Disqus - Latest Comments for B_Serious

Re: Thursday Open Thread

B-Serious — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:26:45 -0000

Hey guys. Just giving a heads up. I'll be on The Reporter's Roundtable with host Perri Small later this morning (8/2) at 11am CST. Check it out on WVON 1690AM. Just go to www.wvon.com and click on "Listen Live." Thanks.

Re: Vice President Biden gives Weekly Address

B-Serious — Sun, 29 May 2011 20:09:12 -0000

Thanks, Ametia.

No, I didn't get another dog. Who knows what the future holds. But I've still got a lot of fond memories to live off of. Thanks for asking.

Take care.

Re: BREAKING NEWS. . . CNN reports: Osama Bin Laden Dead.

B-Serious — Sun, 01 May 2011 23:32:28 -0000

I can't believe it. Speechless.

I just talked to my mother and sister. I can't wait to see what the critics have to say. I said, shy of curing Cancer, what else do they want from this man? Hate on that!

We have a truly historic President. . . in more ways than one.

Trump looks sooooooooooooooooooooo small right about now. Does Palin have something to say? What about Glenn Beck? Joe Scarborough?

Anyone?

Politics aside, this is a huge moment. I remember where I was on 9/11. I'll remember where I was tonight.

Wow!

Re: Memo to the Media: Hate Matters.

B-Serious — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:13:28 -0000

Hey everyone, glad to see you guys liked the post.

Rikyrah - thanks. I don't have an account at DKos so probably not.

JeffL - No problem (just cite, please). Any questions, you can email me. My email is on the JJP contact page.

Alright JJP, I'm out. Have a good one.

Re: Lesson learned? Don’t trust fair-weather liberals.

B-Serious — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:03:20 -0000

Hello everyone, it's B-Serious. I'm having trouble posting through my Disqus account so hopefully this comes accross as a guest comment (it's the real B-Serious, not an imposter)

This will be my only reply. But, feel free to keep up the discussion. I apologize in advance for my very long response (sorry, I know it's long), but like I said, this will likely be my only reply to this post (and perhaps this subject).

So here it is . . .

I'm glad to see that some of you enjoyed this piece and am grateful for all of the feedback it received.

sidenote: GreenLadyHere -- ***BIG HUGS*** right back at ya.' You're the best.

PTCruiser, RobM, MsThing912 and others who expressed objections:

There's not a single spot in my post where I blame the "left" for all of the problems in the party. Nor is there a single place in my post where I claim that the left is THE (sole) reason for Martha Coakley losing. In fact, there not a single place in my post where I defend the Democratic leadership or the failed candidate. Finally, nowhere do I make the assertion that all or a majority of liberals voted for Brown or stayed home (in fact, I specifically remember writing that many liberals probably did fight the good fight). My post is directed at what I perceive as a self-defeatist mentality that creeps up during some election cycles.

The Democratic leadership and Martha Coakley are most certainly catching their lumps for the mistakes they made (and perhaps they should get even more criticism). And that should go without being said as both Martha Coakley and the Democratic leadership have been criticized for Tuesday's performance.

No, my post was focused on one of the various problems that impede forward progress in "progressive" politics. This post criticized the voters' inability and/or unwillingness to prevent a tea-bag endorsed Republican from taking the great "Liberal Lion's" former Senate seat. No, the voters do not get a pass as far as I am concerned. And self-identified Democratic or progressive voters who either (1) felt compelled to vote for Brown; or (2) decided to sit on their hands in protest can not and should not expect to escape their fair share of criticism.

From a progressive standpoint, as far as this race is concerned, you either (a) get Coakley in; or (b) keep Brown out. Those who would rather keep Brown out have two choices. They can either (1) vote for Coakley; or (2) elect a more progressive candidate into that office. However, the latter requires a level of organization, vision and people skills that I feel is currently lacking in progressive politics. Since electing a more progressive candidate in Massachusetts was either overlooked, ignored or not taken seriously enough by progressives, it seems there developed an implicit fallback plan among some to "teach the Dems a lesson" by sitting on their hands.

