75th anniversary- God’s Stepchildren & Blame In the African-American Community

It’s been 75 years since God’s Stepchildren by Oscar Micheaux was first publicly screened. Even now, this film causes a bit of a stir among certain audiences, especially those of color.  Why?  It’s largely because of it’s protagonist, Naomi, who rejects dark-skinned African-Americans and eventually tries to pass for white. There’s also a bit of dialogue between actors Carman Newsome and Ethel Moses regarding the industriousness of African-Americans that many find objectionable. 75 years later, it is still risky for African-Americans to publicly criticize members of their own communities for self-destructive behaviors like gang-banging, drug dealing, drug abuse, teenage parenthood, high school and college drop-out rates, and STDs.

Oscar Micheaux was one of the first film makers of color to publicly say something to the effect “Hey! Look at what we’re doing to ourselves. Stop fulfilling racists’ stereotypes.” Colorism arguments aside, the characters of Jimmie and Eva are suggesting that people of color need to master economics and planning instead of looking for easy money, often through illicit means. BIll Cosby got into a bit of trouble for saying much the same thing over 65 years later  See -http://www.captainscomments.com/comment/90 and - http://mattoid.ca/data/EconomicStraits/Cosby/cosby_criticism_of_american_africans.htm).

It’s amazing to me how relevant Mr. Micheaux’s observations are to this day. Let us hope they are less so in another 75 years.

God’s Stepchildren

Veiled Aristocrats & God’s Stepchildren

Election 2012 – Framing the context and the contest

In light of the Bain Capital affair and his appearance at the NAACP, Mr. Romney seems to be suffering a severe credibility gap.

Mr. Romney’s series of interviews merely served to raise more questions than they answered. When did he really relinquish all his business ties to Bain Capital? Instead of explaining that the process was gradual, with him going on leave in February of 1999 and finalizing his departure in August of 2001, he insisted he had nothing to do with the company after February of 1999 and didn’t recall being back after that date. Previous interviews indicate that he attended board meetings after that date. Lies? Falso SEC statements? Gaps in memory? I don’t know. But what I do know is that most people perceive politicians to be dishonest to begin with, so if you’re telling the truth and people think you’re lying – you have a problem, and this is one I’m not convinced will be fixed by November 6, 2012.

It’s one thing to stick to your guns while appearing before a hostile audience and another to later insinuate that the audience booed you because they are simply minorities who are looking for government handouts. Similarly, to suggest that government sponsored birth control is just more “free stuff” that he’d never approve of, doesn’t help define his plan for tackling unwanted pregnancies, if he has one. In short, Mr. Romney begs the question “Can he represent all Americans if he can’t relate well to people of a different ethnic,philosophical, or religious background than his own?”

Neither Mr. Romney nor his team seem to get it. It’s not just about the scandal in politics, it’s about how you handle a scandal that sticks in people’s minds. Just ask Bill Clinton. Few people cared about him having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, but many cared that he lied about it even after being caught, this writer included.

I think the Democrats are in an excellent position to frame this contest in terms of “Well, we know that Barack Obama isn’t perfect, but…is Mitt Romney really so much better?”.  Of course, many other questions could be raised, chief of which is “Can we really trust Mitt Romney?” As long as the Democrats get enough people to answer “NO.” then I think Mr. Obama will get another four years in the White House.

Good discussion on July 15, 2012 about the potential impact of Bain Capital & Tax Returns:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/george-will-matthew-dowd-blast-romney-for-not-releasing-tax-returns/

Mitt Romney & Bain Capital -Another Etch-a-Sketch moment…

There appear to be three general arguments trotted forth by conservatives in response to questions surround Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital: A) Romney wasn’t there after February of 1999, and accusations to the contrary are false. B) The length of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is irrelevant and a diversionary tactic by liberals/Obama supporters. or C) Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is simply off limits from discussion/examination.

Let’s run through these in reverse order:

Thank Mr. Bob McDonnell for C, which is my favorite argument of all. I am glad to know that political candidates can pick and choose which topics of discussion or examination are off limits. This encourages me to want to run for public office…No. That’s in another universe, sorry.

Argument B is another charmer. Isn’t Mr. Romney’s business acumen and record of job creation one of his main arguments for qualifying him for the presidency?  Shouldn’t we know whether or not he lied about his business record? Is his company’s record for outsourcing jobs rather than creating them not an important part of his business record?

Argument A tickles me nearly as much as the other two. Either Mr. Romney was involved with Bain Capital after February of 1999, or he lied on the company’s SEC filings and press accounts of his Bain Capital activities in 1999 and onward were also false.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/13/romney_admitted_in_2002_he_never_cut_ties_to_bain.html

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-no-role-bain-management-1999-222247975.html?_esi=1

Mitt Romney & Election 2012

Although Roland Martin makes some valid points about why it’s a good idea for Republicans to woo the African American vote – see -http://snipurl.com/24abb87 – I think the results of Romney’s performance show him to be politically inept in some respects.

Let’s take a look at this part of his NAACP speech – “If you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president,” Romney said to murmuring from the crowd.

To me, this suggests A) Romney doesn’t think African -Americans understand him B) He isn’t able to communicate what he believes in a persuasive manner. If these two premises are true, why should he reasonably expect people of color, or for anyone for that matter, to want to vote for him?  If these two premises are false, his choice of words was exceptionally poor and left an undesirable impression which will likely take more than three months to correct.

I also have to ask – how many taxpayer dollars do all the 33 legislative efforts in Congress to repeal “Obamacare” translate into? How many uninsured Americans could have been helped with that money?

Finally, let me just ask, since when does the United States President single-handedly control the world’s economy, or that of the United States? No matter who is elected in November, the economy is going to stay in rough shape for at least another three or four years.

