Uncle Toms, Duke, Jalen Rose, and Grant Hill

The New York Times, today, released an Op-Ed wherein which current NBA player and former Duke star Grant Hill responds to the comments made by Jalen Rose on ESPN's "Fab Five" documentary. During which, Rose made the claim that Duke only recruited "uncle Tom's" and had no interest in the likes of he or other black players from urban, violent, impoverished neighborhoods. Rose went on to express the resentment, which at that time boiled close to a vitriolic level, toward Hill, and black athletes like Hill who were from less humble beginnings. Today, the Times published a piece where Hill feels the need to defend black success stories, in particular his own, and others from the Duke program. The piece can be found here. Grant Hill is either completely aloof or deliberately abstruse regarding Jalen Rose's comments. His Op-Ed was a rebuttal toward a comment that was never made or implied. On top of that, I find it extremely misfortunate that many on the blogosphere, Twitter, and the comment section of that very piece are lauding Hill for his writing ability, vernacular, and "class". It is without question that Hill deliberately wrote the piece in such a manner as to disparage Rose, selecting only from the lexicon of academia, while passive aggressively patronizing the members of the Fab Five.

Not once in the documentary, though, did Rose disparage Hill for actually being from a warm and supportive family, rather, he expressed a bitterness and a resentfulness toward it. He was spiteful and jealous. One could certainly see how a youth from an at-risk area such as Jalen Rose could harbor such feelings. For Hill to dismiss these thoughts shows a real ignorance on his behalf. Rose has nothing to apologize for, unfortunately, the word police, the thought police, and the race cowards will continue to applaud Grant Hill. But, at what end? Further dismissing the realities of millions of minority adolescence in low-income areas with broken families and dysfunctional homes? I certainly hope not, as this will only further the gap between "black elites" and "urban blacks" at a time when unity amongst all blacks is especially key.

Islamophobia

Peter King (R-NY, not Sports Illustrated's "Monday Morning Quarterback" columnist and famed NFL guru), House Homeland Security Committee chairman, has decided to pursue the "self-radicalization going on within the Muslim community" in America. This fear-fueled, religious persecution and minority sniping is reminiscent of modern-day McCarthyism. King is nothing more than a fool who stands counter-productive to the cause. By persecuting Muslim American's, King is essentially verifying the libel that al-Qaeda spews. Leaders of the terrorist organization love nothing more than when American politicians wage war against Islam. Doing such allows them to rally disenfranchised or weak-willed youth around a cause. Instead, we should be waging a war against terrorism, as a whole, and specific terrorist cells within the United States or abroad. Unfortunately, Peter King is too dense to understand a basic principle such as this, and we, as Americans, continue to pay the price for the foolish few, not unlike most Muslim's pay the price for the radical few amongst them. Shame.

The Tea Party's Attack on Unions and Social Rights

In my book, anytime the working man can stick it to the rich man it's a good thing. In Wisconsin, that is precisely whats happening. As Scott Walker, the Republican Governor attempts to turn the working man upon his fellow working man (non-union workers vs. union workers), I hope that his transparency is as clear to them as it is to me.

Here's the facts: Walker wants to eliminate the unions ability to collectively bargain pension plans and benefits. Currently, union members are paying astronomically low rates; less than 1% into their pension, only 6% into health care. In exchange, the unions take on lower salaries. Less money now, more down the line. All in all, the deal is a sweetheart deal, but let us be clear, there was no divine order stricken down from the heavens demanding that union members will only pay X amount into this or Y amount into that. The deal was negotiated. It was collectively bargained. But now, when its time to pay the "more later" bit, the government, headed by Scott Walker is attempting to renege. Instead of focusing on the facts, Walker continues to point out what a great deal these union workers have, correctly stating that other "working men", i.e. his relative at Sears, would love such a deal. It is a relatively smart bit of thinking, but with the aforementioned facts brought to light, it is also completely irrelevant.

