|
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Entrepreneurs From China Flourish in Africa
Saturday, May 26, 2007
US fears grow over China military
The US has expressed concern over China's growing military might.
A Pentagon report given to Congress says Beijing is spending far more on its military budget than admitted and calls for greater transparency.
The report highlights China's greater ability to mount pre-emptive strikes, citing new submarines, unmanned combat aircraft and sophisticated missiles.
China said in March it was increasing its military spending by 17.8% in 2007 but it still lags far behind the US.
The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says the Pentagon paints a picture of a country whose growing economic and political power is being mirrored in "a comprehensive military transformation".
The annual report says Beijing is moving towards a more pre-emptive defence strategy with the focus on its border areas.
It would be nice to hear first-hand from the Chinese... we wish there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are
Robert Gates
US Defence Secretary
It suggests that the possibility of US intervention in any crisis in the Taiwan Strait is an important factor in China's military planning.
The report also describes a successful anti-satellite weapon test conducted by the Chinese in January as posing a threat to "all space-faring nations".
As in previous reports, there was strong complaint about a lack of transparency in both China's military spending and its military aims.
"It would be nice to hear first-hand from the Chinese... we wish there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are," US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday, prior to the report's release.
Its publication comes at the end of a week when a high level Chinese delegation has been in Washington discussing areas of economic tension - and is a further sign that the levels of trust between Washington and Beijing are currently not very high, our correspondent says.
'Nuclear forces'
The Pentagon report highlights concerns about China's preparations to deploy a mobile, land-based ballistic missile, with a range that reportedly covers the entire United States.
The development of a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with ballistic missiles with a range of more than 8,000km (5,000 miles), is also cited.
Experts say the Jin-class vessels are capable of carrying 12 missiles, with each one armed with three nuclear warheads.
One of these Chinese-built submarines is currently undergoing tests, and five more are planned, says Andrew Yang of the Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies in Taiwan.
Previously China had just one nuclear-powered submarine, which was so unreliable it rarely travelled far from its base, Mr Yang said.
He added: "The Americans are concerned about whether a gradual build-up of nuclear forces implies China will change its nuclear policy of no first use."
Natural consequence
Over the last 15 years, China has been engaged in a massive military build-up and modernisation programme.
It plans to allocate 350.9bn yuan ($45.9bn) to its military this year, although some analysts say Beijing spends double or treble this amount.
However, the BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson says US opinion is divided over the strategic challenge posed by China.
Some see it as an emerging threat that must be countered at every turn - others take a more benign view, seeing China's increased military expenditure as a natural consequence of its growing economic power, our correspondent says.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
What US policy initative changed in 12 years?
Submitted by Eldred V. Harris, JD.
In April 1991, after the Gulf War, Dick Cheney, then G.H.W. Bush's secretary of defense, explained why his administration did not continue into Iraq to remove Hussein:
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there....How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the U.S. military when it's there?...I think to have American military engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of a quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."
Quoted by Atonia Juhasz in The Bush Agenda,, p. 174.
So What US policy imitative could've changed so much in in 13 years?
Was it:
• That we could no longer keep GM, Ford etc., on artificially, large SUV, life support by maintaining $1.50 gas for an additional 15 years?
• That we trust the Saudis so little, that we needed to be within spitting range to spy on their new conversations with China?
• That we really would just like to rename Iraq - Exxon, and Iran - Mobil, and create the worlds first two "corporate states" and be done with it?
• That we were running out of fake reasons and strong-arm tactics to continue to force others around the globe to accept our Midwestern farmer's corn, so we created a fake need for expansion of corn based fuel products right here in the US?
In April 1991, after the Gulf War, Dick Cheney, then G.H.W. Bush's secretary of defense, explained why his administration did not continue into Iraq to remove Hussein:
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there....How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the U.S. military when it's there?...I think to have American military engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of a quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."
Quoted by Atonia Juhasz in The Bush Agenda,, p. 174.
So What US policy imitative could've changed so much in in 13 years?
Was it:
• That we could no longer keep GM, Ford etc., on artificially, large SUV, life support by maintaining $1.50 gas for an additional 15 years?
• That we trust the Saudis so little, that we needed to be within spitting range to spy on their new conversations with China?
• That we really would just like to rename Iraq - Exxon, and Iran - Mobil, and create the worlds first two "corporate states" and be done with it?
• That we were running out of fake reasons and strong-arm tactics to continue to force others around the globe to accept our Midwestern farmer's corn, so we created a fake need for expansion of corn based fuel products right here in the US?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Kanye West's Mom on using the N-word
Jenice Armstrong | More on the 'n' word
"That's that crack music, n----
that real black music, n----"
- KANYE WEST
WHEN I LISTEN to lyrics in certain hip-hop songs, they not only give me pause but they get me thinking about the backgrounds of the entertainers themselves.
Who raised - or didn't bother raising - the mike-toting superstars who spout the n-word and other profanities? Considering just how prevalent this is, maybe I should be numb to it by now. Maybe I need to stop quibbling and dance already.
But despite attempts by well-meaning friends to school me on the matter, I haven't gotten used to how such a derogatory slur - one that has been used for centuries to subjugate African-Americans - has become such a choice term for multimillionaire, wannabe-hard types. Want to be "real"? Say the n-word over and over, preferrably with an infectious beat behind it.
I understand how for many it has become an insider term of affection, particularly when it ends with an "a." It's a way to show defiance and also take the sting away. But talk about being overused. Can't we move on?
Recently, I caught up with the mother of one of hip-hop's biggest stars, Kanye West. While chairing the English department at the University of Chicago, she testified about the damaging impact the word has on a person's psyche. So I asked her straight up how she feels about her son's use of the n-word.
Donda West said she has come almost full circle on the subject. Instead of feeling that it should be banned as hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons has proposed in the aftermath of the Don Imus affair, she has made her peace with it."I'm not thrilled with it," said Donda.
But speaking by phone from an ocean-view home in California that Kanye purchased for her, Donda admitted, "It doesn't bother me in the way it used, too . . . I've had a shift in paradigm that I never thought I would have.
"I just have a different attitude about it. It's not one that I'll advocate. It's my own personal view," she continued. "I don't want to give that word more power than it already has. It's not what you call me. It's what I answer to."
In her new book, "Raising Kanye: Life Lessons from the Mother of a Hip-Hop Superstar" (Pocket Books, 2007), West likened it to someone's calling her mother a bitch.
"I wouldn't like it. But I know that my mother's not a bitch, so it wouldn't bother me. They can say it all day and it still will not make it true," Donda writes.
She's among those who believes in a double standard in regard to the use of the word.
"I don't apologize for it," Donda told me. "It is not OK for white people to ever use it because of how it came to be and what it meant historically.
"Until we can come to a place in this country and in the world that not only is racism gone . . . then that's the day that white people can say it," she added. "There's definitely a double standard. I say in the book, 'It's an earned double standard.' "
Donda knows there are plenty - present company included - who don't share her newfound acceptance. In fact, she initially withdrew for publication her chapter called "nigga vs. nigger," but Kanye persuaded her to reinstate it. " 'Mom, I'm almost ashamed of you. If this is how you feel . . . why would you not take this opportunity?' " Donda said he told her.
