It’s time to Break It Down!

Another week, another election; we are now in full swing. Yesterday the state of New Hampshire held the first Primary of the Election Season. Last week’s voting in Iowa comprised a series of Caucuses for both Parties. During those Caucuses the favorites were challenged, and upset in one case, winning by fractions of a percentage in the other.

Donald Trump led in the polling in Iowa right up to Election Day last Monday. Ted Cruz eclipsed him in an upset, winning by 4 percentage points. Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders, but given the margin of error, was in a statistical tie. The results mirrored the polls, as Clinton won by mere hundreds of a percentage point, both candidates garnering over 49% of the vote.

Last night, the polling favorites not only held their serve, they dominated the election results. In a race that still includes numerous candidates in New Hampshire (28 candidates on the Democratic side, 30 on the Republican side), Bernie Sanders was leading his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, by 20 percentage points, 59% to 39%, with 39% of precincts reporting. On the GOP side, Trump, who has a greater number of serious rivals compiled an even more substantial lead, more than doubling second place finisher John Kasich, and nearly tripling third place finisher Ted Cruz, 34%, 16%, and 12%.

If before the Election Season ensued, anyone had suggested that a political neophyte and an Independent running as a Democratic Socialist would capture a second place finish and a first place finish for the two major political party’s first two elections of the Season, no savvy political observer would have believed the person suggesting that was sane, and certainly not correct. Yet, here we are; that is precisely what has happened.

So all of a sudden, summer and fall have given way to winter, and the time for hollow speculating is over; we are now taking names and counting votes. The notion of those “wild and crazy” guys, Sanders and Trump, falling by the wayside has been vanquished.

Mr. Trump who boasts that he is self-funded, but who benefits daily from free media, undoubtedly valued at more than most candidates could afford to purchase, has the wherewithal to stay in the fray as long as he chooses. Senator Sanders, who early on drew very little notoriety, and very long odds, has grown his campaign immeasurably, and sparked a national fundraising apparatus that rivals or exceeds at this point in time that of former Senator Barack Obama in 2008. His millions of donors have enabled him to take funding the campaign off the list of things he needs to be concerned about in the near term. These two upstarts will not be exiting the field of candidates anytime soon.

Senator Clinton, who was the odds on favorite on the Democratic side, and who still leads in national polling, though by a much slimmer margin than at the outset, knows that she is in a race that could unfold much differently than she had anticipated. Without question, her campaign feels that the demographic dynamics are about to shift in their favor, and they may well do so.

Next on the list of Primary States is South Carolina, a state where 50% or more of the voting population may be comprised of minorities. This traditionally has been the meat and potatoes of the Clinton campaign machinery. However, Senator Sanders has been upping his game, as it were, in his pursuit of key demographic components of the Obama Coalition, including young voters, women, and yes, African Americans. While I am not convinced that he will win the African American demographic, he clearly has made major inroads with women and young voters. This has to be a major concern to Team Clinton, and you can believe it has them going back to the drawing board.

The phenomenon that is Trump has proved to be a major disruption in GOP establishment circles. It is necessary to consider though, that if you read the tea leaves associated with GOP polling and elections, the establishment is currently considered a big part of, if not the problem itself. So as candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich hone their individual campaign strategy for handling/dealing with Donald Trump, they must also scramble to ascertain their place in the Party Scrum, better known as the GOP Debates.

In the last debate, Chris Christie excoriated Rubio, in an effort to weaken the Senator, while strengthening his own cred. By all accounts it seemed to have had a boomerang effect. Rubio, who was aglow after Iowa, where he finished third, and practically declared himself the winner, lost ground with New Hampshire voters and appears to be looking at no better than a fifth place finish. He found this sorely disappointing, blamed his low finish on his poor debate performance, and promised his supporters, “It will never happen again.” We’ll see. The boomerang part of the analogy is the screed, worse case, came back to haunt him, best case, provided absolutely no lift as he finished an even more disappointing sixth (out of eight).

Last week, I framed part of the discussion in terms of winners and losers. Today, in my view, there is a tie for the biggest winner label. Both Sanders and Trump take home the Gold in yesterday’s contests. Sanders had long held a lead in New Hampshire, and he was expected to win big there. The Clinton Campaign had hoped to narrow the margin. It does not appear they succeeded. Congratulations Senator Sanders.

Trump had led for most of the time in Iowa. In the end he faltered. Whether it was because he skipped a Fox News GOP Debate is, well debatable. Regardless of the contributing factors, his brand (winning) was tarnished. That he rebounded in New Hampshire was part redemption, and part historical moment. It was the first election victory for Team Trump.

On the flip side, since the Democrats have only two candidates left, it’s quite simple; either you win, or you lose. Mrs. Clinton did not win. If there is anything positive to derive from this for Secretary Clinton, it is that she can exhale and put Iowa, a virtual tie, and New Hampshire, a thumping of a loss, behind her. Bring on the Palmetto State, at least that is what she hopes.

Back to the Republicans, John Kasich, an establishment candidate, and outlier at once, also won. He was not the biggest winner; that was Trump, but he won nonetheless. His establishment bona fides accrue from being Ohio’s Governor. However, he has chosen to take, from a GOP perspective, an outlier’s stance. He is the only Republican who sounds, most of the time anyway, as though he has no personal vendetta against the government as an operational entity. A second place finish for him must be seen as even more impressive than Senator Rubio’s third place finish last week. Also, Senator Cruz and Governor Bush, the likely third and fourth place finishers, respectively, won last night. That’s half the GOP field, and half the Democrats main candidates on the winning side of the ledger, by my reckoning.

The rest of the field, Senator Rubio, Governor Christie, Mrs. Fiorina, and Dr. Carson all lost. I will not be surprised to see any among Christie, Fiorina and Carson call it a wrap. They may opt to continue a while longer, but for all practical purposes…they are done. Marco Rubio, on the other hand, while disappointed, still has life, at least for now. With 11% of the vote, he will get some number of delegates. The other three, finishing less than 10% will get none.

With 75% of the votes counted, the voting percentages for GOP candidate looked like this:

Trump – 34%

Kasich – 16%

Cruz – 11%

Bush – 11%

Rubio – 11%

Christie – 8%

Fiorina – 4%

Carson – 2%

With 75% of the votes counted, the voting percentages for Democratic candidates looked like this:

Sanders – 60%

Clinton – 39%

The candidates are bidding New Hampshire adieu and polishing up their messages to go and spread their version of the political Gospel in the Palmetto State. The lines spouted by Trump and Sanders will likely highlight the themes that have gotten them to this point. Mr. Trump will assure the voters that he and he alone will make America great again. Senator Sanders promises a revolution, including, Universal Healthcare, free college, more taxes on the super rich, tighter reins on financial institutions, and a $15 minimum wage, among other things. Mrs. Clinton has already found religion, and has begun reciting/claiming a litany of items from President Obama’s tenure as the centerpieces of the administration that she would lead. By contrast, every Republican, save Kasich, promises to hit the undo key on all things Obama. Governor Kasich will speak about climate control, and retaining elements of, rather than destroying Obamacare, among other things.

There you have it, “Sanders & Trump Soar to Victory: Establishment Candidates Revise Strategy!” I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/nh/Dem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/new-hampshire/

http://time.com/4213889/new-hampshire-primary-results-donald-trump-bernie-sanders/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

http://news.yahoo.com/results-2016-hampshire-primary-235200941.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hampshire-primary-results-36826021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

It’s time to Break It Down!

Monday’s first in the nation Iowa Caucuses officially kicked off the transition of the 2016 Presidential Election Season from simply campaigning, debating, and polling to actual voting; the crux of any election. Moving forward between now and November I will almost certainly not frame every weekly post around politics, or the campaigns. I will, however, write about it regularly, probably at least once a month, sometimes more.

It is still early, so I will not overwhelm with today’s blog. I do want to establish some broad strokes. I’ve touched upon most of the key players, including all the candidates in each Party, on more than one occasion. Today I want to talk a little bit about winners and losers, and note a few anecdotes that I’ve seen and/or heard in the wake of the first wave of voting.

First, politics is a bottom line kind of game. While there may be several rounds before the grand finale, when you get to the bottom line, especially in Presidential Primaries, wherein there is only one winner per each of the two primary parties, bottom line translates into win…or go home.