If the fight were really about making economic concessions, though, the strikes would be over. Wisconsin union members are willing and ready to make the necessary compromises, so long as their ability to bargain collectively remains intact. Walker, though, refuses to allow it. Because, alas, it has nothing to do with the economic climate, it has to do with another "Tea Party Governor" trying to union bust and infringe on basic social rights of Americans. It is happening all across the country. Thankfully, Wisconsin has put its foot down, hopefully America takes notice.

Teach For America Not For Yourself

Richard Cohen, Op-Ed Columnist over at the Washington Post, wrote a column today in defense of Teach For America. The real point, a point by the way in which I wholeheartedly agree with, was that Tea Party Republicans are trying to slash programs they don't like under the guise of budget cutting. In reality, you don't get rid of "useless" programs, such as Teach For America and expect all of our problems to wash away. Swing for the fences. Eviscerate the defense budget. Tax the hell out of the top earners in the nation and reinvest it into those who never stood a chance. But, that's just an opinion and it's not what this blog is about. I'm not going to blast Cohen, because frankly, I just think he is ignorant - a fact which he essentially admitted to in the column - about Teach For America.

In full disclosure, I was one of the 48,000 Teach For America applicants this year. I was not selected for an in-person interview. Only 5,300 were, so I guess at first I didn't feel too bad that I wasn't amongst those invited to partake in the cause. Then again, I never really stood a chance did I? For one thing, the TFA Corpse is largely an Ivy League affair, about 1/5 of the graduating class from Harvard applied to the program. Plus, I'm white. I'm from a relatively middle class family and I grew up in a suburb of Washington, D.C., not exactly the redemption story that would captivate the application reviewers. But, perhaps, the cookie-cutter billboard faces that illuminate the TFA ads adorning college campuses across the country aren't actually the answer to the education crisis. They're not the type of people capable of making a difference. Not in my mind anyway. A potential flyer might highlight the plucky Latina from Los Angeles, or Joseph, the Jewish guy from New York City, or Derrick, the good-looking black guy who rose from the mean streets to the ivory towers going back into urban school systems to change lives. Sounds great on paper. Sometimes, I think that's all that matters to a lot of people.

All the while, the types of people who genuinely could make a difference are bypassed in the selection process to make room for self-serving, pretentious, frauds. It starts from the top at TFA. No doubt, the program is noble in its ideals and perhaps, sometimes, in its practice. I certainly hope that dividends are yielded, but I fear that the people at the frontline are not properly equipped to invoke change, let alone inspire a revolution. In my experience, the types of people who apply for TFA, try as they might to convince you or prove to you otherwise, are more interested in garnering the revere and praise of their peers for their "nobility" than actually making a difference. What about staffing yourself with people that genuinely care about kids? People who sincerely want to see others actualize their potential. They do exist, believe it or not. People that kids can relate to. They don't have be black, or latino, or white, or whatever, they just have to be funny. Or be passionate about real things, like sports, or music, or movies. Things that people can relate to, because without that nobody can trust you, you're just another stiff teacher that doesn't get it.

If we're going to spark a change with the youth, we need to enlist more real people, not the heroic University graduate who so humbly is donating their precious, valuable time throwing the less-fortunate a bone. What about hiring a man of the people, rather than someone who somewhere in their subconscious can't wait to write Teach For America on the resume so that their future interviewer at some Fortune 500 Firm can laud them with praise? It's pathetic, almost a way to equal military service for the "intellectually elite," an Iraqi war for the educated; let's go help these poor people turn their lives around so they can turn out to be just like me. The arrogance is astounding.

It's not Bipartisanship, its Betrayal

Unsurprisingly, Obama folded under Republican pressures and watched the $250K+ club tax relief continue. Whether you realize it or not, this country is headed toward financial ruins and that very well may have been the nail in the coffin. Certainly, this is hard to believe when the Jayson Werth's of the world are commanding $130mil, and stock index levels have jolted slightly, but believe it or not unemployment is actually predicted to rise and the relief for the jobless to fall. Something seems wrong about that. President Obama campaigned on a message of hope and hope is exactly what he is sucking out of millions of Americans, just before the Holiday season.