"Admittedly, this is not a word that comes off my tongue loosely. I've rarely used the n-word," she said. "I'm no longer offended by somebody saying the word in a certain context.
"This time last year, I probably wouldn't have been able to say it. [But] I looked at what it is instead of how I want it to be. This word is just a word.
"If we don't cut out what is behind the word, then what have we gained?" Donda said.
She's right about it being just a word. But, frankly, it's one that is overused and not cool, no matter who says it or how good the beat behind it is. *
"That's that crack music, n----
that real black music, n----"
- KANYE WEST
WHEN I LISTEN to lyrics in certain hip-hop songs, they not only give me pause but they get me thinking about the backgrounds of the entertainers themselves.
Who raised - or didn't bother raising - the mike-toting superstars who spout the n-word and other profanities? Considering just how prevalent this is, maybe I should be numb to it by now. Maybe I need to stop quibbling and dance already.
But despite attempts by well-meaning friends to school me on the matter, I haven't gotten used to how such a derogatory slur - one that has been used for centuries to subjugate African-Americans - has become such a choice term for multimillionaire, wannabe-hard types. Want to be "real"? Say the n-word over and over, preferrably with an infectious beat behind it.
I understand how for many it has become an insider term of affection, particularly when it ends with an "a." It's a way to show defiance and also take the sting away. But talk about being overused. Can't we move on?
Recently, I caught up with the mother of one of hip-hop's biggest stars, Kanye West. While chairing the English department at the University of Chicago, she testified about the damaging impact the word has on a person's psyche. So I asked her straight up how she feels about her son's use of the n-word.
Donda West said she has come almost full circle on the subject. Instead of feeling that it should be banned as hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons has proposed in the aftermath of the Don Imus affair, she has made her peace with it."I'm not thrilled with it," said Donda.
But speaking by phone from an ocean-view home in California that Kanye purchased for her, Donda admitted, "It doesn't bother me in the way it used, too . . . I've had a shift in paradigm that I never thought I would have.
"I just have a different attitude about it. It's not one that I'll advocate. It's my own personal view," she continued. "I don't want to give that word more power than it already has. It's not what you call me. It's what I answer to."
In her new book, "Raising Kanye: Life Lessons from the Mother of a Hip-Hop Superstar" (Pocket Books, 2007), West likened it to someone's calling her mother a bitch.
"I wouldn't like it. But I know that my mother's not a bitch, so it wouldn't bother me. They can say it all day and it still will not make it true," Donda writes.
She's among those who believes in a double standard in regard to the use of the word.
"I don't apologize for it," Donda told me. "It is not OK for white people to ever use it because of how it came to be and what it meant historically.
"Until we can come to a place in this country and in the world that not only is racism gone . . . then that's the day that white people can say it," she added. "There's definitely a double standard. I say in the book, 'It's an earned double standard.' "
Donda knows there are plenty - present company included - who don't share her newfound acceptance. In fact, she initially withdrew for publication her chapter called "nigga vs. nigger," but Kanye persuaded her to reinstate it. " 'Mom, I'm almost ashamed of you. If this is how you feel . . . why would you not take this opportunity?' " Donda said he told her.
"Admittedly, this is not a word that comes off my tongue loosely. I've rarely used the n-word," she said. "I'm no longer offended by somebody saying the word in a certain context.
"This time last year, I probably wouldn't have been able to say it. [But] I looked at what it is instead of how I want it to be. This word is just a word.
"If we don't cut out what is behind the word, then what have we gained?" Donda said.
She's right about it being just a word. But, frankly, it's one that is overused and not cool, no matter who says it or how good the beat behind it is. *
Friday, April 27, 2007
Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq
George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, foreground, in March 2003. Mr. Tenet now says there was never a “serious debate” about the Iraq threat.By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.
The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.
“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.
Complete Article...
Monday, April 23, 2007
I am Not a Ho
The following is an except from an email exchange between Donald Matthews and Hayes Stamper in response to Donald Matthews attempt to justify and legitimize the use of the word "ho" as it was applied to the Rutgers womens basketball team.
From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]
After discussing the issue with my daughter Faith and a doctoral sltudent Elonda Clay in Chicago I realized how limited my initial response to Imus was. They helped me to understand how the "official" black response played into the politics of respectability and self hatred in the black community. They helped me to be careful not to deny the texture of our hair (nappy) or our refusal to buy in to white christian middle class sexual values that are hypocritical and racist. I realized that in the 60's it was an insult to be called black and so we flipped the script and claimed our blackness.
Likewise we should also say that "I am a Nappy headed Ho and proud of it." If we don't we buy into the concept that there is something wrong with being nappy headed or having sexual values that don't match the middle class norm. The blaming of hip hop artists is a neat distraction from the issues that stem from the politics of respectability or as I have called it in my writing; the ethics of discretion. We should flip the script and not deny our culture by buying in to the politics of
respectability in which we have to prove we are OK because we are like middle class white people i.e., not nappy headed or over sexed but beautifully coiffed, professional people who are appalled at being associated with "lower class" black people. It was sad to see so many black women, including the Rutgers women, feel forced to defend themselves as not being like the "real" hos. This is the same defense the negative rappers use when they say there is a difference between a good woman and a ho and they were only referring to the "real" hos.
In my book I talk about the blues sexual ethic in which black folks were not ashamed of who we were and did not conform to the sexual norms of white america. I know that I am nappy headed, like sex and have had sex outside of marriage with more than more woman. So I guess that makes me a Nappy headed ho as well. Before Jesse became concerned with his public image he would have led the charge to claim his "Ho ness" Perhaps because he has been outed as a "secret ho" along with brothers like Bill Cosby, Julius Erving, Michael Jordan, etc. ad infinitum, who once claimed
respectability, he has lost his edge. Let us stand together as academics who can deconstruct the politics of respectability and shout from the rooftops "I am a Nappy headed Ho and I am proud of it." One doctoral student suggested that we make T-Shirts with that signage and therefore publicly claim hour Ho-dom.
Date: April 19, 2007 11:11:20 AM EDT
From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]
I appreciate the numerous responses my thread has generated. I realize the kind of visceral reaction that the statement would generate. In trying to comply with the editor's request for a research based response. I would welcome public or private responses to my explication of black sexual ethics (Black Sexual Ethics: The Use and Misuse of Black Sexuality) into what I call "blues based", i.e. sexual attitudes that are founded in a sexuality developed by poor black folks who did not conform to the notions of sexuality, what I term the sexual ethics of discretion/spiritual ethics, that were a part of the middle class sexual ethics. These ethics were first described by E.F. Frazier in the Black Bourgeoisie or the politics of respectability as found nit E.Higginbotthom's work on the Black Baptist Church. It is interesting to me that the great ideological opponents Du Bois and Washington both castigated poor blacks in their works who did not conform to the middle class sexual norms. They almost made the adoption of these norms as a requirement for the entrance of blacks into American society. They held these views despite the fact they were involved in the same sexual behavior that they criticized in lower class blacks.(Martin Luther King's writings and behavior also reflect this dichotomy/attitude)
A part of my argument is that sexual norms are the products of ruling social classes. They have changed and will change as social structures change. For example, recent demographic data has shown that not just Black Americans, but American society as a whole is now composed primarily of single headed households. In the 60's and beyond black women, men, and the black family were vilified for this family structure. These figures will increase as gender based economic shifts continue to occur and the U.S. continues its economic reorganization from an agricultural/industrial society to a technological society with little need for the labor of poor and working class persons. These persons will be called the "hos" of our society despite the continued incursion of these trends into the white middle class because they don't have a way to defend their behavior and attitudes. However, their artistic productions will continue to be commodified. Black and white cultural commentators in the early 20th century decried the spread of the "jungle" music of the black lower classes. Middle class black churches would not play gospel music because it was blues based nor the spirituals because it reminded them of their slave past. The black and white guardians of social respectability warned the public about the negative influence that the blues and its offshoots was having on white youth and American society..
