"...and the Lawn Jockey for the Most Hateful Bigot goes to ME!"

MSNBC finally had enough of their in-house Little Hitler and fired Pat Buchanan.  The aging old bigot greased the pole himself with his Suicide of A Superpower book where he whined about the end of White America by 2025.

Following his exile from the supposedly “liberal” cable channel, Buchanan fumed that his left-wing enemies had finally claimed his scalp.

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.

After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.

The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it “exists to strengthen Black America’s political voice,” claimed that my book espouses a “white supremacist ideology.” Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, “The End of White America.”

I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.

No one is being “blacklisted” here. Certainly not Buchanan. He’s still free to write his shitty books and columns and appear on whatever TV show that wants to air his rancid views. CNN and MSNBC have said, “no mas” so he’s free to continue polluting PBS and The McLaughlin Group or Fox News if they need another Glenn Beck type.

No surprise that Buchanan accepted no responsibility for his downfall.  He’s not the self-reflective type.  What was a slight surprise was how Buchanan’s bouncing triggered an onslaught of hand-wringing weeping and wailing from useful idiots like The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan, the gay neo-conservative whose soft spot for bigots includes Ron Paul.

"Stop being mean to Pat just because he's mean to you."

Sullivan wrote,  “Sixteen years ago, when I came out as HIV-positive and quit TNR’s editorship, Buchanan, who had sparred relentlessly in public with me over gay equality, wrote me a personal hand-written note. He wrote he was saddened by what he heard – which was then regarded as an imminent death sentence – and wanted to say how he would pray that I would survive, if only so we could continue to argue and fight and debate for many more years. He was one of only two Washingtonians who did such a thing. I was moved beyond words. But he knew I loved a good argument as well. Over a gulf of ideological and philosophical difference, we could debate reasonably…He’s a complicated man and I will not defend for a second his views on many things. But he is also a compassionate and decent man in private and an honest intellectual in public.”

I particularly found this passage by Sullivan  interesting, “He truly believes what he says and has read and researched a huge amount and has thought carefully about his extreme out-of-the-mainstream views. He is a serious figure in that respect. Compared with Al Sharpton or Ed Schultz, he is a paragon of intellectual integrity. He is not a propagandist. He is a passionate writer who loves nothing more than a good argument with a worthy opponent – and he has a serious sense of humor to boot.”

As far as Sullivan concerned it’s all good to be a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Nazi slurping, sexist bigot just so long as you have thought carefully out your extreme out-of-the-mainstream views and you have a sense of humor.

Sullivan extols Buchanan’s compassion and decency while ignoring how it does not extend to other gay men. This is the same “honest intellectual” who said AIDS was “nature’s revenge” and history of denouncing homosexuality includes remarks such as:

The gays may counter that the American Psychiatric Association has, of late, dropped homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. That, however, tells us less about the nature of homosexuals than about the moral courage of the APA. If a covey of quacks voted tomorrow that masochism, bestiality, and incest were not signs of personality disorder, that don’t necessarily make it so. One need not be a doctor of philosophy to know that when some 40-year-old male paints his face with rouge and lipstick and prances around in women’s clothes, he ain’t playing with a full deck.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family. Homosexuality involves sexual acts most men consider not only immoral, but filthy. The reason public men rarely say aloud what most say privately is they are fearful of being branded ‘bigots’ by an intolerant liberal orthodoxy that holds, against all evidence and experience, that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle.

There is no brief for police harassment or persecution of homosexuals. They have the same right to protection from exploitation as alcoholics, who are, likewise, sick people. As for putting practicing homosexuals in prison, as some state laws mandate, that is like throwing B’rer Rabbit into the briar patch.

As an openly gay man, Sullivan’s passionate defend of his buddy Buchanan is as indefensible as Jews that collaborated with the Nazis.  What’s the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom?

Buchanan can take his tired act over to Fox News after burning out at CNN and MSNBC. Fox is the logical last step for this Angry Old White Man before Stormfront,  Nobody ever got fired from Fox for being too prejudiced.

The tolerance for Buchanan’s hatred for everything non-White, non-heterosexual and non-Christian is legendary, documented and unlimited. Idiots like Andrew Sullivan can kiss his Irish ass all they like, but for anyone who doesn’t fit into the Wonderful White World of Pat Buchanan, you’re on his enemies list.

I’m extremely pleased to consider myself as an enemy to all things Pat Buchanan. Sullivan should smarten up and realize Buchanan’s America has no room for gays, even conservative British ones.

No, Read OUR Lips, Pat. You're FIRED!

Related articles

• We Don’t Really Need to Debate Pat Buchanan’s Ideas to Debunk Them (thinkprogress.org)
• Why MSNBC Dumped Pat Buchanan: His 10 Most Outrageous Statements (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
• MSNBC and Pat Buchanan part ways. He blames everyone else. (dailykos.com)
• Pat Buchanan: Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish (themoderatevoice.com)

Soon to be home, sweet home Alabama?

\

Whomever said getting there is half the fun never drove to Huntsville, Alabama.  There’s nothing fun about it.  It’s a long, dull trip whose sole virtue is the speed limit is 70 miles per hour so at least you’re getting through  Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama at a good pace.

