsored a bill, H.R. 874, to lift the travel and trade embargo with Cuba. As of now, the bill has received some fanfare - though not much – from House Democrats.

I consider it a pretty interesting move at this point in the game.

For starters, Cuba’s labor force makes the country a prime candidate for solid business dealings. With a labor market as high as 60%, and currency worth less than the American dollar (a rarity these days), we stand to get more bang for our buck – so to speak. Then of course, there is the element of tourism. I suspect that many Americans – not completely convinced of Cuba’s devilry – would openly embrace the opportunity to freely visit an exotic and culturally appealing place like Cuba. Obviously, safety will always be an area warranting attention. But for tourists, while crime is not completely an impossibility, it is also not particularly staggering.

House Republicans mostly contend that we should not economically engage with Cuba due to its longstanding history of communism. For them, the notion of spending U.S. dollars in a communist state is just as abhorant as harboring terrorists  less than desirables (can’t say the “T” word around here, right? What was I thinking?). I get that. But strangely enough, it is usually the same people declaring that Cuba should open itself to our democratic way of life. Make sense out of that one if you can.

From my end, lifting trade and travel embargos could introduce Cubans to that democracy we feel they should experience (though, after Bush era, I wouldn’t blame them one bit if they said “Thanks, but no thanks). But if we keep ourselves purposely locked out of Cuba, how can we expect them to ever embrace our way of life?  Granted, ideological imperialism should be the last thing on our minds at this point, but that’s another story.

I’m very interested to see where this goes. Who knows: a Caribbean vacation may be in my immediate future.

- ACL

Stop: In the Name of God!

“Now to Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy; to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”

- Jude 24-25

This passage has always been memorable to me. In a less than spiritual way, I remember this passage because of the ridiculous way one of the assistant ministers at my former church would often recite it (Ah, the memories!). But more to the point, I found this passage significant because it caused me to wonder if God’s permissive will (the notion that God allows things to occur for good or for bad) always reigned supreme. This particular passage clearly indicates that God has the ability to keep us from doing wrong. But the question is: do we have any Biblical support that God has actually caused somebody not to sin?

The answer to that question, by estimation, is a resounding yes:

From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people? Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.” Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.

To me that sounds like God can occasionally save us from ourselves.

Since there are many aspects of God that my finite mind can never comprehend, I often find myself wondering how often God has interfered with my life and prevented me from doing wrong.  I suspect not very often. But whether or not God has ever taken it upon Himself to intervene on my behalf, I’m at least thankful that He is able to. For being that great, He deserves my praise.

Your thoughts?

- ACL