A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use. If we all claimed to be hos the meaning and effect of the word would change. The religious scholars recognize that to be called a Christian was once a word that warranted death, now it is a sign of respectability. I find this ironic because the erstwhile founder of that religion once embraced the hos of his society (Mary Magdalena, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, his mother Mary, the tax collector, the zealot, the leper, etc). Thank you all for your responses.
Rev. Dr. Donald H. Matthews
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:18 PM
From: Hayes Stamper [hstamper@advertain.tv]
TO: REV. DR. MATTHEWS
I challenge him on several points “A part of my argument is that sexual norms are the products of ruling social classes”, the traditional conservative sexual values expressed are not “white ruling class norms” but actually inherent in the ethos of our pan-African ancestry. I would invite the author to research the courting practices of Kenyan young people and the participation of both immediate families and extended clan, then look further into the role of class, status and royalty, he will find centuries old cultural norms that predate both IMPERIALISM and COLONIALISM. So if he wants to lay that at the door of middle class black bourgeoisie he will need to come with something stronger than a weak statement like that.
“These figures will increase as gender based economic shifts continue to occur and the U.S. continues its economic reorganization from an agricultural/industrial society to a technological society with little need for the labor of poor and working class persons. These persons will be called the "hos" of our society despite the continued incursion of these trends into the white middle class because they don't have a way to defend their behavior and attitudes”….Actually if you look at the data for the Europe, the marriage stats, single parenting stats and percentage of homosexuality, in all respects they are outpacing the US, and yet there does NOT seem to be a debasement of the Caucasian participants of alternative lifestyles.
“Middle class black churches would not play gospel music because it was blues based nor the spirituals because it reminded them of their slave past.” A statement with questionable historical evidence, such postulates can often be dismissed along with falsehoods such as “we only use 10 percent of our brain”..sounds nice, but where is the quantitative proof to back it up.
A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use. If we all claimed to be hos the meaning and effect of the word would change. The religious scholars recognize that to be called a Christian was once a word that warranted death, now it is a sign of respectability. I find this ironic because the erstwhile founder of that religion once embraced the hos of his society (Mary Magdalena, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, his mother Mary, the tax collector, the zealot, the leper, etc).
If there was ever a case to demonstrate the difference between learning, knowledge and understanding. The author states “erstwhile founder of that religion”, I think he means the pro-Pauline ideology as promoted by Rome, but it is theologically and historically clear, that Yeshua ben Yosef…started no new “religion”. The “hos” of his society, laughable, by that he must mean the Roman perpetrated humiliation of North African Semitic women, not a shred of evidence that the Jewish community of Judea addressed their women derogatorily.
And the best misuse of logic “A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use.” Kind of like changing his name from Ieuses the Kristos to Jesus the Christ.
Yours in Success,
Hayes H. Stamper II
From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Hayes Stamper
Subject: RE: I am Not a Ho
Dear Hayes:
Thank you for your response but I believe that I can support my statements. Even in Pan African precolonial societies there were always persons who didn't fit into the gender social norms. (see Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart).
In terms of the European situation you would have to examine how minorities are treated in those countries. Algerians in France, Turks in Germany, Jamaicans in Great Britain are all under verbal attack as these societies have less and less need of their labor.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the literature on African American church history and ethics. I would suggest you check out Higginbottham's work, Du Bois' Philadelphia Negro and Souls of Black Folks, the work Benjamin Mays, C. Eric Lincoln and numerous others before you assert that there is no evidence for my statements.
Linguistics courses begin with that assertioon based on the work of Whorf and Saussure among others. I was not speaking about Saul of Tarsus but of Jesus of Nazareth. All the types I mentioned were persons Jesus was criticized for being in relationship with during the course of his ministry.
I hope I am incorrect but Ihave a feeling that you will also discount the authors I have named based on your own ideological leanings. Please don't fulfill my negative expectations and check these authors out if you are not familiar with them.
peace and power,
Donald Matthews
FROM:Hayes Stamper [hstamper@advertain.tv]
SENT: Fri 4/20/2007 11:55 AM
TO: REV. DR. MATTHEWS
Dear Rev. Dr. Donald H. Matthews:
With your pardon, I have extended the dialogue to a few interested parties.
In the context of justifying the adoption of such a derogatory label as “ho”, to use Achebe’s seminal work as a defense is too far a stretch for any academic, wouldn’t you agree?
Perhaps I should have asked him back when spoke at Cornell back in the fall of 2005. I was delighted to hear his personal story and thought to myself how closely related it seemed to be, to the book “Kaffir Boy” by Mark Mathabane. I raise the title of the second book, because in the original Hebrew form, the word Keffa is joined to Kaffir, the term used by Yeshua to address the man you would probably only recognize via his Anglo designation, Peter. Kaffir is about as charged as “niggardly” or “ho”, so its historical context found in the man you called Iesus calling the “black one” to lead is really interesting, hopefully the irony will not be lost on you. An ever expanding appreciation of historical colloquialisms will hopefully let us see the folly of adopting “nappy-headed ho’s” as something to be embraced.
Point two, let’s take a look back at this country, we see the steady influx of Asians in sweatshops as well as the sex trade, Russians mopping the floors of Targets at midnight, and the iconic Mexican immigrant offering cheap labor in front of the Home Depot, in any of these cases do we see a media or cultural “label” applied to the sexuality of its women. All are at the bottom of the economic and social caste system, yet each seems to be able to move beyond the utterly senseless self perpetuation of negative stereotypes.
I am quite aware of DuBoise work, and am proud of the inclusion of several titles in my personal library “The Philadelphia Negro”, “Souls of Black Folks” as well as the “Litany of Atlanta”, being close to Morehouse in both local and spirit, I am well aware of Dr. May’s work, Howard Thurman’s and the list goes on. Actually, all are being examined in my forthcoming deconstruction of the Black Church, entitled “The MisEducation of the Black Christian”. Nonetheless, the role of African rhythms’ and chanting, the use of tambourines and drums, the lining of the hymns, call and response, the prominent display and status accorded to women wearing headdress, or crowns, all give evidence that the history of the Black Church embraced and absorbed much of its African origins and did not wholesale abandoned them as some have suggested.
On linguistics, the question is whether language determines thought or thought determines language, so in addition to solely relying on Whorf and Saussure, I recommend you consider the works of Claude Levi-Strauss, Tzvetan Todorov, and Roland Barthes.
