FOUR MORE YEARS

Some of the excuses being made for Mitt Romney's loss are pretty amusing. e.g. - I've seen "he couldn't separate himself from right wing extremists" cited.

Silly rabbit. That would be because Mitt attached himself to them. Nobody made him go hard core on immigration to counter Rick Perry. Romney’s choice.

Nobody made Mitt endorse Richard Murdouck both before AND AFTER his horrific rape commentary. That was Mitt's call. He chose to co-sign such extremism all on his own.

Did Romney distance himself at all from Donald Trump's ludicrous, baseless, racist bordering accusations? Nope. Not even by an inch or two.

Romney may not be as conservative as he pretended to be (will the real Mitt Romney please stand up, please stand up, please stand up), but he did earnestly pretend to be as conservative/extremist/right wing as they come. There are repercussions for such behavior regardless of whether it’s heartfelt or play acting.

Another reason I saw cited for Romney's loss was because ads by the Obama team managed to make Mitt seem unlikeable. Hah!

Let us be straight with one another here. What made Mitt Romney unlikeable was Mitt Romney. His actions spoke, opposition ads simply spotlighted them.

Unless Barack Obama is a master ventriloquist who somehow put that 47% quote in Mitt's mouth, Romney basically created attack ads on himself.

Obama didn't even need to tie Romney to Bush like he effectively did with McCain. In their last debate Obama basically said that Romney is another GW copycat, except that Bush’s policies were less mean spirited than Mitt’s.

McCain made major mistakes, biggest of all being the selection of Sarah Palin. But at least she got him Alaska's electoral votes so she wasn’t entirely useless.

Romney went & picked an Ayn Rand devotee who couldn't even secure his own state for the ticket.

Mitt beat his own damn self during tough economic times that should have spelled doomsday for the incumbent. The main reason Mitt beat himself is not anything stated above but the simple fact that he was an awful candidate who tried to buy his way into the White House. DENIED.

After lurking throughout the campaign I decided to engage a die hard Republican friend of mine who was griping about the end result on Facebook. Conversation went reasonably well because I respectfully disagreed but made undeniable point he did not really attempt to counter.

Point I made is that whatever party you happen to side with, the obligation of that party to is put forth serious candidates to promote the cause.

You can severely disagree with the Democrats’ principles but at least acknowledge that Obama, Kerry, Gore, Hillary Clinton were credible candidates with serious intentions.

On the other hand, the Republicans ran a serial flip flopper whose crowning achievement was the healthcare mandate he then had to run against. When you battle yourself, no matter who wins, you lose.

Keep in mind that this is after running Sarah Palin in the VP spot as a blatantly shallow attention grabber the last time out. And we must not forget that Donald Trump was once the Republican party’s frontrunner even though his brief flirtation with running was clearly a publicity stunt. Herman Cain was just a small step up from Trump, his presence a weak attempt to prove that the Republican platform is for black people too.

To a certain degree it doesn't matter whose argument is superior. Plenty of valid points are issued by both sides. A quality candidate from either of our two main political parties can go on to excel at the presidency. But if instead of well qualified applicants you run clowns, more often than not you’ll lose.

I suspect the lesson has finally been learned and the 2016 election will feature quality candidates on both sides of the political theory divide.

Then again, money talks and if the super conservative ridiculously right wing fringe is spending plenty of it, another lame GOP candidate may emerge. This would guarantee another victory for the Democrats.

It seems necessary from reading my Twitter stream after Obama’s victory to point out that a vote for Romney was not by definition a vote for racism. His supporters baffle me but they aren't ALL bigots.

Too many of them are though, as evidenced by: Anti-Obama Protest at Ole Miss Turns Unruly

If you're white, not a bigot, and a student at Old Miss, it's a lot harder to hold your head high while wearing your college sweatshirt today.

Behavior like that makes future would be Republican voters go "Nah, I don't want to be affiliated with that. I'll go Democrat or be Independent instead".

