BP SUCKS!

Click the pic for more info.

In case you didn’t know, BP has done next to nothing to correct its horrible missteps.

Mistake #1: Offshore drilling, period. You can thank G.W. for that, as he refused to acknowledge the existence of global warming, sign the Kyoto Protocol pledging to reduce emissions and committed countless other crimes against the environment (not to mention our civil liberties…but I digress).

Mistake #2: Drilling an extra  20 miles offshore where the pipeline is covered by even more water, making it that much harder to physically get to (it’s a mile beneath the ocean, you guys).

Mistake #3: Using an oil dispersant, Corexit, which has side effects that are even more severe than those of the actual oil. They used it in the Valdez oil spill. A pod of whales that were exposed to it have been tracked, and they haven’t reproduced since. There are better ways of cleaning this stuff. Hair can soak up several times its weight in oil (think about it–your hair always feels lighter after a goo shampoo, right?). Hairbooms are hair from humans and animals put into nylon stockings. So cheap and easy–go here for instructions on how you and your local salon can get involved.

This is pretty much a disaster all around. The oil could get into the Gulf Stream, disrupting ocean water salinity and doing God knows what to our already whacked out climate. Kit has written an eloquent and well-researched description of the worst case scenario, so I defer to her on that point. If you think I’m one of those bleeding heart liberals you’d be absolutely right, but I’m not being dramatic in this case. Just look at these pictures from National Geographic. If you think that’s healthy, I wonder why you even started reading this post.

Pray for the planet, y’all.

 

And they wonder why I wasn’t interested in Harvard…

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/04/29/stephanie-grace-racist-harvard-emailer/#

If you don’t want to read the above article, here’s the highlights. I’ve lifted a good 2/3 of the email in its entirety, so don’t think that I’m taking things out of context:

“The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.” – Stephanie Grace

I really don’t have the strength, nor the inclination, to refute her claims, especially since Jill of Feministe has done that thoroughly and eloquently at the above link. It just saddens me that there are still people today who believe this bullshit! The one thing I’ve hated my entire life is having my intelligence questioned. I know for a fact that I’m more mentally capable than our last President, but because of the color of my skin some people think that I’m not a force to be reckoned with.

This is exactly why I want to be a lawyer, so that I can help change our flawed system of justice from the inside. I’m not interested in the fat paychecks from corporate litigation work. In order for my soul to be at peace I need to be down in the trenches, doing labor law or health care law or some other public interest branch, working for the good of the masses. As the saying goes, “Let your haters be your motivators.” All the Stephanie Graces of the world need to watch out…because they’re not ready for me.

 

Poli-trickin’

A couple of things are going on in the political world right now…first of all, the healthcare bill went through! I’m so proud of my President (and the Democrats in Congress for finally getting it together). This is a huge step forward. As for those in the GOP claiming that this is a “tyranny of the majority”–child please. Democrats have been fighting for universal healthcare reform since FDR. And what about all the legislation (e.g., the Patriot Act) that Dubya pushed through while he was in office? The GOP majority wasn’t a tyranny then! I’m also super psyched that they snuck in some reforms on student loans. The government will no longer subsidize private loans, freeing up more money for federal loans that have lower interest rate caps. Sneaky? Not really. One thing I learned while rifling through all those bills at my last internship was that politicians sneak in unrelated issues all the time–for example, an anti-immigration bill may have a section that denotes higher taxes for lower income citizens, since they receive a disproportionate share of welfare dollars (well, duh).

Another thing that disturbs me is the rumblings in the black community over the use of the word “Negro” on the Census 2010 race box. People are saying that they are going to boycott the census because of it. This is a perfect example of how black people pick the wrong battles to fight! Information from the census is used to distribute federal funds for everything under the sun. Of course these funds will never be distributed in a way that pleases everybody, or always be given to the people who need it most, but by letting ourselves become unknowns we exacerbate the problem.

I get the rationale behind using the word “Negro”. It’s as simple as the difference between race and ethnicity. “African-American” is an ethnicity, and not something that many of us readily identify with. It’s true that our roots are in Africa, but most of us can’t point to the actual country we hail from. With the growing influx of African and Caribbean immigrants, “Negro” is a convenient catchall phrase that encompasses all of us. Now–would “Black” or “Black American” have been better choices? Perhaps. Certainly they would have been less controversial. But the government is all about convenience.  In the great game of Life, we all too often screw ourselves by bickering over which piece we’re going to use instead of figuring out how to turn the rules to our advantage.