Finally, it is not a simply a matter of ideological leanings, but looking at the evidence. And the evidence tells me, your original proposals
• “… Let us stand together as academics who can deconstruct the politics of respectability and shout from the rooftops "I am a Nappy headed Ho and I am proud of it…"
based on the misunderstanding that
• “..We should flip the script and not deny our culture by buying in to the politics of respectability in which we have to prove we are OK because we are like middle class white people…”
or that objecting to our black women being called “nappy headed ho’s” somehow invalidates our black self identity because it subscribes to
• "...white christian middle class sexual values..."
is UN-DEFENDABLE, but since black Christians have found a way to embrace an Anglicized Christ figure, maybe your arguments will find a home, but I will speak against just as Yeshua spoke against Manessah and corrupt Zaddokite high priest, or Jesus versus the Sadducees for those who are limited by that perspective.
Yours in Success,
Hayes H. Stamper II
From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]
After discussing the issue with my daughter Faith and a doctoral sltudent Elonda Clay in Chicago I realized how limited my initial response to Imus was. They helped me to understand how the "official" black response played into the politics of respectability and self hatred in the black community. They helped me to be careful not to deny the texture of our hair (nappy) or our refusal to buy in to white christian middle class sexual values that are hypocritical and racist. I realized that in the 60's it was an insult to be called black and so we flipped the script and claimed our blackness.
Likewise we should also say that "I am a Nappy headed Ho and proud of it." If we don't we buy into the concept that there is something wrong with being nappy headed or having sexual values that don't match the middle class norm. The blaming of hip hop artists is a neat distraction from the issues that stem from the politics of respectability or as I have called it in my writing; the ethics of discretion. We should flip the script and not deny our culture by buying in to the politics of
respectability in which we have to prove we are OK because we are like middle class white people i.e., not nappy headed or over sexed but beautifully coiffed, professional people who are appalled at being associated with "lower class" black people. It was sad to see so many black women, including the Rutgers women, feel forced to defend themselves as not being like the "real" hos. This is the same defense the negative rappers use when they say there is a difference between a good woman and a ho and they were only referring to the "real" hos.
In my book I talk about the blues sexual ethic in which black folks were not ashamed of who we were and did not conform to the sexual norms of white america. I know that I am nappy headed, like sex and have had sex outside of marriage with more than more woman. So I guess that makes me a Nappy headed ho as well. Before Jesse became concerned with his public image he would have led the charge to claim his "Ho ness" Perhaps because he has been outed as a "secret ho" along with brothers like Bill Cosby, Julius Erving, Michael Jordan, etc. ad infinitum, who once claimed
respectability, he has lost his edge. Let us stand together as academics who can deconstruct the politics of respectability and shout from the rooftops "I am a Nappy headed Ho and I am proud of it." One doctoral student suggested that we make T-Shirts with that signage and therefore publicly claim hour Ho-dom.
Date: April 19, 2007 11:11:20 AM EDT
From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]
I appreciate the numerous responses my thread has generated. I realize the kind of visceral reaction that the statement would generate. In trying to comply with the editor's request for a research based response. I would welcome public or private responses to my explication of black sexual ethics (Black Sexual Ethics: The Use and Misuse of Black Sexuality) into what I call "blues based", i.e. sexual attitudes that are founded in a sexuality developed by poor black folks who did not conform to the notions of sexuality, what I term the sexual ethics of discretion/spiritual ethics, that were a part of the middle class sexual ethics. These ethics were first described by E.F. Frazier in the Black Bourgeoisie or the politics of respectability as found nit E.Higginbotthom's work on the Black Baptist Church. It is interesting to me that the great ideological opponents Du Bois and Washington both castigated poor blacks in their works who did not conform to the middle class sexual norms. They almost made the adoption of these norms as a requirement for the entrance of blacks into American society. They held these views despite the fact they were involved in the same sexual behavior that they criticized in lower class blacks.(Martin Luther King's writings and behavior also reflect this dichotomy/attitude)
A part of my argument is that sexual norms are the products of ruling social classes. They have changed and will change as social structures change. For example, recent demographic data has shown that not just Black Americans, but American society as a whole is now composed primarily of single headed households. In the 60's and beyond black women, men, and the black family were vilified for this family structure. These figures will increase as gender based economic shifts continue to occur and the U.S. continues its economic reorganization from an agricultural/industrial society to a technological society with little need for the labor of poor and working class persons. These persons will be called the "hos" of our society despite the continued incursion of these trends into the white middle class because they don't have a way to defend their behavior and attitudes. However, their artistic productions will continue to be commodified. Black and white cultural commentators in the early 20th century decried the spread of the "jungle" music of the black lower classes. Middle class black churches would not play gospel music because it was blues based nor the spirituals because it reminded them of their slave past. The black and white guardians of social respectability warned the public about the negative influence that the blues and its offshoots was having on white youth and American society..
A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use. If we all claimed to be hos the meaning and effect of the word would change. The religious scholars recognize that to be called a Christian was once a word that warranted death, now it is a sign of respectability. I find this ironic because the erstwhile founder of that religion once embraced the hos of his society (Mary Magdalena, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, his mother Mary, the tax collector, the zealot, the leper, etc). Thank you all for your responses.
Rev. Dr. Donald H. Matthews
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:18 PM
From: Hayes Stamper [hstamper@advertain.tv]
TO: REV. DR. MATTHEWS
I challenge him on several points “A part of my argument is that sexual norms are the products of ruling social classes”, the traditional conservative sexual values expressed are not “white ruling class norms” but actually inherent in the ethos of our pan-African ancestry. I would invite the author to research the courting practices of Kenyan young people and the participation of both immediate families and extended clan, then look further into the role of class, status and royalty, he will find centuries old cultural norms that predate both IMPERIALISM and COLONIALISM. So if he wants to lay that at the door of middle class black bourgeoisie he will need to come with something stronger than a weak statement like that.
“These figures will increase as gender based economic shifts continue to occur and the U.S. continues its economic reorganization from an agricultural/industrial society to a technological society with little need for the labor of poor and working class persons. These persons will be called the "hos" of our society despite the continued incursion of these trends into the white middle class because they don't have a way to defend their behavior and attitudes”….Actually if you look at the data for the Europe, the marriage stats, single parenting stats and percentage of homosexuality, in all respects they are outpacing the US, and yet there does NOT seem to be a debasement of the Caucasian participants of alternative lifestyles.
“Middle class black churches would not play gospel music because it was blues based nor the spirituals because it reminded them of their slave past.” A statement with questionable historical evidence, such postulates can often be dismissed along with falsehoods such as “we only use 10 percent of our brain”..sounds nice, but where is the quantitative proof to back it up.
A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use. If we all claimed to be hos the meaning and effect of the word would change. The religious scholars recognize that to be called a Christian was once a word that warranted death, now it is a sign of respectability. I find this ironic because the erstwhile founder of that religion once embraced the hos of his society (Mary Magdalena, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, his mother Mary, the tax collector, the zealot, the leper, etc).