It’s time to stop blaming and start working together, and so far, I’ve only heard one candidate talk like that.

Reaction to portrayal of Cancerians in the book Cosmic Coupling by Starsky&Cox

This book doesn’t talk about the Cancerians with vicious or violent tempers, the ones who are too embittered or hurt to give their hearts away easily or the ones who have walled their hearts off from nearly everyone. It doesn’t talk about their tendency to sulk and withdraw and snap and hide away in their shells and refusing to talk to anyone - even their own mothers – if they’re not in the mood. It doesn’t talk about the Cancerians who scream “GET out of my life” or “EAT shit and DIE motherfucker”  I am here to tell you that each and every one of those kinds of Cancerians exists.

Starsky & Cox seem to have forgotten about the Lunar deities behind the Moon children – Hecate, Medea, Circe, Artemis/Diana or the mother goddesses Demeter and Kali.  (Read up on how Erysichthon fared when he offended Demeter. Or how Acteon fared when Artemis was offended). They seem to have forgotten what Penny Junor pointed out “the moon too has a dark face.” There is a part of the Cancerian that is forever inaccessible, invisible, untouchable, and unknowable.

The passive and agreeable Cancerian does exist, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that we’re all like that all the time, or that we’re eager doormats willing to let anyone run roughshod over us.

This is the sign of Amanda Knox, Lizzie Borden, Paul Vario, Mike Tyson, O.J. Simpson, Leona Helmsley, Nancy Reagan, Andrea Yates, John Dillinger and George W. Bush. Yes. The Cancerian can be a very doting lover, but you’d be a fool to think Mr. or Ms. Cancer never makes a few demands of his or her own.

The authors have glossed over how difficult we Cancerians can make the lives of lovers who displease us – we can pack their bags and send them on very long guilt trips, withdraw our love and affection completely and/or sulk and snap for untold lengths of time. Starsky & Cox don’t tell you that while Cancerians cater to their lovers’ whims or make themselves indispensable to their intended, that it can often be a form of manipulation or control. They also don’t tell you just how underhanded the Cancerian can be to get what he or she wants.

Nor does the Cancerian  have to attack another directly either, but instead may enlist the aid of others by trying to elicit their sympathy and/or make the targeted person look bad in the eyes of others.

The Cancerian who has given him or herself over completely to madness, hatred and evil is more dangerous than most could ever imagine. They know what’s close to your heart, and if wounded and enraged enough – will use it against an enemy in any and every way possible. They know how to exude a placid exterior and seethe silently within. Just like Medea, they are capable of torturing and killing the loved ones of an enemy right in front of him or her with relish before killing that enemy. If you find your dog or cat missing, don’t be surprised if parts of Muffy or Rover turn up in your mailbox or in your food.

The most dangerous enemy you’ll ever have is the one you don’t know exists.

I don’t recognize myself in the portraits of the passive, agreeable male painted in the couplings with other signs described here, and think anyone who tried to behave with me in some of the ways mentioned in the book  would exit my life faster than he or she entered it.

Interracial Dating & Demographics

As a result of our culture’s premium on European standards of beauty, it seems to me that whites have a broader dating pool of candidates to choose from, since whiteness is the most widely accepted currency. I am of the opinion that whites are generally perceived to be acceptable mates to a larger number of members of other ethnic groups than are African American, Asians, or Hispanics.

In a situation where there are 100 white men, 100 white women, and 10 black women and 10 black men, there may equal odds on the surface for each person to find a mate, but if you look at the likely permutations more closely, it really isn’t the case. Each of the black men and women will run into a shortage of men or women to choose from sooner than each of the white men or women, because each white person has 99 potential choices, whereas each black person has only 9. Each white person may choose to date interracially, but it will be more of a luxury for them, whereas it will be more of a necessity for each black person in order to have as many potential choices as each white person has.

Whenever I try to point this line of reasoning out to whites, I get dismissive rebuttals, and occasionally denials.

In my example, if we add 6 Hispanic men and 6 Hispanic women to the mix, and consider who’s willing to date whom, the African Americans may be willing to date the Hispanics or the whites, but the reverse may not be true…moreover, the whites don’t experience a shortage as quickly as the other two groups, so there’s no pressing need for them to consider doing so…

What’s your take?

The Good Wife-Whiskey Tango Foxtrot episode 3.9

It’s been a while since I’ve analyzed an episode and a lot has happened since my last post.

This episode, whose story lines included the court martial of a young female military officer  accused of negligent homicide in a drone attack, and an attempt to lobby members of congress in favor of a cheese producers’ guild.  The first case is the more interesting of the two, but this show has become more of an ensemble production since its inception, so we got to see fine work from nearly every cast member.

I cannot write another post about this show without commenting on the increasingly acrimonious relationship between Alicia and Jackie. Yes. Jackie’s behavior is definitely provocative and occasionally overbearing, BUT however mixed or flawed Jackie’s motives may be, Alicia has to respect the fact that the elder Mrs. Florrick loves her grandchildren and is a permanent part of their lives. I see Alicia getting angry and lashing out at Jackie, but I don’t see her trying to move beyond the offense of the day or working things through in order to make them better. I also don’t think that turning the children against their grandmother is doing anyone  any favors.  Alicia seems to think that because her children are nearly adults, that neither she nor they need Jackie any more, but that may not prove to be true in the future.

Diane’s calling Will on the carpet for his behavior with judges and his affair with Alicia was priceless television. It became clear why her name comes before his in the firm’s name. She is older and wiser, and does not suffer fools gladly.

I don’t know how things between Cary,Kalinda & Dana will work out, but sometimes I wish they’d all get a hotel room and get it out of their systems.