Otherwise, I can’t say much good about the trek.  As my wife was bringing us through the last miles through the darkness, she was sweating bullets trying to stay out of the way of the idiot in a Dodge truck hauling a trailer that was fishtailing back and forth.   To say it was nerve-wracking is to put it mildly.  Then we got hopelessly lost once we got into Huntsville trying to find our hotel.

The things mommies and daddies do for their darling daughter who wants to see the university she’s been accepted by.   She was excited, but by the time we finally rolled up to the hotel we were too whipped to even think about finding somewhere to go for dinner.   All I wanted was to collapse into bed and despite lunch being a distant memory, I was happy to scarf down some potato chips and call it a night.

We visited Alabama A&M this morning at 11:00.  It’s nicknamed “The Hill” and that’s not just hype.  As part of our tour, our guide led us up a hill to visit the dorms. Our daughter said her legs were sore afterward and I was gasping like a dying fish, but my wife’s knees wouldn’t cooperate with her to go on with that part of the tour.

What I saw of the campus was a  “C”, except for the women’s dorm which was an easy “D”.  I can’t describe how ugly, dreary and old these rooms were. I’ve seen nicer jail cells.

I wasn’t knocked out by the visit.  Certainly not enough to pack my daughter up and send her four states and one time zone away.  James, the senior who showed us around was friendly enough, but less than totally forthcoming.  He showed us the area where activities were held such as outdoor concerts and plays, but no classrooms, cafeterias or the library.  He probably wouldn’t have shown us the dorm if I hadn’t asked.

When we asked about any crime problems on the campus, James shrugged it off with, “Oh, there’s no crime problem here.”  Later we would find out that wasn’t exactly true.

A 2009 article in The Daily Beast ranked the 25 colleges with the highest crime rates and Alabama A&M came in at #21, right behind Harvard at #20.

A historically black land-grant university in Normal, Alabama, Alabama A&M was established in 1873 by the state legislature as the State Normal School and University for the Education of the Colored Teachers and Students with 61 students, two teachers, and a yearly budget of $1,000. Now the school has 6,000 students. Nearly all crimes happened on the campus, which is located close to Huntsville.

Digging a little deeper, the information got worse, not better.

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — More people have been robbed on campus at Alabama A&M and Alabama State universities in recent years than at any other schools in the state, according to a Birmingham News analysis of the last six years of crime data reported by Alabama colleges and universities.

Alabama A&M leads the pack, with 63 aggravated assaults on campus over the six-year period, plus 29 robberies, 16 sexual offenses and 463 burglaries. On a campus with an average enrollment of about 5,500 students, that makes for a violent crime rate of about 19 incidents per 1,000 students over the time period.

News reports show that police have been called to A&M several times in recent years, including a shooting in January 2010 that left three students hurt, and a melee outside a dormitory in October 2010 involving about 25 students. One student was taken to a hospital after that fight, which police said at the time was retaliation for an earlier break-in at a dorm.

The facts paint a picture not as pretty as James the tour guide would have us believe.  I don’t know if it bothers me more that he thought he could b.s us or we weren’t smart enough to do our homework.

HBCUs operate at a considerable financial disadvantage compared to behemoths like Ohio State, so most comparisons to them are unfair and don’t paint a flattering picture. Yet while I would prefer my daughter attended college closer than 500 miles away, a factory like OSU can chew up and spit out students who aren’t ready for the demands placed on them.  If Alabama A&M come off as slightly shabby that is in part because HBCUs are usually underfunded and can’t compete with White counterparts for the latest technology and the creature comforts that come from a deep pool of alumni with deeper pockets.

We are looking at places like A&M  because we don’t want our daughter to get lost on a campus too large and  impersonal. If all we wanted was for our child to receive an education from a prestigious institution with a big name we would send her to one. My hope is that my daughter will not simply be a consumer in society but a contributor to society and among other like-minded students, a HBCU may give her the tools to become a woman who changes the world.

There are many factors to weigh when choosing a school and Alabama A&M didn’t do enough to close the sale.  I haven’t ruled it out, but neither have I ruled it in.  I won’t send my daughter anywhere she will not be safe, has no support system, or will struggle to thrive.

She has her mind set that her happiness depends on allowing her to go to A&M.  While I care about her happiness making her happy won’t be my primary concern when the final decision is made.  We indulge our children, but as long as we’re paying the way we will choose the destination.

It's not a good sign when the football stadium is newer than the dorms.

Related articles

• Should Your Child Consider A Historically Black College? (education.com)

History will be made Saturday morning when Melissa Harris-Perry, a professor of political science at Tulane University, hosts a morning political talk show on MSNBC.   Asked what her show will be about Harris-Perry told The Amsterdam News,  “Although it’s not a show about race-look, I’m a professor of African-American politics, so we’re going to be talking about race. I’m a feminist, so we’re going to be talking about gender. I’m a parent, so we’re going to be talking about kids and young people. I live in the South, so we’re going to talk about politics beyond the D.C.-to-New-York corridor. It’s a political show but it definitely has a point of view.”

Those are points of view absent from the Sunday morning talking heads shows where Black women are non-existent.  I welcome Harris-Perry and wish her well.  But there’s no news that someone can’t find a way to receive it as bad.   Enter Cornel “the ‘Fro” West and his Mini-Me, Boyce Watkins.