****UPDATE 4/7/10******

Two great posts from the blog Sociological Images about Censuses around the world and the history of the race box on the U.S. census.

But what do y’all think? Are you afraid that the US is becoming a socialist state? Am I being insensitive about the census issue?

 

Charity begins at home

If you haven’t heard the news about Haiti, my guess is that you’re some sort of  hermit living in the woods without access to radio, tv, or internet. The news and the web have been inundated with pleas for donations and heartbreaking coverage of the devastation. No other reporter has been as involved as Anderson Cooper, who carried a boy to safety in the midst of looting. One of my friends was even featured on local television for starting a campus based group called Angels for Haiti, and they’ve already collected thousands of dollars. I have to say I’m really impressed by the outpouring of support. Charles Marrero is watching Hope for Haiti as I write.

But.

Something about the sensationalism of it all bothers me. It was the same way when Hurricane Katrina hit–everybody jumped on the bandwagon. To be fair, the African-American Student Union here at my school has gone down there for a week during every winter, spring and summer break since the tragedy. But I wonder why people don’t pull together with the same passion to feed the hungry and homeless in our own city. I saw a homeless guy on my way to the bank this afternoon, and it seemed that nobody but me gave him a second glance. I’ll be honest, I don’t give money to people on the street. But service to others has always been a part of my life. I may not be at the soup kitchen every weekend, but I go when I can. I did TONS of community service from first to twelfth grade through my involvement in church, Girl Scouts and National Honor Society. I’m going to law school and I plan to eventually work in public service. Not just because of the loan forgiveness programs, either– I can’t see myself wasting away in corporate America, grinding out 60 hour workweeks for a promotion that’s rewarded by 70 hour workweeks. All this just to help big businesses make more money? Not really my thing, and exactly the reason why I didn’t go into marketing & advertising. Loved the creative challenge, but couldn’t stand the thought of just peddling goods to consumers. I’m digressing here, so let me get back on track.

Bottom line is, it just annoys me that people can have such compassion for people halfway across the country or around the world, but can’t be bothered to do the little things that help their own communities. I get that time is a precious commodity, and that mentoring a child is a huge commitment of your time and even your emotions. But why is it that we can shell out money to the Red Cross for Haiti or Darfur or Taiwan, but we won’t donate to a local hospital that mostly serves the impoverished? Or make a contribution to the battered women’s shelter? Or drop off some canned goods at a soup kitchen? Is it really that inconvenient? I think not, especially in this day and age where political candidates get millions of campaign dollars from online contributions.

Just something to think about…

 

Black Women and the Feminist Mistake

One of my favorite bloggers, Kit over at Keep It Trill wrote about the new Yale study that states what we all know to be true: that roughly half of college educated black women will never get married or have children. She cites this fact, along with abortion to make her argument that cultural forces which helped white women are acting as a sort of “genocide lite” for black people. Please note that this is a very simplistic summary of her views, so you really should read her post in order to understand where she’s coming from on that. Very Smart Brothas explored a similar argument a couple of weeks ago, wondering if the black middle class would render itself extinct.

I myself have briefly explored how the choice to be a housewife has become controversial, as well as why many educated black women are still single. But it wasn’t until I began to comment on Kit’s post that I managed to consolidate my views in a more coherent way. She suggested that I write a post on it and I had some time on my hands, so here goes.

The feminist movement and all the changes that came with it–full access to contraceptives, legalized abortion, women’s ability to choose to work outside the home–were radically different than anything Western society had ever seen before. In all of my studies in history and sociology, I have never heard of a society besides ours in the 20th century, in which both parents worked outside the home. Societies are either matriarchal or patriarchal.  Egalitarianism exists only in the sense that men’s and women’s roles are valued equally, not in the sense that men and women can do the same things. I have always maintained that God made men and women different for a reason, and that we are better off when both genders perform the tasks that they are naturally best suited to do. This flies in the face of

