“Consider President Obama’s Economy: You Might Be Surprised!”

It’s time to Break It Down!

If you listen to the Radical Right, you have heard that President Obama is many things; a Kenyan, an anti-Colonial, a Socialist, a Muslim, a Hitler clone, an inept newbie who doesn’t understand and is unfriendly toward business, but mainly, a big spending, economic recovery killing, Yellow Dog, Liberal Democrat.  In the event you are a regular listener to Fox News, you have heard all those things, and…the fact of the matter is, you heard wrong.  He is not, nor has he ever been any of those things.

I will be the first to admit, the President is not a denizen of Wall StreetHigh Finance is not his strongest suit, but like any Commander-in-Chief, he does not have to be the smartest person in the room, on every conceivable subject.

Moreover, it is probably best if he is not.  Among his primary tasks is assembling a formidable team, capable of effectively tackling whatever problems may confront our country.  As we approach the midpoint of the first year of Mr. Obama’s second term, all indications are the President’s economic advisors have succeeded in their part of this endeavor.  They helped him chart a course and execute a plan that has successfully revived an economy so moribund, that at it’s nadir, it was widely considered the country’s worst since the Great Depression; hence, commonly referred to as the Great Recession.

Political opponents have maligned POTUS as being the incarnation of every negative icon imaginable from the anti-Christ to the epitome of anti-business.  Yet, a strange new meme has emerged recently.  In the May 16th Edition of Forbes Magazine, Adam Hartung, who covers business growth and overcoming organizational obstacles for the magazine penned an article in which he shares an interview with Bob Deitrick, Co-author of “Bulls, Bears, and the Ballot Box (BBBB).”  Mr. Deitrick articulates a clear and compelling case that President Obama’s leadership and resultant policies have directly influenced the course of what is now, at least arguably, a resurgent economy.  Specifically, the author credits President Obama with the facts that:

     The auto rescue plan worked

     Wall Street reform has served to re-instated faith among investors

     Markets are more predictable; a sign of increased faith, decreased risk

     Small investors (i.e., those limited to 401(k) or IRA investments) have experienced  an annual compound return of more than 24% since the lows of March 2009.  By the way, that is a better record than Clinton, Reagan, or Roosevelt, the previous winners cited in BBBB

It is appropriate, if not necessary, to place in proper context the depths of the 2009 economic decline.  At the end of the Clinton Administrations’ second term, the ConsumerConfidence Index (CCI) was at a record high of 140.  By the end of the Bush Administration’s second term, this index had fallen to 25.3, which is an historic low.  By contrast, at the end of the economically weak Carter years, the index was still at 74.4.

In sifting through the granular details, it is important to note that President Clinton left office with a budget surplus; President Bush, conversely, left America mired in deficits, as Congress cut taxes, while raising defense spending exponentially.  Moreover, financial institutions experienced significant distress; many were on the verge of failing, and of course, some did.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is now reporting a $200 Billion decrease in the deficit.  This de-escalation is attributable, primarily, to increased revenue from a growing economy, higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a fairer tax code, improved regulation, and consistent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement.  Undoubtedly, the proponents of Supply-Side Economics are apoplectic, as this economic rebound represents a counter-intuitive fact to challenge their exuberantly held theory.  The deficit is down to 4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); it was over 10% at the end of George W. Bush’s Presidency.

Conservatives have raised the Spirit of Ronald Reagan to near sainthood.  Yet, for all the honorifics conferred upon the Great Communicator, and despite the short-term memory cycle we routinely afford politicians, the inconvenient truth is President Reagan tripled the national debt during his tenure.  In doing so, he created what his contemporary legion of followers might call “a legacy of unpayable debt for our grandchildren.”  No wonder, latter day Conservatives managed to develop an inexplicable affinity for Bill Clinton.  His tax policies erased Ronny’s Ocean of debt.

Back to the present.  In summary, Deitrick suggests President Obama, whose administration has shown little to no proclivity to take credit from the upsurge in economic indicators, should do so.  In reality, how you see the President’s performance, in economic terms, is likely to depend on the trajectory of your personal economy.  If you are a Wall Street Dom, in all likelihood, you have made a mint during the recovery.  As noted earlier, if you have a 401(k) or an IRA, chances are, you have done pretty well.

Naturally, there are still those who are yet to have their economic ships elevated by the rising economic tide.  Nevertheless, odds are there few instances in which individuals, given the choice, would swap their present day economy for the one they had in 2009.  Therefore, I implore you.  Take a moment to“Consider President Obama’s Economy: You Might Be Surprised!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

Sergio Got a Little “Fuzzy!”

It’s time to Break It Down!

It has taken a few years, 16 to be exact, if you’re counting, but, at a recent European Tour Gala, golfer Sergio Garcia, did his finest impression of Fuzzy Zoeller’s erstwhile 1997 culinary remarks. Just to reset and remind you of that time, back in the 20th Century, “The Fuzz” made his now infamous remarks after Tiger Woods first major, The Masters. In framing his response to Woods historic victory, Zoeller said:

“That little boy is driving well and he’s putting well. He’s doing everything it takes to win. So, you know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not serve fried chicken next year. Got it? Or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve.”

So, fast-forward more than a decade and a half. Apparently, when given a slow soft ball of a question, Tiger’s current day foil just could not help himself. At the aforementioned European Gala, a media representative asked Sergio if he would have Woods over for dinner during the upcoming U.S. Open. His reply:

“We will have him round every night,” García said. “We will serve fried chicken.”

It sounds as though the recession may still be on Sergio’s mind. Presumably as a budget cutting measure, he did not offer up any greens.

Sergio and Tiger have had their share of dust-ups. In those encounters, Tiger has pretty much had his way on the links. In the most recent field of play exchange, about a week and a half ago at the Players Championship, Sergio accused Tiger of inciting the gallery to cheer by removing a club from his golf bag as he (Sergio) was into his swing. This, he added, provoked his worst shot of the day.

Tiger insisted he did no such thing; adding that “The marshal said he already hit and I pulled out the 5-wood and hit.”

By the way, Tiger won the Tournament and regained the ranking of Number 1 in the world; Sergio finished the Tourney tied for 8th, after having been tied with Tiger for the lead with two holes to play.