Under those broadly stated guidelines, without question, the biggest loser Monday evening was Democrat Martin O’Malley. Despite spending more time in Iowa than his competitors, he failed to garner even 1% of the votes cast. Based upon his failure to build and grow a candidacy that resonated with Democratic voters, Mr. O’Malley, Maryland’s 61^st Governor, and always the odd man out since the race on the Democratic side winnowed down into a 3-person slate, cashed in his chips, suspended his Campaign, and went home. For him, winning, if he chooses to fight again, will have to wait for another day, time and place. I wish you all the best Governor O’Malley.

Next in the arena of biggest losers, in my humble opinion, of course, is Mike Huckabee, Arkansas’ 44^th Governor. Huckabee actually won the GOP Iowa Caucuses in 2008. Perhaps his tepid showing by comparison in 2016 makes him the biggest loser. However, that was eight years ago, which is an eternity in political years. Given his almost unimaginably low votes, I’m still content to give the Title to O’Malley. But don’t be misled; Governor Huckabee did not make any enormous waves. He amassed a whopping 1.8% of Republican Caucus voters. That was, however 3 times the percentage Governor O’Malley attracted.

I’m not going to profile all twelve GOP candidates. However, since I’m talking about losers, I feel compelled to mention briefly that Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, and Jim Gilmore are all still in the race, though they actually captured fewer votes than Governor Huckabee. Without making any predictions, I’ll just say that factoid does not bode well for the prospects of their longevity on the campaign trail. Check back after New Hampshire.

After Martin O’Malley and Mike Huckabee, there is one other candidate that has to be mentioned in any discussion of biggest political losers following the first voting of the season. A year ago, or even this past summer, most so-called experts everywhere would have insisted that any conversation about GOP favorites to claim the Party’s nomination would have to include Jeb Bush. While I’m not sure anyone went so far as to plan a Coronation for the legatee of the Bush political legacy, surely many, if not most thought it.

In sports metaphors, there is a well-worn phrase; “That’s why you play the games.” Without question, the 2016 Campaign, up to and including the Iowa Caucuses proved to be the classic exemplar of why polling and subsequent voting are critical in establishing the contemporary pecking order for candidates. Mr. Bush, the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush, and the brother of President George W. Bush, was thought before the season ensued to be head and shoulders above the competition. On paper he was ”ginormous,” reportedly amassing more than $100 million for his campaign. It is growing more likely each day, political historians will look back on Bush’s campaign and say why…or at least how…in the world did that happen?

This story really boils down to five candidates, three Republicans and two Democrats…or, as technocrats will insist, one Democrat, and one Democratic Socialist. On the GOP side, Ted Cruz won, followed by Donald Trump, who was closely followed by Marco Rubio. On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton emerged ever so slightly ahead, in what many in the media, and Bernie Sanders refer to as a virtual tie. Not surprisingly, Mrs. Clinton calls it a win. They both have a point.

According to the latest figures available, provided by the New York Times, Clinton led Sanders by 4 votes, which translates to a difference of two Delegates. They split the voting percentage-wise 49.9 – 49.6, advantage Clinton. Be advised, however, as I was writing this piece last night, Senator Sanders had yet to concede. He reportedly expressed concerns about how compiling and reporting voting was handled in some Precincts. Without trying to read the tealeaves on the question of where this matter will stand when all the dust settles, I will suggest that on the opposite end of the spectrum from the aforementioned biggest losers, Bernie Sanders was the biggest winner.

The self-avowed Democratic Socialist from Vermont has, in the early going, positioned himself to shock the world. He started with little money, sparse name recognition, and according to virtually all the so-called experts, little chance against the high profile well funded Clinton machine. His non-traditional approach to politics, serving as an Independent, and describing himself as a Democratic Socialist, did not help.

But, to steal a page from Van Jones, “Thanks Fox News.” The media outlet, a path light for the fervent right, inveighed daily for the last seven years and counting, against President Obama calling him a Socialist. In a sense, Fox News has anesthetized an entire generation of Millennials to the negative connotation they intend to impute to the term Socialist. Who knew that Sanders would own the youth vote? Moreover, his supporters that I know all emphasize that their guy is not accurately categorized unless you place Democratic before Socialist. By way of clarifying what he stands for, the Senator asserts he supports the following items as the central thrust of his agenda:

1. Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure
2. Reversing Climate Change
3. Creating Worker Co-ops
4. Growing the Trade Union Movement
5. Raising the Minimum Wage
6. Pay Equity for Women Workers
7. Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
8. Making College Affordable for All
9. Taking on Wall Street
10. Health Care as a Right for All
11. Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans
12. Real Tax Reform

By the slimmest of Margins, Secretary Clinton won the Democratic Iowa Caucuses. While Senator Sanders and his supporters may not like or accept that, the Democratic Party machinery of the State of Iowa has spoken…at least for now. Clinton it is. While she was not the biggest winner, she won, and I’m sure she’ll take it. She now moves on to New Hampshire, where according to the polls she trails by as much as 23 points. There are lots of reasons, including proximity to Vermont, the home turf factor, to believe that Sanders will win there, whether his huge lead holds or not. The test for Mrs. Clinton, and in a real sense for Mr. Sanders will come as the contests move to more diverse states.

Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Clinton is expected to do better with certain segments of the Obama coalition, particularly minorities. Sanders appears to have a lock on the youth vote. While there are certainly others, those are two of their biggest individual strengths. On the down side, the GOP will certainly try to use the continuing email probe to suggest HRC is in jeopardy of going down under the weight of an FBI investigation. Meanwhile many in the Republican Party salivate at the thought of running against Sanders the Socialist. As with plusses, there will be others, but those are two of their most readily visible negatives.

Back on the GOP side, Cruz finished in first place, but at least by most media accounts, Rubio was the biggest winner.   The Senator from Florida made up a lot of ground, and as the highest establishment finisher in Monday’s voting, his third place finish, one point behind Trump renders him emerging Golden Boy status…that is, if you presume the GOP will actually come to its senses and default to an establishment candidate as the Party’s nominee.

Donald J. Trump, D.J. Trump, as I like to refer to him, finished second. There was a great deal of irony in the self-proclaimed winner finishing second. As a guy who dismissively spoke of finishing second not that long ago, his having to embrace his place, at least in the ultimate Iowa scheme of things was anything but cathartic for him, and undoubtedly totally refreshing for a host of his detractors. In big picture terms, just because of his own narrative, he was a loser Monday night. Not the biggest loser, but a loser nonetheless.

Finally, Rafael Cruz won. He overcame trailing in the polls, and in addition to trumping Trump’s lead in the polls, and pushing back all the establishment candidates, he gets to breathe a sigh of relief heading into New Hampshire. He did not do so without invoking some level of controversy. He sent out at least two sets of mailers to voters, one designed to shame individuals who didn’t plan to vote, and another intimidating prospective voters with an official looking form with the words Voting Violation included. His campaign staff also reportedly told groups that Ben Carson was planning to leave the race, ahead of the Caucuses. These acts amount to dirty tricks in the best case, and potentially fraudulent behavior at worse. This, ladies and gentlemen, represents action by the campaign of your GOP winner, which he defends, I might add.

Today, the Democrats still standing, Clinton and Sanders meet in a Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire…it’s about to get jiggy. “And They’re Off: One Down!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

 Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O%27Malley

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/martin-omalley-is-suspending-his-presidential-031031742.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilmore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bushs-war-chest-far-outpacing-field-of-gop-contenders/2015/02/13/1fd3c076-b2f1-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html

http://news.yahoo.com/campaigning-style-jeb-bush-blew-warchest-112051485.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

http://caveviews.blogs.com/cave_news/2016/01/ted-cruz-sent-controversial-voting-violation-notices-to-iowa-voters.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390961/posts?page=245

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10027580274

It’s time to Break It Down!

As I’ve often noted, my mantra regarding this blog is to remain nimble. I seldom decide in advance what the topic of the day will be. As Tuesday unfolded my attention began to drift toward crafting a piece on guns. Over the course of the day I saw stories about two instances that inflamed my sensibilities on the topic.

In one instance a 45-year-old security guard was sleeping with a pistol under her pillow in her home in New Orleans. During the course of the night the gun inadvertently fired, killing her 3-year-old grandson last Wednesday. What a dreadful occurrence; I can’t imagine the emotional pain and suffering that grandmother is experiencing. Multiply that exponentially for the parents.