Now, feminism hasn’t affected white women too adversely because whites on average have a higher socioeconomic status. When a white couple gets married, it is likely that their parent paid for all or most of the wedding–hence they are not starting their life in debt. Furthermore, both parties are likely to be the  beneficiaries of intergenerational wealth, which equals increased social mobility.* Getting a job isn’t a problem when daddy owns a company. Or it could just be that their parents are well enough off to have created a trust fund with which to pay for their children’s education. We must also consider that wealthy people have life insurance, and thus when they die their children don’t have to pay for the funeral and can receive an inheritance. Even if this inheritance is only $2000, the advantage incurred by each generation compounds. The second part of this scenario is that white women did not need to work outside the home. They simply fought for the right to work if they wanted to. So when a white woman starts juggling a career with her family and realizes that it’s too hard, she can become a housewife without qualms because the family doesn’t need her income to survive. Conversely, the precarious position of blacks in America meant that black women were working outside the home long before Susan B. Anthony was a glimmer in her daddy’s eye. Black women wanted to be able to pursue more lucrative work  in order to help their husbands, who were often put out of work because they seemed dangerous (because we all know black men are just one step away from  unleashing their primitive, beast-like urges**) or because immigrants would do the work cheaper.

After suffering under the twin oppressions of racism and sexism for so long, black women were thrilled to be able to rise to their potential. Since they were less threatening than their male counterparts and filled two diversity quotas to boot, they rapidly found success in higher education as well as the boardroom and eventually outpaced black men. So now we’re in a depressing situation where it seems all the “eligible” black men want anything but a black woman, and so we must all fight over the remaining few.

It’s unfortunate, but women can’t have it all. Men can’t have it all either–it’s just that they long ago accepted that in pursuing career success to provide for their families they would not be the primary caretaker in their children’s lives. Women feel guilty for being away from their children because we are biologically programmed to be nurturers. Matriarchal societies function because the women do all the important work but the men stay at home with the kids, so women don’t have to feel guilty.

So basically, if you are a black woman and you want to get an education and get married, you must date with intention. You don’t have time to waste on “friends with benefits” or other dead end relationships. It may sound frivolous, but I went off to college fully intending to obtain my B.S. and my MRS. My mother told me that once I left college/grad school, I would never again be around such a large pool of eligible bachelors with similar qualifications who are open to getting married. And survey says that she was right. You have to find someone to grow with, because once men finish school, they are content to spend the next 10 years building material wealth and will marry a younger (translation: more fertile) woman to build a family with. And young men don’t marry older women (again, it doesn’t make biological sense) so after 35 there really is a man shortage.

Finally, my last point: it’s not degrees that scare men off but bad attitudes. Don’t believe the hype, any man worth his salt wants a woman who has more to offer than a pretty face. Men want to be stimulated physically, emotionally and mentally. The problem is that black women have gotten so used to doing for themselves that it’s hard for them to cede the power in the relationship, and they will worry, nag and browbeat a man until all the fight’s gone out of him. There are certain universal truths about men that will make life a lot easier for women if they only accept it…but I’ll save that for the next installment.

There was a lot to chew on in this post so I know my readers have something to say…let me know what’s on your mind!

*Emily Beller & Michael Hout, “Intergenerational Social Mobility”

**In case you didn’t know, I was being sarcastic.

 

Contraceptive Equality

Via one of my favorite blogs, Single Black Male (you should really check it out!) I read an article on male birth control. Apparently we’re only a few years away from FDA approved pill for men. Here’s a quick excerpt:

For the first time, a safe, effective and reversible hormonal male contraceptive appears to be within reach. Several formulations are expected to become commercially available within the near future. Men may soon have the options of a daily pill to be taken orally, a patch or gel to be applied to the skin, an injection given every three months or an implant placed under the skin every 12 months, according to Seattle researchers.

…But will men take it? Some say yes, some say only if their partners make them, and other say they would never even consider it.     – John Schiezer, msnbc.com contributor

In case you’re wondering, the way this would work is that the contraceptive would reduce the man’s sperm count to almost zero, therefore making it the most effective form of birth control. All of the men in the study regained their full virility within 16 weeks of being off the pill.