In an interview, West unloaded on Harris-Perry, his former colleague at Princeton. “I have a love for the sister, but she is a liar, and I hate lying,’ says West. . . . She’s become the momentary darling of the liberals, but I pray for her because she’s in over her head. She’s a fake and a fraud. I was so surprised how treacherous the sister was.’

Yet before West heated up a clothes hanger to whip on Harris-Perry with, Watkins had scribbled his own bit of character assassination with a piece, “5 Reasons Melissa Harris-Perry is Perfect for MSNBC.”

If I end up sounding like a hater, it’s because I probably am.  White people, as a collective, have never like (sic) me very much and advocating for black folks has never been an easy way to pay the bills.  Also, my gripe with Melissa is the same I’d have with any black person who allows herself to be propped up by the Democrats to do their dirty work against Cornel West as he spoke on behalf of black, brown and poor people.   Harris never proved that Dr. West was wrong – she only sought to discredit him and dismantle his voice.  In that regard, she was no different from a slave using the master’s gun to kill the leader of the negro rebellion.

She is clearly a liberal who happens to be a black woman, not a black woman who happens to be a liberal…The whole light-skinned black liberal thing works in her favor:  I should start by noting that I’m a bit light-skinned myself and nearly all of my relatives are of the “high-yella” variety (I was adopted).  So, this is not meant to offend anyone with light skin.

Watkins breaks out the pimp stick.

In one breath, Watkins says he doesn’t mean to offend light-skinned Blacks.  Can you guess what he follows that caution with?  If you guessed offending light-skinned Blacks, you win!

But, the emergence of Barack Obama has opened the door for quite a few light-skinned, non-threatening, black superstars of both politics and media:  Cory Booker, Harold Ford, Don Lemon on CNN and a few others have been able to benefit from this wave.  Harris-Perry is a perfect fit as the (in the words of cousin Pookie) “light-skinded-ded,” red-bone, highly educated liberal that white folks tend to love.  Nothing militant will come out of her mouth, unless she’s angry about a new immigration law or some civil liberties violation in the National Defense Authorization Act.  Not to say that there’s anything wrong with the “light-skinned liberal analyst” phenomenon, but I wonder how successful these folks might be if they looked like they were siblings of Wesley Snipes – darker skinned commentators and pundits deserve opportunities as well, and I argue that they are being put to the side (can you think of one dark-skinned person in prime time media?  Me neither).

The cherry on top of Watkins talking out of both sides of his mouth comes with a slap at Harris-Perry for doing the exact same thing he does.

Black journalists have long complained about what Al Sharpton referred to as “All white, all night,” in which most of the major cable news outlets didn’t have any hosts of color on their nightly branded shows.   The best way to shut down that criticism is to hire Al Sharpton himself, which is exactly what MSNBC did.  But one challenge is that neither Sharpton, nor Harris-Perry, is a professionally-trained journalist, so there are still quite a few talented black journalists who are seething over the fact that MSNBC went after black scholars and activists, rather than seasoned media professionals.

For the record, I am not a real journalist either.  I am one of those scholar/activists who’s been able to benefit from the bias of which I am speaking (I have more media appearances than nearly all of my journalist friends).

Nobody made more of an issue about Sharpton landing the MSNBC gig than I did, but Watkins has twisted the legitimate concerns of “real journalists” who would like to see Blacks who do this thing for a living a shot at these television gigs as well as Black scholars and activists.

Watkins doesn’t like Harris-Perry, he’s not happy for her and he even goes so far as to question her Blackness and commitment to Black people because she prefers Obama to West. It just comes off as that small-minded, crabs in a barrel mentality that keeps us busy squabbling over small stuff that isn’t worth squat.

Call me a cynic, but this “I won’t do cable TV ’cause I want to keep it real” rap is more than a little self-serving. There are too many Black folks who are doing cable TV and they aren’t running away from their Blackness by doing so.   Watkins spew out a hit piece that is mean, petty, and it smacks of simple envy. If MSNBC offered Watkins a show he’d run over  West to get it.

On his Facebook page, Watkins denied everything in response to my challenging him about Harris-Perry.

Never blame on malice what can be adequately explained by sexism.

Brother, I can give you the real deal on the “smell test” – my goal is not to be objective about Melissa or to politely say “congratulations” to someone I think is bad for black America.

I make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that I am not appreciative of Melissa’s views. Her attacks on Cornel were uncalled for and unvalidated – I was very angry at the way she allowed white folks to prop her up on a platform so she could do the dirty work for the Democrats who were upset that Cornel was out speaking on behalf of poor, black and brown folks.

To answer any questions that might be asked about my remarks…no, I don’t want a f*cking job at MSNBC. I’ve been on all the networks numerous times and could have gotten quite a few gigs had I been a “good boy.” I’ve lost millions for speaking what I believe to be the truth and my only goal is to seek independence of thought and commerce for black America. In far too many cases, major black voices are controlled by white-owned media outlets and corporations – That’s why I put all my money and time into yourblackworld.com, which allows me to get my message to the public without having to ask for a white man’s permission. I don’t hate white folks, but the truth is that their agenda is almost always different from your own and they always view us as second-class citizens.