Stupid people don't realize that they hurt their causes and themselves with stupid behavior. That's because they're stupid people. It takes a long long time to weed out ignorance. There's always somebody passing stupidity down to their kids, keeping moronic hate alive.

But a work in progress is still undeniably PROGRESS.

We may not be post-racial but we are most definitely post slavery/Jim Crow/segregation. The GOP needs to distance themselves in a hurry from those who should really be members of the KKK for all their backwardness of beliefs.

It is never going to be 1950 again no matter how badly you want to turn the clock back. In the 21st century if you keep disenfranchising racial/ethnic/religious minorities, women, homosexuals - you'll lose.

You either change with the times or get run over by them. There really is no happy middle ground. Not if you require more votes than that obtained by a reasonable challenger to gain employment.

Once the GOP platform is not about exclusion, but rather, about core principles that they can run proudly on, they'll reclaim lost relevance.

It that doesn't happen they'll simply go the way of the dinosaur. Getting pounded in quest for Black/Latino/Gay/Immigrant/Women votes = extinction.

And for Pete's sake, let overturning Roe v Wade go. It's been decided. It's in the books. It makes sense. Move on. There are other causes.

With so many people PISSED about the state of the economy, all the Republican Party needed to do was put a credible candidate at the head of the ticket. They royally messed that up.

Final Electoral College tally: Obama 332, Romney 206.

No Halloween Trick - Just A Treat

After considerable contemplation I have decided to put the Kindle edition of Patches of Grey into Amazon's KDP Select program. Unfortunately this means the digital version will be temporarily unavailable to those looking to upload it to their Nook or Kobo software. But if you're an Amazon shopper (and who isn't these days?) the good news is that Patches of Grey will be entered into their ebook Lending Library. In case you don't already know, the Kindle Owners' Lending Library is a collection of books that Amazon Prime members can borrow once a month, with no due dates.

As an added bonus, I will soon be offering the Kindle edition of Patches of Grey FOR FREE TO EVERYBODY for a period of 5 days. So you don't need to be an Amazon Prime member, simply stay on the look-out for a promotional announcement. I haven't decided yet whether the giveaway will last 5 days straight or if I'll scatter it around a bit. Either way I'll be sure to let you know when you can take advantage of a free book promotion here at A Line A Day, on Twitter where I go by the name @AuthorOfPatches, at my FaceBook fan page, on GoodReads.com, at my web site RoyPickering.net, and anywhere else I can think of. The Kindle edition of Patches of Grey only costs $2.99 ($9.99 for the print edition), but these days any hard earned dollar we can keep in our pockets is a buck that's greatly appreciated. That's why there will be no trick played by me on book lovers, only the TREAT of an opportunity to download my novel free of charge. Then you can finally find out what all the raves have been about.

Most important of all, I hope this blog posting finds you well after the havoc brought about by Hurricane Sandy. I live in New Jersey and work in New York City so electrical power was lost on both ends. My daughter's school is out of power as well. Fortunately I still have a sturdy roof over my head and dry floors underneath. Rather than being frustrated by the hassles of post hurricane damage I'm doing my best to remain upbeat while being grateful for what I do still have, including good friends and loved ones who have come through in the clutch. Sometimes it takes adversity to learn who you can truly depend on. I have survived the tricks that Hurricane Sandy played on us east coasters, spoiling planned Halloween festivities, and am greatly appreciative of the treat of reliable friendship.

No adversity must be weathered to obtain Patches of Grey though. And soon, for some, for a period of time - No Expense.



A very big p.s. - CONGRATULATIONS TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Why Elections Matter - And Debates Leave Too Much Unsaid

Is there ever going to be a serious conversation about what the repercussions would be if Roe vs Wade was overturned? This is not a theoretical matter because it could really happen in the not too distant future, at which point the matter ceases to be about opposing talking points and transforms into nitty gritty details to be dealt with.

I respect someone sincerely having a Pro Life position but I’m tired of hearing politicians say “I’m pro life”, “I believe in the sactity of life”, “all lives are sacred” without then detailing a follow up plan.