Of course, I had to do a (very unscientific) poll of my male friends and the results were mixed. Some guys said sure, why not? Mr. Man said he would consider it if it was cheaper than condoms. Charles Marrero replied “What?!? It’s more fun if you don’t know whether or not she’s pregnant!” (Count on Señor Marrero to advance a serious conversation.) Those who were opposed to the pill made the argument was that it doesn’t protect against STDs and they would have to wear a condom anyway, thus doing double duty.

o_+   (in case you didn’t know, that’s an emoticon representation of me doing the side-eye)

Um HELLO, women have been doing double duty for ages! The pill is the most ubiquitous form of birth control and any woman who is serious about avoiding unwanted pregnancy is on it.* Despite the fact that women have been taking the Pill for a good 50 years now, it’s clearly it’s going to take a little bit of convincing to get men on it. Despite the fact that they are the bed-hopping gender (yeah, I know women screw around too but that’s a separate post) they aren’t used to bearing the burden of child prevention.

I’m sure the male pill will find some popularity amongst middle-aged married men who are done raising a family but don’t want a vasectomy. The pill is fine for young women, but as we age the risks of blood clots, elevated blood pressure and weight gain become much more threatening. IUDs (intrauterine devices) have never been hugely popular because getting one is an invasive procedure, and many women are simply uncomfortable with having a foreign object in their uterus.

So what do you think? Is this a viable idea, or destined to be another overlooked contraceptive option like the female condom? Discuss.

*Except maybe me. I tried it for about a year and I hated it. I felt bloated, generally out of sorts like I was PMSing all the time, and at the end of the day didn’t feel much like having $ex at all. When I found out that it was elevating my blood pressure (albeit only slightly), I called it quits and condoms are now my prevention of choice.

 

All the single ladies

As you may or may not know, it is widely alleged that the traditional black family is nearing extinction. The most oft-quoted statistic (Lord knows where it even came from!) says that 70% of black women will never get married. And the remaining 30% who do are shockingly devoid of highly educated, successful businesswomen partnered with men who match their impeccable credentials. If you’re a black woman, you’re hyperaware of your grim chances for achieving a stellar career and the man of your dreams. Arguments blaming each side have been tossed back and forth, but in the end it really comes back to the choices that women make. Let’s be real–the world population is still roughly 50% men, and even the black population more or less follows that distribution. For every two women I’ve heard complain that there are no good black men, I’ve heard a black men complain that there are no good black women–which means that conceivably, one of those two women could get a man. Now, I’m aware this is all anecdotal evidence and very imprecise, but you get the point. The excerpt below says it better:

“For some reason, every woman with a college degree now presumes herself to be a Michelle Obama looking for her Barack, when few of them have any of the other qualities that made Michelle a good catch: patience, vision and a sense of purpose and priority. She wanted a career, but she wanted to be a wife and a mother more, so she figured out what was important to her and made the necessary sacrifices. She didn’t just have a child baby-mama or turkey-baster-style—she wanted a husband and a family. You see? Love came first, it was the first consideration beyond her career. (What kind of lawyer-on-the-rise shackles herself to a broke community organizer driving a hoopty?) And her decisions paid off.

Love was first: that was her choice.” -Jimi Izrael, The Root

Now, I’m a frequent visitor of The Root and normally Jimi kinda works my nerves. But he’s got a point. Judging from my parents, aunts, uncles and married peers, if you don’t get married in college or within 3 years of graduating your chances of finding a man on your same level decrease exponentially. I know that 20 somethings are young, impulsive, and unstable. But there’s something to be said for settling down with someone you can grow with. If you are sure that you want to raise a family and  don’t have any particular need to sow some wild oats, then why date aimlessly? Why waste your time on flaky guys who just want to have fun? Why not date someone who treats you well, has a good idea of where he wants to be in life and will work hard to get there? Luck favors the well prepared (and the decisive). I’m not saying to settle, but the men aren’t going to be any better looking when you get older, and many of the ones who were inclined to get married early on will have been jaded by their experiences with women and want to just focus on themselves.

Thoughts?

I mean, it worked in Jason's Lyric. LOL!

 

Lessons from the Spousal Support Hustle, Pt. 2

Yesterday I spoke on the unfairness of men shelling out exorbitant amounts for child support and alimony. I know some people may disagree with me and say I’m being too harsh. Maybe Kelis is going to spend that extra $30,000 a month on educational toys and videos for the baby, a top of the line crib and car seat, etc. (HA!)