Did Obama campaign on a bipartisan agenda, as well? Certainly. And, I would willingly concede that being able to reach across the aisle, is not just an important political skill, but also something all great leaders are able to do. However, any great leader would tell you that you do not do so at the cost of forsaking your greatest convictions. Obama is playing the fool now and is making everyone who campaigned and argued on his behalf - ahem - look stupid. Not only that, but he has taken the very dangerous step in letting the GOP set the agenda for the nation. Talk about showing weakness.

I mentioned in my previous blog entry how foolish it would be to end jobless benefits. I read today a jarring statistic, which essentially states that each $1.00 pumped into jobless benefits injects $1.60 back into the economy. Seems like a worthwhile investment, no? Obama knows this as well as anyone, his arguments prior to the election were incredibly convincing and emboldened, he had a hard stance: The tax breaks for the $250K + club are bad for the economy. So, why is he bending now? He has completely betrayed his supporters. Each day it becomes more and more clear that Mrs. Clinton was correct and Obama was not ready for the big time. This is not what we put him in Washington to do.

Democrats Should Show Fight

If the Democratic party is going to stand up to the GOP at all, this is the time. Just because they won the midterm elections doesn't mean you roll over and surrender complete control to them. Do you want cooperation and support down the road? Yeah, sure. I guess. But, if it means not just extending the Bush tax cuts, but making them permanent, than under absolutely no circumstances do you allow this to happen. In fact, if these tax cuts do become permanent it will be nearly impossible for even the staunchest base Democrat supporters to have faith in anyone in public office. Period.

What do the tax cuts mean to Americans, you ask? Well, here is a very simple break down from the great Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who writes:

Here's what [the Republicans] argue: Extend the tax cuts for the richest Americans - in fact, make them permanent. Doing so would increase the deficit by $700 billion over the next decade, but this doesn't matter. We did tell you that we're the party of fiscal responsibility, however, so to prove it we'll block the extension of unemployment benefits for millions of jobless workers. Three weeks before Christmas.

In other words, there's no additional money in the national coffers for the victims of the most devastating recession since the Great Depression. But to help investment bankers start the new year right, perhaps with a new Mercedes or a bit of sun in the Caribbean? Step right up, and we'll write you a check.

Is this the type of garbage that anyone who voted Democrat in the midterms, or has ever voted Democrat, or has any liberal leanings, or really, any common sense is going to overlook? I really don't see how it would be possible. This one, in my mind falls on Obama, he is the leader of the party. It's time to rally up the troops and crush this in its tracks.

Anybody who has taken any type of Economics course in their life, or even has any sense of how an economy works, or how real world lives are impacted by a complete halt of financial support knows that ending jobless benefits HURTS THE ECONOMY. Think about it, people without any source of revenue take the money given to them by the government and funnel it directly into the economy. This is the money they use to pay rent, buy food, clothes, gifts, make car payments, etc. How is ending that going to help the economy at all?

But, alas, -and I hate to be cynical - the Republicans are not even that clueless to think the tax relief for the wealthiest Americans is actually good for the economy. So why be so adamant it get pushed through? The answer is simple. One, it stops a Democratic agenda, weakens the presidents resume, and what they hope will limit him to one term. Not to mention their chief donators are the ones benefiting most from the tax relief. So, this one falls squarely on Obama's shoulders. The Republicans are crippling the economy, stepping on the little man, and trying to drag Obama out of office after one term. Time for Obama, and the rest of the Democrats, to show some fight and kill the bill. No pun intended. But, I liked it.

Wikileaks, Whistleblowers, and You

The haymakers levied by the Wikileaks phenomenon and the repercussions that will potentially ensue are obviously not to be taken lightly, but the fact is, most people find the breadth of information both boring and overwhelming. Who am I to disagree with that? I have taken a keen interest in politics, but will be the first to admit I care a lot more about gearing up for a playoff run in fantasy football, or the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. But, I also think it's important that people really understand what is going on with Wikileaks and how it could and probably will impact each and every industry.