In the second case, last Thursday in Renton, Washington, 10 miles South of Seattle, a man went to a theater. Ostensibly to prevent a mass shooting, he took his gun with him. He smuggled it into a Cinema that prohibits guns. As it turns out, the man was high on anxiety pills and intoxicated from beer. According to witnesses at the scene, while fumbling with his gun, he shot, most likely accidentally, a woman patron, who was watching “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” The shooter then fled the scene. The victim was in stable condition after having been shot in the torso. Police arrested the suspect after his father called and reported the shooting.

This was another absolutely horrible, and so unnecessary, outcome. The good news in this case is, at least no one died. Still, there is no denying, accidental gun violence is still violence, and still a function of the preponderance of guns in our society. An even more significant point is, chances are, without breaking a sweat, anyone could recite new cases, accidental or intentional, by the time Wednesday rolls around next week.  That’s wack!

But I digress. As the title makes clear, this post is intended to frame a discussion about the bombastic, self-proclaimed high-energy, billionaire GOP frontrunner for the Party’s nomination to seek the Presidency…Donald John Trump. He is perennially loquacious, and never meets a superlative too large to embrace, or to repeat. Mr. Trump grabbed the Republican race for President by the proverbial short hairs, almost from onset of his June 16, 2015 Announcement at Trump Tower in New York.

The Donald drew a picture of an America in peril, regularly “getting beat” by a number of other nations, including China, Japan, Mexico, and even the terrorist group, ISIS. He declared that America is in trouble, the American Dream is dead, and he…is running to “Make America Great Again.” Along the way he disparaged Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly, threw shade on former Presidential Candidate and Arizona Senator John McCain, insisting he was not a war hero, and belittled Senator Lindsey Graham in his home state of South Carolina. First he spoke dismissively of him, then he revealed Graham’s cell phone to the media and the public during an appearance in the Palmetto State. He was just getting started.

Almost immediately an interesting phenomenon began emerging. While the media and the professional political class on both sides of the aisle predicted that the New Yorker would be a fleeting item on the political landscape, Mr. Trump defied the odds and consistently put his GOP competitors on their heels. Each time one of what has increasingly become a member of the GOP also-rans brandished the cheeky temerity to challenge him, he has responded by issuing a series of tweets and/or verbal jabs, always conveniently covered by the media, to push them into or near irrelevancy. So much so, until some of them, most notably, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, and the aforementioned South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, were among the first wave to issue statements of no mas, raise White Flags of surrender, and sheepishly exit the campaign.

The list of used-to-be relevant icons deserves a note of special comment. On it are such political luminaries as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, former Utah Governor/former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, now former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former New York Governor George Pataki, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. All are a part of the GOP’s mainline establishment heritage. This list, it should be mentioned, is significant for who is on it, as well as for who is not.

The list of folks still competing includes Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and of course, the Major Domo of Elephants in the room, Donald J. Trump. Yes, there are still candidates representing the so-called establishment of the Party, including Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Jim Gilmore, and Chris Christie. Then there is Mr. Trump’s apparent nemesis, at the moment anyway, Ted Cruz. More about him later.

Real Clear Politics produces a compendium of Polls, including data from ABC News/Washington Post, CNN/ORC, Fox News, Monmouth, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, and CBC/New York Times. Polling from January 21 – January 24 shows Trump leading second place Ted Cruz nationally in every poll…by double digits, from a low of 13 percentage points (33%-20%) in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll to 22% (41%-19%) in the CNN/ORC Poll.

Marco Rubio is the only other candidate averaging double figure polling, with double digits in all but the CNN/ORC Poll. Ben Carson, who briefly led the field, is the only other candidate breaking double digits in any of the polls, reaching 12% in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll.

The numbers reflect the schism that has characterized the essence of the entire race for the GOP side. In many ways the 2016 Campaign has been, for the group formerly known as the Party of Lincoln, an anti-establishmentarian campaign. In a metaphoric flourish, the candidates who did not make the cut were akin to students who flunked out in the first semester. They were, by and large, representatives of what was heretofore the establishment, principally Republican Governors and Senators. Staying with the metaphor, the folks moving on to the second semester includes three individuals who have not only never held public office previously, but who are committed to challenge the efficacy of traditional politics, even traditional Republican politics, at its very core.

Of the remaining candidates, the top two contenders appear to be Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump has never held office, but promises to “Make Our Country Great Again.” Cruz has been a member of the Senate since 2013, but entered Congress as a Tea Party devotee, intent upon reformatting the politics of Washington from the ground up. He is still best known for his pivotal role in the Fall 2013 Government Shutdown. Trump and Ted; this is the vibe the contemporary GOP seems content to roll with. The previously mentioned vanquished Lindsey Graham, when asked if he had to choose between the two had this to say:

“It’s like being shot or poisoned,” the South Carolina Republican said. “What does it really matter?”

As the Iowa Caucuses approach on Monday, the GOP candidates are scheduled to engage in their last Televised Debate before matters get real as the voting commences. This particular event will be hosted by Fox News and will feature noted Trump foil, Megyn Kelly. Ms. Kelly managed to place herself firmly on Trump’s bad side last year when Fox hosted a debate and she asked him a question to which he took exception. The relationship between the two has been sporadically rocky since then.

A series of exchanges between Fox News and Trump yesterday steadily escalated. Trump polled his Twitter feed asking whether he should participate in the Debate. In a simultaneous Instagram video, he said:

“Megyn Kelly’s really biased against me. She knows that, I know that, everybody knows that. Do you really think she can be fair at a debate?”

In response, Fox concocted a tongue-in-cheek reply in the form of a public statement from the Network:

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings,” the statement said.

At this point, as they say, “It was on like Donkey Kong!” First Trump issued a tweet. He referred to Fox’s statement as:

“A pathetic attempt by Fox News to try and build up ratings for the #GOPDebate.” He went on to say, “Without me they’d have no ratings!”

As the day progressed, Trump said he would probably not attend the Debate. He indicated he would likely create a separate event at the same time and give the funds raised by the event to veterans groups. As the evening progressed, CNN reported a spokesperson said he would definitely skip the event:

“We’ll have an event here in Iowa, with potentially another network, to raise money for wounded warriors,” campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said. “And Fox will go from probably having 24 million viewers to about 2 million.”

This semi-chaotic breakdown of the normal order was predictable. It is just one aspect of the illogical conclusions that are sure to result from individuals and a Party that pride themselves in eschewing convention at every imaginable step. Remember this is a scenario born in the mind a guy who within the past week boasted that he could stand in the middle of 5^th Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any votes from his supporters. Clearly, he does not believe that conventions of any sort apply to him. Ted Cruz may have shut down the Government, but Donald Trump blew off Roger Ailes and Fox News. At least that’s what he has said he will do. In a “What have you done for me lately” world, “Donald Plays The Trump Card; Drops Mic!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

http://blacklikemoi.com/2016/01/a-little-boys-life-is-taken-while-asleep-by-grandmothers-gun/?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Your%20Black%20World%20-%20News%20Updates&utm_content=1.26.16+-+afternoon+

http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/2016/01/20/toddler-killed-after-grandmothers-gun-discharges/79046818/

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/14626983-75/3-year-old-boy-shot-killed-while-sleeping-after-grandmothers-gun-discharges-in-new-orleans-east

http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/01/22/mans-gun-goes-off-in-theater-injures-wom?videoId=367141518&videoChannel=1

http://guncarrier.com/man-shoots-woman-in-theater-flees-scene/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/us/washington-movie-theater-shooting/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-donald-trump-announces-his-presidential-candidacy/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/26/media/donald-trump-poll-debate-fox/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilmore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pataki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell,_Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ditka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_Hogan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rodman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/lindsey-graham-donald-trump-ted-cruz-poison-or-shot/index.html

It’s time to Break It Down!

Four years ago I wrote a post entitled “The Newtonian Code: An Evening of Satire on MLK Day!” (http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/2012/01/newtonian-code-evening-of-satire-on-mlk.html). In the event you’d like to peruse it, click the preceding link. FYI, it appears on BlogSpot, my former platform, not WordPress.

The post includes a brief discourse recalling key elements of that Monday evening’s GOP Debate, which most notably featured a series of electrifying exchanges between GOP Candidate Newt (hence Newtonian) Gingrich and Fox News (the Network sponsoring the Debate) Anchor Juan Williams.

The Debate, took place on the evening of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. It was held at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Frankly, I viewed this as a huge irony, primarily based upon some of Mr. Gingrich’s responses, unfolding on the occasion of The MLK, Jr. Holiday. When Williams posed a question about whether some of Mr. Gingrich’s remarks during the Campaign were insulting to blacks, the former Speaker haughtily dismissed him, engendering wild applause from an audience, apparently in perfect synchronicity with Newt.