Suppose Romney wins the election and eventually he’s able to appoint enough conservative Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe vs Wade.

So it’s now illegal for a woman (guy who contributed to the pregnancy bears no consequence of course, a major flaw in plan) to get an abortion. Penalty for breaking the law must be decided on.

Jail time seems ridiculous. So I guess you go with a hefty fine. But not everyone will be able to afford the fine. Jail time for those who can’t pay? Result, prisons overflowing with poor women.

Whatever penalty is decided on, let us assume it’s quite pursuasive. This means far fewer abortions, far more babies. The number of women who get pregnant without planning to parent will stay the same. After all, many of those who are anti-abortion are also illogically anti-contraceptives.

So now what? I will conservatively guess that the birth rate increases by 50%.

Women who wish to avoid the penalty for getting an illegal abortion (I won’t even get into the safety of the inevitable bootleg abortions from the network of unlicensed practicioneers that will emerge) decide to give birth even though they don’t want/plan to parent.

A percentage of these women will give a half hearted shot at raising the children. I'm going to say 20%. These are mostly poor, single women pushed to care for children they don’t want in their lives. The picture will not be pretty in those households but all that matters is squelching abortions.

But how about the other 80%? The attitude of these women is that you can make them carry to term but you can’t make them parent. 10% of these pregnancies are hidden and babies end up left in dumpsters.

Now we must deal with 70% of babies born to women who did not want and do not plan to raise them. The system (which takes various forms, much of it private/charitable, but much of it also government run or dependent on government money) will have to take care of these children. Adoption agencies and foster care system become overloaded but all that matters is squelching abortions.

I will generously assume that if you’re going to overturn Roe vs Wade you’re also going to pass laws that make adoption extremely affordable. As result, 25% of these children find welcoming homes.

It would be nice if all of these households had guaranteed healthcare. That’s a separate though certainly not unrelated matter for another day/post.

25% is probably too high a projection. After all, a fair number of the children will be the result of rape and even incest. This makes them way less adoptable. It’s not like reducing the cost of adoption means everyone becomes willing to do it. Many people have no interest in parenting, or no interest in parenting someone who is not their biological child. As for those who are willing (God bless them), they’ll have some restrictions (such as no can do if child is the result of violent rape) for obvious reasons.

But I’ll stick with my optimistic 25% guesstimate anyway. That leaves 45% of the babies whose biological mothers could/would not raise them going into the sytem.

Now as we know, the Romney/Ryan budget calls for making massive cuts to social services even though a massive INCREASE in funds to social services would be required to handle all of these children.

What we have here is another case of math that doesn’t add up. You want to “fix” our economy but simultaneously want to overturn a law that would eventually lead to a crippling of the economy. And keep in mind, this is the best case scenario I’m working with.

So maybe, just maybe, the issue isn’t quite so simple as saying “I’m pro life”, “I believe in the sactity of life”, “all lives are sacred”, “abortion is cold blooded murder that must be prevented at all cost”.

If that’s your stance, I understand and respect it. You believe in no exceptions other than perhaps when the life of the mother is at risk? Fine. I too wish that the number of abortions that occur each year considerably decreased, although since I am a man and cannot get pregnant, I’m not so arrogant as to think I have the right to tell a woman what she is allowed to do with her body. But if you are that arrogant/self righteous then I really need to hear your follow up plan. I need to know how many lives you are volunteering to care for if you insist on taking away women’s reproductive rights. If you are going to insist that every child be born then surely you will be doing your minimal share to address the consequences of this taking place. You don’t want to just overturn a rule of law and then let the chips fall where they may, correct? Not when those chips happen to be lives that you profess to care so much about.

