Filed under: Barry 4 Prez, C.Y.I.N., Nigga Nonsense, PoliTricks as Usual, That Sh*t Is Racist
In short, I’m on board.
[Editor's Note: If you're on board, click on some of them AdSense links so I can cop myself a fresh pair of New Balance for the Fall.]
That’s not to say I haven’t had my share of issues with Mr. Obama, and I’ve used this forum to make equally strong critiques of his campaign. His unwillingness to consider offshore drilling, before reversing course without a thorough explanation didn’t rub me the right way. Ditto for his support of FISA, which I don’t personally object to (it’s not like I’ve got anything to hide), but apparently enough others do. But perhaps my biggest qualm with Barry is the very characteristic that many (myself included, just to further confuse you) cite as his greatest attribute: his unflappability.
I’ll give it to dude. Through six tough months of battling The Clinton Machine, he consistently showed class and never stooped to their level of mudslinging. His family, his faith, his patriotism, and his church were under constant attack, but he never “lost it”, and he certainly never went into full C.Y.I.N. mode. I didn’t care for this approach at the time, but in retrospect, I get it. Obama was new on the scene, and more importantly, he was facing an opponent whose views on the issues were essentially identical to his. When that’s the case, as it was during the Democratic primaries, the way to distinguish yourself is with your personality. In short, his coolness under fire drew a huge contrast to Hillary Clinton’s constant displays of crying and unbridled rage. It was essential, and well, it worked.
The fullblown campaign vs McCain is a different game altogether. It’s like going from winning your conference tournament to trying to make it to the Final Four. You’re no longer taking on familiar opponents in familiar environments. Sure, it’s the same game fundamentally, but the intensity level rises, and with that, your approach has to adjust. Thus far, Obama has failed to effectively do this.
After he secured his party’s nomination, the GOP started picking him apart like we knew they would (despite McCain’s promises to run an admirable campaign) and unleashed the dogs. They’ve painted him as a hollow celebrity, played the race card against him, pulled up his past associations, sicced a programmed Pitbull in a skirt on him, and through it all, purposely distorted his views and experience to comical proportions.
Obama’s response: play it cool. The polls: not so much.
Now, with his back to the wall and Americans oddly transfixed on Sarah Palin, it seems like Barry’s finally, finally, finally figured out that the way his current campaign is running is virtually guaranteeing a one-way ticket back to Capitol Hill. It took him some time, but he even admitted as much last week.
Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign launched a promised counterpunch against Sen. John McCain on Friday, portraying him as an aging, out-of-touch politician who would cater to “fat-cat” lobbyists and continue President Bush’s economic policies.
With two new television advertisements, a campaign memo to supporters and a two-day trip through New Hampshire, Obama sought to regain his footing amid faltering poll numbers, a continuing assault by his Republican presidential rival and rising worries among Democrats about his campaign.
If Democrats were expecting a dramatic change in words, tone or temperament, they did not get it. While McCain attacked him as a pampered, fading celebrity, a sexist and a desperate bully, Obama stuck to familiar themes linking the senator from Arizona to Bush and Washington lobbyists.
Even after being prodded by the audience in Dover, Obama appeared reluctant to get too aggressive. Glenn Grasso, 39, a doctoral student, pleaded: “When and how are you going to start fighting back?”
Obama responded by calling McCain’s ads “just fabricated” and “just made up,” an answer that spurred some to shout out: “Lies.”
In a memo to supporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said: “In recent weeks, John McCain has shown that he is willing to go into the gutter to win this election. His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people.”
Plouffe assured supporters that “we will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain’s attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people.”
Then of course, there’s the race thing, which brings me to the point of this post. Many have said that if Obama suddenly C.Y.I.N.’s and morphs into DMX, he runs the risk of being labeled an “Angry Black Man” and blowing the whole wad. I’ve heard this uttered so often it makes my head hurt, but 99% of the time, it’s usually another black person who’s saying it. Never mind the fact that 99% of those in the media challenging Obama to grow a pair happen to be white.
So, I guess I have to ask you guys, why in the world do we think that Obama showing some guts and fighting back would suddenly regulate him to “Angry Black Guy” status and deep-six the whole campaign? Are there well-documented public examples of such a thing that serve as evidence for why he shouldn’t? I’ll admit, I’ve occasionally thought the same, but I wonder if this isn’t one of those things black folks fabricate say amongst ourselves without any real evidence to back it up. Sorta like how we say “Black folks don’t swim” or “if that was a black woman, you know…” and whatnot. Seriously, how do we know how the world would respond?
I don’t ask this being facetious, I’m really posing the question because I’d like to hear some legit examples. If you’ve got em’, do tell.