Williams soldiered on, attempting to reframe the exchange by referencing a black woman who had questioned Gingrich about referring to President Obama as a Food Stamp President. At this point, the audience not only cheered the candidate, they booed the questioner (Williams).

In a bygone yesteryear, GOP candidates fashioned a strategic policy initiative loosely known as the Southern Strategy. The policy featured a pattern of behaviors and practices designed to appeal to Southern white voters by exploiting racism and whites’ irrational fear of lawlessness by blacks.

As I noted at the time, I’m not a mind reader; I cannot even begin to say what resided in Mr. Gingrich’s heart, or anyone else’s for that matter. Then, as now however, I can say with great certitude that when Mr. Gingrich then, and others in his Party now, make such blanket acrimonious assertions as Mr. Obama is the Food Stamp President, black high school students should seek jobs as janitors, and African American adults should eschew Food Stamps and instead pursue paychecks, despite the fact most Food Stamp recipients are white, regardless of intent, such commentary will inflame a significant portion of the black community.

Fast-forward four years and January 2016 presents us with the next round of politicking, fundraising, polling, voting, and yes, debating. We have yet another edition of prickly GOP candidates, several of whom are doing their dead-level best to raise the ante to even higher levels than we saw in the toxic environment that was prevalent in 2012.

We now have an entire subset of candidates who seem committed to outdo one another in terms of which one can establish themselves as the most hostile to immigrants in general, and Mexicans and Muslims in particular.   Donald Trump has pledged to build the biggest, most bodacious wall ever, separating the United States from Mexico. He has proposed sending up to 11 million illegal aliens back to Mexico, denying entry to all Muslims, apparently including the leaders of Muslim countries, requiring Muslims who are already here legally to wear ID bracelets (akin to Jews in the Hitler era), and shutting down Mosques.

He has suggested ending the practice known as Anchor Babies, which would have conceivably eliminated two of his competitors (Rubio and Jindal), and once again raised the specter of Birtherism, which threatens the candidacy of another competitor (Cruz). Oh, did I mention he promises to carpet bomb Muslim countries until the sand glows in the dark? The most interesting thing about all of this is, one or more of his fellow GOP candidates has agreed with and co-signed each of the aforementioned gambits.

While all of the above patently reflect both the trademark over-the-top nature of the Trump approach to campaigning, and his appeal to many of his supporters, it doesn’t even begin to touch upon his and his Party’s tenuous relationship with black voters. The Black Lives Movement emerged from a series of incidents in which blacks have been shot and or killed, usually by police officers. The group has taken a number of steps to protest this seeming unchecked, and frequently unpunished violence on black folks. Protest is a typical staple of their repertoire. Mr. Trump, especially, has dissed the movement, refused to engage their representatives, and had representatives of the group brusquely, if not violently, removed from his rallies.

I understand that, Herman Cain in 2012, and now and Ben Carson, notwithstanding, the GOP regularly writes off black voters. Both, in their own way, have suggested that blacks are brain washed. Neither the Hermanator, nor Dr. Gifted hands is here to defend himself. Still, I suggest that black voters are not brain washed, and thankfully, neither are they brain dead. In fact, given all the points cited above, such a relentless stream of abusive rhetoric is bound to temper any likelihood that African Americans, Latinos in general, Mexicans in particular, and Muslims would think twice, at the very least, before voting for Mr. Trump. Curiously, that has not prevented him, when handicapping himself, from asserting that he will not only do very well with these groups, but that he will win the Latino/Mexican and African American vote. Moreover, he insists that we “love” him.

Last night Trump took another controversial step in his quest to win in Iowa, and ultimately the Presidency. Party insiders will likely debate the virtue of this move for some time. He added the endorsement of 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In endorsing the Donald, the former Governor gave a rambling soliloquy in which she insisted Trump, he of the gold-plated personal jet, is not elitist. She intoned that his largess sometimes gets in the way of his quiet generosity. Say what?

A readily discernible irony about all this is there is a historical context for black folks supporting the Republican Party. After all, President Lincoln ended slavery for God’s sake. That surely positioned the Party as the odds on favorite. The Civil Rights Movement and the ensuing legislation that emerged as a result were instrumental in rewiring the political grid. In the CliffNotes version of this segment of the story, President Johnson signed fundamentally axis-tilting Civil Rights legislation, followed by President Nixon fostering and implementing the Southern Strategy. When the dust from those two mega-policy shifts, whites in the South moved in significant numbers to the GOP column, and black all across the country, by numbers at least as substantial moved to the Democratic Party. Thus it has been since the 70’s.

The Party line as recited by GOP operatives is President Obama has destroyed the country, wrecked the Presidency, killed the economy, strengthened our enemies, and made enemies or at the very least, political agnostics of our historical allies. The make this contention despite having colluded to oppose, deny, and defeat his every initiative, starting the day he was originally Sworn-in. In keeping with their commitment, they refused to approve President Obama’s jobs bills, (every single one of them) voted against his Healthcare legislation, they opposed his auto bailout, stimulus package, and bank bailouts, and of course, refused to approve immigration legislation, common sense gun reform, even after 26 elementary school children were murdered, as you recall, they shut down the government. On top of all that, they refused to extend the debt ceiling in time for the country to avoid losing for the first time ever its highest level Triple A Bond Rating.

This pervasive and insidious anti-government mindset is the ideological bent that has taken hold of the Grand Old Party and it threatens to hold our country hostage. They (the GOP-T Party rank and file whom support Trump’ and his ilk’s brutishly abrasive hectoring) wish, they say, to take “their country back.” Some folks inquire, from whom? I, alternately, am more prone to ask, “to where?”

It seems to me this effort is about turning back the clock, and taking us “back” to a period when the Stars and Bars prevailed, a time when people of color had no rights that white folks were bound to recognize, and an era in which the Confederate States of America did what they damn well pleased. During the recent debate over removing the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina Statehouse, supporters argued the flag was a symbol of heritage. I believe that is exactly what it is; a symbol of heritage, and that the heritage it represented was that of slavery and pre-Emancipation. To wit, I leave you with a single thought…”The Modern GOP: Trending Toward Legacy or Lunacy?” The jury is out, the verdict pending.

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day

http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/2012/01/newtonian-code-evening-of-satire-on-mlk.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html?_r=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gilmore

It’s time to Break It Down!

Last year, the day after the State of the Union, I posted a blog entitled State of the Union: Designated Survivor – (https://thesphinxofcharlotte.com/2015/01/21/state-of-the-union-designated-survivor/). The story highlighted a practice that grew out of the Cold War, in which the Administration leaves one official back at the White House, in the event that some catastrophe takes out the President, his Administration, much of Congress, and several members of the Supreme Court. Just for the record, this year’s Designated Survivor is Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security Secretary. For more specifics on the practice, click the link above to review the post.

Now, moving to SOTU 2016, at 9:05 p.m. last night, Paul D. Irving, Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives, announced President Obama’s arrival to those assembled in the House Chamber for the President’s 8^th and final State of the Union (SOTU) Address. House Speaker Paul Ryan then formally introduced him to those in the Chamber. Against that backdrop, replete with pomp, circumstance, and a packed Chamber, the 44^th President of the United States went to work. For the next 60 minutes or so, as much as any President in these hyper-partisan times could, the President owned the room.

By the accounts of even a number of Republicans, he gave a great speech. Most Democrats on record appeared to characterize it as his best. I’ve seen all eight, and while I am loathe to attempt to cite chapter and verse from past addresses, I agree, he rose to the occasion in an outstanding, if cerebral, and occasionally spirited way.

Mr. Obama framed his focus not on just next year, but on the next five years, or 10 years. As he ultimately put, his remarks focused on our future. In that regard, he promised not to immerse himself in traditional listing of proposals, but on thematic directions to achieve the very best outcomes for Americans.

In talking about our collective future, the President posed four overarching questions. They were:

First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in  this new economy?

Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us – especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change?

Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?

Finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?

President Obama replied serially to the questions, but before he began addressing the issue of fully integrating American participation in a fully functioning economy, he offered his own fact check on the matter. He noted that the US has the world’s strongest and most durable economy. We are in the midst of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history, totaling more than 14 million new jobs. Most recently, we have experienced the strongest two years of job growth since the 90’s; an unemployment rate cut in half, an auto industry that just had its best year ever, and the creation of over 900,000 new manufacturing jobs over the past six years. With relish, he injected that we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by nearly three-quarters.