Moreover, in case you are keeping track, or in case you want to, Tiger is continuing to amass big numbers. Here is a quick FYI review of Tiger, by the numbers:

•4: Victories in 2013 (Earliest Tiger has reached 4 wins in a season)
•7: Victories in his last 21 PGA Tour stroke-play events
•52 of 56: Times Tiger has won when having at least a share of the lead after 54 holes
•78: Career PGA Tour Victories Sam Snead leads with 82
•300: PGA starts (including as an amateur) Woods also won his 100th and 200th PGA starts
•$5,849,600: Official PGA earnings in 2013
•$106,800,300: Official career PGA Tour earnings

The media may make a lot of this recent gaffe by Garcia. It was clearly an ill-conceived effort to be funny, on his part, or at-least to be a smart-a..! He did apologize. I guess his PR machinery kicked in.

Numerous reports insist that Zoeller regrets his remarks to this day…and he should. Garcia, who has admitted he and Tiger do not get along, should regret his too. Whether he does, in reality, we will see. Given the nature of their relationship, there is ample room for doubt. There is, however, one thing about which, the rest of us can be clear: Sergio Got a Little “Fuzzy!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1647761-sergio-garcia-makes-insensitive-remark-about-tiger-woods

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/9299934/sergio-garcia-makes-fried-chicken-remark-tiger-woods

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2013/5/21/4353626/sergio-garcia-tiger-woods-fried-chicken-comments

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/pga-heavyweights-tiger-woods-sergio-garcia-nasty-shots-article-1.1351091

http://www.cbssports.com/general/blog/eye-on-sports/22279088/sergio-garcia-makes-fried-chicken-remark-about-tiger-woods

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sergio-garcia-crossed-line-fried-chicken-tiger-woods-014400389.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2013/05/12/tiger-woods-wins-the-players-championship-sergio-garcia/2154209/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Garc%C3%ADa

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

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

The White Vote is Disappearing: What Now?

It’s time to Break It Down!

The U.S. Census Bureau released a report a week ago today that revealed, among other things, that the white vote is diminishing in influence, as well as in raw numbers.  As facts go, this single unit of data has multiple implications.  Undoubtedly, reverberations from the resulting trend will be seen, heard, and felt across the political landscape.

Specific findings include: 

  1. For the first time since 1996, when the Census     Bureau began collecting this data, whites voted at a lower rate (64.1 percent of eligible voters)     than blacks (66.2 percent of     eligible voters).  Moreover, the     total number of white voters decreased by roughly 2 millions in 2012     as compared to 2008, the first     time since 1996 that a race     group has seen a diminution in     net votes cast.  Add to that, in the     last five presidential elections, the white share of the electorate dipped     nine points, the Hispanic share     rose four points, and African American votes increased three percentage points.
  2. The Hispanic     community in the United States     is growing rapidly, and because of it, is critical to the future electoral      calculus of both Parties.  In its present state, the Hispanic vote is skewed disproportionately toward Democrats.  However, in 2012, only 48% of     eligible Hispanic voters     exercised their franchise.  That is slightly above the 45% level in 1996, and less than the 49.9%     of the vote that turned out in 2008.  Note as a point of comparison that the     percentage of African Americans     who voted increased from 53% in 1996 to 66.2% in 2012.  Of course, even casual observers would     note, Barack Obama was not on     the ballot in 1996.  Still, the Hispanic community has not effectively translated its gross     numerical increase to a comparable advantage at the polls.  “Despite having an increased share of     the voting population in every presidential election since 1996, Hispanics have still accounted for a smaller percentage of     actual votes cast than their share of the eligible electorate would     indicate,” according to the Census report.
  3. In every election since 1996, eligible voters have increased in numbers.  That was true in 2012, but not by much.       In 2012, the total number     of votes cast was about 133     million.  That represents an     increase over 2008 of roughly 1.8 million votes.  That is the smallest increase in raw     votes in the last four elections.       An interesting phenomenon     is that gains by black voters (1.7 million more votes than in 2008) and Hispanics (1.4     million more votes than in 2008)     were offset by the decline in white voters (2 million fewer votes).
  4. President Obama dominated the youth vote     in 2008, and again in 2012.  However, it was not the President’s ability to get youth to     vote in historic numbers, that carried the day, but his penchant for consolidating     a substantial majority of youth votes into pro-Obama votes.  Exit polling showed that voters 18-29     made up 18% and 19% of the electorate in 2008 and 2012, respectively.       That is actually below the level the youth vote garnered in the 80’s, when it was typically 20% or more of the overall electorate.  The Census Bureau found that for 2012, this segment actually comprised just 15% of     the electorate.  However, the     President won 66% of votes among this age group in 2008, and 60% in 2012.

So, let us summarize the crisis of the Grand Old Party: 

Minorities, people of color – Hispanic, black, Asian – gave 80 percent of their votes to President Obama.  Minorities’ share of the electorate was only 26 percent in 2012; yet, minorities constitute 36.3 percent of the population.  Oh yeah, their share of both the electorate and the population is rising inexorably.

President Obama captured only 39 percent of the white vote in 2012; the lowest of any victorious presidential candidate.  Of course, by carrying people of color 4 to 1, he did not need anymore. 

In interpreting the mounting array of intel found in the Census Bureau’s treasure trove of statistics chronicling what reads like the decline of the Republican Party and Brand, there is impetus to pose a question.  Is there any good news for the GOP?  Well, in fact, yes there is. 

Consider the spike in African American turnout in 2008 and again in 2012.  It is not difficult to impute that the tremendous turnout of black Americans was due to what some might call the Obama Factor.  The President in 2012 was under ferocious attack and in danger of all out repudiation.  As a result, black folks turned out to rescue the first black President.  This will not be a dynamic of the 2016 race. 

However, there is more bad news for the GOP.  Yes, the Hispanic vote rose by 1.4 million between 2008 and 2012, even though 12 million eligible Hispanics did not vote.  Governor Romney lost the Hispanic vote 71-27.  If Democrats actually create a concerted and energized effort to get out the Hispanic vote, the GOP will fell the repercussions. 

On 48 percent of Asians voted.  However, when they did vote, they went 70 percent DemocraticAsians’ voting numbers are also expanding; as more go to the polls, the difficulties faced by the GOP continue to mount. 

In the face of this series of grave concerns, what is the Republican response? 

At least one group of the GOP brain trust, led by Senators Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham, are pushing for amnesty and a path to citizenship for the 11 to 12 million aliens in the country today. 

Who, exactly, are these people?  Perhaps half are Hispanic, but interestingly, 90 percent are people of color, who once registered, vote 4-to-1 Democratic.  In addition, each year a million new immigrants enter and move onto a fast track for citizenship.  Between 80 and 90 percent now come from Third Word, and once naturalized, they vote 80 percent Democratic. 