Question: Does Obama run the risk of being labelled an “Angry Black Guy” if he starts whoopin‘ a$$ and takin‘ names? If you think so, why? Can you think of any real life examples of this audacious double standard?
Filed under: Barry 4 Prez, C.Y.I.N., Judge Joe Brown Says : "WELL DONE", MLK is Crying Inside, PoliTricks as Usual, Raise Your Own Damn Kids
We Watch, So You Don’t Have To. But We Hope You Watched. Seriously, What Else Were You Watching?
Well it’s about doggone time.
If you’ve followed my site the past few months, you know I’ve seriously questioned Barack Obama’s testicular fortitude or lack thereof, repeatedly. I have had a huge problem with his “turn the other cheek” approach to confronting the underhanded tactics of his foes from Day One. Why keep bringing a butterknife to a gunfight? I was pretty convinced that unless dude switched up his game and started talkin’ greasy, he was gonna find his beige behind back in Hyde Park come January.
Apparently he discovered AB.com just in time for his big speech in Denver, because last night, we finally saw Barack’s Inner Nigga, and if you ask me, we also just saw the 44th President of the US.
Barry’s acceptance speech was a virtuoso performance that showed me he knows how to check a mofo without stooping to his level in the process. We all wondered if Obama had “it” in him. He does, but his “it” just looks a bit different than the “it” that’s in most of us. And that’s why he’s about to be the leader of the free world, and we’re merely reading a blog about it.
The speech was more tactical than visionary. More specific than grand. More substance than style. More steak than sizzle. It will probably not go down as one of his “best” speeches, but history will probably remember it as his most important.
[Whimsical And Largely Pointless Editor's Note: On Fox News, Greta Von Sustern introduced Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee as Stephanie Tubbs Jones before embarrassingly correcting herself. Don't blush, Greta. They all look alike to me too. Dead or alive.]
The thing I loved most is how he addressed the lies attacks of the GOP (and Hillary for that matter) so adroitly, one by one. He clapped back on McCain’s questioning of his patriotism, elitism, lack of experience, lack of substance, lack of career accomplishments, and lack of vision. He very clearly articulated the areas where he differs from his opponent on policy, laying out the clear contrast between his “new” ideas, and the flimsy bullcrap that McCain calls his platform. He made certain people understood that the government cannot do everything, but can help people where it makes sense and get out of their way where it doesn’t. He wrapped the whole thing up by smoothing it over with a think 5 minute veneer of all that usual hope, dreams, and change mumbojumbo.
Anyone who walks away from this calling the guy an “empty suit” should probably have their head examined. Empty brains, anyone?
[Whimsical And Largely Relevant Editor's Note: Did anyone watching the unfiltered coverage on CSPAN peep the video montage that proceeded Barry's appearance onstage? I hate calling someone's biographical vignette blatant propaganda, but dang. Dude's bio was whitewashed than a mug. Who knew so many of the folks in the community he organized on the South Side of Chicago were white? I haven't seen a black dude surrounded by that many Caucasians since my company's last managerial retreat. Check it out.]
Of course the haters had to throw in their two cents of salt, because, well, hatin’ is how they pay the bills.
I expect this sorta treatment from Fox News, but Tavis Smiley’s guests really took the cake.
The phrase “I feel sorry for your mother” has been on the tip of my tongue very often this week. How apropos.
Outside of the obvious historical significance, I guess what made me happiest about last night was the feeling that my candidate of choice has finally seen the light and realized he’s got the change the game if he wants to win. This doesn’t mean changing who you are, but rather how you do things. Convoluted and simple as that may sound, it sure makes sense to me, and it seems to have finally made sense to him.
Last night was the Barack Obama I’ve been waiting for. And last night was the President America’s waiting for. Well done, Barry.
MLK is crying inside. Tears of joy.
Question: What did you think of the speech? Did Barry finally C.Y.I.N.? Did the Democratic convention accomplish what Barry needed it to? What will the GOP do to upstage this next week? Do they all look alike to you too, dead or alive?
Filed under: C.Y.I.N., Drive-By Activism, Nigga Nonsense, That Sh*t Is Racist, White Men Gone Wild
A minor kerfuffle is taking place on the web the streets right now surrounding a current ad campaign featuring singer/actress(?) Beyoncé Knowles[1]. Apparently the ad is for some sorta hair lightening product, and Bey’s hair ain’t the only thing that’s lighter.
It isn’t what it looks like – or so L’Oréal would like readers to believe.The cosmetics colossus yesterday denied it whitewashed Beyoncé Knowles, although she looked inexplicably light-skinned in Elle magazine’s two-page L’Oréal Paris ad for its hair-highlighting product.
“It is categorically untrue that L’Oréal Paris altered Ms. Knowles’ features or skin tone in the campaign for Féria hair color,” the company snorted in a statement.