If there was ever a case to demonstrate the difference between learning, knowledge and understanding. The author states “erstwhile founder of that religion”, I think he means the pro-Pauline ideology as promoted by Rome, but it is theologically and historically clear, that Yeshua ben Yosef…started no new “religion”. The “hos” of his society, laughable, by that he must mean the Roman perpetrated humiliation of North African Semitic women, not a shred of evidence that the Jewish community of Judea addressed their women derogatorily.
And the best misuse of logic “A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use.” Kind of like changing his name from Ieuses the Kristos to Jesus the Christ.
Yours in Success,
Hayes H. Stamper II
From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Hayes Stamper
Subject: RE: I am Not a Ho
Dear Hayes:
Thank you for your response but I believe that I can support my statements. Even in Pan African precolonial societies there were always persons who didn't fit into the gender social norms. (see Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart).
In terms of the European situation you would have to examine how minorities are treated in those countries. Algerians in France, Turks in Germany, Jamaicans in Great Britain are all under verbal attack as these societies have less and less need of their labor.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the literature on African American church history and ethics. I would suggest you check out Higginbottham's work, Du Bois' Philadelphia Negro and Souls of Black Folks, the work Benjamin Mays, C. Eric Lincoln and numerous others before you assert that there is no evidence for my statements.
Linguistics courses begin with that assertioon based on the work of Whorf and Saussure among others. I was not speaking about Saul of Tarsus but of Jesus of Nazareth. All the types I mentioned were persons Jesus was criticized for being in relationship with during the course of his ministry.
I hope I am incorrect but Ihave a feeling that you will also discount the authors I have named based on your own ideological leanings. Please don't fulfill my negative expectations and check these authors out if you are not familiar with them.
peace and power,
Donald Matthews
FROM:Hayes Stamper [hstamper@advertain.tv]
SENT: Fri 4/20/2007 11:55 AM
TO: REV. DR. MATTHEWS
Dear Rev. Dr. Donald H. Matthews:
With your pardon, I have extended the dialogue to a few interested parties.
In the context of justifying the adoption of such a derogatory label as “ho”, to use Achebe’s seminal work as a defense is too far a stretch for any academic, wouldn’t you agree?
Perhaps I should have asked him back when spoke at Cornell back in the fall of 2005. I was delighted to hear his personal story and thought to myself how closely related it seemed to be, to the book “Kaffir Boy” by Mark Mathabane. I raise the title of the second book, because in the original Hebrew form, the word Keffa is joined to Kaffir, the term used by Yeshua to address the man you would probably only recognize via his Anglo designation, Peter. Kaffir is about as charged as “niggardly” or “ho”, so its historical context found in the man you called Iesus calling the “black one” to lead is really interesting, hopefully the irony will not be lost on you. An ever expanding appreciation of historical colloquialisms will hopefully let us see the folly of adopting “nappy-headed ho’s” as something to be embraced.
Point two, let’s take a look back at this country, we see the steady influx of Asians in sweatshops as well as the sex trade, Russians mopping the floors of Targets at midnight, and the iconic Mexican immigrant offering cheap labor in front of the Home Depot, in any of these cases do we see a media or cultural “label” applied to the sexuality of its women. All are at the bottom of the economic and social caste system, yet each seems to be able to move beyond the utterly senseless self perpetuation of negative stereotypes.
I am quite aware of DuBoise work, and am proud of the inclusion of several titles in my personal library “The Philadelphia Negro”, “Souls of Black Folks” as well as the “Litany of Atlanta”, being close to Morehouse in both local and spirit, I am well aware of Dr. May’s work, Howard Thurman’s and the list goes on. Actually, all are being examined in my forthcoming deconstruction of the Black Church, entitled “The MisEducation of the Black Christian”. Nonetheless, the role of African rhythms’ and chanting, the use of tambourines and drums, the lining of the hymns, call and response, the prominent display and status accorded to women wearing headdress, or crowns, all give evidence that the history of the Black Church embraced and absorbed much of its African origins and did not wholesale abandoned them as some have suggested.
On linguistics, the question is whether language determines thought or thought determines language, so in addition to solely relying on Whorf and Saussure, I recommend you consider the works of Claude Levi-Strauss, Tzvetan Todorov, and Roland Barthes.
Finally, it is not a simply a matter of ideological leanings, but looking at the evidence. And the evidence tells me, your original proposals
• “… Let us stand together as academics who can deconstruct the politics of respectability and shout from the rooftops "I am a Nappy headed Ho and I am proud of it…"
based on the misunderstanding that
• “..We should flip the script and not deny our culture by buying in to the politics of respectability in which we have to prove we are OK because we are like middle class white people…”
or that objecting to our black women being called “nappy headed ho’s” somehow invalidates our black self identity because it subscribes to
• "...white christian middle class sexual values..."
is UN-DEFENDABLE, but since black Christians have found a way to embrace an Anglicized Christ figure, maybe your arguments will find a home, but I will speak against just as Yeshua spoke against Manessah and corrupt Zaddokite high priest, or Jesus versus the Sadducees for those who are limited by that perspective.
Yours in Success,
Hayes H. Stamper II
In presidential race, who's getting techies' money?
In presidential race, who's getting techies' money?
By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/In+presidential+race%2C+whos+getting+techies+money/2100-1028_3-6178061.html
Story last modified Mon Apr 23 04:00:03 PDT 2007
The 2008 U.S. presidential race is already well under way, never mind that the election is nearly 19 months in the future.
Presidential hopefuls have raised more than $115 million so far this year, according to federal filings that became available last week. That's about four times the amount the candidates raised at this point four years ago.
To provide a glimpse into what kind of money is coming from computer programmers, engineers and Web types, CNET News.com compiled the following index. Based on these figures reflecting contributions in the first quarter of this year, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama seems to hold a slight edge over fellow Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton among people living and working in Seattle and Silicon Valley.
Among Republicans, Sen. Mitt Romney may have a slight lead in this area over former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Both Democratic candidates, however, have raised more money than their Republican counterparts. We scored only the top two fund-raisers from each major party, which left out other candidates including former Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, who is seeking the Republican nomination.
As for who's tech-friendliest among the current senators vying for the White House, not one received a passing grade in CNET News.com's 2006 technology voter guide. Clinton received a failing grade of 33 percent, and Obama did only slightly better with a 50 percent. McCain ranked worse than either, at 31 percent. (Here's our Tech Politics podcast talking about this topic with the Computer & Communications Industry Association.)