Sorry, but politics is a zero-sum game. And I don't see a scenario where progressives win by giving the Republican party yet another vote to obstruct progress (as slow and imperfect as such progress may appear to some).

So do not claim the victim at the slightest criticism of progressive politics or fair-weather liberals. That is victim politics and its main purpose is to do little more than turn a legitimate critique of self-defeatist segments of the “left” into a straw man argument for how everyone is always picking on the poor, innocent liberal.

Politics is the art of the possible. I know it's been said a million times, but it's true. And you know what? It's doubly true for grassroots political movements. And I'm not talking about let's vote third party politics, no, I'm talking about inner city, day-to-day, sausage making, urban grassroots politics. . . I'm talking, church basement, school cafeteria grassroots politics. It's a noble job, but not as romantic as it's portrayed in the movies or on TV. Grassroots political leaders get what they can when they can. And you want to know why? Because the consequence of failure is absolute. A loss on “principle” might mean your constituents don't eat that night, lose their housing or heaven knows what else. So yes, for me, true progressive politics is understanding that a fight against the powers that be necessitates that a "leader" finds a way to get from day one to day two without losing another life to "the system." It is the definition of incrementalism. It is imperfect, but it's the only thing standing between life and death for millions of Americans everyday. This aspect can not be lost regardless of one’s political leanings or opinion.

THAT's the type of "liberal/progressive" community I belong to. It's the community that understands you're only as strong as your weakest link, and welcomes the truth that your movement is designed so that that "weak link" will one day gain the tools and neighborhood support to become the leader and do things that you never thought were even possible. And that only happens if you talk to rather than at the people.

So yes, I have a major problem when we as a progressive community shout 45,000 deaths per year as our major rallying cry for health reform, yet are all too willing to abandon it (and delaying the matter seems tantamount to abandonment at this point) because the insurance companies might make out like bandits. And it's apparent to me that reconciliation might not be the silver bullet some claim it is. Even Laurence O’Donnell who has been against this bill from the beginning isn't sold on reconciliation. But, hey, if someone can give a clear alternative using reconciliation that doesn't delay the process for X more months- a scenario that might kill the bill given the toxicity of our political environment - I'd be glad to hear it.

Keith Olbermann had it right the first time. . .this whole subject of health reform is about "death". . . as in “life and death.” Which tells me that you don't forsake expanded coverage for 30 million people without insurance because you're pissed at the health insurance companies. Even if the bill is flawed - get it passed and work to improve it in the future.

I will write a post when I think progressives, in my own opinion (for what it's worth), are losing focus of what's important. Even if it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, it's a choice we have to make and 45,000 deaths per year says we better get it right. No different than a single mother who has to decide which bill she needs to pay NOW and which bills can miss the deadline. It's about priorities and staying focused on the most immediate and consequential issue that you have the power to correct.

It's about accountability . . . don’t we all love that word.

The same standard applies to the base and Democratic leadership alike. If truth necessitates we hold our leaders "accountable" (not using such a noble claim as an excuse to bash - but that's another topic) then sincerity of purpose must also require that we hold the base "accountable" as well. The president is not above criticism . . . but neither is the political left. And it's high time people start calling them on their bs when their actions or ideas hurt the progress they claim to embody. That's what I was doing in this piece.

You can list all of President Obama's perceived failures or shortcomings for as long as you want. I will not assume the untenable position that the President has made no error, nor that there is no place for criticism of his policies. To say he hasn't . . . to say he can't make mistakes or have setbacks, is to hold him to a standard that we've never held any other president to before. Nor will I succumb to media pressure that claims I must withdraw my support of this President after an arbitrary number of “mistakes” or compromises (however big or small they may be) in order to maintain my membership card in the “keep it real” club. I will not do that despite some attempts to caricature any or all support for this President as zombie, cult-like, unsophisticated loyalty. I will not play that game. Every voter has the right to determine for themselves a personal tolerance level for setbacks on a given issue (setbacks, after all, are inevitable). President Obama will win some, lose some, inspire and disappoint. And you the voter will have the opportunity to vote on his record in 2012. And most will make their decision with the understanding that, yea or nea, they themselves will be held accountable for their vote and that mere questioning of one’s positions (so long as it’s done with respect) is not an invitation to play the victim. And when 2012 comes, Obama should be judged by the same standard every other president faces at re-election: Barring a more competent, appealing, practical and viable (that's important) alternative, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago.”