Someone who is “bad for Black America?” What is about Melissa Harris-Perry that is “bad for Black America?”  What’s really bad for Black America are Black academics talking smack like winos on the corner.

Harris-Perry took issue with West when he whined to a WHITE guy (Chris Hedges) how hurt he was that he didn’t get a personal invitation to Obama’s inauguration.

West came off like a jilted girlfriend, not a preeminent Black intellectual. It was pompous, it was small and it was arrogant as hell. Cornel West wasn’t speaking out for poor, Black and brown folks. He was ticked off that “the dear brother” who brought his bags to his hotel room had a ticket to the Inauguration and he didn’t.

There is a cost for working in the mainstream (just ask Roland Martin), but I’m not buying the line only those out of it care about, protect the interests of, and love Black people. No one is required to watch MHP on MSNBC.    Just don’t say you’re “happy” for her when you have made it crystal clear you are anything but.

Going after Harris-Perry for being “light-skinned” is as petty at it gets.  By the Boyce Watkins  standard, only folks as dark as Wesley Snipes (or Clarence Thomas!) can legitimately criticize other Blacks because they are “dark enough to decide who is really part of the club.

The weakest attack to make against someone is to cast doubts upon the content of the character based upon the color of their skin.     Black academics love a good disagreement, but when the intellectual quality of the argument doesn’t rise to the level of a beef between second-rate rappers, that’s pathetic.

West and Watkins are too smart brothers.  They should be smart enough to expend their brain power on a real problem facing Black folks.  Harris-Perry getting a TV show isn’t one of them.   Then again, maybe there’s another reason for Watkins and West’s “bros before hos”  smackdown of MHP.  Maybe it’s nothing more than sexism.  Plain and simple, they are simply asserting their male prerogative to put an uppity sista in her place.

Sometimes its most obvious reasons that are the least considered.

The next time West and Smiley plan a road trip for self-serving publicity, they should pack a booster seat in the back and bring Boyce Watkins along for the ride.

Related articles

• Al Sharpton defends Melissa Harris Perry from Cornel West attacks (thegrio.com)
• Intelligentsia Beef: Cornel West Calls Melissa Harris-Perry A Fake and a Fraud (clutchmagonline.com)
• Black Intellectuals Go At it Again (theroot.com)
• Melissa Harris-Perry becomes only black female to host a political talk show in cable news (thegrio.com)

Rolling in the deep and raking in the Grammys.

This isn’t going to be a long post because it’s about the Grammy Awards. I didn’t watch the show just like I haven’t watched the show for the better part of the last ten years. No, this isn’t yet another “You’re not getting old, the music just sucks” rant. I am getting old and the music does suck, but at least if you’re a jazz fan you don’t have to stay up past your bedtime.

This was the first Grammy program since they cut out most of the major categories for jazz, Latin and other genres that are not pop, hip-hop and rap. Those Grammys are awarded during a pre-broadcast ceremony outside of the TV cameras.   Nobody wants to watch some old jazz cats taking home the hardware for music nobody listens to in America.

My buddy, Rachel Z., writing in support of reinstating the jazz categories dropped by the Grammys said, “Most of the Major labels have in the past 3 years dropped their Jazz Departments.  That is the sole reason why you are seeing a drop in submissions.  Many independent musicians and labels cannot afford a NARAS membership on their own.  Previously votes presented by major labels though a block voting system implemented by the majors.  What would you suggest that I tell my students at the New School who spend their life dreaming of a Grammy that now there is only one Jazz Category?  2/3 less chance to win!  This gives them the same chance as winning the lottery now after the cutbacks in the Jazz Category.  They are competing with people 5x their age in the Jazz Category.  Not to mention putting Latin Jazz next to traditional jazz…???!!!”

When Stanley Clarke and Chick Corea accepted the Best Improvised Solo award for “500 Miles High” from the terrific 2011 album, Forever, I wonder who was there to watch them besides the workers setting up the stage?

Public Enemy once said, “Who gives a fuck about a goddamn Grammy?” and the marginalization of jazz at the Grammys only confirms that sentiment for me. I don’t care about award shows. I’d rather the musicians make a buck or two, but recognition for them is nice.  It validates my taste.  Unfortunately, jazz is treated like a crazy old uncle the music industry would rather keep out of sight and forget about.

"Does this mean we get to meet Adele?"

They obviously don’t want any more Esperanza Spaldings or Herbie Hancocks taking up any of the face time among all the b.s. awards they have to hand out to nobodies and trendy flavors of the month. In fact that’s what they should call the Grammys: This year’s Flavors of the Month.

Jazz is not a genre where here today and gone later today flourishes. Nor is it a form of music where you can get by as a barely competent rapper or studio enhanced singer. You have to be able to sing. You have to be able to play. And if you can’t do either, you can’t play jazz. Period.

A few thoughts about Adele cleaning up at The Adele Awards (formerly known as the Grammy Awards). I’m an agnostic n Adele. Can she sing? Yes, and no Auto-Tune or wearing costumes made of meat are necessary.

“Rolling In the Deep” is a great song (though, please don’t call it soul) , but 21 is not a great album. “Rolling” kills, but after that it’s pretty slow going. Adele will have a nice long career, but she needs better material.