The diva’s rep insisted a bleached Beyoncé is still recognizable.
“There is no doubt that anyone seeing that ad will know that it is Beyoncé,” said publicist Alan Nierob.
I agree, it might have taken me a moment, but I would have eventually figured out that this was Beyoncé. Still, it does beg the question of exactly why someone felt the need to take a relatively lightskinnded woman and make her even lighter, and blonder for that matter. Are they subliminally making Beyoncé more “pretty” or at the very least, appropriate for their product?
This isn’t the first (nor last) time this has happened of course. In my casual TeeVee viewing, even I’ve noticed “ethnic models” like Jennifer Lopez, Mary J. Blige, that chick off Ugly Betty, Tyra Banks[2], Gabrielle Union, and even Queen Latifah seemingly lose melanin when placed in ads, especially when alongside traditionally “pretty” (read: white, thin, and blond) models. It’s messed up, but I’m also assuming these sisters go into this knowing it’s gonna happen. These companies are seldom, if ever marketing their products exclusively to women of color. So, it’s fair to assume some racial trickery could happen, namely because they want to celebrate some superficial notion of “diversity”, yet not alienate their core customer base (ie: white women). I would suspect that this is why Beyoncé hasn’t come out with some objection herself. She was in on it the whole time. Ditzy as she may appear, she clearly knows the game, and the game is to get pizzaid.
On the flipside, come the freak on! What the ham sammich is Beyoncé doing hawkin’ hair coloring anyway? Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it even possible to dye a lace front wig? I’m obviously no expert on women’s hair, but I think not. My guess is, she prolly just gets some lighter tracks stitched in hair, rather than dying what she’s “got”. I wonder if L’Oreal has considered how dumb if is to have a person who sports a horse mane selling hair dye. Seriously, that’s like Ron Harper being the spokesman for ToastMasters. Would you buy condoms from Evander Holyfield? Singing lessons from Ashanti? Would you hire Billy Joel as your chauffeur? Prolly not.
Peep Bey a decade ago.
And this year.
I’ve heard of “aging well”, but who the hell ages into an entirely different ethnicity? I’m just sayin’.
Didn’t she switch her style to those ridonculous looking bouffant blondish wigs, get a boob job, and lose weight years ago to boost her “mainstream image”? So, while I feel sorry that she’s being exploited, getting all up in arms seems at bit silly when you consider the fact that she’s a willing participant already anyway. Yeah, she’s being objectified. But if she’s not smart enough (or too smart) to be insulted by L’Oreal, why should we be? This isn’t too far removed from that infamous LeBron James Vogue cover. I thought he looked like King Kong. He didn’t. Same for women who shake their butts in music videos. Are they being objectified? Sure. Do they care? Apparently not, because they just wanna get paid (or attention).
So, to repeat, if the objectee (I know that’s not a word, roll with me) is too dumb to know they’re being objectified, why should we give a crap? Nobody’s being forced into chattel slavery here. It’s called a free market system. No harm, no foul. End of story.
This is a big cluster all around, but unfortunately, it takes me back to my favorite adage: when you don’t control your own stuff, you’re gonna have to compromise.
Question: Do you think L’Oreal intentionally lightened Beyoncé’s skin? If so, what message were they trying to convey? Do you notice this sorta of “brightening” with other ads featuring “ethnic” models? Is it possible to dye a lace front wig?
O, RÉALLY? L’ORÉAL DENIES WHITEWASHING BEYONCÉ [NY Daily News]
[1] Is that still her last name? Does she even use a last name?
[2] Speakin’ of which, man, what skin tone is Tyra? She used to be my complexion. Now, on her show, she appears to be some really strange, mustard beige hue. How is that even possible? It really, really confusing.
Filed under: C.Y.I.N., Drive-By Activism, Nigga Nonsense, That Sh*t Is Racist, White Men Gone Wild
A minor kerfuffle is taking place on the web the streets right now surrounding a current ad campaign featuring singer/actress(?) Beyoncé Knowles[1]. Apparently the ad is for some sorta hair lightening product, and Bey’s hair ain’t the only thing that’s lighter.
It isn’t what it looks like – or so L’Oréal would like readers to believe.The cosmetics colossus yesterday denied it whitewashed Beyoncé Knowles, although she looked inexplicably light-skinned in Elle magazine’s two-page L’Oréal Paris ad for its hair-highlighting product.
“It is categorically untrue that L’Oréal Paris altered Ms. Knowles’ features or skin tone in the campaign for Féria hair color,” the company snorted in a statement.
The diva’s rep insisted a bleached Beyoncé is still recognizable.
“There is no doubt that anyone seeing that ad will know that it is Beyoncé,” said publicist Alan Nierob.