How did we get here?  Richard Nixon constructed a pathway to winning 49 states in 1972 and 1984, 44 states in 1980, and 40 in 1988.  In four elections, 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2004 – the Republican Party swept all 11 of FDR’s Solid South.  These were the copious benefits of the Southern Strategy. 

Then, conservatives urged Bush 1 to declare a moratorium on legal immigration, and build a security fence in 1992.  The erstwhile politically correct Republican Establishment fought to keep the idea out of the platform. 

What now?  Eighteen states, including four of the seven mega-statesCalifornia, New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania—have gone Democratic in six straight elections.  Two others, Florida and Ohio, have gone Democratic twice in a row.  On top of that, white folks are now a minority in the last mega-state, Texas. 

In Ohio, which produced seven Republican presidents, more than any other state, Republicans are dropping out, and may be dying out. 

Eight years ago, blacks and whites voted at about the same rate in Ohio.  In 2008, “the participation rate for whites dropped to 65 percent, while the rate for blacks rose to 70 percent.  Last November, the turnout rate among whites fell to 62 percent, while the rate for blacks ticked up to 72 percent. 

From these Census figures, white folks are losing interest in politics and voting.  Still, whites still constitute three-fourths of the electorate and nine in 10 Republican votes. 

The very unconventional gambit to embrace amnesty and a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens, led by Senator Rubio and Company may be a way to recalibrate the dial and increase Republican enthusiasm and turnout among three-fourths of the electorate.  Alternatively, is it really just a circuitous route to inciting a demand to seal America’s borders against all intruders? 

We are in search of answers to that query and many others.  Meanwhile, what we know is, “The White Vote is Disappearing: What Now?” 

I’m done; holla back! 

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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. 

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below: 

As the Cabinet Turns!

It’s time to Break It Down!

During the 2012 Election cycle, there was rampant on-going speculation about President Obama’s ability to hold on to the robust numbers generated by his incredible, never-before seen, 2008 coalition.  The Obama Re-election Team was always confident in the ability of it’s Get Out the Vote (GOTV) machinery to connect with key demographics and persuade those voters to go to the polls and execute their civic duty.  Whether they could do so was considered critical to Mr. Obama’s chances to win, and many Republican prognosticators openly doubted the chances that what they considered a perfect political storm could be replicated.

As it turned out, President Obama did return to office, propelled by a coalition that performed even more stoutly than it had the first time around.  In the aftermath of Election 2012, the President’s critics and detractors grudgingly conceded they simply misjudged and/or underestimated Team Obama’s capacity to re-energize and motivate the many disparate parts of the President’s base.

The 2012 Campaign was marked by a revolving array of numbers.  The most important was two, of course, as in two terms for the incumbent President.  But there were many others, including:

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the 99%

In other words, the President’s victory far-reaching and inclusive.  Nevertheless, straight off his victory, the President was confronted by a wide-ranging expression of concern about the lack of diversity in his new Cabinet.  Friend and foe alike have called into question the make-up of the President’s Second Term CabinetRepublicans, in the wake of the oft-mentioned “War on Women” Democrats attributed to their Party, called out President Obama for his lack of female appointees.

That the Grand Old Party, home to the loyal opposition (of Democratic Administrations) would challenge the President on his record of appointments, or anything else is not news, naturally.  However, it does raise eyebrows when representatives of several of the President’s most ardent ally groups challenge his record of Cabinet appointments.  That is precisely what happened during the early months of 2013, as President Obama revealed his nominees for appointment to Cabinet posts.

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the Human Rights Campaign (HRC – the nation’sleading LGBT organization), the NAACP, the National Organization of Women, and the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda have all challenged, criticized, and/or complained about the President’s Cabinet.  Now that there is only one Cabinet Post remaining to be filled, the Small Business Administration, (SBA), it is virtually assured the new Cabinet will be less diverse; whiter and more male-dominated than his first.

As diversity goes, there will likely be more white men (up from 8 to 10), fewer women (down from 8 to 7), fewer blacks (down from 4 to 3), fewer Asians, (down from 3 to 1), and fewer Latinos, down from 2 to 0 at present).  However, the President does seem to be leveling a concerted effort to fill the SBA post with a Hispanic.

President Obama insists that his first White House and Cabinet staff was as diverse a team, if not more diverse, than any in history.  In January, he urged critics to avoid rushing to judgment; to wait and see how the appointment process unfolded.  Now that the process has nearly played itself out, we can see there will be no panacea for proponents of diversity.

It is time for a new argument, posthaste!  The new argument, and there is one which holds merit, is that it is actually appropriate to recognize that the President has chosen a Cabinet that reflects his principles and policy beliefs.  These core values were validated by a coalition supported by the gaggle of numbers and percentages referenced earlier.  I know it is an about-face from the often splintering identity politics to which we have become accustomed.  Consider it a case of, “As the Cabinet Turns!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/05/02/6dd62e50-b36e-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/03/immigration-cabinet-diversity-discussed-in-strategy-session-between-obama-and/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-jencunas/obama-cabinet-diversity_b_3221014.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/mike-huckabee-obama-cabinet_n_2443695.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/

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

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/05/04/obama-criticized-for-lack-of-lgbt-diversity-in-cabinet/

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/03/24/congressional-black-caucus-chair-criticizes-obamas-lack-of-cabinet-diversity/

http://thegrio.com/2013/01/24/naacps-ben-jealous-criticizes-obamas-lack-of-cabinet-diversity/

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

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

Definitely a First; But Will it be a Game Changer?

It’s time to Break It Down!

I was faced with a “Split the Baby” dilemma when deciding what to write about today.  Two separate and compelling (for me) stories called out to my faculties for discernment Monday.  It’s no secret, I am not gifted with Solomon’s wisdom.  Still, I had a blog to compose.  Ultimately, I’m a huge basketball fan, and Jason Collins’ story of coming to grips with his authentic self, and subsequently sharing his voice in a way that challenges convention, carried the day.

But I’m also an unrepentant homer, at heart.  As such, the fact that President Obama affirmed his nomination of Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx as the nation’s next Transportation Secretary caused me to beam with pride.  Mayor Foxx’s nomination is significant for many reasons.  The President has inured a fair amount of criticism for a lack of diversity in his second Cabinet.  I’m an strong and unequivocal supporter of the Commander-in-Chief…, but I have no hesitation in expressing the view that this particular criticism is “well-earned.” 

Needless to say, I am delighted President Obama redressed a grievance held by so many of his supporters (including me); I am pleased that Mayor Foxx has earned an opportunity to take his talent, skill, and ability to the national stage; I’m happy the City of Charlotte will benefit from the temporary bounce emanating from the media references that accrue from the Mayor’s nomination, and hopefully what will be a relatively non-eventful confirmation process.  