Total number of contributions received:
Clinton (D): 16,282
Obama (D): 20,459
Giuliani (R): 9,703
Romney (R): 14,832
Total dollar amount of contributions received, not including from political committees:
Clinton (D): $25,818,302
Obama (D): $25,706,054
Giuliani (R): $14,675,283
Romney (R): $20,841,938
Contributions listing occupation matching "Internet" or "computer":
Clinton (D): 13
Obama (D): 16
Giuliani (R): 7
Romney (R): 11
Contributions listing occupation matching "software":
Clinton (D): 25
Obama (D): 112
Giuliani (R): 8
Romney (R): 36
Contributions listing occupation matching "attorney" or "lawyer":
Clinton (D): 2,090
Obama (D): 3,170
Giuliani (R): 898
Romney (R): 965
Contributions listing occupation matching "executive":
Clinton (D): 581
Obama (D): 425
Giuliani (R): 411
Romney (R): 812
Contributions listing Recording Industry Association of America or the Motion Picture Association of America as employer:
Clinton (D): 3
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Google as employer:
Clinton (D): 13
Obama (D): 22
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 0
Contributions listing Cisco Systems as employer:
Clinton (D): 22
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 3
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Microsoft as employer:
Clinton (D): 10
Obama (D): 18
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 5
Contributions listing Apple Inc. or Apple Computer as employer:
Clinton (D): 3
Obama (D): 1
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Intel Corporation as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 4
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 2
Contributions listing Adobe Systems as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Jones Day, the second largest U.S. law firm, with about 240 attorneys in its Washington office, as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 92
Giuliani (R): 14
Romney (R): 2
Contributions listing San Francisco as address:
Clinton (D): 538
Obama (D): 416
Giuliani (R): 89
Romney (R): 99
Contributions listing New York, New York as address:
Clinton (D): 2,888
Obama (D): 1,546
Giuliani (R): 1,284
Romney (R): 453
Contributions listing Salt Lake City as address:
Clinton (D): 12
Obama (D): 21
Giuliani (R): 14
Romney (R): 532
Contributions listing Boston as address:
Clinton (D): 153
Obama (D): 95
Giuliani (R): 12
Romney (R): 282
Contributions listing Seattle as address:
Clinton (D): 48
Obama (D): 186
Giuliani (R): 9
Romney (R): 29
Contributions listing San Jose, Calif. as address:
Clinton (D): 40
Obama (D): 49
Giuliani (R): 5
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Berkeley, Calif. as address:
Clinton (D): 62
Obama (D): 108
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 4
Contributions listing Dallas as address:
Clinton (D): 41
Obama (D): 133
Giuliani (R): 409
Romney (R): 146
Contributions listing some form of church, such as Baptist, Mormon or Presbyterian, as an affiliation:
Clinton (D): 10
Obama (D): 20
Giuliani (R): 6
Romney (R): 8
Contributions listing occupation as "student":
Clinton (D): 136
Obama (D): 225
Giuliani (R): 55
Romney (R): 125
Contributions listing affiliation with a law school:
Clinton (D): 7
Obama (D): 37
Giuliani (R): 2
Romney (R): 0
Contributions listing affiliation with a business school:
Clinton (D): 3
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 12
Contributions listing occupation as "retired":
Clinton (D): 1,268
Obama (D): 1,655
Giuliani (R): 874
Romney (R): 1,457
Contributions listing occupation as "homemaker":
Clinton (D): 834
Obama (D): 508
Giuliani (R): 763
Romney (R): 1,690
Contributions listing occupation as "entrepreneur":
Clinton (D): 11
Obama (D): 27
Giuliani (R): 9
Romney (R): 42
Disclaimers: We're listing each contribution, not each person. So someone who signed up to have a credit card billed every month for three months would be counted as three contributions.
Our figures may understate actual contributors if we didn't catch all the abbreviations. For instance, the same group is listed as "Motion Picture Assoc. of America," "Motion Picture Assn. of America," and "Motion Picture Association of America." Also, if someone chooses not to give an affiliation, we can't count it.
By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/In+presidential+race%2C+whos+getting+techies+money/2100-1028_3-6178061.html
Story last modified Mon Apr 23 04:00:03 PDT 2007
The 2008 U.S. presidential race is already well under way, never mind that the election is nearly 19 months in the future.
Presidential hopefuls have raised more than $115 million so far this year, according to federal filings that became available last week. That's about four times the amount the candidates raised at this point four years ago.
To provide a glimpse into what kind of money is coming from computer programmers, engineers and Web types, CNET News.com compiled the following index. Based on these figures reflecting contributions in the first quarter of this year, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama seems to hold a slight edge over fellow Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton among people living and working in Seattle and Silicon Valley.
Among Republicans, Sen. Mitt Romney may have a slight lead in this area over former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Both Democratic candidates, however, have raised more money than their Republican counterparts. We scored only the top two fund-raisers from each major party, which left out other candidates including former Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, who is seeking the Republican nomination.
As for who's tech-friendliest among the current senators vying for the White House, not one received a passing grade in CNET News.com's 2006 technology voter guide. Clinton received a failing grade of 33 percent, and Obama did only slightly better with a 50 percent. McCain ranked worse than either, at 31 percent. (Here's our Tech Politics podcast talking about this topic with the Computer & Communications Industry Association.)
Total number of contributions received:
Clinton (D): 16,282
Obama (D): 20,459
Giuliani (R): 9,703
Romney (R): 14,832
Total dollar amount of contributions received, not including from political committees:
Clinton (D): $25,818,302
Obama (D): $25,706,054
Giuliani (R): $14,675,283
Romney (R): $20,841,938
Contributions listing occupation matching "Internet" or "computer":
Clinton (D): 13
Obama (D): 16
Giuliani (R): 7
Romney (R): 11
Contributions listing occupation matching "software":
Clinton (D): 25
Obama (D): 112
Giuliani (R): 8
Romney (R): 36
Contributions listing occupation matching "attorney" or "lawyer":
Clinton (D): 2,090
Obama (D): 3,170
Giuliani (R): 898
Romney (R): 965
Contributions listing occupation matching "executive":
Clinton (D): 581
Obama (D): 425
Giuliani (R): 411
Romney (R): 812
Contributions listing Recording Industry Association of America or the Motion Picture Association of America as employer:
Clinton (D): 3
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Google as employer:
Clinton (D): 13
Obama (D): 22
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 0
Contributions listing Cisco Systems as employer:
Clinton (D): 22
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 3
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Microsoft as employer:
Clinton (D): 10
Obama (D): 18
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 5
Contributions listing Apple Inc. or Apple Computer as employer:
Clinton (D): 3
Obama (D): 1
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Intel Corporation as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 4
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 2
Contributions listing Adobe Systems as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 0
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Jones Day, the second largest U.S. law firm, with about 240 attorneys in its Washington office, as employer:
Clinton (D): 1
Obama (D): 92
Giuliani (R): 14
Romney (R): 2
Contributions listing San Francisco as address:
Clinton (D): 538
Obama (D): 416
Giuliani (R): 89
Romney (R): 99
Contributions listing New York, New York as address:
Clinton (D): 2,888
Obama (D): 1,546
Giuliani (R): 1,284
Romney (R): 453
Contributions listing Salt Lake City as address:
Clinton (D): 12
Obama (D): 21
Giuliani (R): 14
Romney (R): 532
Contributions listing Boston as address:
Clinton (D): 153
Obama (D): 95
Giuliani (R): 12
Romney (R): 282
Contributions listing Seattle as address:
Clinton (D): 48
Obama (D): 186
Giuliani (R): 9
Romney (R): 29
Contributions listing San Jose, Calif. as address:
Clinton (D): 40
Obama (D): 49
Giuliani (R): 5
Romney (R): 1
Contributions listing Berkeley, Calif. as address:
Clinton (D): 62
Obama (D): 108
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 4
Contributions listing Dallas as address:
Clinton (D): 41
Obama (D): 133
Giuliani (R): 409
Romney (R): 146
Contributions listing some form of church, such as Baptist, Mormon or Presbyterian, as an affiliation:
Clinton (D): 10
Obama (D): 20
Giuliani (R): 6
Romney (R): 8
Contributions listing occupation as "student":
Clinton (D): 136
Obama (D): 225
Giuliani (R): 55
Romney (R): 125
Contributions listing affiliation with a law school:
Clinton (D): 7
Obama (D): 37
Giuliani (R): 2
Romney (R): 0
Contributions listing affiliation with a business school:
Clinton (D): 3
Obama (D): 3
Giuliani (R): 1
Romney (R): 12
Contributions listing occupation as "retired":
Clinton (D): 1,268
Obama (D): 1,655
Giuliani (R): 874
Romney (R): 1,457
Contributions listing occupation as "homemaker":
Clinton (D): 834
Obama (D): 508
Giuliani (R): 763
Romney (R): 1,690
Contributions listing occupation as "entrepreneur":
Clinton (D): 11
Obama (D): 27
Giuliani (R): 9
Romney (R): 42
Disclaimers: We're listing each contribution, not each person. So someone who signed up to have a credit card billed every month for three months would be counted as three contributions.