I agree, it might have taken me a moment, but I would have eventually figured out that this was Beyoncé. Still, it does beg the question of exactly why someone felt the need to take a relatively lightskinnded woman and make her even lighter, and blonder for that matter. Are they subliminally making Beyoncé more “pretty” or at the very least, appropriate for their product?
This isn’t the first (nor last) time this has happened of course. In my casual TeeVee viewing, even I’ve noticed “ethnic models” like Jennifer Lopez, Mary J. Blige, that chick off Ugly Betty, Tyra Banks[2], Gabrielle Union, and even Queen Latifah seemingly lose melanin when placed in ads, especially when alongside traditionally “pretty” (read: white, thin, and blond) models. It’s messed up, but I’m also assuming these sisters go into this knowing it’s gonna happen. These companies are seldom, if ever marketing their products exclusively to women of color. So, it’s fair to assume some racial trickery could happen, namely because they want to celebrate some superficial notion of “diversity”, yet not alienate their core customer base (ie: white women). I would suspect that this is why Beyoncé hasn’t come out with some objection herself. She was in on it the whole time. Ditzy as she may appear, she clearly knows the game, and the game is to get pizzaid.
On the flipside, come the freak on! What the ham sammich is Beyoncé doing hawkin’ hair coloring anyway? Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it even possible to dye a lace front wig? I’m obviously no expert on women’s hair, but I think not. My guess is, she prolly just gets some lighter tracks stitched in hair, rather than dying what she’s “got”. I wonder if L’Oreal has considered how dumb if is to have a person who sports a horse mane selling hair dye. Seriously, that’s like Ron Harper being the spokesman for ToastMasters. Would you buy condoms from Evander Holyfield? Singing lessons from Ashanti? Would you hire Billy Joel as your chauffeur? Prolly not.
Peep Bey a decade ago.
And this year.
I’ve heard of “aging well”, but who the hell ages into an entirely different ethnicity? I’m just sayin’.
Didn’t she switch her style to those ridonculous looking bouffant blondish wigs, get a boob job, and lose weight years ago to boost her “mainstream image”? So, while I feel sorry that she’s being exploited, getting all up in arms seems at bit silly when you consider the fact that she’s a willing participant already anyway. Yeah, she’s being objectified. But if she’s not smart enough (or too smart) to be insulted by L’Oreal, why should we be? This isn’t too far removed from that infamous LeBron James Vogue cover. I thought he looked like King Kong. He didn’t. Same for women who shake their butts in music videos. Are they being objectified? Sure. Do they care? Apparently not, because they just wanna get paid (or attention).
So, to repeat, if the objectee (I know that’s not a word, roll with me) is too dumb to know they’re being objectified, why should we give a crap? Nobody’s being forced into chattel slavery here. It’s called a free market system. No harm, no foul. End of story.
This is a big cluster all around, but unfortunately, it takes me back to my favorite adage: when you don’t control your own stuff, you’re gonna have to compromise.
Question: Do you think L’Oreal intentionally lightened Beyoncé’s skin? If so, what message were they trying to convey? Do you notice this sorta of “brightening” with other ads featuring “ethnic” models? Is it possible to dye a lace front wig?
O, RÉALLY? L’ORÉAL DENIES WHITEWASHING BEYONCÉ [NY Daily News]
[1] Is that still her last name? Does she even use a last name?
[2] Speakin’ of which, man, what skin tone is Tyra? She used to be my complexion. Now, on her show, she appears to be some really strange, mustard beige hue. How is that even possible? It really, really confusing.
Filed under: Barry 4 Prez, C.Y.I.N., Nigga Nonsense, PoliTricks as Usual, White Men Gone Wild
I’ve said for months that I wished Barack Obama would C.Y.I.N. and start talking greasy to his opponents. You guys have largely disagreed, always saying that he’s got to “play the game” and “go along to get elected”.
I understood the logic in this when he was teeing off against Hillary Clinton. Anything he said that could be perceived as even remotely sexist would have meant curtains for his campaign. Although Hillary threw every underhanded racist and xenophobic attack in the book at him, Barry played the Good Negro role, and eventually prevailed. Great for him.
Some try to say that Barry’s had to also play the game vs McCain, but after two months of this crap, I’m starting to wonder why. Assaulting your opponent with arguments that could be remotely perceived as “ageist” doesn’t carry nearly the same stigma as being labeled a male chauvinist pig. Especially not when that opponent uses every chance to publicly flog you for being too young and inexperienced (which, lets be honest, is a fair argument). So, if McCain can call Barry a novice, it is not fair to clap back calling Cotton Hill a senile Metamucil drankin’ freak? I’m not saying he should use those exact words, but why not fight fire with fire?