As an aside, in keeping with my homerism, I should mention that, today, President Obama is expected to name North Carolina 12th Congressional District Representative Mel Watt (of Charlotte) as his nominee to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).  The agency regulates Fannie MaeFreddie Mac, and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks.  Thank you Mr. President, and congratulations Mayor Foxx and Representative Watt.           

By now you probably know that on Monday, in a “Sports Illustrated” (SI) essay, Jason Collins, an NBA Center, came out.”  In doing so, Collins became the first active male player in any of the four major American professional team sports (Basketball, Baseball, Football, & Hockey) to admit he is gay.  Other players have revealed their homosexuality, but not until after their career had ended.

Reaction across the always interesting landscape of the NBA has been surprisingly supportive.  For several weeks now, there had been a whisper that a collection of professional players, probably from several different professional leagues, would participate in what amounts to a communal revelation, or joint “coming out.”  While that might represent more of a sea change, and could still occur, this…is not that.

It may certainly be argued, Jason Collins has chosen “The Road Less Traveled.”  By standing alone in the breach, he eschewed (what for some may be) the comfortable notion of safety in numbers for the clarity of authoring, delivering, and to some degree, controlling his own message.  Collins has been widely lauded and applauded for his courageous action.  He has collected a Who’s Who list of calls, tweets, and supportive comments from dignitaries and celebrities, including:

Of course the reaction to Jason’s revelation was not all sweetness and lightESPN Analyst Chris Broussard weighed in with a lack of acceptance.  In describing his position, Broussard said:

“Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle, or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals.  If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin.  I think that is walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.”

In making his comments, Broussard added that he had spoken with a number of players and general managers, and reaction was mixed.  He asserted that even in cases in which a player of GM might disagree, they would be loath to say so, for fear of being labeled a bigot, or being perceived as impolitic.

Broussard, for his part, may have been insightful, but he was definitely not immune to the Shoot the messenger syndrome.  Regardless of whether he was well-intended or even pointedly accurate, the vibe on this matter is that the commentary…the official commentary anyway, is going to be pro-Collins.

The short story here is Jason Collins was deeply and securely “closeted.”  He played collegiately at Stanford, and was drafted in the 1st Round with the 18th pick by the NBA’s New Jersey (now Brooklyn) Nets in 2001.  He has played 12 years in the League.  When he told his twin brother Jarron last summer, Jarron had no idea.  Incidentally, the twins played together at Stanford, and both were drafted in 2001…Jarron in the 2nd Round; 52nd pick.

In his SI essay, Jason admits he dated women, and actually was once engaged.  It is unfortunate he felt compelled to portray a character rather than be himself.  Perhaps he will choose acting as his next career, and use his considerable skills to achieve an end he will deem more suitable.

There is no bigger fan or fan group, of Collins’ move, than the Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender (LGBT) community.  The buzz seems to indicate there is a strong feeling that Collins’ action will help engender heightened momentum for the movement.

The move by Collins is a first; it’s even groundbreaking.  But at least three questions remain open, for the moment at least.

Collins is a Free Agent, a 12-year veteran, and near the end of a pedestrian NBA career.  He is a 7-footer who had his moments, including playing an integral part on a Nets team that made it to the NBA Finals.  However, this year, he averaged 1.1 points, and 1.6 rebounds per game.  The first question is, “Will he be re-signed?”

Even without Monday’s  announcement, there were long odds on Jason’s career being extended.  If he is not re-signed by the Wizards, his current team, or traded to, or signed by another NBA squad, there will be those who question whether the decision was tied to the essay.  Based on the value proposition alone, such a suggestion, while not inconceivable, is improbable. Conversely, there is an argument that his revelation, in and of itself, may contribute to extending his career.  We shall see!  

An additional consideration is Collins has never been a marquee player, nor put up stratospheric stats.  For his career, Jason averaged 3.6 points and 3.8 rebounds during the Regular Season, and 3.3 points and 3.8 rebounds during the Playoffs.  As such, the announcement by him does not hold the same cachet as if a vastly more successful player had taken the same step.  Ergo, the second question is, “Does Collins’ move resonate throughout the NBA and other professional sports, long-term?”

The prospect of Collins playing again is iffy at best, but even if he does, it is not yet clear whether his initiative will at least motivate other individuals, or groups of male professional team sport players to step up and reveal that they are gay.  If it does, then the aforementioned sea change just might be underway. 

To that end, I leave you with the third and final question; “Definitely a First; But Will it be a Game Changer?”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

Transnational Collaboration Derailed A Terror Plot in Canada

It’s time to Break It Down!

A week ago Monday, a terrorist attack killed 3 people near the end of the Boston Marathon race course.  In addition to the deaths, over 170 people suffered various injuries; some so severe, that amputations were required.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and his younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, are alleged to have been the perpetrators of the brutal explosive attack.  In related news reports, the Russian Government provided warnings in 2011 that Tamerlan may have been involved with a radical element in the Dagestan region of Russia.  The FBI interviewed the elder brother, but found no corroborating evidence.  Apparently after the interview, Tamerlan returned to Russia, and spent 6 months in Dagestan.  The is an ongoing discussion about whether Homeland Security officials simply dropped the ball in tracking Tamerlan.

In an unrelated matter, a week ago today, an explosion at a fertilizer plant and ammonia storage facility in the tiny town of West, Texas, resulted in at least 14 deaths, and more than 200 other casualties.  It was a rough week in these United States.  The American security apparatus, already on high alert, due to the Boston bombing, leapt into action to determine whether there were any elements connecting the incident in West to those in Boston.  There was none.  Though the exact cause has yet to be determined, there is significant speculation that the blast may have been the inadvertent result of an unfortunate mixing of the potentially volatile contents of the building.  A fire is thought to be the direct catalyst for the explosion.  Still, the question remains; how did the fire start?

Fast forward to Monday of this week, and there is another chapter to consider.  In an event planned beyond America’s borders, but still within a range of proximity that rightfully generates concern, Canadian authorities foiled what they have labeled, designs to initiate an “al-Qaeda inspired” attack on a Canadian VIA passenger train.  The plot, according to  Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), was aided by Iranian-based elements of the infamous terror group.

