My Thoughts on the SOTU

I’m a partisan hack with this assessment, I know. But President Obama’s speech was probably the most fun-to-watch SOTU address to date. As expected, the Prez was cool and suave with his delivery (I admit, I think I may have a man crush on him). But not only was his demeanor worthy of Billy Dee in Lady Sings the Blues, but I appreciated watching him roll up his sleeves and take hard shots at Republicans at a time where they have all but dominated the airwaves with their vitriol. For all the major failures of the Obama administration during his first year in office, the man certainly stepped his game up last night.

There were moments though when he was just a run-of-the-mill politician: lying his butt off with a straight face. But when he was right, he was spot on..and boldly made it known.

Here are some of the key highlights for me:

(1) As expected, Obama’s speech placed a high premium on job creation. This was a VERY neccessary move. I’ve argued before that Obama’s big problem was that he wasted the first year of his administration trying to do every damn thing at once; often under the pressure of certain groups and certain interests. Trying to pick battles about mess like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while the country was economically burning was stupid. It was good to see how he has (at least as it appears) put his eye back on the most important thing right now: jobs. This isn’t to say his progressive agenda isn’t laudable. There are just more important things to focus on right now. He mentioned how he feels like he CAN’T wait on anything…but I think he’ll open his eyes to reality in 2010. He’ll realize that he can only do one thing at a time; especially for the sake of saving his Democratic brethern for midterms. Right now, people are mostly concerned about jobs. So that’s where he’s going to turn his attention…no matter what he may say.

(2)  I love how he laid the smack down on the Supreme Court. Just in case you haven’t been following the Supremes lately, they ruled last week that the government may not ban political spending by corporations during elections; essentially indicating that doing so violates free speech. Since the decision, progressives have – and for just cause – been extremely upset. President Obama decided to use this an an opportunity to exact his revenge:

…Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

- Barack Obama, Jan. 27, 2010

Damn! He told them! The problem is: this isn’t entirely true.

The Supremes were wrong in their choice, no doubt. But Obama tossing foreign corporations in the mix was flat out false. Something rubbed me the wrong way about that comment. And sure enough, Federal Election Campaign Laws explicitly prohibit foreign businesses to donate to elections. Don’t worry about looking it up. I found it on page 86. You’re welcome.

What’s significant about Obama’s lie is that I liken it to similar fear tactics traditionally reserved for Republicans. By invoking “those foreign peoples”, Obama was using a hypothetical threat to push his own agenda. Mr. President, you get a serious wag of the finger for that one.

(3) Speaking of dishonesty, I took issue with the President’s claims outright lies about taking lobbyists out of the policymaking game. As I pointed out over a year ago, President Obama has not only opened the arms of his administration to all kinds of lobbyists, but he’s done so in public view. I mean, a list of lobbyists working in his administration can be found with five minutes of research, for crying out loud. So to openly lie about something like that during the SOTU was crazy to me.

(4) To the President’s credit, I LOVE how he not only has stayed committed to his tax cuts for 95% of us, but that he rubbed the Republicans face in it while exposing them for who they are. Even the most casual observer of politics knows that during the SOTU address, support for the President is measured by the applause. So when Obama talked about tax cuts – something Republicans defended tooth and nail when Bush was in office – and they sat there in silence, it was all crystal clear to me. In simple terms: REPUBLICANS ARE OBSTRUCTIONISTS. They will hate anything Obama says simply because he’s Obama. Here they are being silence (presumably in protest) against Obama’s tax cuts while they cheered on the same measures with Bush. Of course, the top 5% aren’t included in Obama’s tax cutting plans, so I can see why the Repubs are pissed.

(5) I think the President made the right call as he addressed Health Care. I was a little concerned at first that he’d make some long, drawn out, and confusing statements about processess and procedures. But given that the majority of the general public doesn’t really have a CLUE about what’s going on in politics, he did good by simply talking about things in general terms. Obama brilliantly stressed the importance of action, but did so using overall economic improvement as the context. This was done – I think – to atone for his lie about making negotiations about health care available on C-SPAN for public viewing. Honestly,this should have been the approach to take all along. Instead of getting us involved in complicated discussions and negotiations, he should have simply operated in our defense, even if it meant doing so behind closed doors. Closed door deals are fine…as long as the people making the deals aren’t secretly trying to exploit us.

(6) “I do not accept second place for the United States of America.” If that doesn’t shut Republicans up…

(7) The closing of Obama’s speech was brilliant. Sayeth the President [in an obvious attempt to call out Republicans]: “Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.”, and [in an obvious attempt to call out those weak a** Democrats]: “…we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.” It’s a great sign when a leader can put feet to the fire equally.

Ultimately, there were some moments where Obama made me yell at my T.V. But I’m not completely trippin’ on that. After all, he’s a politician. I’m used to it. I DO think he proved again that he’s a solid speech deliverer. I’m hoping that by taking the fight to Republicans and by putting Democrats in their place, he is showing the spine that too many politicians have been missing over the past year.

(8) My final thought: Bob McDonnell’s response was lame. It was littered with Republican talking points, knee deep in lies, and the audience backdrop (accessorized with the token black person) was a little too townhall for my liking. While the format was creative and certainly NOTHING like the dismal performance of one Bobby Jindal, it was still pretty tepid and boring. But what can you really expect from the GOP.

Overall grade for the State of the Union: C+. The theatrics and Obama’s display of gangsterness trumps everything else. This time, anyway.