If in fact you don’t have a follow up plan, then you need to go sit quiety in the corner and give more serious consideration to who you plan to vote for.



p.s. - NOBODY PUTS BABY IN A BINDER

Judging Presidential Idol

Who do you think won the first Presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney? Well, according to a CNN poll 67% believe it was Mr. Romney. That number sounds about right when compared to an unofficial poll of my Twitter feed. If Romney won, this means Obama was the loser. I disagree on both counts. It’s apparent to me based not on the debate but reactions to it that the winner was Style, and the loser was Substance. Substance is specifically indicating how you intend to address a problem and why you believe it has a solid chance to be successful. As for an effective style, it seems some examples would be ignoring and/or speaking over the moderator, being loudest and the most demonstrative, in general coming off as more aggressive than anyone else in the room.

Now I find nothing wrong with being demonstrative/loud/aggressive (rudeness to moderator is less than charming but not a deal breaker), so long as this is the manner in which you are delivering facts and common sense and a well laid out plan. If instead you are vague, denying what I plainly heard you say just the other day, making grand promises without showing a shred of evidence as to how it’s possible to achieve them, then I don’t care how much flair you demonstrate. While writing this I had a flashback to that little old lady from the Wendy’s commercials. Where’s the beef, she would demand to know. Mitt Romney did better than many expected from him and Barack Obama was less animated than a great number of his supporters hoped for. Expectations held in advance strongly influence determinations made after the fact. But ask yourself this. How can you declare Romney to be “the winner” when his claims on stage were both toothless and beefless? Perhaps Mitt made a stronger impression on you, particularly in comparison to his previous bumbling and stumbling. But do you intend to vote for an impression or for the real deal? Will you vote for the man who says and proves by actions how he’ll maintain Medicare and Social Security, promote improvements in the education system, lower the unemployment rate and deficit, increase our independence from oil and the nations in possession of much of it, cut the middle class a break in hard times rather than making the rich richer? Or will you vote for the man who says he’ll do all of that too, but gives no indication of how he would accomplish anything other than the opposite?

Mitt Romney’s campaign for president has been full of contradictions and inconsistencies. At one time or another he has been on both sides of most issues. The most blatant instance is his assault on and promise to repeal a healthcare plan that is based on his own model from when he was governor of Massachusetts and still possessed 47% of the heart provided by the Wizard of Oz. There are not enough hours in the day, much less in a debate where you only get half of the alloted time, to point out every instance of Romney’s hypocrisy. Yet many wish that Barack Obama had highlighted considerably more of them than he got around to. Consider me one of those people. But please don’t declare that I am someone who thinks Romney won the debate, and definitely do not place me on Team Style. No, I ride with Substance all the way. President Obama’s agenda may not be perfect (perfection is impossible anyway when met with obstruction from the Senate at every turn), but it is a plausible solution. It is tempting to want and believe in quick fixes, explaining why so much money has been made off of diet pills even though we know calorie control and exercise are what works. Turning the economy around cannot be done overnight, and not simply because George W. Bush was given 8 years to mess it up. Slow and steady is a believable course of action, no matter that it makes us understandably impatient. Waving a magic wand while cutting taxes on the rich to instantly create 12 million jobs is a far less plausible plan. That’s true even when it’s proclaimed with fantastic showmanship.

Left leaning political pundits are in an uproar. Social media is in a tizzy. Mitt Romney won the debate, they cry. All is lost. Perhaps Romney did win the debate per your personal standards of what victory looks like. If you think all is lost, though, then you must believe that the “independent undecideds” are just as easily swayed by sound and fury that signifies nothing. Keep in mind that up until now nothing has been able to swing them one way or the other. How this can be the case continues to befuddle me. I’m not sure whether they number in the millions, the thousands, or the dozens. I have no idea if they’re spread throughout the country or reside together Big Brother style. What I do know is that those who support Obama still support the President, those who support Romney still support him, and talking softly while carrying a big stick tends to be more effective than empty handed shouting.