Chiheb Esseghaier, 30, and Raed Jaser, 35, were arrested in Montreal and Toronto, respectively, on Monday.  Though the plot has no discernible link to the events in Boston, the train, originating in the Toronto area would likely have been heading to the United StatesFBI authorities collaborated with Canadian officials in exposing the plot, which led to their arrests.  In contrast to the case of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, it appears a coordinated national and global security apparatus worked as it should have to prevent Esseghaier and Raed from carrying out heinous acts of terror. 

The RCMP was tight-lipped about specific details of the plot, though they noted the two arrestees were not Canadian citizens.  They stated, further, that if the plot had been executed, innocent would have been killed.  The RCMP maintains the episode was still in the planning stages; they submit no one was in imminent danger.

The three events, despite the lack of a common thread, are an indication of rising tensions and an increase in violent acts, which may have terroristic overtones.  Even though the deadly explosion in West, Texas is not currently believed to have resulted from terrorist activity, the timing and related dynamics made it imperative to eliminate that possibility before determining the parameters of the investigation.

The events of September 11 (2001) forever changed air travel in the United States, and around the world.  It is likely that after last week, large widely dispersed events, such as Marathons, especially heralded races, as the one in Boston, will enact their own special safety precautions.  Now, after Monday, one can envision train travel will become an inordinately more onerous undertaking, as well.

The world as we know it continues to evolve.  The American visions of liberty and freedom will, undoubtedly, continue to stand out as unique models.  Yet, inexorably, the dimensions applied to defining such liberty, and the execution of freedom, American style, along with the attendant comforts of both, are eroding; slowly…but surely.

The FBI and the RCMP deserve kudos for their dedication, commitment, and professionalism.  Cheers; their Transnational Collaboration Derailed A Terror Plot in Canada!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/world/americas/canada-terror-plot-thwarted/index.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22258191

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/04/20/russia_warned_fbi_about_terror_suspect.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/22/tragedy-at-a-fertilizer-plant-in-west-texas.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/22/tamerlan_tsarnaev_russia_trip_is_an_airline_to_blame_for_the_fbi_not_knowing.html

http://www.jems.com/article/news/west-texas-community-begins-coping-trage

http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/04/major-terrorist-plot-foiled-in-canada/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8584333/Train-terror-plot-foiled

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to President Obama’s 2014 Budget Plan

It’s time to Break It Down!

I’m surprised; shocked would actually be a better word to describe my reaction.  I have checked.  Hell hasn’t frozen over, at least not that I can tell.  Nor is there snow falling on Miami Beach…according to the Weather Channel.  Yet, the GOP, the erstwhile “Party of No” to any measure proposed by President Barack Obama, has been reported to have embraced one of the tenets of the President’s 2014 Budget proposal.

Now it goes without saying, any proposal that could induce Republican leaders to speak supportively of a proposal submitted by the President is bound to be controversial on some front…and this one is.  In devising and proffering a budget, the President has proposed a new inflation measure — known as the chained consumer price index, or chained CPI — which would reduce Social Security benefits by only about 0.3 percentage points per year. But over the long run, it would save enough to wipe out as much as 20 percent of the program’s 75-year funding gap.

The GOP-led House of Representatives is moving ahead to conduct hearings on the proposal.  Republican Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee, has scheduled for Thursday the first public hearing looking at Obama’s proposal, The Washington Post reported. In addition, the panel’s health subcommittee will hold hearings on proposals by Obama that seek to control Medicare costs.
Representative Johnson is among the GOP members praising the President for including the chained-CPI adjustment in his budget request — saying it was “a first step toward protecting Social Security for today’s workers” — Democrats, conversely, as might be expected, are furious with the President for including the plan.

During a recent meeting arranged by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrats complained that their offices were being inundated with calls form irate constituents.

Politically, this is not a winner. Our brand is the party that brought you Social Security,” Democratic Rep. Rush D. Holt of New Jersey told the Post following the meeting.
As the same time, House Speaker John Boehner is pushing back against Republicans who are criticizing the plan as being harmful to seniors.  That’s because while some GOP members have expressed support for the proposal, as with a number of recent issues, the GOP response runs the gamut.  Some support it, others do not, and still there are those who have declined to commit to a position.
Nevertheless, the top Party official has made his position clear.  In response to Republican Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon calling the President’s Social Security proposal “a shocking attack on seniors,” Speaker Boehner told reporters, “I’ve made it clear that I disagreed with what Chairman Walden said.  This is the least we must do to begin to solve the problem of Social Security.”

This mixed reaction among GOP denizens would be perplexing, were it not for what I like to call the Obama Factor (OF).  That is an apparently intrinsic and irresistible urge for Republicans to eat their loafers, rather than sign-off on any proposal offered by this President.  In other words, the proposal was once a mainstay of the GOP’s deficit-reduction overtures to the White House.  In that regard, like so many previous proposals by President Obama that were born as GOP initiatives; once again, we see at least some members of the vaunted Republican Party deciding that what they once thought was a fantastic idea…now stinks to high heaven.

That’s the GOP I have come to recognize over the past five years.  This new attitude exhibited by Speaker Boehner is an eerie thing.  Frankly, I do not know what to make of it.

Apparently neither do some RepublicansRepresentative Walden’s potentially off-message comment provoked swift rebuke from the powerful Club for Growth, the conservative advocacy group that supports the measure as a starting point for reining in spending on government entitlement programs.

The club quickly assigned Walden a place on its “Primary My Congressman” list of Republicans who deserve a GOP primary opponent because they are insufficiently true to conservative ideals.

“We always knew Greg Walden had a liberal record, but he really cemented it with his public opposition to even modest entitlement reform,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola.

The cost-of-living proposal, long promoted by economists who say the government’s inflation adjustments are too generous, would shave a few dollars off the monthly checks of seniors, veterans and others who receive Social Security and other government benefits.

Chained-CPI would also apply to the tax code, bringing in revenue by capturing more taxpayers at higher rates as the tax brackets are adjusted more slowly for inflation.

Naturally, Democrats, say the change would hit the most vulnerable members of society, who should not be targeted for deficit reduction.  But influential GOP thought-benders such as Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform, also oppose the proposal, suggesting it would violate the group’s anti-tax pledge unless the added revenues were applied to lower taxes elsewhere in the tax code.

So what, you ask, is today’s lesson?  The lesson is one I gleaned years ago, and that we now have yet another empirical standard to validate.  Even as the Speaker of the House is trying to marshal GOP troops to support a proposal for which his Party fought valiantly during recent in-the-trenches hand-to-hand combat with Democrats on resolving the debt crisis, Party members are verifying that the OF remains a key litmus test for determining issues they will or will not support.