For the life of me, I can’t imagine why Obama keeps taking the high road when McCain clearly shows no inclination to fight with gloves on. And while you might decry McCains tactics as lowbrow, reality is, they’re working, so you could technically call that good politricks.
That said, I’m still waiting to Obama show some backbone and some warrior mentality. I wanna hear some “m.f. say whut!?!” bombs dropped. I wanna hear some bass in his voice. I need to see Barry’s Inner Nigga manifest itself.
Apparently, I ain’t the only one.
Barack Obama released a television advertisement yesterday that questions John McCain’s claims to be a “maverick,” and he charged in a campaign appearance that the Republican displays independence only when it suits him politically.Obama aides said Democratic hand-wringing about polls showing that the presidential race remains tight had nothing to do with the volleys.
“We are not going to base our campaign on the concerns of so-called campaign strategists on cable TV,” spokesman Bill Burton said.
But the ad and the Democrat’s rhetoric in Indiana appeared to up the ante in a campaign that took a distinct turn toward the negative last week.
The parries come more than a week after his Republican opponent launched a string of increasingly personal attacks on Obama. McCain has said that his rival would lose a war in order to win a campaign, accused him of going to a gym rather than visiting wounded troops, and, while aides asserted that he had “played the race card,” hinted that Obama has a messiah complex and portrayed him as a celebrity comparable to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. That final line of assault continued yesterday with a new McCain ad, again mocking Obama as “the biggest celebrity in the world.”
Such attacks have raised worries among Democratic strategists — haunted by John F. Kerry’s 2004 run and Al Gore’s razor-thin loss in 2000 — that Obama has not responded in kind with a parallel assault on McCain’s character. Interviews with nearly a dozen Democratic strategists found those concerns to be widespread, although few wished to be quoted by name while Obama’s campaign is demanding unity.
“Democrats are worried,” said Tad Devine, a top strategist for Kerry who thinks Obama must stay on the high road. “We’ve been through two very tough elections at the national level, and it’s very easy to lose confidence.”
But Democratic strategists said that it is nothing like the character attacks by McCain, and that the response could be far nastier, perhaps raising McCain’s ethical scrape in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, mocking his family wealth and designer shoes, or highlighting his age. After McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm suggested that the United States has become “a nation of whiners,” Democratic strategists said Obama should have immediately started an ad blitz.
In short, these very high priced consultants are saying the same damn thing I’ve been saying for months: Show Us Your Inner Nigga, Barack!!!
Here’s Obama’s latest ad.
Snooooze.
Where’s the explosions? Where’s the TMZ style voiceover? Where’s the dirt? This sh*t is lame, Barry, just lame.
I mean, come on. I get the whole “politricks of change” and “flying above the fray of partisan politics” mottos, but come the freak on Barry! At what point do you say enough is enough, take off those Prada slippers, and proceed to put a foot in somebody’s ass?
You are wielding a knife. Your opponent has an AK-47. You are prolly not gonna win that fight, cause it ain’t fair.
Grow a pair, Barry. You’re startin’ to lose me, bruh. Seriously.
Question: Are you sick of Barack Obama’s “non-threatening Negro” stance? Could going negative, or at least matching McCain’s level of furor actually backfire on him, or are Black people just too damn paranoid about this sorta thing?
Obama Attacks Too Softly For Some [WashPost]
Filed under: Barry 4 Prez, C.Y.I.N., Nigga Nonsense, PoliTricks as Usual, White Men Gone Wild
I’ve said for months that I wished Barack Obama would C.Y.I.N. and start talking greasy to his opponents. You guys have largely disagreed, always saying that he’s got to “play the game” and “go along to get elected”.
I understood the logic in this when he was teeing off against Hillary Clinton. Anything he said that could be perceived as even remotely sexist would have meant curtains for his campaign. Although Hillary threw every underhanded racist and xenophobic attack in the book at him, Barry played the Good Negro role, and eventually prevailed. Great for him.
Some try to say that Barry’s had to also play the game vs McCain, but after two months of this crap, I’m starting to wonder why. Assaulting your opponent with arguments that could be remotely perceived as “ageist” doesn’t carry nearly the same stigma as being labeled a male chauvinist pig. Especially not when that opponent uses every chance to publicly flog you for being too young and inexperienced (which, lets be honest, is a fair argument). So, if McCain can call Barry a novice, it is not fair to clap back calling Cotton Hill a senile Metamucil drankin’ freak? I’m not saying he should use those exact words, but why not fight fire with fire?
For the life of me, I can’t imagine why Obama keeps taking the high road when McCain clearly shows no inclination to fight with gloves on. And while you might decry McCains tactics as lowbrow, reality is, they’re working, so you could technically call that good politricks.