The Grammys are about celebrity and popularity.  If they could figure out a way to give Kim Kardashian an award for record that wouldn’t make them look insane, they would do it. Most award shows are bullshit anyway.  The Grammy Awards finds all new ways to make themselves even more irrelevant to the art form they pretend to be celebrating.

Related articles

• Axed musicians to protest outside Grammy Awards show (canada.com)
• Adele returns to the Music Stage; Glams it up at the Grammy Awards (sugarslam.com)
• Musicians Want Ethnic Grammy Categories Back (theroot.com)
• Here, There & Everywhere: The 2012 Jazz Grammy Winners (irom.wordpress.com)

A voice that soared like an angel crashed to earth dragged down by her demons

For certain celebrities when they pass on and you hear who it was, it’s more of a shrug, than a surprise.

Would anyone really be shocked if Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan or some other professional train wreck were found face down, cold and stiff?  I wouldn’t be.

I’m not surprised Whitney Houston is dead.  I’m a bit sad, but not the least bit shocked.  She had been killing herself for years in a prolonged act of slow-motion suicide.  People that loved her and were close to her tried to help her and tried to save her, but how do you save a woman hell-bent on destroying herself?   You can try, but trying isn’t always enough.

Christopher John Farley, The former music critic for TIME magazine said 12 years ago about interviewing Houston, Now and again you meet people who aren’t as interesting or as nice as you might have thought. For example, Whitney Houston. When I interviewed her some years ago down in Miami, every other word out of her mouth was an “F” word. She cursed more than Snoop Doggy Dog… And then later, as your more untrustworthy stars are apt to do, she denied what she said to me in Entertainment Weekly. Luckily as a journalist — if you’re a good journalist — you tend to tape your interviews, your big ones. So I had the whole interview on tape, and I played it for anyone who wanted to hear it. And that was put to bed. Now and again you’ll run into artists like that who really aren’t like the public image…. That was not as pleasant an experience as one might have thought going in to interview Whitney Houston.

Years later when Houston’s drug problems escalated and her career plateaued, it became obvious that her strange marriage with aging b-boy Bobby Brown wasn’t the case of opposites attracting as it appeared to be.  They were two mutually and equally destructive souls whom together brought out the worst in each other.

I saw Whitney and Bobby as the Black version of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love.  Bad separately and worse together.  Before the tacky reality show, there was the notorious interview with Diane Sawyer and her defiant rebuttal to rumors Houston was using crack.  She snarled she was making too much money to buy a cheap drug like crack and spat out the three words that would haunt her for the rest of her life, “crack is whack.”

Nobody bought it.  The defiance and the denial poured out of Houston like a cold sweat.

I’m sorry she is dead.  Her last album was a sad affair where her upper range had vanished and where she once soared through songs like “The Greatest Love of All” and “I Will Always Love You,” now she was croaking and wheezing her way through over-produced crap by creeps like R. Kelly.

Once again it is proven as Rick James said, “cocaine is a helluva drug.”   Addiction took James out and I’ll bet it took Whitney the same way it took Amy Winehouse and Michael Jackson.

Like Amy and Michael and Rick, we’ll always have the music after they are gone.  Which is probably for the best.  The music is what matters more than the drugs, the rumors, the scandals, the failed trips to rehab, the cancelled shows and slumping record sales.  Whitney Houston’s star was tarnished by her inability to defeat her demons.  Having it all can leave you with nothing at all.

Tonight and this week, there will be thousands of You Tube videos downloaded of Whitney singing the national anthem and her other hit songs, but from my perspective Garbage’s “Breaking Up the Girl” seems equally apt.

In a modern culture
My friend you must be careful
They’ve a million ways to kill you
In this dangerous world
There’s an art to growing old
Taking chances
Magic happens

One mistake’s all it takes
And your life has come undone
Walk away cause you’re breaking up the girl
It’s a drag
I know it’s hard
But you’re tearing her apart
Walk away cause you’re breaking up the girl

I am afraid that there’s much to be afraid of
Here today and gone tomorrow
Don’t end up in the gutter
Just like the one before
You’re just the same
Such a loser

You’ve go to let her go because you’re breaking up
You’re breaking up the girl

Sad, sad, sad.   Cautionary tales and train wrecks always are.  Houston, she had a problem.

Didn't she almost have it all?

Related articles

• Whitney Houston Dies at 48 (popsugar.com)
• Remembering Whitney Houston With a Look Back at Her Life in Pictures (popsugar.com)
• Whitney Houston’s Death Leaves Bobby Brown ‘Distraught’ (mtv.com)

There have been more than enough examples of racist depictions of President Obama coming from the conservative Right.

What about a racist depiction that comes from the liberal Left?

New York magazine writer Dan Amira wrote a brief piece criticizing the president for not yet supporting gay marriage in a piece titled, “Obama’s Gay Marriage Evolution Watch: Day 468″

The illustration accompanying the article is of President Obama “evolving” from a monkey into a rainbow flag-holding human.

This image is insulting, reprehensible and New York magazine owes an immediate apology to President Obama. I do not know if New York magazine has any African-Americans on their editorial staff or if they do, they aren’t conscious ones, but racism is racism and it comes off no better when liberals engage in it than conservatives.

New York magazine tries to be edgy, hip and in the know about everything that is edgy and hip in the greatest city on earth.  But depicting the president as a monkey isn’t hip or edgy.  It’s racism and it’s bullshit.

