Morning Wrap Up 10/25/2011

Allegedly, J-Hud broke off her engagement with fiance-Punk.  The internet is buzzing with rumors that Punk’s refusal to sign the prenuptial agreement was the game breaker.


Nas: My 17-year-old daughter was the initial reason I contemplated quitting rap.

“It’s crazy, because when she was young, she was a baby, I thought, Aw, man, I’m gonna quit this rap sh*t before she becomes old enough to even know what I’m doing, what I did for a living. I never thought that I’d be still doing it while she’s a teen, growing up. And I’m still in the game. It kind of f*cks me up,” Nas explained. “It’s weird as f*ck sometimes. But then, other times, it’s, like, perfect. It’s, like, I’m glad it worked out this way. ‘Cause then I would have to be telling her, “No, I really was a somebody in rap. Like, you got to believe me!” via sohh.com

Pharrell Williams continues to add onto his extensive resume, as he has unveiled plans to release a book in the near future entitled “Places & Spaces I’ve Been.”

While details are still coming together, the music hitmaker has teamed with fashion designer Ambra Medda for his latest project.

Given his air miles, it makes perfect sense that the Virginia Beach native is working on a book with Ambra Medda, co-founder and director of Design Miami and Design Miami/Basel — “Places & Spaces I’ve Been.” Having worked with Williams in the past, Paper magazine’s Kim Hastreiter said they will no doubt work together again. “He is gracious, smart, super handsome and has an amazing style and eye,” she said. via Panache

Introduction:

The internet is abuzz over Bill Duke’s upcoming documentary “Dark Girls.”  This film explores deep seeded issues of colorism in the black community. Private one night screenings of “Dark Girls,” is currently underway, in major cities. Bill Duke also directed “Cover,” and “Hoodlum.” Watch the trailer on my facebook page, outstanding!

Backstory:

“Dark Girls” takes a compelling look at the impact of colorism: a state of prejudice, conscious and unconscious, that causes both black people and white people to label as more beautiful or desirable or intelligent individuals with lighter shades of skin, particularly when it comes to black women. Few among people of color are unfamiliar with the saying: “If you are light, you are all right. If you are brown, you can stick around. If you are black, get back.” A writer in The Washington Post aptly described the phenomenon a few years ago as “the crazy aunt in the attic of racism.”

And it appears she may be getting crazier. Almost buried in the midst of the Oprah lovefest was the news that the huge protest generated last month by a Psychology Today article — purported to be a “scientific” examination of “Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women but Black Men Are Rated Better Looking Than Other Men?” — resulted in the publication pulling the article from its Web site.

As important and necessary as this victory was, it provides small comfort when one considers that less than two years after Google executives apologized for a doctored picture, which gave Michelle Obama the facial features of an ape, after it showed up in a Google Images search. The offensive photo still remains available on the site for all to see.

Source: NY Magazine

Obama Reportedly Writes personal Checks to Struggling Americans

WASHINGTON — Got problems? Tell Barack Obama. He can help. He might even give you money.
On more than one occasion, the president has cut personal checks to struggling Americans who’ve written to the White House, according to an excerpt from a new book by Washington Post reporter Eli Saslow about the ten letters the president reads every day.
“It’s not something I should advertise, but it has happened,” the president told Saslow.
How many times has President Obama intervened on someone’s behalf, and with what kind of problems does he help? Mortgage payments? Medical bills? And when he wants to help someone out with a personal check, how does it work? Does he send a check signed “Barack Obama” directly to the individual in need, or does he send the money to a bank or company on the person’s behalf? Do people even know when Obama has helped them out, or does the help arrive anonymously through a lawyer?
The White House declined to answer any questions about the practice.

SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/obama-personal-checks_n_1019501.html

Dear Mr. President,

May Can I Get $20?

-LadySteele

Kardashians shocked by Obama Diss


As Per TMZ: The Kardashian clan says they were completely blindsided when Michelle Obama revealed that Barack doesn’t like when their daughters watch their reality show … insisting the President has them pegged all wrong.

The K-squad is telling friends … they read Michelle’s new interview with iVillage … in which she said, “Barack really thinks some of the Kardashians — when they watch that stuff — he doesn’t like that as much.”