Our figures may understate actual contributors if we didn't catch all the abbreviations. For instance, the same group is listed as "Motion Picture Assoc. of America," "Motion Picture Assn. of America," and "Motion Picture Association of America." Also, if someone chooses not to give an affiliation, we can't count it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Justice Clarence Thomas may be 'color blind,' but his mentor wasn't
By Clarence Page
Originally published March 13, 2007
WASHINGTON // In the 1960s, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart declared that he could not define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does not define affirmative action in the same way that a lot of other people do, but he knows when he has not benefited from it.
He reveals that view and more in a rare and surprisingly expansive interview with BusinessWeek senior writer Diane Brady, posted on the magazine's Web site.
Advertisement
Justice Thomas granted this rare interview because Ms. Brady was writing an article about his beloved college mentor, the Rev. John E. Brooks, former president of the College of the Holy Cross.
Father Brooks' story is instructive. Back in 1968, when American cities were on fire with riots, assassinations and antiwar demonstrations, he was the prestigious Massachusetts college's academic dean who set out to recruit African-Americans.
To him, that meant doing something more than placing a want ad in the newspapers that said, "We're here." He went out to inner-city Catholic schools (most public schools turned him away, he says) and offered scholarships. He even drove some promising kids to the Worcester, Mass., campus to check it out. One of them was Edward P. Jones, who went on to write the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Known World.
"The fact that he had driven down from Massachusetts" to Mr. Jones' home in Washington, D.C. "told me something in a very quiet way," Mr. Jones told the magazine.
That year, the number of African-Americans entering the school soared to 28 from an average of about two per class. Father Brooks promised opportunities and scholarships to the youngsters but no special breaks or programs to ease their transition. He pushed them not only to meet but to exceed the school's high academic standards.
Besides Mr. Thomas and Mr. Jones, that pioneer group also included Ted Wells, The National Law Journal's 2006 Lawyer of the Year and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's attorney. Other alumni of that group include investment banker Stanley E. Grayson and former pro football player Eddie J. Jenkins, who now chairs the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission.
Today, Justice Thomas is a fierce opponent of affirmative action, while Mr. Wells, a co-chairman of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Board of Directors, strongly defends it. Yet, like many of their classmates, both think the world of Father Brooks, and it is easy to see why. He did precisely what an ideal affirmative action plan is supposed to do. He wasn't satisfied with waiting for a diverse talent pool to come to him. He went out, found it and recruited it. Once the students were enrolled, he kept an eye on them as he would with any other students, but by their own accounts left them largely to find their own way and succeed without special breaks.
Yet, when Ms. Brady asked him directly, Justice Thomas was quick to deny that he benefited from affirmative action. "Oh, no," he said. "I was going to go home to Savannah," after he left a Missouri seminary, "when a nun suggested Holy Cross. That's how I wound up there," Mr. Thomas said.
"I was never recruited," he said. "I just showed up. But somebody had to recognize it was a good place to be, and it was a Franciscan nun. The others were recruited."
Fine. As I have often said, what's important in such matters is not how you got into college but how you leave. Affirmative action at its best opens doors, but it does not guarantee results. For that, you're on your own.
What concerns me more is Justice Thomas' own enlistment policies. When he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy testified in the high court's budget hearing Thursday before the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, asked about the diversity of their clerks. Justice Thomas expressed an odd sort of pride in his clerks' uniformity. "Mine happen to be all white males," he said of his clerks. "I don't have quotas."
In other words, the sort of program Father Brooks followed to increase nonwhite enrollment in Holy Cross is precisely what Justice Thomas has no intention to do with the Supreme Court's highly competitive clerk positions. I respect his view, but I prefer Father Brooks' idea
Originally published March 13, 2007
WASHINGTON // In the 1960s, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart declared that he could not define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does not define affirmative action in the same way that a lot of other people do, but he knows when he has not benefited from it.
He reveals that view and more in a rare and surprisingly expansive interview with BusinessWeek senior writer Diane Brady, posted on the magazine's Web site.
Advertisement
Justice Thomas granted this rare interview because Ms. Brady was writing an article about his beloved college mentor, the Rev. John E. Brooks, former president of the College of the Holy Cross.
Father Brooks' story is instructive. Back in 1968, when American cities were on fire with riots, assassinations and antiwar demonstrations, he was the prestigious Massachusetts college's academic dean who set out to recruit African-Americans.
To him, that meant doing something more than placing a want ad in the newspapers that said, "We're here." He went out to inner-city Catholic schools (most public schools turned him away, he says) and offered scholarships. He even drove some promising kids to the Worcester, Mass., campus to check it out. One of them was Edward P. Jones, who went on to write the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Known World.
"The fact that he had driven down from Massachusetts" to Mr. Jones' home in Washington, D.C. "told me something in a very quiet way," Mr. Jones told the magazine.
That year, the number of African-Americans entering the school soared to 28 from an average of about two per class. Father Brooks promised opportunities and scholarships to the youngsters but no special breaks or programs to ease their transition. He pushed them not only to meet but to exceed the school's high academic standards.
Besides Mr. Thomas and Mr. Jones, that pioneer group also included Ted Wells, The National Law Journal's 2006 Lawyer of the Year and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's attorney. Other alumni of that group include investment banker Stanley E. Grayson and former pro football player Eddie J. Jenkins, who now chairs the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission.
Today, Justice Thomas is a fierce opponent of affirmative action, while Mr. Wells, a co-chairman of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Board of Directors, strongly defends it. Yet, like many of their classmates, both think the world of Father Brooks, and it is easy to see why. He did precisely what an ideal affirmative action plan is supposed to do. He wasn't satisfied with waiting for a diverse talent pool to come to him. He went out, found it and recruited it. Once the students were enrolled, he kept an eye on them as he would with any other students, but by their own accounts left them largely to find their own way and succeed without special breaks.
Yet, when Ms. Brady asked him directly, Justice Thomas was quick to deny that he benefited from affirmative action. "Oh, no," he said. "I was going to go home to Savannah," after he left a Missouri seminary, "when a nun suggested Holy Cross. That's how I wound up there," Mr. Thomas said.