And yes, no one has to tell me that Dems shouldn’t take the black vote for granted. And where there are viable black candidates I will certainly give them a heavy look, and perhaps my full support. But, in the absence of that, I’m not jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Self-determination has long called for Blacks to look within their communities for leadership that gets overlooked elsewhere. But one accomplishes self-determination by building that support amongst the community, not sitting on one’s hands. . . by talking to their brothas and sistas, not lecturing them.

As for other issues raised in this discussion . . .

That salon piece by Greenwald that was listed downthread is irrelevant to my post. Why? Because placing it in the context of this discussion only works to confuse the focus of my article. Greenwald is criticizing the likes of Lanny Davis and Evan Bayh who think the party should move to the center or the center-right. As such they criticize liberals by saying that progressives pull Obama too far to the left. That is NOT what I said in my article and any suggestion that I did is disingenuous. Greenwald also criticizes "Obama loyalists" as he condescendingly states that all they want is for the "left" to cheerlead Obama and his policies. He does not define what an "Obama loyalist" actually is, but I presume such a label is meant to cover any person left-of-center who does not agree with him. Once again, talking at people rather than talking to people. However, if his use of such labels is a, not so subtle, attempt to deflect criticism of the "left," let me attempt to clarify the frustration some feel when they engage the criticism from that side of the political spectrum:

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Spotting the issue is only half the story. . . it's not enough. The problem is less a matter of understanding the issue, rather it's coming up with a solution to said issues. In other words, saying you can identify the problem does NOT mean you have the solution. The American people are not stupid, they feel the consequences of those problems every day. They know that these problems exist. But, citing the problem does not make someone a leader. . . it’s what you do with that problem that gets people’s attention. And if some on the left would have the rest of us abandon the Democratic party and this President they'd better damn well come up with real and practical solutions. And, to the extent they have such solutions, they'd better have the sufficient votes to get those answers passed through Congress.

It's the same critique I have of political third parties. I can not . . . I will not take a candidate seriously if he or she can't get his or her name on the ballot. And I will not take seriously such excuses as “infrastructural impediments,” or “the powers that be“ if some of these candidates have been around for decades yet failed to amass a following big enough to get him or her on that ballot. I will not take seriously a candidate who begs I vote third party, but can’t tell me how he or she gets 270 electoral votes for the presidency. And I can not take seriously policy platforms that I know don’t have enough votes in the House or Senate. Now, I could ignore these very real hurdles and point the finger at pragmatists for being incrementalists (some of whom may deserve the criticism, but others who are really trying the best with what they’ve got), but I would be disingenuous at best.

Hey, maybe George W. Bush was as great a leader as some progressives would have us believe today. He got what he wanted when he wanted. Or maybe . . .just maybe . . . GWB was afforded the luxury of a Congress that did not obstruct his every move and demand a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority for every act of legislation. Indeed, perhaps GWB was blessed with a rubber stamp Republican Congress for the first part of his presidency and throughout his presidency had enough Democratic members in Congress who were willing to side with him on things like the Iraq war and tax cuts? Some siding with him out of cowardice and political opportunism, and others siding with him because (especially in the case of the war) they decided to be the adults in the room and continue funding so as not to leave the troops with insufficient support from home (I know, that’s an entirely different subject altogether, so I’ll move on).

So what was the solution in Massachusetts? I'm sure there is more than one answer to that question. But, I'll tell you one thing that's NOT the solution . . .

voting for a tea party endorsed Republican. . .