- ACL

Prayer Request

I neglected to mention this before (I suck), but please keep my blogging homeboy, Free in your prayers. Without putting all his business in the street, he experienced a loss that is hard to even fathom right now.

We’re with you, bro!

- ACL

In-House Fighting

New Year’s Resolutions are pointless. I get that. Nevertheless, I resolved to lay down some of the criticism I had of Tyler Perry and the entire counter-intellectual culture of stereotypical entertainment at the expense of black people. And in many respects, I even found that being critical of certain stereotypical humor was a moot point, given its often large following from other people of color. The commitment to this particular resolution was put to test when Spike Lee opened the floodgates:

Then, I heard Perry’s rebuttal:

Lest I become accused of being the proverbial crab in the bucket, I’ll withhold from the echoing Lee’s scathing insults of coonery. At the same time, Perry is delusional if he thinks the “bait” used to inject discussions about God, faith, etc. is effective. I can almost bet people generally don’t leave Tyler Perry’s joint with an accomplished sense of family, community, and whatever virtues he claims to invoke. I liken it to burying a vitamin tablet in the center of a double cheeseburger and calling it healthy.

But that was the old me. The new me is trying to look at things from another vantage point.

In that respect, I am openly willing to acquiesce to the idea that Tyler Perry’s work – despite its appearance – has a pretty admirable purpose in mind. Much like Lee’s work, Perry’s stuff attempts to present a certain real element of black life, while giving Black America an appreciation of self. Like Lee, I think in some deep way Perry wants black people to love themselves through their disappointments and through their triumphs. Similarly, Perry – like Lee – is a brotha trying to make a mark for himself in an industry where we are grossly underrepresented. So far be it for me to begrudge his hustle.

But also like Spike Lee, Tyler Perry is forced to deal with a clearcut dichotomy: there are audiences who LOVE his work and there are audiences who HATE it. But in examining this conflict even closer, you quickly realize that it is not at all exclusive to particular black artists or to particular expression of black artistry. Instead, this conflict can be found in virutally any art form. The only show to date which has been able to successfully accomodate both audiences using the same material is HBO’s “The Wire.” Lovers of art and cimena can appreciate the thematic nature of the show. Meanwhile, people simply looking to be entertained can find just as much indulgence. But it should be noted that as far as media goes, The Wire is an anomaly whose abilities to accommodate virtually any audience have not been replicated by any thing else.

I think we have to face facts: despite most efforts, it is not likely that we will ever see a full reconciliation between the two camps. Certain human attributes of ours dictate our we respond to one another’s tastes and ensure that we will probably never fully agree on perspectives. People hoping for less stereotypical depictions in cinema will never be able to sit through “Medea Goes to Jail.” In that same vein, people looking for a cheap laugh without being required to examine the sociological implications of what they’re viewing will probably be turned off by “Do the Right Thing.”

Truthfully, there is no quick fix to this growing schism. This conflict represents (to me, at least) the idea that black entertainment is merely a creation of the audience who consciously decides to view it. As Tyler Perry pointed out, people quick to question his entertainment methods should talk to his fan base; a base witnessing increased growth by the day.

As much as it stands against everything I preach from my tower, I concede to the idea that not every piece of black entertainment has to include an educational component. Not everything has to be produced solely to advance the race. I also think it’s important to consider that people like Tyler Perry never launch a project specifically with the exploitation of black people in mind; just like I’m sure Spike Lee’s analytical and ‘thinking man’s’ approach was never intended to deliberatly bore non-scholarly types out of their minds. I have always maintained that as a culture, black people do not monolithically subscribe to the same tastes, values, or thinking. To expect us to become a monolith where entertainment is involved is a direct insult to those beliefs. As long as we are committed to diversity – even within our own cultural ranks – black representation in media must be allowed to hae variety.

Accepting Flavor Flav, on the other hand, will NEVER be acceptable…no matter how open minded I strive to be.

- ACL

Remembering the Least of Us

As most of you are well aware, Haiti was rocked by a devastating earthquake yesterday. A country historically plagued with disaster and hardship has been struck again. Rather than itemizing their calamities as if their name was Job, or focusing on how some idiots are blaming them for their hardships, I’m asking all who can: do whatever you can in support of our brothers and sisters. As of now, I’ve found a few different ways you can donate money towards Haitian relief:

- Musician Wyclef Jean is promoting a program from the Yele Hait Foundation. Simply text the phrase “Yele” to 501501 and a $5 donation will be charged to your cell phone bill.

- Text the phrase “Haiti” to “90999,” and a $10 donation will automatically be given to the Red Cross. Again, the charge will show up on your phone bill.

- CNN has compiled a list of organizations accepting donations. NPR has done the same.

- You can send donations to various international groups like Direct Relief and UNICEF.

- The good folks over at Partners in Health (founded in Haiti by Paul Farmer) are accepting donations.

- My blogging buddies over at Uptown Notes have dropped some great links with info on how to get involved. 

I’m sure there are plenty of places where we can donate. If you find other places, please feel free to drop those links. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter which one(s) you choose. The important thing is that you donate if you can. Whether it’s $5 or $5 million, whatever you can offer will go towards aiding our brothers and sisters.

Thanks to you all for whatever you can do. You’ll be blessed for it.

- ACL

All My Scholar Ladies!

Beyonce could learn a thing or two:

…and a little child shall lead us.

- ACL