"I was never recruited," he said. "I just showed up. But somebody had to recognize it was a good place to be, and it was a Franciscan nun. The others were recruited."
Fine. As I have often said, what's important in such matters is not how you got into college but how you leave. Affirmative action at its best opens doors, but it does not guarantee results. For that, you're on your own.
What concerns me more is Justice Thomas' own enlistment policies. When he and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy testified in the high court's budget hearing Thursday before the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, asked about the diversity of their clerks. Justice Thomas expressed an odd sort of pride in his clerks' uniformity. "Mine happen to be all white males," he said of his clerks. "I don't have quotas."
In other words, the sort of program Father Brooks followed to increase nonwhite enrollment in Holy Cross is precisely what Justice Thomas has no intention to do with the Supreme Court's highly competitive clerk positions. I respect his view, but I prefer Father Brooks' idea
Whose oil is it, anyway?
International Herald Tribune
Antonia Juhasz
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO: Today more than three-quarters of the world's oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn't always this way.
Until about 35 years ago, the world's oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.
They are among the world's largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.
Iraq's oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list.
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would — if passed — go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The law would take the majority of Iraq's oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force), which included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve.
It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq's economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president's benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al- Maliki, a fact that Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, General William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law's revenue-sharing plan, under which the central Iraqi government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis.
But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law's many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq's oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.
The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current "instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.
The vast majority of Iraq's oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country's economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry's preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq's draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world's oil.
Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.
Iraq's five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting "the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people."
They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.
Antonia Juhasz
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO: Today more than three-quarters of the world's oil is owned and controlled by governments. It wasn't always this way.
Until about 35 years ago, the world's oil was largely in the hands of seven corporations based in the United States and Europe. Those seven have since merged into four: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.
They are among the world's largest and most powerful financial empires. But ever since they lost their exclusive control of the oil to the governments, the companies have been trying to get it back.
Iraq's oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list.
A new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would — if passed — go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The law would take the majority of Iraq's oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force), which included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve.
It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq's economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president's benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al- Maliki, a fact that Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, General William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.
The administration has highlighted the law's revenue-sharing plan, under which the central Iraqi government would distribute oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis.
But the benefits of this excellent proposal are radically undercut by the law's many other provisions — these allow much (if not most) of Iraq's oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies.
The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts, into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies.
The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — fields open to foreign control.
The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current "instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.
The vast majority of Iraq's oil would then be left underground for at least two years rather than being used for the country's economic development.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry's preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq's draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world's oil.
Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.
Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.
Iraq's five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting "the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people."
They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
BIZDOM U. creates the business leaders of tomorrow
Dan Gilbert, Chairman and Founder of Quicken Loans Inc. and the majority owner of the NBA Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team has founded an entrepreneur boot camp on the campus of Wayne State University.Participating in the program of excellence is University of Michigan graduate, Chanell Scott.
www.bizdom.com
Monday, February 12, 2007
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Still A Slave in 2007: Ras Kass vs Capitol Records
Anyone who wants to get in the music industry needs to read this open letter just so you can understand how sinister some of these major record labels can get. What Ras Kass describes is a straight up share cropping system. The lawsuit tactic they employed is outright scary. If you think we've made it in 2007 think again-Prince once upon a time had to resort to putting the word slave on his cheek because of a similar situation. Ras Kass may not have that word emblazoned on his body but from what he broke down, he's just that a slave to the corporate power structure.
Read this and learn people
Open letter from Ras Kass to Capitol Records:
As a corporation, EMI/Capitol Records has a financial obligation to it's shareholders to make sure that it's stock goes up each quarter, but at some point isn't there some ethical obligation to it's employees (artists) to be humane and show some degree of moral turpitude? Furthermore, can't these two ideals coexist, especially in my case?
It seems to me and many others that since the year 2000 Capitol is either unable or unwilling to offer me an opportunity to (1) release and market my music and (2) thereby allow me to generate income for myself and the company. So the logical and fiscal thing to do would be to allow a third party capable of successfully translating my talent into profit, do just that. Instead I've been foiled in every attempt to either work within the confines of Capitol; when I've tried to find any amicable way of bringing in any interested third party I've been thwarted by egomaniacal executives who refuse to be the least bit reasonable in my efforts to work out a solution for all parties involved.
For six years EMI/Capitol has enforced a contract that they have breached time after time, paying attorneys thousand of dollars to bind me to a record deal that they themselves refuse to honor. I ask you, how is not allowing me to generate ANY income financially viable for their shareholders? How is not allowing me to work within or outside the company for six years morally justifiable? Now, after an entire decade, one third of my life, watching this label's entire artists' roster change at least five times over, I simply would like to ask why? Why are you doing this to me?
Full Article...
Venezuela's President Chavez to Allow Companies Minority Stakes in Nationalized Oil Projects
CARACAS, Venezuela Jan 13, 2007 (AP)— President Hugo Chavez said Saturday his government will allow private companies to own minority stakes in lucrative Orinoco River basin oil projects that Venezuela plans to nationalize.
Chavez announced plans earlier this week for the state to take control of the country's largest telecommunications company, its electricity and natural gas sectors and four heavy crude upgrading projects now controlled by some of the world's top oil companies.
It had not been clear whether Chavez intended for the state to have total control of the projects or a majority stake as his government had previously said.
In a speech to congress Saturday, Chavez said the private companies British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Total SA and Statoil ASA would be given the option to stay on as minority partners.
"He who wants to stay on as our partner, we'll leave open the possibility to him. He who doesn't want to stay on as a minority partner, hand over the (oil) field and, goodbye," he said.
"Goodbye, good luck and thank you very much," Chavez added in English.
Chavez's government has already taken majority ownership of all other oil-producing operations in the country through joint ventures controlled by the state oil company. Most companies have shown a willingness to continue investing despite the tightening terms, which have also included tax and royalty increases.
Chavez, who was giving his annual state of the nation address, said the joint ventures, which were formed last year, have saved the government some $6 billion in costs.
Venezuela, consistently among the top five suppliers of crude to the U.S., also increased royalties on the four Orinoco projects last year from 16.6 percent to 33.3 percent. Chavez said the move earned the government an extra $840 million in the second half of 2006.
The United States is the top buyer of Venezuelan oil.
Friday, January 05, 2007
China courts Africa with aid, projects
BISSAU, Guinea-Bissau - China paid for the marble and tile parliament building soaring above the crumbling homes of this former Portuguese colony, and is also promising a dam and a military hospital — all with none of the political strings Western donors might attach.
Intent on cementing ties across Africa, China is active even in impoverished Guinea-Bissau, a small nation with little industry, no oil and few exports.
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing ended a two-day visit here Thursday, part of a tour that includes Chad, Benin, Central African Republic, Eritrea and Mozambique. Li arrived from Equatorial Guinea, Africa's third-largest oil producer, where he agreed to forgive about $75 million in debt.
China is not like the World Bank, they don't attach all these conditions on the money," said Edmundo Vaz, a former adviser to the Guinea-Bissau Finance Ministry who now runs a bank.
"The West makes us wait, but we're a poor country — we don't have time wait," he said.
Full Article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)