"At some point, the American people have to ask themselves if the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans secret is because they're too good." - President Barack Obama

Fact Checks

Open Mouth - Grab Foot - Insert

"My only concern is the poor, especially minorities, blacks in particular. The rest are set so can fend for themselves." – Invisible Obama

Even if that was how he feels (and it isn’t), the real live flesh and blood President Obama would never say such a foolish thing. Not during the heat of a campaign. Not in public. Not even behind doors he believed to be closed to the media. He learned his lesson about sounding even remotely condescending towards any group of people not serving in Congress the last go around. Yet there are plenty of people who believe my make believe quote to be an accurate summary of Obama’s point of view. Why? He’s a Democrat, ain’t he? He’s liberal, ain’t he? He’s Black, ain’t he? He’s not truly American regardless of where he was born, right? No matter what he says and does, there is a portion of the electorate that does not believe Obama gives priority to their interests. They require no evidence of this. That’s the beautiful thing about prejudice (not just talking race based prejudice either), it can’t be reasoned away because it’s incapable of recognizing things such as logic and common sense. Why believe their lying eyes when all that matters is what’s in their hearts?

Mitt Romney on the other hand did not need to carry the burden of appearing to care for only a select few. We didn’t assume that he’s only looking out for his select group of brethren from the start. After all, he has church service and a health care plan in Massachussets and even his “rescue mission” of the Olympic games to point to as evidence that he cares about ALL AMERICANS. Other selflish looking acts on Romney’s part may have given some people doubts about his character, but it would and should have been no great challenge for him to believably claim he’s running for President to help EVERYBODY. He’s a politician so of course he would have been viewed by the media and many voters with a degree of cynicism, even if he had a similar resume to that of Mother Teresa. Yet he should have been able to plausibly claim that he cares for that kid in the projects just as much as he does for that CEO who generously donated to his campaign. He merely needed to do a little acting. How difficult could that be? Romney has repeatedly shown he can appear to be convinced of one thing on Monday, and of the opposite being his belief by Friday. So surely he’d be able to make it to the end of a campaign without actually confessing that he could give a damn about nearly half the country. No way would he admit that he didn’t plan to preside on their behalf were we idiotic enough to elect him.

Guess again. The cat is out of the bag. It was a transparent bag so we could see the cat in there all along. But at least the feline was contained and therefore could do minimal damage. Now the critter is out and ready to race through all 9 of the Romney campaign’s lives. Mitt looks like a President, or so we’re supposed to believe. Appearances weren’t deceiving for long enough though. It didn’t take debating with the President to expose him. It didn’t take someone proving that he’s paid hardly any taxes over the years. It didn’t take making an absurdly dumb choice for vice president to be his undoing. Mitt Romney simply opened his mouth and told “his people” how he truly feels, because he didn’t think any of “the others” were listening in. There are a lot of others. I don’t know if the percentage is closer to 47% or 99% of the population, but it should be sufficient to make sure Mitt Romney never sees the inside of the White House unless he pays to take a tour.



"It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.” – Obama campaign

“Had he (he being Mitt's dad, who was born in Mexico for fascinating reasons) been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this.” - Mitt Romney

On a completely unrelated note, please check out my interview with the blogger behind Layered Pages.

Blackness Defined

Recently Governor Rod Blagojevich ruffled some feathers and basically proved he’s an ass by claiming he should be considered “blacker" than President Obama because he grew up poor and once shined shoes to make money. Since Obama’s election there have been a number of similarly foolish and controversial remarks, such as Harry Reid’s “negro dialect” commentary when noting that the absence of one (except when convenient to turn it on) plus having light rather than dark brown skin made Obama more electable. Reid’s statement was poorly phrased but I wouldn’t argue its accuracy. After the President’s state of the union address Chris Matthews proceeded to state on air that while listening to it he forgot for an hour that Barack Obama is black. Although he may have wanted to phrase that a bit more eloquently, I’m not especially bothered by Matthews' temporary amnesia. Forgetting someone’s race for an hour is certainly no sin. In fact it’s something most people probably need to do more often, and not just where the President is concerned. Each of these statements and others, while insulting to varying degrees, have been illuminating. They demonstrate that preconceived notions of what it means to be an African American stubbornly persist, that this nation is anything but post racial yet. We’ve come a long way, especially of late, and we’ll go further still in the years to come. I echo what the President said in his latest speech. I too have never been more hopeful about this country, even while frequently shaking my head as prominent individuals continue to express absurd, antiquated notions about their fellow man. Following is a stream of tweets inspired by the absurdity.