That said, I’m still waiting to Obama show some backbone and some warrior mentality. I wanna hear some “m.f. say whut!?!” bombs dropped. I wanna hear some bass in his voice. I need to see Barry’s Inner Nigga manifest itself.
Apparently, I ain’t the only one.
Barack Obama released a television advertisement yesterday that questions John McCain’s claims to be a “maverick,” and he charged in a campaign appearance that the Republican displays independence only when it suits him politically.Obama aides said Democratic hand-wringing about polls showing that the presidential race remains tight had nothing to do with the volleys.
“We are not going to base our campaign on the concerns of so-called campaign strategists on cable TV,” spokesman Bill Burton said.
But the ad and the Democrat’s rhetoric in Indiana appeared to up the ante in a campaign that took a distinct turn toward the negative last week.
The parries come more than a week after his Republican opponent launched a string of increasingly personal attacks on Obama. McCain has said that his rival would lose a war in order to win a campaign, accused him of going to a gym rather than visiting wounded troops, and, while aides asserted that he had “played the race card,” hinted that Obama has a messiah complex and portrayed him as a celebrity comparable to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. That final line of assault continued yesterday with a new McCain ad, again mocking Obama as “the biggest celebrity in the world.”
Such attacks have raised worries among Democratic strategists — haunted by John F. Kerry’s 2004 run and Al Gore’s razor-thin loss in 2000 — that Obama has not responded in kind with a parallel assault on McCain’s character. Interviews with nearly a dozen Democratic strategists found those concerns to be widespread, although few wished to be quoted by name while Obama’s campaign is demanding unity.
“Democrats are worried,” said Tad Devine, a top strategist for Kerry who thinks Obama must stay on the high road. “We’ve been through two very tough elections at the national level, and it’s very easy to lose confidence.”
But Democratic strategists said that it is nothing like the character attacks by McCain, and that the response could be far nastier, perhaps raising McCain’s ethical scrape in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, mocking his family wealth and designer shoes, or highlighting his age. After McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm suggested that the United States has become “a nation of whiners,” Democratic strategists said Obama should have immediately started an ad blitz.
In short, these very high priced consultants are saying the same damn thing I’ve been saying for months: Show Us Your Inner Nigga, Barack!!!
Here’s Obama’s latest ad.
Snooooze.
Where’s the explosions? Where’s the TMZ style voiceover? Where’s the dirt? This sh*t is lame, Barry, just lame.
I mean, come on. I get the whole “politricks of change” and “flying above the fray of partisan politics” mottos, but come the freak on Barry! At what point do you say enough is enough, take off those Prada slippers, and proceed to put a foot in somebody’s ass?
You are wielding a knife. Your opponent has an AK-47. You are prolly not gonna win that fight, cause it ain’t fair.
Grow a pair, Barry. You’re startin’ to lose me, bruh. Seriously.
Question: Are you sick of Barack Obama’s “non-threatening Negro” stance? Could going negative, or at least matching McCain’s level of furor actually backfire on him, or are Black people just too damn paranoid about this sorta thing?
Obama Attacks Too Softly For Some [WashPost]
All your personal bidness was aired in a very public sexual discrimination lawsuit.
Your team stunk to high heavens.
Your ankle is shot.
Your signature shoe, which was supposed to change the world with it’s creative pricing, is now selling on Amazon.com, because it’s retailer just filed for bankruptcy.
Your team just signed a D-League journeyman to replace you.
Your NBA career is about to end, as your team is so sick of your awful play that they’re willing to pay you $21M to just go away.
So, amidst all this turmoil, what do you do, if you’re soon-to-be ex-Knicks guard, Stephon Marbury?
Why, you channel Mike Tyson, and go get a bizarre head tattoo of the logo of your now discontinued shoe.
Question: What’s up with Starbury and that awful tattoo?
Steve & Barry’s filing may lead to liquidation [WSJ]
New Low: Starbury Tattoos Logo On His Head [The Sport Count]
Filed under: AvB Instant Classics, C.Y.I.N., Nigga Nonsense, Raise Your Own Damn Kids, That Sh*t Is Racist, You Must Learn
Sitting at the doctor’s office with AverageToddler the other morning, I overhead another parent trying to summon her child.
“Come here, Sha-Vaughn-Dray!!!”
I had to do a triple-take. What the heck sorta name is ShaVaughnDray? Maybe I couldn’t really comprehend the name cause you know how DC folks are with their accents and whatnot. Still, I couldn’t help but think about this poor kid and the years of misspellings and mispronunciations his bright future would likely hold. And part of me wondered why the world she couldn’t just call him Andre.
Many will argue that names don’t make the (wo)man. Others would say that names are pretty darned important. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.