So, first and foremost, check out the Forbes interview with Julian Assange, wherein which Assange reveals his plan to unleash a potentially devastating blow to one (unnamed) major American bank at some point in early 2011. In a decade that will be marked most prominently by the prevalence of the internet - the new Wild West - it was only a matter of time before whistleblowers were given a safe haven to dump information leaks that cripple public and private entities alike. In the Forbes interview, Assange claims to have "dirt" on just about every industry you can think of, ranging from governmental agencies, energy, and finance. So, what do businesses do with the new threat of whistleblowing in the form of cyber-dumps? I don't know. Maybe they hope that the public is so inundated with the leaks that they become jaded and don't hold them accountable. Or perhaps, they hope that those who find Assange and other whistleblowers to be scum-of-the-earth types will write off anything they say in the first place. But, when it comes time to answer for their crimes and/or wrongdoings, what will they do? Well, hopefully they'll start to adopt fair and honest practices.

Transparency is always stressed in most every business, Wikileaks is almost forcing the hand of transparency, which, in my opinion, isn't a bad thing. I find Assange to be a self-indulgent, egomaniac more than the rogue arbiter of justice he bills himself as, but at the end of the day, I would have to say that I kind of fall on his side of the debate on transparency. The only real issue is that Assange is basically out of control with his grandstanding and self-perpetuating-hype that he is turning the leaks into a circus and made-for-TV-scandal, instead of a tool for accountability. But, if your company stresses and enforces integrity, then you won't have any issue with Wikileaks' existence.

More Tea Party Stuff

I'm really killing it with these blog post titles, aren't I? God, I'm good.

Anyway, here is an article by a British political analyst in the guardian about the Tea Party. Great read. You should check it out.

Heres my own little cliff note version of it, and a lot of this stuff is really the obvious points that I've been making for months now, but he raises some unique points, as well.

The Republican "tent" is straining: witness the cannibalism already taking place this weekend, with Karl Rove attacking the tea partiers, with moderate senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announcing a "write-in" campaign against her extremist opponent Joe Miller (the guy that says unemployment benefits are unconsititutional).

....

As America – admittedly, slowly – becomes more socially moderate (see polls on greater acceptance of gay rights, belief in healthcare, etc), Republican leaders in Washington are doing their best to portray an inclusive party. Many in the Republican camp are on board with the moderate strategy (see Ken Mehlman – Bush's chief strategist's – call for acceptance of gay rights, or Karl Rove's repudiation of the Tea Party).

It's tempting to compare the Republican party to the British Conversative party of the late 1990s: at war with itself; unsure of its identity; fundamentally torn by the issue of Europe and forced into being the party of "no" (remember William Hague's "Five days left to save the pound" campaign?). The answer for the Conservatives was to modernise, tack to the middle and embrace social change. They were able to do so not least because of the ageing population of the most rightwing elements.

Americans Republicans don't have that luxury. Tea Partiers aren't dying out. Their extremism is sustained, in part, by thriving Christian fundamentalism. They're here to stay. And they're here to be vocal.

Tea Party Stuff

Well, shocker, my Econ professor never responded. I'll just keep it moving, I guess. Anyway, I had a few thoughts about the Tea Party, which has accrued even more buzz and momentum with Christine O'Donnell winning her primary in Delaware. First, I don't consider this some kind of huge blow to the Democrats, or to the United States as a whole. I think if we let the Tea Party into office completely, it will actually do us some long-term good. The buffoons who run the Tea Party and campaign largely - if not wholly - on wedge issues are sure to crash the economy and make a mockery of foreign policy if the controls are left in their hands. Hopefully, that will put an end to people voting solely on wedge issues. O'Donnell, for instance, has made the claim that masturbation should be considered adultery. Claims like this, along with other conservative extreme viewpoints, somehow have a history of rallying the voting base. Perhaps, though, once in office the country will finally see what an abomination the trickle down economics thought process has been, especially in its current form in the recession as businesses exploit the "recession" to cut costs, stop hiring, and commit layoffs all under the guise of a recession, all the while, they turn profits. The rich get richer. The "fair tax" and ultra-conservative misinterpretations of the Constitution lead by the clueless tea party continue to split the Republican party in half, though. So, odd as it is, the Republicans are actually blocking themselves from getting into office and trouncing progressive race/religious/cultural advancements. Not that I'm rooting for the Tea Party to get in office because I want them to succeed, it's more so that if the Cowboys were in the NFC Championship game and the AFC team was sure to embarrass whoever the victor of the game were, I would root for Dallas to win just so I could watch them get pummeled in the Super Bowl. Except, in politics, you don't get credit just for making it into office, your judged on results. The Tea Party would surely be at a loss for those.