Lets face it, both white AND black people need to come up with a better definition of "black person" if insistence on defining continues.

Is someone black because of refusal to adhere to rules of standard grammar? Darkness of skin? Darkness of mate's skin? Size of bank account?

Is black defined by taste in music (hip hop hell yes, classical or country heck no)? Taste in literature (why the hell should I read, I'm keeping it real)?

Is black defined by handling skills of a basketball? Number of children by women you didn't marry? Wardrobe? Zip code? Dietary preferances?

I had intended to leave phallic dimensions out of this, but no definition of blackness would be complete without it I suppose.

Somebody please tell me if I'm black? If so, why? If not, why not? Otherwise I have no idea whether to get grilled or fried chicken for lunch.

And no, I will not be providing penis photo (Greg Oden may be accomodating though) or my SAT score to help you answer. You'll need to guesstimate.

I must say though that I have a hard time staying mad at white people (or those of other races) for holding stereotypical views of me if black people do so as well.

Upon further reflection, I'm more annoyed to be judged in a monolithic manner based on ridiculous criteria by someone of my same race who should know better.

If someone from Tibet judges me unfairly I can rationalize they probably don't encounter many brothas over there. Ignorant by lack of exposure.

But when judgment comes from random black guy/gal who lives two towns over from me - WTF, expand your horizons just a tad why don't you?

Now that we have a black man in the oval office, many African Americans hold race based expectations of him. I don't expect Obama to "fix" all so called black issues any more than I expected every prior POTUS to focus on fixing all things white.

Obama has an ambitious agenda but like any POTUS will only accomplish so much. Economic slowdown, healthcare reform & ending war are his main priorities. Between those three issues he might have little opportunity to deal with much else.

If he does pull off his 3 most pressing agendas, Obama's presidency will be a major success no matter how much else people hoped he might have done. Previous black firsts (Jackie Robinson, Althea Gibson, Charles Drew, Madame C.J. Walker, Count Basie, Ella Fitzgerald, Sidney Poitier, Gwendolyn Brooks, Toni Morrison, etc.) all excelled so I expect Obama, within the confines of realistic expectations, to do just fine. If he goes beyond those 3 and pulls off the neat trick of reforming education and expanding who in this country can afford to obtain it beyond high school, he'll become the stuff of legend, worthy to have his mug on a coin or dollar bill.

And regardless of how some people may choose to see him, he surely sees himself as President of USA, not just Prez of Black America. Giant job.

Last guy in office provided Obama with a perfect template for what NOT to do. This plus several other factors makes me quite optimistic.

x x x x x

x x x x x

p.s. - Although it has absolutely nothing to do with blackness (because remarkably not everything does), RIP J.D. Salinger

Share
|

The Fight Over Award for Peace

Once again, my thoughts one edited tweet at a time. Congratulations @BarackObama

1st black President: Check; Nobel Peace prize: Check; Best jump shot ever for a POTUS: CHECK; Cured cancer: Give him a few more months people.

Sometimes Peace Prize is awarded for promises made that committee hopes you'll keep, rather than for past accomplishments. Optimism prize.

As 1st black President, Obama was already expected to walk on water & end recession by multiplying a single loaf of bread. And now he's an Oscar winner!

Nobel Peace Prize - Academy Award, more or less same thing, right? My point is, ridiculously high expectations thrust upon our President are now even higher. Good luck & God bless.

If you're dissing POTUS for audacity of being given an award keep in mind that you're just joining chorus of those dissing him for audacity of being black.