We’re told the Kardashians were “surprised” by the news … because Obama personally told Khloe he thought “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” was a “great show” when they met last year.

In fact, the Kardashians believe Sasha and Malia could actually LEARN something from the show … because it features girls in real-life situations facing real-life problems … health, relationships, the whole gamut. =_=

Read More Here: http://www.tmz.com/2011/10/19/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-barack-michelle-obama-interview-daughters/

Obama, Martin Luther King and the Occupy Wall Street protests

One day after hundreds of thousands of people around the world demonstrated against inequality and the domination of society by the banks, President Barack Obama invoked the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. to preach the “common humanity” of the oppressor and the oppressed.

Speaking at the official dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on Washington’s National Mall, Obama, clearly though only indirectly alluding to the growing protests, said of King: “It was that insistence, that belief that God resides in each of us, from the high to the low, in the oppressor and the oppressed, that convinced him that people and systems could change. It fortified his believe in non-violence. It permitted him to place his faith in a government that had fallen short of its ideals.”

To reinforce the point, Obama suggested that King’s legacy was the recognition that “any social movement,” to “bring about true and lasting change,” had to embrace “the possibility of reconciliation.”

The president continued: “If he were alive today, I believe he would remind us that the unemployed worker can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there…”

This crude attempt to use the figure of King to promote a spirit of submission and illusions in the possibility of reforming the existing system speaks to the fear within the American ruling class that the anti-Wall Street protests express the growth of anti-capitalist and potentially revolutionary sentiment. Particularly disturbing and dangerous, from the standpoint of Obama and the class of oppressors he represents, is the fact that issues of inequality and social class have dominated the demonstrations, not the various forms of identity and life-style politics based on race, gender and sexual orientation that have been used for decades to block the emergence of an independent political movement of the working class.

The greatest fear of Obama and the US ruling elite is that the Occupy Wall Street movement portends the emergence of a far greater movement of the working class outside of the two-party system and all of its pro-capitalist agencies, such as the trade unions. They fear the reemergence of working-class struggle after decades in which it has been suppressed. This fear is entirely justified.

Hence Obama’s pretense of sympathy for the protests and his turn to pseudo-populist demagogy in recent weeks—always combined in one way or another with affirmations of support for the capitalist system.

In his speech at the King dedication, Obama made passing references to the economic crisis, unemployment and the growth of poverty today. He praised the courage of the civil rights militants who braved police batons, racist violence and prison during the anti-segregation struggles in the US South. He made no mention, however, of the hundreds of arrests of peaceful protesters carried out the day before by police across the country.

For Obama to posture as a partisan of the poor and oppressed is the height of hypocrisy. He has slavishly pursued the policies demanded by Wall Street since taking office, resulting in a more rapid decline in working-class incomes and a faster growth of poverty than under Bush, combined with bigger-than-ever profits and pay for the corporations.

There is something particularly obscene about Obama cloaking himself in the mantle of King, who, for all his political limitations, led a courageous mass struggle to achieve elementary democratic rights for African-Americans against the system of Jim Crow apartheid in the South. Barely two weeks before his King speech, Obama became the first US president to order the assassination of an American citizen—Anwar al-Awlaki—and publicly boast of its having been carried out.

Obama seizes precisely on King’s political weaknesses—his pacifism and rejection of socialist revolution—to try to prevent the emergence of a mass movement for equality and socialism today.

King courageously denounced the Vietnam War in 1967, breaking with the Democratic administration of Lyndon Johnson. He insisted that genuine freedom could not be achieved for blacks or anyone else in America so long as the United States was allowed to commit war crimes against people of other countries.

In his final years, he increasingly saw the fight for racial justice as part of a broader struggle for economic security and equality. His call for a “Poor People’s Campaign,” together with his opposition to the Vietnam War, made him a marked man, especially when he went to Memphis to support a bitter strike by sanitation workers. The FBI’s relentless campaign of spying and harassment of King ended only with his assassination in Memphis in April of 1968.

The hypocrisy of Obama—who has continued and expanded the wars of Bush and is threatening new wars against Iran and other countries—claiming the legacy of King is brazen.