In a direct jab at consistently harsh GOP rhetoric, the President noted that those who assert that our economy is in decline are peddling fiction. Mr. Obama, in further distilling the state of the economy, clarified that the economy has been changing in profound ways. This shift began long before the Great Recession hit, and it persists. By this he meant technology can and often does replace any job, not just those on the assembly line. Moreover, companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and face tougher competition. Thusly, workers have less leverage to negotiate a raise, companies have less loyalty to communities, and fewer individuals in the upper echelon secure and control an inordinately greater share of wealth and income.

The President posited that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. He lauded No Child Left Behind, and zeroed in on the need to provide Pre-K for all in the future. Hands-on computer science and math classes will aid making students job-ready on day one, while we must also recruit and support great teachers. In making an observation that caused several of those assembled to blush, the President spoke in support of providing necessary benefits and protections, adding, “After all, it’s not much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package, for 30 years, are sitting in this chamber. For everyone else, especially folks in their forties and fifties, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher.”

We know that in this new changing economy, at some point in our careers, we may have to retool. But that should not mean losing what we’ve worked hard to build. To that end Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them. And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage. Nearly eighteen million have gained coverage so far. Health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.

The President pledged his belief in a thriving private sector, noting it’s the lifeblood of our economy. While conceding there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and red tape that needs to be cut, he also observed that working families have not been the beneficiaries of years of record corporate profits. Those families do not get bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at everyone else’s’ expense; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered.

The President argued that “Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts.”

The second question was, “How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?”

Mr. Obama referenced the Vice President, saying, “Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had in over a decade. Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past forty years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.”

He mentioned the science resistant strain of Americans that still dispute climate change, citing their apparent loneliness. He advised that folks on that island are “debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.” He would end that element of the conversation by challenging American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future.

This brings us to question 3, “How do we keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem?”

He began with a robust repudiation of the baseline notion of “our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker,” a notion he characterized as “political hot air,” just as he did the idea of our economic decline. He went on to frame it thusly:

“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead – they call us.

As someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that’s not because of diminished American strength or some looming superpower. In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states. The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds blow from a Chinese economy in transition. Even as their economy contracts, Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria – states they see slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.

It’s up to us to help remake that system. And that means we have to set priorities.”

At the top of the list of priorities he placed protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. He recognized that both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country and they undermine our allies.

However, we are addressing the problem directly. The U.S. leads a coalition of over 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out this vicious ideology. As a result of over 10,000 air strikes we are eliminating their leadership, their oil, their training camps, and their weapons. We are also training, arming, and supporting forces who are reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.

Finally, on this score, he challenged Congress. “If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL.”

Question 4, was “How can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?”

President Obama reminded all that our Constitution begins with three simple words, “We the People.” He injected that this means all the people.   He declared that the future we want, which includes opportunity and security for our families, a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids – all are attainable, but only if all of us engage. And we will only achieve it if we fix our politics.

Mr. Obama clarified by adding, a better politics doesn’t mean we must agree on everything. However, democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest. Too many Americans feel that way right now.

After laying down the challenge, he added, “This cannot be my task – or any President’s – alone. It will only happen when the American people demand it. It will depend on you. That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people.”

Mr. Obama admitted that what he’s asking for is hard. “It’s easier to be cynical. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future.”

In closing, the President put the onus squarely on the American people. He said:

“So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen.”

At 10:11 p.m., the President, in bidding adieu to the assembly announced firmly,

“That’s why I stand here confident that the State of our Union is strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.”

At 10:19 p.m., Speaker Paul Ryan adjourned the House until 9 a.m. this morning.

That’s the story of “SOTU #8: President Obama’s Last Stand!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-transcript-president-obama-2016-state-of-union-20160112-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/state-of-the-union-2016-transcript-full-text/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-union-jeh-johnson-named-designated-survivor/story?id=36235856

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-special-guests-president-obamas-final-state-union/story?id=36197559

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/obama-state-of-the-union-empty-seat-guns/index.html?eref=rss_politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_D._Irving

http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/about-the-state-of-the-union-and-republican-response-on-cnngo_wl

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/issue-guide-2016-state-union-address/p37430

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu

It’s time to Break It Down!

On January 23, 2007 the Rapper Mims released a track, MIMS – This Is Why I’m Hot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyE3WJ4AWo). It’s a catchy tune that detailed and contrasted why the artist was hot, with why some other, more hyped performers were not. Hot in this context means cool, relevant, or “what’s happening now.”

As it relates to the title above, “Hot” means angry, perturbed, and vehement. To that end it is critical, in my view, to elevate and discuss the actions of the self-labeled militiamen (that is citizens carrying firearms, to be clear) who came to Oregon, and who have broken into and taken control of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have received reports that an unknown number of individuals broke into the facility over the weekend.  In their reporting the Wildlife Service and BLM (not to be confused with Black Lives Matter; ironic though) noted while the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety. The agencies confirmed that no federal staff members were in the building at the time of the initial incident. Authorities pledged to continue monitoring the situation for additional developments.

The aforementioned irony in the usage of the acronym BLM revolves around the contentious & suspicious way in which the Black Lives Matter movement has been discussed by numerous media outlets. It is fair to say there is an uproar stemming from some corners anytime the group is mentioned. Much of that ado has to do with the arms’ length nature in which BLM deals with black-on-black violence. Yet, BLM does not promote arming African Americans; rather it promotes sacred nature and value proposition of black and brown lives, which too often are prematurely ended by gun violence perpetrated by operatives of the state, most often police officers. It must also be noted, that many of these victims are unarmed.

At the Wildlife Refuge, the occupying “militiamen” were heavily armed, and boldly asserted that they will be staying as long as it takes to achieve their objective. Moreover, they added that while they do not intend to use violence, (they are armed and) they would defend themselves. The leaders of this so-called militia come from a family familiar with takeovers and standoffs with the government. Ammon and Ryan Bundy are the sons of Cliven Bundy, who led the 2014 standoff with government officials in Nevada in 2014 over his cattle’s grazing access. That conflict included firearms as well.

So the questions that troubles many African Americans about this situation is why are these men not characterized as terrorists? Why are media and officials not bandying about words such as insurrection, revolt, or anti-government insurgents?

Considering this is a group of unknown size and undefined firepower that has taken over a federal building with plans and quite possibly supporting equipment to facilitate a years-long occupation – and when the group’s representative articulates that they would prefer to avoid violence but…are prepared to die – the notion that officials are choosing to employ such nuanced language is, for lack of better phrasing, astoundingly enlightening. After all, given the apparent nationwide trend of law enforcement officers fearing for their lives, even when the black suspects they happen to be dealing with are unarmed, and their being forced, as a result, to escalate the response continuum to maximum deadly force, this fearless, convivial mode of associating with the Bundy’s armed alliance is perplexing, at the very least.

It is virtually unfathomable that none of the major media outlets, or any of the local officials has opted to use the words insurrection or revolt. If for instance, a group of black Americans took possession of a federal or state courthouse to protest the police, what are the odds such a sober, balanced, and unemotional tone would carry the day? Black Americans outraged about the death of Tamir Rice at the hands of police or concerned about the absence of a conviction in the George Zimmerman case have been frequently and inaccurately lumped in with criminals and looters, described as “thugs,” or marauding wolf packs where drugs are obviously in use, according to one national cable anchor.

Suppose a group of armed Muslims took possession of a federal building to protest calls to surveil the entire group? Would they not be likely to endure even harsher consequences and repercussions?

Yes, it is appropriate to note that there have been no reports of violence, injury, or anyone being held inside of the facility against their will. Yet. Some experts are theorizing that the strategy federal and local officials are using is one designed to let the media storm die before taking action. This ostensibly will permit some of the intensity around the issue to recede, and for calmer heads to prevail. I’m willing to wager that Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Jonathan Ferrell, and Jonathan Ferrell, just to name a handful, would all have appreciated such a state sponsored decompression period before their fateful encounters with authority became fatal.

I can appreciate the need to avoid inflaming the situation through the use of irresponsible language. That sort of judiciousness is appropriate always. Still, it is equally justifiable to remember the event that led to this takeover. A number of folks reacted to the decision to charge a father and son rancher duo, Dwight Hammond, Jr., and son Steven Hammond with arson under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The charge, for which they both were convicted, carries a 5-year jail term. I reiterate they were convicted!