Not to say that criticizing the President makes you either racist or "ungrateful". Just saying Obama has a massive agenda & it's not like he stole the award, he was deemed worthy by impartial jury.

Here's a sports analogy regarding Obama's presidency. It took David Stern quite a bit longer than 9 months to rehabilitate the NBA, and the U.S.A. is a whole lot bigger than the NBA.

Living in this ATM-fast food-DSL era, people have already forgotten days of waiting in bank lines on Saturday, waiting for food to be cooked, dial up internet service.

Not everything can happen in the time span of a tweet. Patience is not just a virtue, it's a necessity

I'm giving Obama 1 full year before officially weighing in on whether he's the Messiah or not, much like I give new sitcoms at least 3 episodes.

Perhaps peace prize should've been given belatedly to whoever first suggested 2-term limit for presidency. Otherwise Bush might have stuck around.

People believe in possibility of things like the Bermuda triangle, Loch Ness monster, Big Foot; they question whether earthlings are alone in the universe or co-tenants with Mork from Ork and ALF; debate who really capped J.F. Kennedy. That's because most of us love a good mystery. On my deathbed at age 115 I’ll still be trying to solve the two greatest puzzlers of all. How did Bush manage to get elected? How’d he get RE-ELECTED?!

And to think that just days ago people were mocking President Obama as impotent for not bringing Olympics to Chicago EVEN WITH Oprah's help. Apparently he still has some power and influence left after all.

With every future decision Obama makes he may pause to wonder: "What would a Nobel Peace Prize winner do in this situation?" That's gotta be a good thing, right?

Obama protected America & rest of world from being 1 heartbeat away from a Palin presidency. If that doesn't warrant Nobel...

Watching political shows on CNN & MSNBC I saw reactions of clowns like Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck & Michael Steele to Obama winning Nobel Peace Prize. Still shaking my head.

I find it completely reasonable to be a republican or indie voter who has not drunk the Obama Kool Aid and has legitimate differences of opinion with his agenda.

I also consider it reasonable to find fault with Peace Prize committee, feeling the President simply has not done enough to warrant it.

There are plenty of people who in general are supportive of Obama who nonetheless feel Peace Prize was premature at best, & I totally get that.

But at the very least, as an American shouldn't one be mildly pleased to downright proud that the democratically elected leader of our country is so highly regarded around the world?

If President of USA is highly respected by international community then we as Americans are now more respected than we've been in the preceding 8 years. That should be seen as a good thing unless you prefer to be regarded as an arrogant idiot.

So even if you're a Conservative right wing republican with bible in one hand and constitutionally protected gun in the other, I simply don't get why Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize provides you with nothing but motivation to mock. Yet this seems to be the case.

Regardless of tax bracket, views on abortion, gay marriage, etc., anyone with ability to think rationally therefore must conclude the GOP is currently anti-American. What other reasonable explanation is there? What's good for the country has become irrelevant to them. Only what's bad for our President (which by extension is bad for the country) is appreciated and hailed.

What else is a delusional pot to do of course but call the kettle black? Hence Obama is called a socialist, Nazi, etc.

Bush II was worst POTUS ever. Disagreed with him on most issues. Didn't think he was a particulary bright man, at least not by standards set in place for leader of the most powerful nation in the world. But I never once thought to question his patriotism.

"Our President is a world wide joke." - Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is basically Howard Stern with political tirades substituted for sophomoric sex jokes and potty talk. He's a football guy, a Miss America judge, a junkie, a real Jack of all trades but master of none.

Is Rush Limbaugh the guy you want to be your moral compass and official spokesperson? Can you proclaim yourself a devoted supporter of his with a straight face? Really? Is Glenn Beck doing anything other than yelling "fire" in a movie theater for a living? How does Michael Steele manage to go about his business without ever accidentally looking in a mirror and becoming overwhelmed with shame?