Conservative Bias in Collegiate Economics

Below is an e-mail I sent to my Macro Econ professor this afternoon, hopefully she will respond and I can put her answer on this blog. She also, ironically enough, said something that completely contradicted my previous blog on drugs/Mexico and enraged me in class again this morning. I will certainly send her a link to this blog and continue to question her on her conservative biases throughout the semester.

Hello,

My name is Jason Harlow I am a student in your Econ 201 course. On the first week of classes you made the implication that wages are inelastic, or rather, that people would be unwilling to accept certain paycuts because they could not maintain their way of life. As an example, you said that someone who had to pay their mortgage and put their child through college would not accept a paycut from $25/hr to $10/hr. Over the past few weeks, though, this statement has bothered me quite a bit, considering it is the basis for much of economic theory in this course, I felt it prudent for me to e-mail you my concern. Over the course of time we have seen that those in 3rd world countries have accepted pittances for wages, because those are all that employers are willing to offer. The "banana replublic" in Central America, for example, is notorious for offering wages of a mere $1/day. Certainly not enough for anyone to send their child to university, and yet, throughout the state people beg for the jobs in banana fields, or any job that will pay them any wage at all. Would it be possible for you to defend your statement or correct me if I misunderstood the position you assumed? In class or by e-mail works for me. Thanks so much for your time.

-Jason Harlow

A Few Opinions on Mexico

Lately, I have chosen not to comment much on politics, because frankly, it's just been discouraging me a lot. I'm really starting to regret choosing to pursue a politically-based degree, because, I don't know if I can work in the field. In other words, I've been taking the stance that I care way more about Jose Calderon than Felipe Calderon. But, nonetheless, I felt compelled tonight to comment on Mexico following another Mexican mayor being gunned down in his office in broad daylight. My stance on both immigration and drugs have been well documented on this blog, I don't believe I really have to re-visit them too much in depth.

First, let me just say that you can not fight a war on drugs with a law enforcement approach. That's something I learned watching HBO's "The Wire". A lot of my fellow hippy liberals say, hey why don't you just legalize drugs, that'll wipe out the entire black market. Sorry pals, it doesn't work like that. You don't legalize drugs and then expect an entire underbelly of drug lords and criminals to vanish. If you load a safety in the box to stop the run, maybe you can hold Adrian Peterson under 100 yards, but at was cost? Brett Favre is going to kill you over the top. What I'm getting at is that if you wipe out one industry, the criminals will just adapt and find a new industry or they'll produce drugs at a much lower cost, considering the prices they pay for labor are basically nothing (they strong arm cats) and that the black market doesn't tack on taxes. So if you wan't to legalize drugs because of your libertarian belief-system, thats one thing, but don't try to use eliminating crime as a cheap add-on benefit to your argument.

Not to mention the role that America has played in what Mexico has become. Unfair trade agreements we have entered in with corrupted Latin American leaders have crippled much of the potential economic successes Mexico and other nations may have enjoyed. Without legitimate options, rampant joblessness, and dire economic conditions of course violence will persist.

Anyway, it's Dallas week and I don't feel like proof-reading this, so don't grill me for misspellings or poor syntax or sentences and phrases that flat out make no sense. Go Skins. lol

A Quote to Think About

With all that's going on in Iran, here is some science courtesy of John F. Kennedy...