I have a personal interest in this incident. I subscribe to New York magazine. I will soon be an ex-subscriber if an apology is not swiftly forthcoming.

Live by the word and die by the word

CNN contributor Roland Martin makes his living off of words.  A few of them led to his suspension from the network and an uncertain future.

While most of the country was watching the Super Bowl, Martin was merrily tweeting away providing a running commentary of the game, the commercials and anything else that popped in his head he figured might amuse his thousands of Twitter followers.

Soccer star David Beckham’s commercial with him stripped down to his skivvies appeared and next came the words that croaked Martin at CNN.

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!”

If all hell didn’t break loose a small enough piece did and with it the gay activist group, GLAAD, ripped Martin for encouraging anti-gay violence and demanded CNN fire him.   Martin later issued an apology, but with his standard sarcasm dripping from it.

“Let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday,” he wrote. “I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise.”

Roland Martin's troublesome Tweet

Got that LGBT community?   It’s not me, it’s you.   As an apology it was inadequate.   As far as saving Martin’s job with CNN, it was insufficient.

CNN suspended Martin indefinitely and issued a statement “Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive.  Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

Roland Martin is an experienced journalist and he knows journalists have to be accountable for their words.   He is also a Black man with a high-profile gig and there’s a hot spotlight on him.  He shouldn’t overshare on Twitter and while what he said was silly and sophomoric, I don’t think it was vicious or homophobic.

GLAAD did and they pounced.   They could have seen Martin’s remarks as a teaching moment opportunity to point out how words can be hurtful and homophobic speech creeps out when we least suspect it.

Nuh-uh.  That’s not how GLAAD rolls.  They’re in the business of collecting hides, not educating minds.  They howled for Martin’s head and CNN served it up on a silver platter (but not conservative commentator Dana Loesch who said she’d happily piss on dead Afghanis as U.S. troops have done).  The takeaway here is White gays have a stronger lobby than dead Afghanis.

GLAAD fires back at Martin.

I can’t say I know Roland Martin, but I’ve met him and sparred with him over other issues. Martin is passionate, articulate, smart and he fights for what he believes in. He is also caustic, patronizing, overbearing, and occasionally nasty.  Martin can be pleasant and charming when he wants, but get on his bad side (and it doesn’t take much to get there) and bring your lunch for an all day fight.

I don’t think Roland should be fired for his Tweets. He should be educated and learn how homophobia hurts. This is the proverbial “teaching moment” and rather than hang Mr. Martin out to dry,  GLAAD and other gay activists missed an opportunity to show Martin and the Black community that discrimination and insensitive speech is unacceptable no matter who does it.

Martin should have known as a Black man in a prominent position, the spotlight is always on and with social media you’re ALWAYS “on the record.”  I have never understood why some people can’t go to the john without reporting the details on Twitter, but some folks find these details riveting reading.

But there is a double standard here where a CNN conservative commentator can say she would piss on dead Afghanis and she isn’t suspended, but Rick Sanchez is fired for making insensitive remarks about Jews and Martin is suspended for offending gays.   Apparently, CNN is selective about what kind of speech crosses the line depending on what group is demeaned.

Martin objects to homosexuality based upon his religious upbringing and his 2006 article references how his wife ministers to gays to change their orientation.  I think that kind of ministering is crap, but I also recognize Martin and his wife believe the same way as other Black folks do.  That does not make it right. It does make it a reality.

Mr. Martin is no friend of mine. I don’t even much like the guy, but I do think he has the right to free speech. His employers at CNN have the right to hold him responsible for that speech–as long as everyone else is being held to that same standard and that is not the case.

Martin’s discriminatory words are being matched and trumped by GLAAD’s hectoring and CNN’s cave-in to a pressure group.   He was served up as a soul sacrifice on a silver platter to the altar of political correctness gone berserk.

Freedom of speech does not men freedom from taking responsibility for that speech.  Martin will have to do the same as Tracy Morgan, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and everyone else who words have done a drive-by past their brain.  Martin is a man of strongly held and expressed opinion and sometimes those opinions come back to bite where it smarts.   I’m sure he will emerge from this externally chastised and internally unbowed.

The takeaway from this is other oppressed groups have learned well the tactics of Blacks during the Civil Rights era of protest and how to seize, hold the moral high ground and slap down the oppressor.  They have learned it so well they have turned the tables on the once oppressed whom they now consider are oppressing them.

This must be what they mean by poetic justice.

Related articles

• CNN Suspends Roland Martin Over “Offensive” Tweets – Is GLAAD Satisfied? (eonline.com)
• Should Roland S. Martin be Fired? (bilerico.com)
• CNN suspends Roland S. Martin over ‘offensive’ – some say anti-gay – Super Bowl night tweets (miamiherald.typepad.com)

"Karl, a man's got to know his limitations."

Between Madonna’s creaky dancing, M.I.A. flipping off millions of viewers, the Giants sending Tom Brady and Bill Belicheat home for a loser’s lunch, there were quite a few commercials broadcast during the Super Bowl trying to get people to buy, eat, drink, watch or do something.

Only one has pissed off Bush’s Brain, Karl Rove. This one.

Halftime in America.