By the time of King’s death, the limitations of his reformist perspective had already brought the civil rights movement to a crisis point. It must be added that the domination of the labor movement by a right-wing, pro-capitalist bureaucracy was a crucial factor in the movement of millions of African-American workers for democratic rights falling under the leadership of middle-class figures and preachers such as King.

Instead of the end of Jim Crow apartheid in the South becoming the starting point for a struggle against the capitalist system as a whole, it became the occasion for a sordid deal between the American ruling class and a privileged layer of the black upper middle class. President Nixon expanded the use of affirmative action policies to cultivate a small layer in the black population who were allowed to enter the political and economic establishment.

Meanwhile, the mass of African-American workers and the working class as a whole suffered a steady decline in living standards, which has been vastly accelerated since the Wall Street crash of 2008.

Obama is the apotheosis of this process: a right-wing, militarist, pro-Wall Street African-American president. His elevation—like that of figures such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice under Bush—is not some consummation of the struggle of black people for civil rights, but rather the result of an attempt by corporate interests within the Democratic Party to use Obama’s skin color to obscure their reactionary policies.

Obama, in fact, did not come out of the civil rights movement, or any tradition of social struggle. Educated for the most part in private schools and given entry into Columbia University and Harvard Law School, he was groomed from an early age by wealthy interests in Chicago to serve American imperialism and US big business, which he was done unswervingly, becoming a multimillionaire in the process.

Now he dispenses doses of religion and cheap moralizing to oppose the development of socialist consciousness in the emerging movement of the American and international working class. He preaches reconciliation and harmony while pursuing a ruthless policy of class war at home and abroad.
Leon Trotsky, in his brilliant essay Their Morals and Ours, published in 1938, opposed all such attempts to politically disarm the working class and prevent it from ruthlessly and consciously prosecuting the class struggle in defense of its interests. As he wrote: “A slave owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains—let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality!”
This author also recommends:
“Forty years on, some lessons from the life—and death—of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”
[7 April 2008]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/king-a07.shtml

U.S. Troops to Africa

In a letter to congress, President Obama explains the mission.

“For more than two decades, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa,” the letter said, adding that the group “continues to commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.

Despite limited U.S. assistance, Obama wrote, “regional military efforts have thus far been unsuccessful in removing LRA leader Joseph Kony (pictured)or his top commanders from the battlefield.” Therefore, he said, “I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa” to help regional forces achieve that goal.

SOURCE: http://www.alan.com/2011/10/14/u-s-troops-to-africa/

The ‘n1gg#3rhead’ controversy

The Rick Perry camp is in damage control over a Washington Post story that begins thuswise:

In the early years of his political career, Rick Perry began hosting fellow lawmakers, friends and supporters at his family’s secluded West Texas hunting camp, a place known by the name painted in block letters across a large, flat rock standing upright at its gated entrance.

“Niggerhead,” it read.

The story goes on to note there’s a conflict between what Perry says about the name (that it was painted over soon after his father leased the property in 1983) and what some others say (that it was painted over later).

To conservative MSM bashers, the story is a perfect example of media bias. But you have to wonder if rival Republicans leaked this (remember that the Obama’s-a-Muslim story had legs in the 08 Democratic primary). After all, there’s a clause in the story about pictures of the offensive sign that says “according to photographs viewed by The Washington Post.” That means the Post wasn’t out taking pictures. Someone else was. So who? The suspects are numerous.

It’s likely not Republican Herman Cain’s camp (he doesn’t have the money for that type of oppo-research — yet), though the African-American businessman was quick to condemn it. Perry’s camp hit back with two statements one of which said:

Perry Campaign Communications Director Ray Sullivan today released the following statement regarding Herman Cain’s comments this morning on Fox News’ Face the Nation:

“Mr. Cain is wrong about the Perry family’s quick action to eliminate the word on the rock, but is right the word written by others long ago is insensitive and offensive. That is why the Perrys took quick action to cover and obscure it.”

Read more (its a bit long) : http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/10/the-nig3rh3d-controversy.html#ixzz1ZfKKpnsg

My thing is why paint the rock? Why not chisel the word out/destroy the whole rock? Even better, why put yourself in the public eye when you not only have skeletons but a whole grave yard in your closet? The GOP is its own worst enemy! The 2012 election is going to be a joke….