A republican who vowed to be the 41st vote? As I heard someone (perhaps Rachel Maddow) say, campaigning on such a distinction as the "41st Vote" by itself implies that Brown plans to vote lock-step with the Republican party.

So, with that said, how can any progressive honestly tell his or her community that a Brown victory is not a step backward . . . i.e., regressive politics from a state that prides itself on it's progressive reputation in the great "liberal" bastion known as the Northeast? It does not make sense.

And to come out moments afterwards, as some on the left have done, and claim credit for one's act of omission - this meme that voters stayed home in protest because Obama wasn't progressive enough - holds very little (if any) water if we are to believe the sincerity of progressive politics.

This was a big conversation on Hardball last night. If Obama is so bad at the banks and healthcare then why the hell is MA (a "liberal" state) either voting for or allowing the victory of a Republican who has vowed to block healthcare reform and who is against new regulations on the financial markets? Strange bed-fellows? Be careful what you wake up with.

It just doesn't add up.

And if the situation is as hopeless as some would like to have us believe, then why wasn't there a progressive third party candidate in MA. And I'm not talking about a third party candidate that throws his hat in the ring at the eleventh hour just to play spoiler . . . I mean, right after Kennedy passed away, there should have been a true blue progressive ready and eager to take his place (preferably making a significant push in the primary - perhaps MA would have survived such a move, other states might not). Now, don’t misunderstand, there are legitimate concerns I have with third-party politics. . . no need to split the Democratic vote and elect a Republican. I'm not even endorsing such a move, but (for the sake of argument) it would have been better than sitting on one's hands in protest.

As to the challenge that there's no evidence to support my position regarding the protest vote. First, I made it clear in my post that it was my suspicion that the "protest vote" might be the meme to come from the left in the wake of Tuesday's election. It was a theory about one of the many reasons why the Dems lost based on what I feel are self-defeatist tendencies that have raised their heads at other times in the history of progressive politics.

Now, other posters in this thread have already cited exit polling that speaks towards the issue of a protest vote. Ariana Huffington was saying as much minutes after the polls closed Tuesday night. Ed Schultz was pushing that meme as was Keith Olbermann. The Huffington Post website has a couple of articles pushing that meme as well. And that doesn't even include the articles before the election speculating apathy and disappointment among Democratic/progressive voters in MA. So, it's not like I pulled this theory of the protest vote out of thin air. And its certainly seems as though some have taken that narrative in the immediate aftermath of the election.

Let me make it clear. It is the right of the voter to sit on his hands in protest. It is the right of the voter to switch parties. It's the right of a blue state to "punish" the Democratic leadership even though it gave no viable alternative to ensure a progressive political movement. It is even the right of a blue state to elect a Republican with a red state voting record on matters such as gay rights/marriage equality, banks and torture (I know, some like to call it enhanced interrogation), etc. . . It's their right.

But I'm gonna call them out on it.

Re: House of Representatives Passes Healthcare Reform Bill

B-Serious — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:10:26 -0000

Happy belated B-Day, rikyrah. May you have many more.

Re: Black Women—get an education, give up the chance for marriage and family?

B-Serious — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:42:01 -0000

another fyi . . .

Here's one of the sources for the "never married" stat (apparently a separate category from the percentage of men/women who were married at the taking of the Census). It's the same source used by Flash1 above.

http://www.census.gov/prod/...

pages 3-4 are of interest.

Re: Black Women—get an education, give up the chance for marriage and family?

B-Serious — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:14:51 -0000

Interesting article, rikyrah.

I touched upon this issue in the post I did just before CNN's "Black in America 2":

What we’re really talking about is the blessing (or curse) blacks feel to be a spokesperson for the entire race. At the heart of many a controversy isn’t necessarily the issue being discussed, but rather HOW that issue is presented to the rest of America. Admittedly, this concern speaks more of white perceptions (or, better put, blacks’ anticipation of white perception) than the merits of the argument itself.