Acquaintances of the Hammonds may very well disagree with the government’s decision to charge and prosecute the pair, accordingly. But what of the outrage that inures from black Americans being far more likely than whites to face serious charges and jail time rather than misdemeanor penalties for resisting arrest? Where has the lock-step adherence to careful and delicate language been during all of 2015 when unarmed black Americans were disproportionately more likely to be killed by police officers than others?

But let us also note, in addition to the apparent incongruity prominently displayed in this situation, the Hammonds are not numbered among the Bundy’s armed alliance. Both Hammond men have surrendered to authorities so that they may serve the balance of their 5-year terms. Ammon Bundy, one of Cliven son’s, and the occupation organizer, has repeated two themes. The occupiers are armed and prepared to die, and they anticipate holding the facility indefinitely.

The precisely limited and incredibly soft language choices of media and governmental officials seem to extend beyond simply deliberate phrasing. The characterization of the events in Oregon reflect the business as usual shape of our collective assumptions about the relationship between race and guilt – or religion and violent extremism – in the United States.

If one is white, his activities and ideas are thought to stem from a font of principled and committed individuals. Because this is deemed the baseline presumption, group suspicion and presumed guilt are readily perceived and described as unjust, unreasonable and unethical. I’m sure you have noted, the occupiers in Oregon are assuredly all or nearly all white. Yet, that has scarcely been mentioned in media reports. You may also have noted that nothing close to similar can be said about coverage of events in Missouri, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Ohio, or any other place where questions about policing have devolved into protests or riots.

In Charleston, there was extended debate about whether to indicate that shooter Dylann Roof’s racially motivate shooting spree was an act of terrorism or even violent racism?

In San Bernardino, a number of news organizations rapidly hinted at and then began using the term Islamic extremism to describe the mass shooting in that city. It appeared almost reflexive.

The sometimes coded but increasing overt ways that some Americans are presumed guilty and violence-prone while others are presumed to be principled and peaceable unless and until provoked – even when armed – is remarkable. That is the story of…”The Oregon Standoff: This Is Why We’re Hot!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

http://www.attn.com/stories/4981/oregon-takeover-terrorism-label?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=internal

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/armed-group-vows-to-hold-federal-wildlife-office-in-oregon-for-years.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/what-that-militia-in-oregon-really-wants-in-1-paragraph/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-are-the-bundys-the-family-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-occupation/2016/01/03/5582f698-b272-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html?tid=sm_fb

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ammon-bundy-oregon-protest-sba-loan

http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-whites-and-republicans-rank-angriest-americans

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-guns-legal-challenge/index.html

It’s time to Break It Down!

This Issue has been revised from the Break It Down post originally conceived, created, and published December 29, 2010, and re-posted December 28, 2011, and December 31, 2014. This is my last post of 2015, and 444^th Edition of Break It Down, which debuted August 20, 2007 on the BlogSpot platform. I migrated the principal site to WordPress August 3, 2012, approximately three weeks before the Fifth Anniversary of the blog.  You may find this and most other posts at either site.

With this post I wish you a blessed and bountiful Happy New Year. While I’m at it, today is my “born day.” So, without asking, and without further ado, I’m taking a point of special privilege. Before you read the post, click on the link and check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzdGlVWlS1Y

Now, enjoy today’s blog.

The one-half fortnight between Christmas and New Year’s Days is a unique occurrence in the unfolding of the American edition of the Gregorian Calendar.  It is the only instance in which the space of a mere seven days separates two major holidays. Unquestionably, the timing is propitious.  Millions of holiday travelers return home from their Christmas commemoration and revelry, just in time to get a day off to “celebrate” the New Year…and recuperate from the old, most notably their extracurricular activities, including the exploits of New Year’s Eve.

In last week’s post, I presented a re-airing my personally crafted Christmas Concert (12 Days of Christmas: The e-Concert – 2015) from the past Noels.  This week, I doubled down and again reverted to my trusty time capsule. Once again, this tack permits new readers to catch-up by seeing the piece, it allows long-time readers to reflect upon both the passing year as well as the theme lifted in the post, and finally, it ensures that those busy readers, with no time to invest in checking out a new blog during the holidays, will not have to miss anything. It’s a win, win…win!

With that loosely framed preamble behind us, here’s the déjà vu all over again:

Since we are still in the Sweet Spot of the holidays, I shall practice minimalism. For your purposes, that means the blog should be available, but not intrusive. To that end, I am taking a page from the Christmas e-concert, but going a step further. Instead of a concert, I give you a song…of reflection.

Robert Burns, a Scot, wrote a poem (Auld Lang Syne) in 1788 that has come to symbolize the spirit of mass contemplation that people around the world invoke as the clock strikes midnight, signaling not just the dawn of a new day, but of a new year. Undoubtedly, you have been somewhere, at sometime, when you joined those assembled to sing Auld Lang Syne, which loosely translated means, Times gone by.

Once again, that time is upon us. After thoughtful reflection on my 2015, I have had no choice but to conclude, my travails have been few and small, especially when compared to my blessings, which have been both abundant and vast! All praises to the one true, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God; a mighty fortress is He.

No need to thank me for my inherent thoughtfulness. But, by all means, “Drink a cup of kindness,” or eggnog, or Champagne, or “name your favorite adult beverage,” for me. And, if you are a teetotaler, water will do nicely, thank-you!

As I complete my last post for this year, and, prayerfully and faithfully prepare to embrace 2016, I leave with you this familiar Irish Toast:

May the road rise up to meet you.

May the wind always be at your back.

May the sun shine warm upon your face,

and rains fall soft upon your fields.

And until we meet again,

may God hold you in the palm of His hand.

I invite you to click on the link below, which leads to a Smooth Jazz interpretation of Auld Lang Syne, arranged and performed by Donnie Thomas (and listen to the remainder of this week’s edition of Break It Down):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bffBdmlf0Wo

It has been my unique honor and privilege to visit with you briefly for each of the 52 weeks this year (including presenting a guest blogger). I hope you have derived a fraction of the pleasure reading the blog posts that I have experienced from preparing and providing them to you. May 2016 bring you the fulfillment of all your fondest desires. Happy New Year: Here’s to Auld Lang Syne Redux!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bffBdmlf0Wo

http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/question279.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Lang_Syne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_spot

It’s time to Break It Down!

Re-sent 12/24/15; edited to activate hyperlinks for song titles.  Merry Christmas!

(Revised from Break It Down – 12/24/08, 12/22/10, 12/21/11, 12/26/12, and 12/25/13)

Merry Christmas to you! I know some of you are caught up in the whole “We Are The (Secular) World” trip; thus you substitute Holiday for Christmas in seasonal greetings. Of course, those innately curious enough to conduct the requisite etymological research know that the root derivation of holiday is “Holy Day;” but I digress; that is fodder for another day.

By now, many of you should have already begun your well planned and no doubt, richly deserved hiatus from work. Perhaps you have finished your shopping and taken care of all the major errands that accompany preparing for the Big Day. Maybe all that remains is packing and/or traveling; or that throw-down cooking marathon that precedes the arrival of family, friends, and guests, whom you will host over the coming week.

As is my custom, I will not use this Christmas Season Post, if you will allow me to call it that, to challenge you to sort through the facts, be they esoteric or mundane. Not the election, or the economy, no wars, and absolutely no (further) references to Steve Harvey and/or the Philippines, Colombia, or the Miss Universe Pageant. No, this is your time to take advantage of the opportunity to hang out with your guests, or to be a guest, and enjoy the hospitality of friends and family.

In the true spirit of keeping it simple for both you and me, I am, as the title suggests, reprising a previous post, or in this case, posts.  In fact, not just any previous posts…not even just any prior Christmas Posts.  I am, essentially re-posting my entry from several Christmas’ past, with a notable caveat. In my eight preceding Christmas Season posts, I have presented an e-Christmas Concert on five occasions. This year, I am pressing the reset button on the Concert.

The English playwright and poet, William Congreve, in the opening line of his 1697 Play entitled “The Mourning Bride,” asserted, “Music has Charms to soothe a savage Breast, To soften rocks, or bend a knotted Oak.”  I think Congreve was on to something.  If indeed music is capable of enabling us to overcome our basest instincts, and in so doing, ennoble us to pursue our finer impulses, and then indeed, we should take more opportunities to render ourselves captivated by its magical spell. (By the way, it really is breast…not beast; caught you thinking, didn’t I?)