My question today is, where is the equity? The women’s movement has established that women want to be considered equal to men in all aspects. We insist on splitting the dinner bill, opening our own doors, So it’s only a matter of time until the application of the law catches up. Now that many women are making just as much, or more money than their husbands, what happens when a man files for alimony? I’m sure that any woman asked to fork over a monthly check to her ex-husband would raise hell. If alimony was enforced equally across the board, women would protesting and petitioning in a hot minute! But the fairer sex can’t keep demanding egalitarianism and special treatment for too much longer….

Drop me a comment! I’d love to hear some opinions on this.

 

Lessons from the Spousal Support Hustle

Word got out early last week that rapper Nas will be paying about $40,000 a month to his wife Kelis. $9,000 of that is in child support, while the other $30k is alimony to maintain Kelis’s lifestyle, because according to her lawyer, “her income has dipped in recent months.” Read a summary from AverageBro here.

I have to say that sounds a little suspect. Sure, he should pay for her (and by extension, his son) to have a place to live. But $30,000 a month? For what? Groceries aren’t that expensive! And seeing as Kelis is capable of earning money (she’s put out 5 albums, where did that money go?), Nas shouldn’t be responsible for keeping her draped in expensive clothing. I realize that alimony laws are set up to protect the survival of a lower-earning spouse, but where are the limits? Since when did women become entitled to a lifetime of luxury cars, diamonds and name brand clothing simply because they married and had a child by a rich man?

I think you should have to deal with the choices you make in life. If you drop out of high school, spend your time chasing down athletes and choose to divorce the one who foolishly knocks you up, because he’s still sleeping with groupies, that’s your fault! I don’t condone cheating, but I don’t condone stupidity either. If he was hoeing around when you met him, don’t expect him to stop just because he did his duty by you and put a ring on your finger. Famous, rich and powerful men have the option to “possess” many women, and they very seldom relinquish that option. So many of these celebrity marriages come from extramarital affairs and the non-marriage equivalent, and ladies, how you get him is how you lose him. If he cheated on and dumped another woman to get with you, don’t get too comfortable!

Final piece of advice to the ladies–stop the madness. Don’t marry a man for his money, and stop thinking a pretty face and a tight body mean you have the right to collect a fat check for getting knocked up.

 

I Call Shenanigans.

Okay, so the political climate right now is ridiculous. Maybe it’s just that I’m in D.C., where even the most apathetic of people can tell you what bills are going through Congress at any given time, but it’s kind of ticking me off. The newspapers out here have such a conservative bias that it’s ridiculous. When did it become acceptable for reporters to always be giving opinions on the news? Whatever happeneed to reporting “just the facts, ma’am”?

Of course, the latest sensation is Obama’s healthcare bill. Everyone is up in arms over how it will plunge us trillions of dollars in debt. First of all, national debt isn’t “real” to me. For example, the taxes we pay now aren’t going towards the debt that Obama is incurring. It’s paying off the interest on the national debt we have already incurred. The government has been spending more money than it has taken in since 1969, so we would have to sustain a surplus for many years to pay off the debt fully. Bottom line for me is, since we’re going to be adding to the national debt anyway, I would much rather it be for a reasonable cause like universal healthcare.

That brings me to the criticisms against the bill. Some folks have insisted that the healthcare reform will cripple private insurance and create a government monoply. That’s crazy! Poor people who can’t afford private insurance will opt for the goverment plan, just like Medicaid and Medicare work. Most people who can afford good private insurance coverage will probably keep it. The other thing that I’ve heard is that universal healthcare will lead us down a slippery slope to *gasp* SOCIALISM! [insert doomsday music here]

Really, you guys? Let’s not regress to McCarthyism, please. I actually had a Libertarian coworker of mine say that she’s afraid Obama will create a dictatorial regime because he’s a Democrat, and there’s a Democratic majority in Congress. Ummm….Obama is black, so we can all guess what would happen to him if were dumb enough to attempt that. *side-eye* At any rate, universal healthcare does NOT equal socialism. Let’s take it back to political science 101, shall we?

Socialist goverments operate on the principles of cooperative ownership of the means of production, and equal allocation of resources to all. Does this sound like the United States government now, or at any point in its history? NO! It does not. Social welfare programs help address the unequal allocation of resources, but capitalism is still king. So can we stop with the silliness already?