How one breakthrough candidate dampened my excitement for the next

Standard

The quickest of the quickest background needed for this piece – 1. I am a life long Democrat voter and 2. I voted for President -soon to be former – President Obama twice.

I still remember the Election Day from that year. The day just carried an excitement, I remember hearing people honking in the streets as they – as we waited for the tally to come in to confirm what so many people expected, hoped for – America had elected its first Black president.

The next election, 2012, was a decidedly less exciting affair. I don’t remember the day, the excitement. I do remember voting – this time I did early voting. The lines were long, but  the weather was pleasant. The only celebrity I met in person was Mario Van Peebles who stopped by to “encourage” the voters to stay in the voting line and actually vote I suppose.

The novelty of the first African American president(technically he is mixed, but I feel confident his race will be recorded as African American) had been greatly lowered. These people elected to their jobs were, well, expected to do their jobs. I was increasingly aggravated by the slow process that change that Obama administration had promised.

And to be more honest, I didn’t even remember what I wanted the Obama administration to accomplish. I just got caught up in the day to day fights of Democrats vs Republicans, but I had no overarching dreams/goals for the administration to accomplish. Wow, that’s sad to say, but when I announce myself as a life long Democrat, essentially I am saying that I took my marching orders as far as the most important issues from the Democratic party. Abortion, gun rights, social issues – I had an opinion about these issues because they were the issues being talked about.

Enter Madame Hilary Clinton. The supposed first female president  of the United States. And I didn’t care.  I knew the Hillary Clinton name from years of public use, she was a woman, I do believe women are capable of handling leadership roles. But her gender didn’t matter to me. I had learned from watching President Obama.

Skin color and sex didn’t matter. It comes down to whether she could do the job.

And I didn’t know if she could. Moreover, I didn’t trust her to do the job.

So I didn’t vote for her. I didn’t vote for Trump. For the first time, in my voting life, I didn’t vote at all. I felt embarrassed not to be able to say that I voted for someone.But I didn’t believe the other candidates had a chance and I don’t believe in a protest vote.

 

 

 

Saying no to a black collective

Standard

It’s been a twisted road getting here, but after discarding most of my support of feminism, and a generalized SJWism, I have arrived here – turning away from a path of black collectivism.

I’m tired and feel weird even typing this but I want to go on record and well, record this moment. Also, I want to figure out how on earth I got here.

Maybe it as all building up. Saying good bye to one type of collectivism after another (4th wave feminism, SJWism) so it made sense that I also would say good by to black collectivism for brevity let’s say it happened in three phases.

  1. Feeling obligated to support (i.e. spend money on) movies I didn’t want to see.
    1.  Red Tails, 12 Years a Slave, Roots, most recently Birth of a Nation – there seemed to be a slew of movies released whose marketing included the implicit and sometimes explicit message that my blackness obligated me to see. My skin color, not my tastes, my own desires. Go because you are black. I rarely go to the movies now (I have internet access is a sufficient explanation), so I need to be excited enough, interested enough in a movie to persuade myself to dish out the dollars. So I was growing increasingly annoyed how I, myself, me who resides underneath this skin was being IGNORED and told to come to the movies in service of others.
    2. Black collectivism demands that you treat others of your ilk like a charity.
    3. Black collectivism speaks of a unspecified, vague explanation that support (my money) is required for “the greater good.” What greater good? To help others grow rich. What good does an individual black person being rich do for the collective? Well, it boosts black people’s image to the wider world – Hmm, ok. It Allegedly it will also benefit other black people because this black company will hire black workers and will spend money in black communities. Well, this would only apply to small mom and pop black businesses – businesses anchored in the black community. But I see the buy black to support other blacks applied to large “black owned” conglomeromates as well- the formerly black owned Carol’s Daughter, . When Tidal attempted to spin a yarn of being black owned I possibly damaged my eyeballs from rolling them so hard. buy black is a comforting pr spin but not really beneficial as well.
    4. Black collectivism is based on non issued promises.
      1. Touchy example-a black person buys a nother black person’s movie tickets to support what a black person is doing. They bought the ticket becuase they had been taught that they were obligated to, that purchase symbolize them holding up their part of the bargain. However it comes out tht the movie director/actor that you bought the ticket to support is a Republican married interracially or is living in some other way that you do not approve of – promises not kept. Queue the outraged social media protests. Stuff the online outrage says I of today. Because the person did not make any explicit promises to you. Accept it or move on.
    5. Black collectivism stuffs you in a box and relies on guilt and shame to keep you there.
      1. certain behaviors such as the music you are suppose to like to the way you dress talk and style your hair

Another #bbhmm essay i.e. I don’t buy Rihanna as a bill collector

Standard

BBBHM is a tale of revenge, that was highly celebrated in some circles and highly criticized in others.