So, I identified and pulled together an assortment of my favorite Christmas Standards by several of my favorite artists. This year, I am offering a new variation of the artistic olio I pulled together for your reading, viewing, and listening pleasure a number of years ago. Below, you will find brief summaries accompanying a hot link to a YouTube video interpretation and a song for each of the 12 Days of Christmas listed and included in the form of a Yuletide e-concert.

The legendary Godfather of Soul, as James Brown became known, died on Christmas Day (2006, aged 73), as did Eartha Kitt (2008, aged 81), whom shall ever remain, to many of us, the incomparably personified Catwoman. There was both a surreal sadness and a resolute completeness associated with them ending their respective earthly journeys on Christmas Day, two years apart. Both artists were born in South Carolina; Brown in Barnwell, and Kitt, in North.

1. Brown was renowned for his energetic performances, which earned him another of his many titles, “Hardest working man in show business.” His rendition of Santa Claus Go Straight To The Ghetto James Brown was a reminder that he had earned his chops the hard way, and that he was much more than just flash and dash.

2. Kitt’s Eartha Kitt – Nothin’ For Christmas // Christmas Essentials is on my list, not only because it is a classic; it is, but also because it’s less well known than everybody’s fave, by her, Santa Baby. I felt it deserved to be featured, so I did.

3. The Temptations – Silent Night is quite simply personifies Christmas for many of us. After several names changes, and adding and subtracting new and old members became a group in 1961. A current version of the Franchise still performs today.

4. Stevie Wonder-Someday At Christmas has been a staple for many years. Stevie, one of the one-name icons is regarded as a musical genius of the ages, and his rendition of this classic is golden.

5. Marvin Gaye *☆* The Christmas Song; a classic sung by a classic. Marvin, yet another one-name icon made music so compelling that he made singing The Star Spangled Banner not only patriotic, but cool. His version of The Christmas Song is must hear music.

6. The Emotions – What Do The Lonely Do At Christmas: Christmas is one of the most hyped holidays on the American calendar, and songs like this one by the Emotions is one of the reasons Christmas Songs are so popular. These ladies were at the top of their considerable game on this tune.

7. Luther Vandross – My Favorite Things is a show tune from the 1959 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical The Sound of Music. The song was first introduced by Mary Martin in the original Broadway production, and sung by Julie Andrews in the 1965 film. As standards go, this is classic. Luther, another one-name icon, is Luther; he kills it…softly.

8. Otis Redding – Merry Christmas Bab: Otis, one-name icon…check. He is among the many artists who were with us for too short a time, but who definitely made his mark during his too brief sojourn. His jovial treatment of this classic is epic Otis.

9. Boyz II Men- Let It Snow: Great song, deft rendition. Enough said!

10. Whitney Houston (feat. The Georgia Mass Choir) “Joy to the World: Whitney, yes, another one-name icon is joined by the Georgia Mass Choir on the potent delivery of this perennial standard. She sings with verve, power, and yet nuance, all in one rendition.

11. Ledisi – Have Yourself A Merry Little Christma: One of my favorite artists doing work on one of the most popular songs of the Season. Bravo!

12. Will Downing *☆* Christmas Time Is Here: One of the classic voices of our time, singing one of the foremost Christmas standards of all time. Well done.

That’s it, 12 artists and videos and/or songs. Add it all up and you get “12 Days Of Christmas: The e-Concert – 2015!” Enjoy it again, and by all means, remember the Reason for the Season!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: https://thesphinxofcharlotte.com/. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”  Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

It’s time to Break It Down!

The Koch Family is a well known for having made its mark as a bastion of industrialists and businesspeople. In contemporary times their most notable associations have been made visible through their vast array of political activities and control of Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the United States (with 2013 revenues of $115 billion). Family patriarch, Fred C. Koch, started the business, which developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy oil into gasoline.

The senior Mr. Koch’s hardline conservative leanings are well documented. He was a founding member of the John Birch Society (JBS), an advocacy group supporting anti-communism and limited government. It has been described as radical right. That portends much for the activism of several of the current Koch Foundations. During the 80’s and 90’s Fred C. Koch’s four sons litigated for control of Koch Industries. At the end of the day, the last two men standing, as it relates to running Koch Industries, were Charles and David.

Four sons of Fred C. and Mary Robinson Koch:

• Frederick R. Koch (born 1933), collector
• Charles G. Koch (born 1935), Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Koch Industries
• David H. Koch (born 1940), Executive Vice President of Koch Industries
• William Koch (born 1940), businessman, sailor, and collector

The Koch family foundations are a related group of non-profit organizations that began with the establishment of the Fred and Mary Koch Foundation in 1953, and that now includes the Charles Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Koch Cultural Trust. The organizations collectively have a stated goal of “advancing liberty and freedom” through the support of various causes which “further social progress and sustainable prosperity.” In addition to the direct action of the non-profits, the groups have also contributed financially to other philanthropic organizations in the fields of research, public well-being, arts, and education, including contributions to scholarship programs, university support, and loan assistance through organizations like the United Negro College Fund.

The Koch brothers have indicated that they intend to raise almost $900 million in support of candidates in the 2016 elections, and have given more than $100 million to conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States, including the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, and more recently “Americans for Prosperity“.

“Americans for Prosperity,” founded by David Koch, has been reported by Kenneth Vogel of Politico to be one of the main nonprofit groups assisting the Tea Party movement; but in 2010, Koch spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia distanced the Kochs from the tea parties and FreedomWorks saying that “no funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” According to the Koch Family Foundations and Philanthropy website, “the foundations and the individual giving of Koch family members” have financially supported organizations “fostering entrepreneurship, education, human services, at-risk youth, arts and culture, and medical research.”

According to the environmentalist group Greenpeace; the Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. Organizations that the Koch brothers help fund, such as Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, and the Manhattan Institute, have been active in questioning global warming. According to salon.com, through Americans for Prosperity the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vote against climate change legislation that does not include offsetting tax cuts.

While the Koch family has been making substantial donations to criminal justice reform organizations for nearly a decade, most recently the Kochs headed a bipartisan resolution to make more serious leaps to reform. Included in these are aims at eliminating over criminalization and over incarceration, which generally harms low-income and minority communities, as well as reducing recidivism rates, diminishing barriers faced by the rehabilitated seeking employment, and law enforcement’s Asset forfeiture to deprive the incarcerated of property.

Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, has pointed out that, although their critics are usually unaware of the fact, the Koch brothers have supported more than just what are generally considered conservative causes. They opposed George W. Bush on many issues, are pro-choice, support same sex marriage, and had worked closely with the Obama White House for the Obama administration‘s criminal justice reform initiatives that aligned with their own.

This counter narrative brings us face-to-face with the notion that despite a significant historical footprint in the arena of conservative and ultra-conservative politics and policies the Brothers are expanding their range of interest to encompass addressing the needs of the poor. At first blush, one may be tempted to wonder if these leopards have shed their spots, or at least altered them in some meaningful way. That is a fair contemplation.

Upon further reflection, before racing to any conclusions, one may recall that after the 2012 General Election, the GOP did a results audit to examine the micro and macro results of the election, and to determine the cause or causes they failed to capture the White House. One of the findings of that analysis revealed that Mitt Romney’s efforts were torpedoed, largely, due to something characterized as an “empathy gap.” Among voters seeking a candidate who “cares about people like me”, President Obama clobbered Romney 81 percent to 18 percent ― by far the widest gap among the four traits commonly measured (the others are vision for the future, shares my values and strong leader. To that end, lets rip the thinly disguised veneer away and just admit that this initiative is part of a grand design to mind-game people who traditionally have recognized that their interest are not well served by those who vote and frame policy in a way that aligns with the interests of the Koch Brothers and/or their Foundations.

The brothers have invested millions of dollars in programs to win over an unlikely demographic target for their small government conservatism – poor people. The related outreach includes turkey giveaways, GED training and English-language instruction for Hispanic immigrants, community holiday meals, healthy living classes for predominantly African American groups, vocational training and couponing classes for the under-employed. The strategy calls for presenting a more compassionate side of the brothers’ politics to new audiences, while fighting the perception that their groups are merely fronts for rich Republicans seeking to game the political process for personal gain. Not surprisingly, the efforts do include a healthy dose of proselytizing about free enterprise and how it can do more than government to lift people out of poverty.