In a recent discussion after it became clear President Obama’s budget would include Chained-CPI; a policy of which congressional Republicans have proved to be fond, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman posed a poignant rhetorical question: “Wanna bet that Republicans soon start running ads saying that Obama wants to cut your Social Security?”

In response, some scoffed at the idea.  The point seemed to be, Republicans are extreme, but they are not that extreme.  The GOP is shameless, but not that shameless.  They couldn’t seriously condemn the President for offering a policy Republicans demanded he offer, could they?  Would they?  Of course they could…and they did!

To recap, quickly:

  1. The GOP demanded that President Obama accept Social Security cuts through Chained-CPI.
  2. President Obama, eager to reach a     compromise, grudgingly agreed and offered the GOP the policy concession that had been requested.
  3. The GOP then attacked the President for proposing the policy     they demanded.

By any fair measure, this is insane.  But it’s equally predictable — this is the same caucus that demands Medicare cuts, but then based their 2010 and 2012 campaign strategies in part on attacks that Democrats cut Medicare.

As this 2014 Budget battle continues to take shape, it is clear that President Obama has figured out a way to push both Republicans and Democrats beyond their respective comfort zones.  What is unclear is whether this out-of-the-box gambit (for a Democrat) is a function of superior tactical reckoning, an early indicator of President Obama buying into the tenets of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, an effort to open budget negotiations with a true compromise posture, or if the President has simply figured out yet another way to capitalize on the contemporary state of confusion in which the GOP seems to be at least temporarily immersed.  No matter which option you embrace, it is fair to say, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to President Obama’s 2014 Budget Plan!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/republicans-embrace-obamas-offer-to-trim-social-security-benefits/2013/04/15/9de1c594-a448-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gop-obama-social-security/2013/04/16/id/499713

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/12/nation/la-na-pn-social-security-obama-gop-20130412

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/11/17703586-social-security-republicans-and-post-policy-politics?lite

http://www.newser.com/story/166310/gop-leaders-like-obamas-social-security-cuts.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/293703-dems-fear-obamas-social-security-cut-will-haunt-them-in-2014

http://www.onenewspage.us/n/Front+Page/74vspvfmg/GOP-Leaders-Like-Obama-Social-Security-Cuts.htm

http://www.politicususa.com/obama-called-bluff-republicans-admit-scared-cut-social-security.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/16/1202213/-Republicans-dual-strategy-on-Social-Security-embrace-the-cuts-they-ll-blame-on-nbsp-Obama

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/04/16/politics/as-democrats-fume-republicans-embrace-social-security-cuts-in-obama-budget/

Gun Rights: An American Love Story!

It’s time to Break It Down!

“I’ll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands.”

If there is an anthem for the gun lobby, undoubtedly, that is it.  While many attribute the origin of the meme to Charlton Heston, he really just became the most persuasive, not to mention, most well-known vessel for what has become the quintessential message of the movement.  The quote is a variation of a slogan mentioned in a 1976 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency: I Will Give Up My Gun When They Peel My Cold Dead Fingers From Around It.”

The original version was not Heston’s; nor was it proffered by the NRA, whose ad campaigns made it famous.  A citizen’s group, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, based in Bellevue, Washington, devised the slogan, along with the also popular slice of gun mythology, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”  Together, these two battle cries serve to keep the most avid of gun rights supporters perpetually energized.

About 10 days ago, Charlotte and Harriet Childress penned an Opinion piece for the Washington Post linking mass shootings in the United States with white men.  The Childress’, who are identical twins, are researchers and consultants who study social and political issues.  They are also co-authors of Clueless at the Top: While the Rest of Us Turn Elsewhere for Life, Liberty, and Happiness.”  The book takes a look at what the sisters call “Outdated hierarchies in American culture.”

Needless to say, anyone putting forth such a premise is likely to face some pretty serious scrutiny, and more than a few ad hominem attacks.  This was certainly the case with Charlotte and Harriet.  Of course the classic and ready point of reference for critics of their argument is, “What about all the gun-related homicides that are not mass shootings?”  First off, it is important to say, point well taken!  However, having conceded the noted exceptions, what about the rule, to which they speak?

As the NRA, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the collective gun lobby make clear on a daily basis, a significant segment of the American populace loves its guns.  Judging by the ads one sees on TV, and by the Childress’ Washington Post Opinion, a key demographic of that segment is white men.

In Chicago, a city which has had mind-numbing numbers of homicides in the past several years, over 500 in 2012 alone, much of the carnage is attributed to young African American males, and to the gang violence to which many of them contribute.  This is a fair assessment, and appropriate discourse should ensue, and suitable remedies should be devised.

But, let’s not be obtuse, nor feign oblivion to the preeminently compelling fact of the matter, which is, the vast majority of perpetrators of mass shootings in America are white males (men or boys).  Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, & Newtown all spring to mind, with Newtown, where 20 five and six year-olds were murdered this past December, standing out as the touchstone for current efforts to fashion new gun law initiatives.

In their Washington Post article, the Childress sisters pose the inconvenient counter fact; “Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year.”

Now you might argue, correctly I would add, that the majority of shooters in Chicago have been African American; and they have been, year after year.  However, and I know this may invite its own element of tension; the victims in Chicago have also been mostly black.  Say what you will about ours being a color-blind society, or this being a post-racial America; the color of the victims, especially in the case of mass shootings, does make a difference.

Most of the victims of these horrendous acts have been white.  To take the what if narrative from above a step further, imagine if black men and boys were killing whites in a steady stream of mass shootings.  I am not sure we would get to year after year before the subject garnered more serious and intense scrutiny.

As the NRA has set out to establish an agenda to defeat “any” new gun laws, its focus has been placed largely on mental health issues.  This tact seems designed to deflate, if not flat out disparage any efforts to enact new legislation, no matter how logical, or well-intended they may be.

So why single-out white men?  Well for one thing, as the Opinion notes: “Women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semi-automatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren.  Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters.  Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers.”  And just to be clear, neither Native Americans, nor African Americans have a history of committing multiple mass shootings either.

Childress and Childress submit if life were equitable, white male gun-rights advocates would be forced to address a series of serious questions about their credibility and objectivity, including:

What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?

Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves  with violent video games and other media?

Why do white men buy, sell, and manufacture guns for profit, attend gun shows, and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately than people of other ethnicities or races?

Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?

The sisters suggest that if we ask the right questions, we will get the right answers.  It is their belief that the answers to the above questions will encourage white men to examine their role in their own culture and to help other white men and boys become healthier and less violent.