In my circle of one (I complete me), I was …. than enthused with the video and the song for that matter.

  1. Revenge is a dish best served cold is how the saying goes. That is true for the person who is perpetrating the avenging actions. For those who witness such actions to sympathize and later route for the actor causing violence and havoc it is best to “feel” for their character – be outraged at their betrayal, see the devastating effects of that betrayal – on a personal emotional level and any subsequent concrete effects.
    1. The real word inspiration for Rihanna’s revenge fantasy was the fact that Rihanna’s accountant had alleged stolen money – $9 million to be approximate – (not so much stolen as gave really crummy accounting advice), regardless under his wisdom the Bajan beauty found herself nearly bankrupt by the end of 2009.
      1. Regardless of the cause, rumors about the main actors in Rihanna’s financial drama have been circulating for years. The thing is – Rihanna never came out and cried broke, gave any interviews (that I recall and none that an admittedly quick google search revealed) about her pain about being taken advantage of or experiencing Hollywood star levels of poverty. I heard the stories, looked at Rihanna – the glamour, the clothes, the homes, the travel and…..everything looked fine, so I moved on, nothing to see here, nothing to worry or cry about over here.
      2. In othe words, as an audience member I wasn’t exactly demanding that RiRi get retribution.
    2.  The character of Rihanna does not strike me as a bill collector. Yes #BBHMM is essentially a song about a bill collector. Bill collectors are demanding, dogged, unrelenting – hounding their targets at all times of the day and night, paying insistent attention to detail. The public personae/character of Rihanna is that of a stoner, a party girl, she throws shades and then goes back to the party. However else her actual private behaviors are, Rihanna’s behavior in public screams she will get sassy but overall stays in chill position.    That is to say I did not believe that the Rihanna was the right person to star in video/song. I believe the character of Rihanna wouldn’t have qualms about committing such acts I just don’t believe she would be the mastermind or the driving force behind this plot.

They said there would be riots in Boston….and there was….why?

Standard

Somehow, somewhere I heard that people would definitely riot in Boston come Sunday last.

And since I was told that it would be so, I immediately doubled down on my natural inclination to think that riots will NOT occur.

But….this happened.

And I want to want to know why did it happen? Can you accurately predict when a riot will occur? Who is rioting, who usually riots? But always coming back to my initial curiosity – how can you predict when a riot will occur?

***(I’ll also toss in, can’t promise that I will answer this time, ever burning question – do rioters ever destroy/riot outside of their own neighborhoods? , is that a line that separates a riot from a revolution?)

“Do Cooking TV Shows Make You Fat?”

Standard

“Do Cooking TV Shows Make You Fat?”

I laughed out loud when I saw this article’s title.

I loooovvve cooking TV shows, among my favorite are Good Eats (I re-watch reruns, that’s how much I heart this show) and currently my favorite cooking competition show is the Taste.

I laughed out loud because I realized I rarely actually cook what I see on tv.   A combination of costs of groceries, time to cook meals and even motivation to take on cooking show recipes that often are – if not complex – then definitely time consuming, often leaves me reaching for the simplest recipes. These simplest recipes usually come from myself – uhhm, steamed broccoli anyone, to random searches conducted online. Online I usually search for recipes for particular menu items that I already have or for dietary concerns.

I save my more adventurous cooking for the weekend, and even then costs plays a major role in my menu planning.

Cooking tv shows make you fat, **shaking my head with  a smile** well it made me chuckle on a really stressful Wednesday, so I think the article had value.

Child support: Mommy, Daddy and…..the State?

Standard

“Fair prejudices” held: Child support cases administered by the state ensure the neutral transfer of funds from one parent to the other.

Turns out I was absolutely wrong.

in part because the government uses fathers’ payments largely to recoup welfare costs rather than passing on the money to mothers and children. Close to half the states pass along none of collected child support to families on welfare, while most others pay only $50 a month to a custodial parent, usually the mother, even though the father may be paying hundreds of dollars each month.

Here’s the real world example:

Karla Hart, a struggling mother of four here, held out her monthly statement from the county child-support office.

Paid by the father: $229.40.

Amount deducted to repay federal costs of welfare: $132.18.

Her share: $97.22.

Then, what exactly is the point of state administered child support?

When Congress set up the current child support system in the 1970s, recovering welfare costs was an explicit goal, with some experts arguing that it was only fair for fathers to repay the government for sustaining their offspring and that giving families the money was a form of “double dipping.” But experience and research have suggested to most experts and state and federal officials from both parties that the policy is counterproductive — driving fathers into the underground economy and leaving families more dependent on aid

**Sigh, new “fair prejudice”: acknowledge that there is a price for everything and that there is always someone who foots the bill. And will look for a way to recoup their pay out.

*See original article: “Mothers scrimp as States take child support.”