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

Republican Party Akin To Iranian Protestors?

LOL.

Here are some interesting tweets, courtesy of The Fix.

----
First, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who is running for governor of the Wolverine State, tweeted: "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House."

Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) then followed Hoesktra's tweet with two of his own. "Good to see Iranian people move mountains w social media, shining sunlight on their repressive govt -- Texans support their bid for freedom," Culberson wrote, adding in a second tweet: "Oppressed minorities include House Repubs: We are using social media to expose repression such as last night's D clampdown shutting off amends."
----

Uh... I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any similarities between fat, rich, white males and disenfranchised Iranians. Do you? I'm sorry but the republican party is completely in shambles right now. They are voting against funding for the military, which is so hypocritical I can't even begin to get into it, but just remember whenever the democrats opposed funding for the wars that Bush started they called it a "vote against the troops". What a nightmare. Then, one of their potential presidential candidates Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a man once quoted, in reference to the Clinton scandal, as saying: “I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it’s because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through, he has no credibility left.” Well mister Ensign, I guess you have no credibility left and neither does your party it seems.

Ahmadinejad Is Not The Issue

Foremost I would simply like to point out that I realize Ahmadinejad likely wasn't legitimately re-elected in Iran, but under their political structure the presidential seat is almost powerless, and the policy implications of his rule are negligent at best. Nevertheless, I applaud the outrage over the political corruption and election fixing, surely I consider this a major transgression and recognize the strain it puts on a nation where many strive for legitimacy, peace, and acceptance only to be overshadowed by a menacing figurehead, who despite the medias oft-misquotes, is still a fear-mongering-hate-artist who deserves a life of imprisonment. The real point of this blog though is to explore the quintessential question of, who really runs Iran? It is easy to cast a sole figure into the role of devil, as was done from Bin-Laden and Hussein to Hitler and Stalin and so on and so forth, in this case Ahmadinejad is the face of horror, but my understanding is that he has been sorely miscast for the role. The most important factor in understanding Iran is that their government, while they do hold elections, is not a true democracy, they are more or less a strict Islamic theocracy. What the BBC classifies as a "network of unelected institutions controlled by the highly powerful conservative Supreme Leader" is the pillar of "government" by which all decision making must run through, and while Ahmadinejad may or may not line up with them on certain issues, he -nor any of the elected parliament members- really matter, it seems, because regardless of their efforts, even if they were in favor of change (mild or radical), I have serious doubts as to whether or not they would fly. Basically, my contention is that if Mir Hossein Moussavi were not [potentially] cheated out of office by a rigged election, it doesn't even really matter one way or the next. If you want change, change the system. That's just one mans humble opinion though.

The Current Republican Landscape

I was just reading an article from last Wednesday's edition of USA Today and there are some pretty jarring figures in a Gallup poll they cited. The figures referenced state that the majority of republicans consider Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney to be the leaders of their party. That's a pretty scary thought if you're a republican, or for that matter, any human being who happens to live in this country. Not only are neither of these men viable figureheads for the future, but their status as present mouthpieces for one of the two political parties of note is pretty pathetic. Dick Cheney is somewhere in between a has-been and a never-was, who has spent his recent months bitterly attacking President Obama and making false claims that the country is now "less safe" and condoning methods of torture. Limbaugh, though is the real joke though, not only are his radical right-wing opinions incredibly convoluted and oft-ridiculous, but this is a guy who once (and probably to this day) has an addiction to prescription drugs, and is a KNOWN RACIST. This is the same guy who played a little tune he called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show. Ugh. So there you have it folks, your republican party in 2009. Good luck on putting another right-winger in the oval office next election. Who knows, maybe Mitt Romney is the answer. Ha, or better yet, Sarah Palin?

Who Is George Obama?