All this is high-minded, sounds good, and may even be the right course of action to take.  Alas, right questions notwithstanding, I am unconvinced that we as a society are anywhere near stemming the tide of gun violence in general or mass shootings in particular.  What we have, in my opinion, is a failure to adequately grasp the essential isness of one of America’s most deeply ingrained natural laws: Gun Rights: An American Love Story!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/white-men-have-much-to-discuss-about-mass-shootings/2013/03/29/7b001d02-97f3-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold,_dead_hands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw

https://www.facebook.com/charlotteharriet.childress

http://www.cluelessatthetop.com/h_and_c_childress.html

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/03/30/charlotte-and-harriet-childress-for-washington-post-white-men-have-much-to-discuss-about-mass-shootings-or-something/

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-most-mass-murderers-are-privileged-white-men

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-shooting-white-males-and-mass-murder

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem?s=t

“Back to the GOP Future!”

It’s time to Break It Down!

There is a rumor among us that the GOP is actively attempting to forge a makeover; a fundamental alteration of strategies and tactics that inured the Party’s losses in a number of key demographic strata back on November 6, 2012.  On that fateful day, AKA (also known as) Election Day, 2012, President Obama amassed an edge in numerous statistical categories, which ultimately propelled him to a win in the General Election.

It sounds good, in principle.  However, as with most high-minded ideals, finding and maintaining higher ground, moral or otherwise, is “easier said than done!”  Back to the real world; last week, Alaska Republican Representative Don Young took what may best be described as one humongous step “Back to the GOP Future!”  During a discussion about ongoing challenges to the economy last Thursday, Republican Young referred to Hispanic workers as “wetbacks,” an ethnic slur used to describe migrant workers.

In providing depth and context to his unwitting and off-putting phraseology, the Congressman told Alaska public radio station KRBD “My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes.  It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now.  It’s all done by machine.”  Perhaps, this variety of wrong-headed Palinesque jocularity is a fundamental flaw of Alaska Republicans.  But I digress.  The term “wetback” is a pejorative assignation historically used to describe workers from Latin American countries who swim across the Rio Grande to reach the United  States.

Last fall, during the height of the Presidential Campaign, a number of gaffes, if you will, impaired Governor Romney’s ability to engineer a successful effort to wrest the Presidency from “44.”  In fact, these untimely and unforced errors were a huge part of what Team GOP aimed to fix, after what by most accounts, they considered a stunning defeat in the 2012 Presidential Election.

In direct response, it has been reported that the Republican Party has executed extensive post-election polling and focus groups designed to obtain a serious and objective reading on where they stand within the framework of a changing electorate.  Obviously, this is not so subtle reinforcement of that ever compelling nugget of conventional wisdom: “Hindsight is 20/20.”  If only…this brainstorm had touched down before the election.

Mark McKinnon, a former strategist for George W. Bush opined, “The Republican Party needs messages and policies that appeal to a broader audience.  This election proved that trying to expand a shrinking base ain’t going to cut it.  It’s time to put some compassion back in conservatism.  The party needs more tolerance, more diversity and a deeper appreciation for the concerns of the middle class.”

To highlight his point, even though only 39% of whites, 44% of voters older than 65, and 25% of white males voted for President Obama, he still prevailed.  He did so in large measure because he won 9 of the 10 States identified as Swing States, losing only here in North  Carolina.  These states were home to the 10 closest election margins in 2012, and are listed below:

 

1. Florida: 0.6 percent (Obama 49.9, Romney 49.3.)

2. Ohio: 1.9 percent (Obama 50.1, Romney 48.2)

3. North  Carolina: 2.2 percent (Romney 50.6, Obama 48.4)

4. Virginia (99% reporting): 3.0 percent (Obama 50.8, Romney 47.8)

5. Colorado: 4.7 percent (Obama 51.2, Romney 46.5)

6. Pennsylvania (99% reporting): 5.2 percent (Obama 52, Romney 46.8)

7. Iowa: 5.6 percent (Obama 52.1, Romney 46.5)

8. New  Hampshire (99% reporting): 5.8 percent (Obama 52.2, Romney 46.4)

9. Nevada (99% reporting): 6.6 percent (Obama 52.3, Romney 45.7)

10. Wisconsin: 6.7 percent (Obama 52.8, Romney 46.1)

 

So despite President Obama and Democrats in general finding challenging sledding in the demographic segments for which the GOP fought most enthusiastically (and effectively, I might add), there was a proverbial desert of GOP political failure within in other demographic groups in 2012.  On the way to victory, the President won an array of demographic segments, including the dozen below:

     Women55%

     Black – 93%

     Hispanic – 67%

     Asian73%

     Jewish69%

     Other57%

     Age 18-29 – 60%

     Age 30-44 – 52%

     Unmarried67%

     Self Identified Gay – 76%

     Income Under $30,000 – 63%

     Income $30,000$49,000 – 57%

Obviously, the Republican Party has devoted a significant amount of mental capital to contemplating the return on investment (or lack thereof) in the politics of hate, derision, and various and sundry slurs.  Now all they need to do is get their full complement of players on board.

Congressman Young’s immediate response to the dust-up created by his comments was not exactly rueful, or contrition-filled.  In a sit down interview with Ketchikan Radio, Representative Young said, “I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California.  I know this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect.”  And yet, he used to the term anyway.  Mental note to the Congressman; that you “knew the word is not used in the same way nowadays”, and yet you used it anyway…that is what most thinking people would call, “the problem.”

In retrospect, Representative Young’s slur is a classic example the type of devaluing of an entire ethnic group that will make the GOP’s efforts to recalibrate its vision and messaging a continuing minefield, littered with their own crass commentary and willful disregard of calls for change, even from within their own diminishing circle.  So, from my admittedly limited vantage point, this was just another case of SOSDD; “Back to the GOP Future!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slurs-against-latinos-gays-complicate-gops-mission-to-broaden-its-tent/2013/03/29/407e1f84-9885-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop-lawmaker-calls-hispanic-workers-wetbacks-124131854–politics.html

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/51375069#51375069

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/29/don-young-migrant-slur-republican-reaction/2035161/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/03/29/rep-don-young-in-hot-water-for-wetback-comment/

http://americablog.com/2013/03/wetback-don-young-latinos-gay-marriage.html

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/republican-congressman-refers-latinos-wetbacks/story?id=18836752#.UVuX58_D_IU

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/29/1793271/don-young-latino-wetbacks/?mobile=nc

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2013/mar/29/gop-denounces-youngs-hispanic-slur/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/29/alaska-republican-don-young-wetbacks-slur

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/obamas-victory-presents-gop-with-demographic-test.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/obama-won-on-values-not-demographics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.statisticbrain.com/2012-presidential-voter-support-by-demographic/

http://www.usatoday.com/interactives/news/politics/how-the-race-was-won

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/jewish-voter-exit-polls_n_2084008.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

http://www.krbd.org

Patrick Lumumba: A Tortuous Tale of Italian Jurisprudence!