This often happens when discussing black relationships. Discussions get bogged down in statistics. . . X% of black men are unemployed . . . Y% of black women have never been married. If we’re not careful, both conversations can feed stereotypes of black men and women (i.e. the lonely bitter black woman can’t find a man because there’s no such thing as a good black man - I’m sure you’ve heard it before). The media must be careful to check its facts and present them in the proper context. It’s not enough to regurgitate statistics and draw blind conclusions. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. And people have gone out of their way to disprove commonly held assumptions about black men and women when it comes to relationships. Their voices aren’t always heard.

http://reachblack.blogspot....

I have a problem with a lot of "relationship" discussions because I don't believe that most problems can be attributed to social trends, demographic studies, etc. Relationships are personal in nature. Most people coming into these conversations do so from their personal experiences. Personal experiences . . . not necessarily facts. And I don't automatically blame men for the failure of a relationship. Some people (male or female) are experts on failed relationships precisely because they have led a history of bad decisions and/or behavior. When a person starts listing six or seven bad relationships they've been in, it might help to examine the common denominator.

Now, compound that with race and you've got a whole new set of circumstances. I will say this . . .

I think it would be in our best interest to study the manner in which stereotypes of black men feed stereotypes of black women (and vise versa).

And as an FYI . . .

For what it's worth, the statistics show that black men are also much less likely to have ever been married. The Census showed that roughly 42-43% of black men have never been married vs. 40-41% of black women (raw stats, I don't have the stats based on education, etc.).

Some of these studies do more to divide black people than help.

I've seen it far too many times. Add societal standards of "beauty" and "masculinity" and you've really got a mess on your hands. Black men and women tear each other down and get so caught up in disrespecting each other that some even begin to praise white men and women as the golden standards of beauty and masculinity and promote the "white is right" argument as a solution to all of their troubles (btw, I'm not against interracial marriage, etc., I just think some - perhaps an extremely vocal minority - do it for the wrong reasons - i.e., status, etc.).

The difference between the numbers as they apply to white men and women as opposed to black is that most discussions involving our white counterparts don't devolve into disrespectful gender wars about "bitter black women" and "trifling black men."

Re: Black In America 2 Open Thread

B-Serious — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:47:06 -0000

I wrote a piece about Tyler Perry a few months ago that touched on some of the same subjects:

Black comedy and why Madea matters

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

B-Serious — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:12:09 -0000

Great article. Comparing movements often leads to competitive victimology and oppression olympics. . . which gets us nowhere (at least that's how I see it). And though some say blacks don't own the issue of "civil rights" it certainly can't be argued that we don't own our history and struggle as a people.

Each struggle has it's own history and should be respected as such. Of course there may be similarities. But each struggle also presents it's own set of obstacles.

Don't presume to know my struggle and I won't presume to know yours. I have no problem with those who want to learn from what blacks have gone through. What pisses me off is when people think they can LECTURE us about our own struggle and history (as in that whole "you should know better, go sit at the back of the bus" type of argument I see on a lot of websites).

I didn't appreciate it when Tina Fey proclaimed "B*tch is the new black" back when Hillary was getting beat in the primaries. I don't appreciate the "gay is the new black" slogan now. Especially when some of the same people shouting that will get upset when others use "gay" as a pejorative (e.g., "that shirt is so gay" etc.).

Re: Michael Jackson has Died at age 50

B-Serious — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:17:42 -0000

I'm an 80s baby, so I grew up on a lot of Michael Jackson. As someone just said on tv, he's one of those figures that really defines an era and it's hard to believe he might be gone.

Very sad news. My prayer are with him and his family. Hope the rumors aren't true.

Internet and radio say he's gone. TV is now saying he's in a coma.

They're playing his songs on the radio. .. .very chilling effect.

Re: Remarks by the President at the Signing of a Presidential Memorandum Regarding Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

B-Serious — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:50:55 -0000

President Obama should be afforded the same blessing and/or curse that every President faces each election cycle. When a president runs for reelection he's judged by one clear standard . . .