This made me laugh for a number of reasons. First of all, George Obama, our president's half brother was arrested in Kenya on charges of marijuana possession. Alright, so the dude is a clown, but what I can't figure out is why the hell Barack's father would name the son who is actually in America, Barack but a son who lives in Kenya George. Seems to me like it should be swapped, right? George Obama doesn't have the same ring, though, does it? Ha. Heres the story from CNN:

George Obama, the half-brother of U.S. President Barack Obama, has been arrested by Kenyan police on a charge of possession of marijuana, police said Saturday.
George Obama was arrested in Kenya on a charge for possession of marijuana, according to police.

George Obama was arrested in Kenya on a charge for possession of marijuana, according to police.

Inspector Augustine Mutembei, the officer in charge, said Obama was arrested on charges of possession of cannabis, known in Kenya as Bhang, and resisting arrest. He is scheduled to appear in court Monday, Mutembei said.

He is being held at Huruma police post in the capital of Nairobi.

Speaking from behind bars, Obama denied the allegations.

"They took me from my home," he said, "I don't know why they are charging me."

George Obama and the president barely know each other, though they have met. George Obama was one of the president's few close relatives who did not go to the inauguration in Washington last week.

In his memoir, "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama describes meeting George as a "painful affair." Barack Obama's trip to Kenya meant meeting family he had never known.

"Feels Like a Black Republican"

Oh, wait, it is a black republican. And, from the great state of Maryland of all places, CNN reports, "The Republican National Committee today elected former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele as its new chairman." You may remember Steele lost to Ben Cardin in the race for the senate seat back in 2006 [I believe it was]. Steele, in his vein campaign efforts, tried to bamboozle black voters with radio advertisements linking Martin Luther King Jr. to his campaign by making the true, but "gotcha", statement that King himself was a republican. Unfortunately for Steele anyone with any political knowledge realizes the party completely flipped formats since King was a member, but such is politics and his antics were not rewarded in victory so all is well. As for the racial side of this, I think it's great that black Americans are making power moves in politics, I think Steele is a bit of a clown, but the achievement and what it says about the current political landscape is great. Now, I'm sure that I'm not alone in thinking this very well may be a counter to the popularity of the democratic President Barack Obama, but there is also no question that Steele has all the credentials in the world. So, take it for what it's worth.

Obama Set to Meet With House Republicans

(Updated)

So it is 4:30 PM here on the East Coast and President Obama has recently ended a nearly 2-hour marathon meeting with the less than fickle congressional right wingers. In something of an unprecedented move, Obama - clearly the leader of democrats nationwide - met with "rank and file" republicans from the House of Reps to discuss a way to bridge the gap on an economic stimulus plan that would infuse $825 billion into the economy by way of not only spending, but also tax cutting. Business as usual was conducted on the republican side of things, where conservative lawmakers were simply unwilling to accept any economic proposal from a left leaning president. For whatever reason, it seems to me (and I know this goes on both sides, a la Nancy Pelosi), that whenever a slight compromise is proposed, the republicans always shove it back in the democrats face and offer a counter that is incredibly conservative in its nature. Well, you might ask, what is the compromise that Obama has offered? Here is your answer, from the New York Times

several Republicans said they would like the tax cuts to move more swiftly, according to people in the room, but the president replied that $275 billion was the most he would be willing to negotiate. The session stretched longer than an hour, with both sides conceding at several points that they have unmovable philosophical differences on many of the issues.

Alright, so the article says both sides have unwavable issues, well, why don't we choose the side that the American people have most recently elected into office. Why don't we allow the man entrusted with the economic well being of the country for the next 4 years to do what he was put in office to do? I'll tell you why, because the republican congresspeople are interested more in career advancement than in the day to day lives of average American people. In other words, if a republican congressperson takes their small, meaningless stand right now and the plan that Obama has proposed does not work for whatever reason, the objector will be able to springboard there next campaign with the "I told you so" banner hanging from the rafters. You're not fooling me and you're probably not fooling anyone with this nonsense, so let's get something done for a change.

President Obama on Air Force One

Pretty cool short video here of Obama on his first filght on Air Force One.

PRESIDENT Barack Obama Sworn In

It's on, my thoughts on the speech later.