It’s time to Break It Down!

On November 1, 2007, 21 year-old Meredith Kercher was murdered in Perugia, ItalyMs. Kercher was a British exchange student from Coulsdon, South London.

Rudy Guede, a native of the Ivory Coast, raised in Perugia, was convicted in October 2008 of having sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher.  Initially sentenced to 30 years, his sentence was reduced on appeal to 16 years in December 2009.

Amanda Knox, an American exchange student in Perugia,Kercher’s flatmate (roommate), and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student were convicted on charges of sexual assault and murder in December 2009, and sentenced to 26 and 25 years respectively.  Their convictions were overturned on appeal in October 2011.  In a statement of their grounds for overturning the convictions, the two judges who oversaw the case wrote:

There was a “material non-existence” of evidence to support the guilty verdicts at the trial. The prosecution’s theory of an association between Sollecito, Knox and Guede was “not corroborated by any evidence” and “far from probable

Kercher’s murder and the subsequent events, especially Knox’sarrest and trial, received worldwide media attention.  This was particularly true in Italy and England, where much of the publicity was of the salacious tabloid variety.  A number of observers criticized the press for failing to describe events in an accurate and dispassionate manner.  Naturally, the concern was that this could skew the outcome of the case.

In recent days, American media has been afire with reports that the Italian Supreme Court has overturned the acquittal, and declared that Knox and Sollecito’s case must be retried.  While the case is set in Italy, in America, we operate on a presumption of innocence, until one is proved guilty.  There is also a rule against what is called double-jeopardy, which means, in effect, if an individual is tried and found not guilty, they cannot be tried again for the same crime.

All of this may seem quite confusing to casual observers, familiar with the rules of American jurisprudence.  In the Italian system, there is a procedural sequencing that allows the Supreme Court to take the action it has in Ms. Knox’s case.  In the technical sense, what is about to happen is an extension of the stages or phases of the original prosecution, and not what Americans would consider double-jeopardy.

Amanda Knoxmay in fact be innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher.  I hope she is! This review of the facts is not intended to try her case from my vantage point.  Rather, it is meant to note the markedly biased treatment the recent ruling is being given by parts of the American media stream, which appears to be enthusiastically questioning how “unfairly” Ms. Knox is being treated, as she attempts to rebuild her life back in her home town of Seattle.

Yet, this is what I find troubling. In her initial story to police, Ms. Knox alleged that Patrick Lumumba was infatuated with Ms. Kercher, had sex with her, and later killed her.  Lumumba was a bar owner for whom Knox worked.  At one point she noted:

I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her.

Mr. Lumumba spent two weeks in jail, before the evidentiary trail fell apart abruptly, on two separate fronts. First and foremost, he had an airtight alibi.  He was at work at his bar, and engaged in conversation all evening with witnesses who corroborated his whereabouts.  Second, his DNA could not be found at the crime scene…the reason being both understandable, and abundantly clear, since he was not there!  On its face, at best, this was yet another classic instance of “blame it on the black guy;” at worse, it was a blatantly opportunistic, perhaps even desperate ploy to point the po-po in any direction, not aimed toward her.

In the end, regardless of whether Ms. Knox tried to “Susan SmithLumumba, or whether she was just lying through her teeth in an at-all-costs effort to save her own skin, damn the consequences to an innocent man; her behavior and character must be put under a microscope, due to her personal actions, color notwithstanding.  She was eventually found guilty of slandering Mr. Lumumba, and had her sentence for doing so, initially slated for one year, increased to three years and eleven days.

The Italian Court of Cassation later found that Knox’s human rights had been violated, because the police had not told her of her legal rights, appointed her a lawyer, or provided her an official interpreter; therefore, her statement to police was ruled inadmissible for Knox’s and Sollecito’scriminal trial. The court did, however, rule the note she wrote afterwards questioning the validity of her statement was admissible as evidence to prosecute her.

On 16 November the Rome forensic police matched fingerprints found in Kercher’s bedroom to Rudy Guede, who had lived in or near Perugia since arriving in Italy with his father when he was five years old. Because he was an immigrant, his fingerprints were on file.  He was arrested on November 20, 2007 in Germany, where he had fled days after the murder. His DNA was later found at the crime scene, on and inside Kercher’s body.  The prosecution charged Guede for the murder, but retained the allegations against Knox and Sollecito that originally related to acting in concert with Mr. Lumumba.

On October 3, 2011, the court overturned Knox’s and Sollecito’s convictions on charges of complicity in murder, sexual assault, illegally carrying a knife and staging a break-in. The conviction of Knox on a charge of slander was upheld.

Ms. Knox immediately returned to the United States upon her release from custody.  She then undertook the arduous task of putting the pieces of her life back together after four years in an Italian jail.  She is enrolled in college, she is writing a book about her experience, and by and large she has tried to get on with her life.

Americans have a tendency to look out for their own.  Consequently, I understand, given the range of less than delightful circumstances that Ms. Knox experienced, how and why Americans, spurred by an overzealous media, may be prone to view her as a sympathetic figure.  Yet, I cannot exorcise from my mind the image of Patrick Lumumba; innocent and in jail.  And no matter how you frame it, he found himself in that unenviable position because of the nonfactual representation of events presented by a woman whose collective defense much of the American media seems to be at the ready.

I’m sorry, but in my view, Patrick Lumumba is the sympathetic figure in this story.  As I wrote earlier, I am not suggesting that Ms. Knox is culpable in Ms. Kercher’s death.  I don’t even care to speculate on that subject. However, what has been established as fact, and etched in my mind is, for whatever the reason, Ms. Knox concocted a story, among a spate of other inconsistencies, that led to an innocent black man going to jail.  Patrick Lumumba: A Tortuous Tale of Italian Jurisprudence!”  That’s all I need to know!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com or http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Followin 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.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/28/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-timeline

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/amanda_knox/4.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21938080

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rudy.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9954208/Amanda-Knox-Meredith-Kercher-murder-retrial-Q-and-A.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/26/175336714/italian-court-orders-retrial-for-amanda-knox

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/k/amanda_knox/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-italy-knox-idUSBRE92P0AE20130326

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/amanda-knox-acquittal-overturned-new-trial-ordered-2007-murder-meredith-kercher-article-1.1299140