Once again, that sounds good, and may even be true, if you discount the almost certain bait and switch elements waiting in the wings. We can anticipate that eventually, the Koch network will throw its clout behind a GOP nominee who supports a tax plan that lavishes its largest windfalls on the rich; would repeal Obamacare’s coverage expansion for many millions and replace it with something that would almost certainly cover far fewer people; resoundingly rejects a minimum wage hike to keep pace with inflation; and pledges fealty to the Paul Ryan vision, which would block-grant safety net programs to the states, potentially “increasing poverty and financial hardship,” as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts it.

Broadly speaking, the GOP candidates are already committed to a vision built around the idea that rolling back Obama’s redistributive policies, and unshackling runaway growth, is the way to jog loose stagnating wages and stagnant opportunity. As conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru recently put it: “Republicans do not seem to be even trying to erode the Democratic advantage on middle-class economics.”

And that’s fine! Let’s put this contrast before the voters — again. Obviously one doesn’t want to dismiss out of hand the possibility that there may be a backlash among swing voters to Obama’s government activism or that a candidate like Marco Rubio may effectively employ his humble background to sell conservative policies in a way Mitt Romney couldn’t. But right now, it seems doubtful that slathering the same old economic vision with fat from free turkeys will make it any easier to swallow.

Election season begins in earnest February 1^st. Until then, just recognize…” Koch and a Smile: Masking an Illiberal Agenda!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/14/the-koch-brothers-grand-plan-to-liberate-the-poor/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/27/myths-and-facts-about-the-koch-brothers/200570

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/27/3584354/kochs-indigent-defense/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/12/05/inside-the-koch-empire-how-the-brothers-plan-to-reshape-america/

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/08/the-koch-brothers-samson-option/

http://rare.us/story/the-koch-brothers-are-doing-something-really-great-for-poor-people-accused-of-crimes/

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/12/fake_concern_for_the_poor_koch_brothers’_new_political_epiphany/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/19/the-koch-brothers-are-helping-the-poor-its-more-like-indoctrinating-them/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_R._Koch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Koch_(businessman)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

It’s time to Break It Down!

As the header notes, I will feature, occasionally, the work of a guest blogger in this space. Today, the third time in the eight years I have been producing the blog, is one of those instances. This week, I am honored to introduce to some and present to others, a talented and insightful writer, who presents a cogent discourse on an important topic.

Mr. Anthony Kent pulls no punches in framing a pointed discourse about the value proposition of pursuing a college education. This is always a timely discussion, and I’m confident you will derive key information upon reading it.

I enjoyed Anthony’s work, and I am delighted that he generously shared his wisdom and insight with the Break It Down community, as a guest blogger. I am certain you too will find his message compelling and thought provoking. Feel free to add your responses in the Break It Down comment section.

Thanks; enjoy!

Bio

Anthony Kent is a celebrated, talented, and renowned author, motivational speaker and Senior Project Manager. He labored for distinctive world-class organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, Ally Bank, and BB&T, which attributed to Anthony’s skills and expertise to diversify and empowered his colleagues to “strive for excellence”.

He developed a wealth of knowledge in project management, process excellence, and risk management. His certifications include: Certified Scrum Master (CSM), Six Sigma Green Belt Certification and Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL).

Anthony obtained internships through INROADS at Sara Lee and IBM. Anthony Kent is a Charleston, South Carolina native, although he was raised in the flourishing city of Charlotte, North Carolina. Kent graduated from East Mecklenburg High School. He earned a Bachelor’s degree from Winston-Salem State University and an MBA from Winthrop University. Anthony acquired a passion for investing at the age of nineteen; moreover, he is an advocate for the promotion of financial literacy.

His previous philanthropic work includes, the Substance Abuse Prevention Services, Big Brothers Big Sisters, FASFA Day, United Way Young Leaders, Charlotte Area Fund, and Habitat for Humanity.

Mr. Kent is also a proud member of the Beta Iota Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.

“The Youth Advisor: A Young Adult’s Guide to Success” is the author’s first non-fictional manuscript. The parable focuses on preventive measures for our youth that will keep them from making costly mistakes, while giving them additional tools to help achieve financial success.

The book provides factual stories and advice to make sure young adults graduate from high school and college successfully, while budgeting money effectively; so that he or she may purchase a car, buy a home, and invest money for retirement.

 Getting What You Paid For

Value is what you expect to get when you pay for a product or service.Next to purchasing a home, a college education will be one of your biggest investments. The average cost of tuition and fees per year is $30,094 at private colleges, $8,893 for state residents at public colleges, and $22,203 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.[i]

Students with large loans will spend much of the rest of their lives paying off debt accrued during their college years. The commitment is similar to that of a 30-year $130,000 home loan minus taxes and insurance.

Are you willing to take on this kind of responsibility? If so, there is one important thing you must do first.

Choose the right college major. The right choice increases your chances of securing and keeping employment, for after graduation you need to position yourself in a healthy financial situation—so you can pay off your loans sooner.

Selecting Your Major

In choosing your college major, you must first identify your interests. What are you good at doing? The best approach to capturing your thoughts is to write them down. Let’s start here. In the table below, write down activities you enjoy doing or being around in the first column. Your list might read, ‘Computers, Music, Sports, Animals, Building, Reading, and Writing.’ In the second column, note the courses you took in high school. This list might read, ‘English, Chemistry, Algebra, Music, Physical Education, and Theater.’ In the third column, write down the grades you received and in the fourth column, write down Yes or No if you enjoyed the course. The objective here is to draw a correlation between your performance in class and what you enjoy doing. For example, if you did well in math-related courses then majoring in finance could be a good option.

Have you considered the type of lifestyle you want to live? When you choose a college major, you are imagining a future lifestyle. So go ahead and picture the type of home you want, the cars, number of children, vacations, plus entertainment events you will want to attend. If you are accustomed to or want the finer things in life, you will need to select a major that pays well.

The following table lists the median lifetime earnings for common majors.

To learn more about the potential earnings related to majors, conduct research on the jobs that align to them. There are many websites that allow you to conduct salary searches based on various job titles, a company or location.

Glassdoor.com, Salary.com and BLS.gov are sites where you can view salaries. BLS.gov provides an Occupational Outlook Handbook with career information about hundreds of occupations. The Occupational Outlook Handbook allows you to browse occupations by the highest paying jobs, fastest growing (projected) and most new jobs (projected). The link to the Occupational Outlook Handbook can be found at the end of this article.

Pay close attention to the differences in salaries as you conduct research. Salaries will vary depending on the company, industry and location. Location is always a major factor, as the cost of living varies from city to city.

How long will it take to secure a job? The answer depends on the relationship your school has with employers, the demand for your major, and your desire to find a job.

Schools provide Career Services. A goal of Career Services is to help you find a job. (Find more info on Career Services in the chapter on College Resources.)

Schools specialize in particular majors. Top-notch employers pay attention to how the schools are doing, and hope to hire top students from good programs. The match between employer and student—the hire—is made through the Career Services office.

There’s a detail you need to investigate as you decide whether to apply to a particular school. Learn which employers are hiring students from the school with your major. This level of detail in your education decision means you have seriously begun the process of building your chance to land one of those jobs.

The demand from employers looking to hire students from your major will of course relate to job availability, which in turn relates to basic economics: supply and demand.

An easy way to increase your chances of securing employment before you graduate is to familiarize yourself with majors and choose one with high job-offer rates.

 The chart below lists ten top college majors that offer jobs before graduation.

Career Services will recommend that you apply and interview at certain companies, but it will be up to you to put forth the time and effort to secure a job.

Another route toward finding your first job is online research. Check Monster.com, CareerBuilder.com, ZipRecruiter.com, Indeed.com, and SimplyHired.com.

The point to keep in mind: You are ultimately responsible for your future.

 Education Decisions and Income Results

What education decisions are you making? Every decision concerning your education must be a calculated decision—because your education decisions determine the amount of money you will make. Your salary must provide your living and also repay your student loans. Compare the principal you will owe and the salary you can expect to earn. In this way you make a good education decision…based on “Getting What You Paid For!”

Holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

Consult the links below for more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:

[i] Trends in College Pricing 2013 (2013): 3. CollegeBoard, 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.

[ii] Hershbein, Brad, and Melissa Kearney. “Major Decisions: What Graduates Earn Over Their Lifetimes.” The Hamilton Project. The Hamilton Project, Sept. 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

[iii] Adams, Susan. “The College Degrees That Get The Most Job Offers.” Forbes Magazine, 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

Occupational Outlook Handbook: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/