"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

That seems fair to me. I know people don't want to hear things like, "he's only been in office for ___ months." Too bad it carries the burden of being true. If we elect a man for 4 years, it's with the understanding that he should act upon his promises at SOME point during that four year period. It's a lot of work . . . that's why we give him four years four years to do it. Presidents have triumphs and setbacks . . . that's why we give them four years. Constituents can be in full support one day and royally pissed the next . . . that's why we give the president four years. He will have ample time to make mistakes and make up for said mistakes . . . that's why he get's four years.

The manner and order by which campaign promises are kept (or ultimately foresaken) depends on political strategy, personal ambition and style of leadership.

That's the gamble we take . . .

We, the voters, gamble that the president will keep his/her word. . .

The president, in turn, gambles on the strategy he or she takes to get from points A to B.

Sometimes we misjudge our president. Other times, the president misjudges his strategy. Still, sometimes we get it right. More often than not, we find a happy medium (dissapointed on some things, pleased with others).

But, whatever the case, we come together every four years and ask the same question . . . "Are we better off today than we were four years ago?"

If the answer's "yes" . . . hello second term.

If the answer's "no" we ask the follow up question . . . "Is the other person any better?"

I know it's not cool to say it, but (GASP) I still like Obama. Far from perfect, but better than most. Disagree with him on some things; but am satisfied on others. I know . . . I know . . . the talking heads would have you believe he's an anti-semetic, homophobic, self-hating, uppity negro mysoginist. Damn! Gays don't like him. Jews don't trust him. Conservatives hate him. Liberals cry betrayal. Bill Maher on one side, Rush Limbaugh on the other.

"He's doing too much."

"He's doing too little."

"He's a socialist"

"He's a corporate shill."

WHATEVER!

Here's a hint . . . there will NEVER be a time when everyone agrees. So why waste your time, energy and (dare I say) sanity listening to the talking heads (whether they be tv pundits, bloggers, radio hosts or columnists). THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Personally, I can't say the President has "betrayed" anyone, "thrown (insert group) under the bus" or engage in any other form of hyperbolic (yet all too familiar) rhetoric. Some say he hasn't done his job? Others (myself included) say he hasn't finished the job. The former declares the situation hopeless while the latter acknowledges the fact that, win or lose, there's still time to make good on the promise.

It's a matter of perspective, but my vote back in November came with an understanding that Obama would get four years (at least 2 years given the midterm elections) to make good on his promises. It came with the understanding that he would succeed and fail over the course of this time period. And it came with the hope that we'd be better off four years from now than we are today. Four years . . . not four months.

Re: Evening Open Thread: CHAMPIONS!!!!

B-Serious — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:48:51 -0000

Thanks rikyrah.

How sweet it is!

Re: Evening Open Thread: CHAMPIONS!!!!

B-Serious — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:41:49 -0000

LAKERS = CHAMPIONS!

Re: Cornel West Would Rather Be In “A Crack House Than the White House.”- Kneegrow, Please

B-Serious — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:40:23 -0000

Re: Sunday Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:07:06 -0000

Evening Thread is up.

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

B-Serious — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:06:22 -0000

Evening Thread is up.

Re: Evening Open Thread: NBA Finals, Game 4

B-Serious — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:21:49 -0000

LAKERS WIN!!

3 down 1 . . . .

I said just 1 . . .

Uno mas!

1 More to Go!

GO LAKERS!

Re: Did President Obama Insult Israel?

B-Serious — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:05:52 -0000

Evening thread is up.

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

B-Serious — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:04:52 -0000

Evening thread is up.

Re: Remembering Stephen Tyrone Johns

B-Serious — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:04:25 -0000

Evening thread is up.

Re: “Senator” Roland Burris (D-Blago) and Pay-to-Play Placement

B-Serious — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:12:53 -0000

Evening thread is up.

Re: Tell Steele to Back It On Up re: Sotomayor

B-Serious — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:11:20 -0000

Evening thread is up.

Re: The Supreme Court Punted, Mr. President. It’s up to YOU to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

B-Serious — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:10:23 -0000

Evening thread is up.

Re: Afternoon Open Thread

B-Serious — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:09:06 -0000

Evening thread is up.