I’ve got a very, very, very common government name. It also happens to be my father’s name, but it’s pretty darned common. Over the years I’ve tried dressing it up by using different variations of it, as well as adding or dropping letters (no, seriously), but reality is the name’s the name.
And there’s nothing wrong with that of course. The name’s got history. I’m named after my Pops, and since I obviously admire him immensely, that’s always been a huge source of pride and motivation to carve my own niche in this world. My brothers (although they’re older) were named after older family members. Each of us carried our names forward, and bestowed them upon our firstborn sons. So, it’s become a roundabout family tradition, one that I’m quite proud of.
If it were up to me, I’d create a new Man Law. Every man would have to name his son after himself, no matter how inane (in my case) or outrageous (ie: that NFL player named D’Brickashaw) it may be. Because there’s just something really special about being a Jr., II, III, or in the rarest of cases, IV. Again, just my opinion.
That said, although I wouldn’t do it, I guess I understand why people name their kids things like ShaVaughnDray and D’Brickashaw. Because beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and who the heck am I to tell someone that Marqueeshiah or Shenehneh isn’t beautiful? They could just as easily look at me and say “John” is boring and unimaginative, and is some strange way, they’d be right.
The only real downside to these somewhat crazy names would be when the child has to someday attempt to get a job. That’s where the unfortunate side-effects of gettin‘ cute with a name can come back to bite him/her in the butt. I’m sure this is hardly new-news to any member of AverageNation™ but having a “black” name can cost you when those HR folks are browsing thru resumes.
Two recent papers from the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research draw somewhat different conclusions about whether a black name is a burden. One, an analysis of the 16 million births in California between 1960 and 2000, claims it has no significant effect on how someone’s life turns out.If nothing else, the first paper, by the NBER’s Roland Fryer and the University of Chicago’s Steven Levitt, based on California birth data, provides probably the most detailed snapshot yet of distinctive naming practices. It shows, for instance, that in recent years, more than 40 percent of black girls were given names that weren’t given to even one of the more than 100,000 white girls born in the state the same year.
The paper says black names are associated with lower socioeconomic status, but the authors don’t believe it’s the names that create an economic burden.
Using Social Security numbers, they track the changes in circumstances of women born in the early 1970s who then show up in the data in 1980s and ’90s as mothers themselves. The data also show whether those second-generation mothers have health insurance and in which Zip Codes they reside – admittedly imperfect measurements of economic achievement.
The data do appear to show that a poor woman’s daughter is more likely to be poor when she gives birth herself – but no more so because she has a distinctively black name.
So, one study says no real correlation between name and eventual outcome. But another study contradicts that to some degree.
The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes.The University of Chicago’s Marianne Bertrand and MIT’s Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?”
The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to “sound white” or “sound black” and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Of course, no “study” is perfect, but I guess it’s some minor food for thought.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter to me. Life will prolly be harder for a black kid than a white kid in America any way you dice it, regardless of whether that kid’s named Lawrence or LacKquan. And besides, a recent study also showed that education aside, blacks who merely “sounded black” were likely to be lesser compensated than blacks who “sounded white”.
No, really.
Blacks who “sound black” earn salaries that are 10 percent lower than blacks who do not “sound black,” even after controlling for measures of intelligence, experience in the work force, and other factors that influence how much people earn. (For what it is worth, whites who “sound black” earn 6 percent lower than other whites.)Grogger asked multiple listeners to rate each voice and assigned the voice either to a distinctly white or black category (if the listeners all tended to agree on the race), or an indistinct category if there was disagreement.
Then he put this measure of whether a voice sounded black into a regression (the standard statistical tool that economists use for estimating things), and came up with the finding that blacks who “sound black” earn almost 10 percent less, even after taking into account other factors that could influence earnings. One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.
So there you have it. You’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t. So name your child LayQuittria or BeYonDray all you want. Just make sure you teach them the joys of code-switching, no matter what.
Cause a name is truly a just name. But soundin‘ white is always right.
Question: Do you think a name is truly “just a name” or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Should parents give more thought to exactly what they’re calling their kids? If you have an “ethnic” government name, do you think it’s ever hurt your employment prospects? What’s the weirdest (and I’m not talkin‘ “ghetto” here) name you’ve ever personally heard?
‘Black’ Names A Resume Burden? [CBS]
How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You “Sound Black?” [NY Times]
Previous Editions of C.Y.I.N. Case Study [AB.com]
Filed under: AvB Instant Classics, C.Y.I.N., Nigga Nonsense, Raise Your Own Damn Kids, That Sh*t Is Racist, You Must Learn
Sitting at the doctor’s office with AverageToddler the other morning, I overhead another parent trying to summon her child.
“Come here, Sha-Vaughn-Dray!!!”