For a multitude of reasons, some Republicans are crying foul. One, because many of them (like Mitt Romney) were opposed to the auto industry bailouts that saved Chrysler and GM from collapsing.

Two, because they also fear the beneficiary of Eastwood’s commercial is President Obama.

You can almost hear Karl Rove panicking.

“This is a sign of what happens when you have government getting in bed with big business like the bailout of the auto companies,” Rove complained. “The leadership of the auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patrons.”

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” he added. “I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics. And the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

Although Obama did sign off on $85 billion in aid to the auto industry after taking office, Rove’s former boss, President George W. Bush, also provided over $17 billions in loans in 2008.

Rove’s objection to the commercial is a clear sign that Republicans are worried that the auto bailout will benefit the president’s re-election effort.

Eastwood says politics has nothing to do with it.

Clint Eastwood is setting the record straight about his improbably controversial Chrysler ad that aired on Sunday’s Super Bowl.

The “Gran Torino” director went on the defensive Monday, dismissing suggestions that the ad is a partisan love letter to President Obama.

"Me fight Clint Eastwood? Now that's funny."

Speaking to Ron Mitchell, a producer at Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Eastwood asserted, “I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message … just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it.”

Eastwood, who served as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, in the 1980s, added that he is “not supporting any politician at this time” but noted that, if Obama or any other politician “want to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it.”

Eastwood’s manager, Leonard Hirshan, was also dismissive of Rove and company’s claim, telling New York magazine, “He rewrote it to make it suit his needs … People have to understand that what he was doing was saying to America, ‘Get yourselves together – all of you – and make this a second half.’ It’s not a political thing.”

The most offensive thing about Rove being offended is his own boss started the ball rolling with the bail-outs for the auto industry.  For Rove, the master of down n’ dirty Texas-style politics, to sneer at “Chicago-style politics” is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Apparently, Rove would prefer Chrysler and GM fail so the blame could be placed on Obama and the Democrats than for the two automakers to stay afloat and any credit be given to the president.

You don’t need a degree in political science to figure out why Rove is pissed at Eastwood.   Lending his iconic image and considerable credible to a recovering Chrysler was a masterstroke on the part of whomever reached out to Eastwood for his participation.  For the Turd Blossom to think he can now talk smack about Eastwood reeks of a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome so advanced Rove is beside himself with frustration.

Peddling negativity, fear, gloom and doom can take you only so far. Americans are at heart relentlessly optimistic about their country and prefer to look forward with hope than back with dread.

Karl Rove is not in the optimism business. He’s in the electing Republicans and demonizing Democrats business.

Perhaps the question should be put to Rove: “Why do you hate America?”

Personally, I thought it was a terrific ad and everyone I’ve asked about it agreed it embodied the spirit of Americans coming together in a common purpose. It’s a novel experience for a prominent conservative to say something nice about Detroit and the auto industry.

Rove doesn’t want to pick a fight with Eastwood. He’s way out of his weight class. But if Rove wants to throw down with Eastwood, I’d recommend against it, but it would be a short fight with two hits; Clint hits Karl and Karl hits the ground.

America can’t be knocked out by one punch, but you can’t say the same for Rove.   I’d put down my money for a chance to see Rove get cold-cocked and laid flat out on his ass.

Related articles

• A follow-up to Clint Eastwood’s view of America (the can opener story) (viewfrommiddleclass.wordpress.com)
• Unforgiven: Rove Denounces Eastwood Super Bowl Commercial (jonathanturley.org)
• Karl Rove’s hissy fit: “Offended” by Chrysler ad (kaystreet.wordpress.com)

"Poor people SUCK! Thanks, for asking."

George Soros is not only a wealthy man, but one of its most demonized. Fox News has been on a mission to depict him as the sugar daddy for every liberal and left-wing cause under the sun. Soros is worth an estimated $14 billion and has contributed millions to progressive groups like Move On.org, forever ensuring the wrath of Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda outlet.

Soros gave an interview where he speculated on the presidential election and concluded, “If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.”

Which goes to show you can have more money than God and not be able to buy a clue.

There is a difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One guy sometimes has trouble with the retail politics of connecting with human beings one-on-one. The other doesn’t even try.

However, thanks to a few moments with Soledad O’Brien, Romney did take the opportunity to show how human he is. In fact, it might have been the most human moment in Mitt Romney’s life.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, but was focused instead on helping the middle class.

Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).

But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” Romney told CNN. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

Host Soledad O’Brien pointed out that the very poor are probably struggling too.

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor,” Romney responded, after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor . . . My focus is on middle income Americans … we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

Just two weeks ago, Romney appeared to have shifted on the social safety net, saying in South Carolina, “I’m concerned about the poor in this country.” But on Wednesday, he took a different tack.

In any political campaign, he said, “you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich–that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor–that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans.”

And there you have it. Mitt being as real as real gets. Saying what he means and meaning what he says.

Could Mittens really be so dumb as to think saying something that cold and callous was actually going to work out well for him? When Mitt speaks off the cuff he says dumb things like “Corporations are people too” and making $10,000 bets with Rick Perry, but this came right after crushing Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary. Was Mittens sleep deprived when he went on Soledad O’ Brien’s morning show?

I doubt it. It’s likely, Mitt knows the Republican race is over and he felt relaxed to say exactly what was on his mind without fear. His original message was probably Mitt Tells the Poor to Eat Shit and Go Fuck Themselves. What the hell? It’s not as if the poor were going to vote for him.

It sounds exactly like Mitt Romney. Totally out of touch with the real world and cocky enough to tell a large point of the electorate to expect exactly jack if he’s elected.

There are an estimated 46 million Americans living in poverty.

For the Republican frontrunner to tell 46 million American he’s “not concerned” about them reveals beyond any doubt how disconnected Romney is from the harsh realities many Americans face every day simply to eat and find shelter.

Rich guys ROCK!

Apparently, if you’re poor you reside outside of the heart of America. Then again, who said Mittens had a heart?

Nice of him to hand the “Democrat” party a club to beat him up with from now until Election Day. He’s the gift that keeps giving to opposition researchers.

Back to George Soros, he was asked if he was one of “Lenin’s useful idiots.’

“Pardon?” a confused Soros responded.

The interviewer explained she wanted to know if due to Soros believing hedge fund billionaires might consider him a backstabbing betrayer when he says “I personally believe that when it comes to policy, you shouldn’t be pursuing self-interest, but the public interest. And I think that the income differentials are too wide and ought to be narrowed.”

Which is by raising taxes on the one percent as Obama wants to and Romney wants no part of.

Would that make Soros one of Lenin’s useful idiots?

“Well, I suppose so. I am a traitor to my class,” Soros said.

As it turns out there is doubt whether Lenin ever used the phrase “useful idiots.”

Whether he did or not, Romney is a useful idiot and he’s no traitor to his class. Despite his supposed “concern” for the middle class, there is little in his proposals to help them. In fact, it’s the wealthy who stand to benefit most if Mittens makes it to the White House.

Something that will not happen if even half of those 46 million Americans Romney cares less about turns out to vote against him in November.

Remember, this is the same Mitt that strapped the family dog to the top of a car for a 12-hour trip from Boston to Ontario, Canada.  If he’s that cruel to his own dog, why would he be kind to poor Americans?

Is it worth the risk to find out?

"No, I said CORPORATIONS are people, not poor losers like you."

Related articles

• Soledad O’Brien Challenges Mitt Romney Claim That He ‘Misspoke’ About The Poor (mediaite.com)
• Rachel Maddow Mocks Mitt Romney’s ‘Very Poor’ Backtracking (VIDEO) (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
• Mitt Romney Tells Soledad O’Brien: ‘I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor’ (mediaite.com)

Super Bowl Roman numeral what the hell ever.

Hey hey, hey! It’s Super Bowl Sunday!  The national holiday where you can eat too much, drink too much, hang out with friends, family and total strangers and overindulge while you settle back to watch what is billed as the greatest game of they year and more times than not turns out to be a pretty boring football games featuring the favorite teams of somebody else.

Two weeks ago, I suffered through my 49ers literally fumbling away their opportunity to punch their ticket to Indianapolis and win the right to square off against Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots.   Alas, Kyle “Butterfingers and Bad Knees” Williams literally couldn’t get out of his own way so the Niners are home and it’s the more lucky-than-good New York Giants would will square off against Captain America and the Mad Genius.

If I was a gracious loser and a good sport, I would say I wish both the Patriots and the Giants all the best and that they play a good, clean game, have fun, and may the better team emerge victorious.

Like HELL!

I would say that if I were a gracious loser and a good sport, but since I hate losing and I’m a bad sport, I will say I don’t give a rat’s ass which one of these teams wins or loses and I’m more interested in the commercial and whether Madonna will have a “wardrobe malfunction” and flash a 53-year-old boob during the halftime show.

The Material Mommy limbers up for The Big Game.

The horror…the horror…

Okay. That’s not true. Nobody wants to see the Material Mommy’s mammaries. However, I am more interested in the commercials than I give a rat’s ass about who wins the game.

If my Niners can’t win, I’m hoping the game ends in a 0-0 tie.  That would be fun.  It’s sort of liberating to have no rooting interest and not have to care who wins or loses.   As far as I’m concerned, I’m more interested in collecting my fantasy football winnings than I am what terrible medley of songs Madonna wheezes through or how Brady and Eli Manning are playing.

It’s not that I’m a sore loser as much as i am a disinterested spectator.   I’ll be at a buddy’s crib with a bunch of the fellas drinking a few beers, eating more chips and chicken wings than I should and hoping against hope the game isn’t breathtakingly boring and the commercials aren’t as forgettable as all the commercials from last year I’ve forgotten about now.

I might even watch some of the halftime if for no other reason than to watch Madonna power lift a few of her dancers or rip a football in half or something.

Just be ready to hustle granny and the kids out of the room if Justin Timberlake shows up.

Having a miserable time. Glad you're not here.

Related articles

• Eli Manning or Tom Brady: Who’d You Rather … (thehollywoodgossip.com)
• Madonna flexes her massive arm muscles while promising ‘no wardrobe malfunction’ at the 2012 Super Bowl (mirror.co.uk)
• Super Bowl Sunday: It’s About the Food (business-opportunities.biz)
• Things to Do Other Than Watch the Super Bowl [Super Bowl] (gawker.com)