I had to do a triple-take. What the heck sorta name is ShaVaughnDray? Maybe I couldn’t really comprehend the name cause you know how DC folks are with their accents and whatnot. Still, I couldn’t help but think about this poor kid and the years of misspellings and mispronunciations his bright future would likely hold. And part of me wondered why the world she couldn’t just call him Andre.
Many will argue that names don’t make the (wo)man. Others would say that names are pretty darned important. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.
I’ve got a very, very, very common government name. It also happens to be my father’s name, but it’s pretty darned common. Over the years I’ve tried dressing it up by using different variations of it, as well as adding or dropping letters (no, seriously), but reality is the name’s the name.
And there’s nothing wrong with that of course. The name’s got history. I’m named after my Pops, and since I obviously admire him immensely, that’s always been a huge source of pride and motivation to carve my own niche in this world. My brothers (although they’re older) were named after older family members. Each of us carried our names forward, and bestowed them upon our firstborn sons. So, it’s become a roundabout family tradition, one that I’m quite proud of.
If it were up to me, I’d create a new Man Law. Every man would have to name his son after himself, no matter how inane (in my case) or outrageous (ie: that NFL player named D’Brickashaw) it may be. Because there’s just something really special about being a Jr., II, III, or in the rarest of cases, IV. Again, just my opinion.
That said, although I wouldn’t do it, I guess I understand why people name their kids things like ShaVaughnDray and D’Brickashaw. Because beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and who the heck am I to tell someone that Marqueeshiah or Shenehneh isn’t beautiful? They could just as easily look at me and say “John” is boring and unimaginative, and is some strange way, they’d be right.
The only real downside to these somewhat crazy names would be when the child has to someday attempt to get a job. That’s where the unfortunate side-effects of gettin‘ cute with a name can come back to bite him/her in the butt. I’m sure this is hardly new-news to any member of AverageNation™ but having a “black” name can cost you when those HR folks are browsing thru resumes.
Two recent papers from the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research draw somewhat different conclusions about whether a black name is a burden. One, an analysis of the 16 million births in California between 1960 and 2000, claims it has no significant effect on how someone’s life turns out.If nothing else, the first paper, by the NBER’s Roland Fryer and the University of Chicago’s Steven Levitt, based on California birth data, provides probably the most detailed snapshot yet of distinctive naming practices. It shows, for instance, that in recent years, more than 40 percent of black girls were given names that weren’t given to even one of the more than 100,000 white girls born in the state the same year.
The paper says black names are associated with lower socioeconomic status, but the authors don’t believe it’s the names that create an economic burden.
Using Social Security numbers, they track the changes in circumstances of women born in the early 1970s who then show up in the data in 1980s and ’90s as mothers themselves. The data also show whether those second-generation mothers have health insurance and in which Zip Codes they reside – admittedly imperfect measurements of economic achievement.
The data do appear to show that a poor woman’s daughter is more likely to be poor when she gives birth herself – but no more so because she has a distinctively black name.
So, one study says no real correlation between name and eventual outcome. But another study contradicts that to some degree.
The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes.The University of Chicago’s Marianne Bertrand and MIT’s Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?”
The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to “sound white” or “sound black” and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Of course, no “study” is perfect, but I guess it’s some minor food for thought.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter to me. Life will prolly be harder for a black kid than a white kid in America any way you dice it, regardless of whether that kid’s named Lawrence or LacKquan. And besides, a recent study also showed that education aside, blacks who merely “sounded black” were likely to be lesser compensated than blacks who “sounded white”.
No, really.
Blacks who “sound black” earn salaries that are 10 percent lower than blacks who do not “sound black,” even after controlling for measures of intelligence, experience in the work force, and other factors that influence how much people earn. (For what it is worth, whites who “sound black” earn 6 percent lower than other whites.)Grogger asked multiple listeners to rate each voice and assigned the voice either to a distinctly white or black category (if the listeners all tended to agree on the race), or an indistinct category if there was disagreement.
Then he put this measure of whether a voice sounded black into a regression (the standard statistical tool that economists use for estimating things), and came up with the finding that blacks who “sound black” earn almost 10 percent less, even after taking into account other factors that could influence earnings. One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.
So there you have it. You’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t. So name your child LayQuittria or BeYonDray all you want. Just make sure you teach them the joys of code-switching, no matter what.
Cause a name is truly a just name. But soundin‘ white is always right.
Question: Do you think a name is truly “just a name” or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Should parents give more thought to exactly what they’re calling their kids? If you have an “ethnic” government name, do you think it’s ever hurt your employment prospects? What’s the weirdest (and I’m not talkin‘ “ghetto” here) name you’ve ever personally heard?
‘Black’ Names A Resume Burden? [CBS]
How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You “Sound Black?” [NY Times]
Previous Editions of C.Y.I.N. Case Study [AB.com]