"President Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize. By any reasonable measure all Americans should be proud." - Rachel Maddow

Well said, Rachel. Now that’s more like it. The pride she speaks of should not belong exclusively to the democratic party or be designated strictly for liberals. The Nobel Peace Prize has not diminished in value like a Grammy turning into a BET award because Obama won one. As Americans we should all be able to put partisan bickering aside for a moment. It shouldn't take only a national tragedy like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to force unity of spirit upon us. Citizenship of this country is supposed to be our shared honor, and the promotion of peace should be something we're unanimously in favor of.

~ ~ ~

If you're raising your voice in anger over recipient of Nobel Peace Prize, you've already proven you have no idea what a peace prize is for.

x x x x x

- Roy Pickering (Author of Patches of Grey)

Another Twitter Rant

My latest rant on Twitter that I decided to cobble together with a little editing and post here as a semi-cohesive piece was set in motion by the murder of Derrion Albert, may he rest in peace.

I don't have stats @ my disposal so no idea if cases of police brutality nationwide dropped after Rodney King beat down & subsequent riots.

But if the number did go down due to extra spotlight on such behavior, is there hope that Derrion Albert's murder will result in less "black on black crime"?

“Black on Black crime" is what Michael from Good Times would have referred to as a “white racist term”. People of every race rob people of every race. When everybody involved is white it doesn't automatically mean Madoff is one of them.

I understand why the term is used in certain situations, but ultimately it pigeonholes. "Urban" or "inner-city" should suffice.

Examples of circumstances where term BoB is used to describe a crime: 1) When a black person is especially dismayed/shamed by a crime. 2) Someone of a different race has intent to be derogatory.

RT @edthesportsfan "It'll take a humane effort nationally 2 invest in2 the innercity, the school system, and social reform of broken families."

Those three ingredients are interrelated, but the older I get the more apparent it becomes that 3rd component is most vital.

For those raised impoverished within a terrible education system, a certain % will still give a shit about their future. But if no stability @ home, no chance.

Young project girls having kids for sport results in children with minimal chance to escape cycle of absurdity.

No simple solution to problem. Election of Obama a nice step primarily for symbolism, but root of problem still untouched.

Smart education reform would be great, but even in ideal situation if lessons are not being reinforced @ home they'll go right out the window.

We need fatherhood & motherhood classes in the church & the community center & in school, mandatory in the latter.

If you go through the adoption process with a reputable agency you need to take courses & write essays proving your worth as a parent in advance of placement.

If you get knocked up or knock somebody up, no matter how unfit you are to be parents no one asks a single question beyond can u pay doctor bills.

Becoming a parent is the single most important job you'll ever attain yet vast majority get no advance training & many clearly need it.

Obviously sex ed. needs to go beyond "wear a condom". It should extend to "no condom was worn apparently, so what do you do now".

There are very basic things about parenting that a 15 y/o girl/mother simply will not realize through no fault of her own. Start with that.

Metaphor Alert: You can't start with asking someone to write a great novel or even to simply read a bad one. First things first - the alphabet must be learned.

There are people out there who figuratively & practically literally don't know the alphabet, so how can they possibly raise a child properly?

The conservative right will complain, but the truth is that high school is too late. I had interest/opportunity for sex way before high school.

Obama caught heat for suggesting what I did in prior tweet, but since he got away with it & was elected anyway, he may as well act on belief.

Ironically, the people most against something like sex ed. for inner city pre-teens are the ones who look down their noses @ result of no sex education.

A sad, inescapable fact of life is that a tragic percentage of improperly raised children will grow up to be monsters and take the lives of innocents.

I bet there was black on black violence during the days of slavery (not coincidentally, those days impact unbalanced present circumstances). And I'm sure slave owners did their best not to let it get out of hand for purely selfish reasons. Fast forward to the present and rather than an occurrence to make efforts to stop, it's often a throw away line used by whites to deflect from an unrelated atrocity. 1st guy: "Can you believe that cop killed a compliant unarmed black man?  How awful. We should protest such police brutality." 2nd guy: "But what about black on black crime?"  Me: "What about water on Mars or the decline of jazz infused hip hop or the merits of print over ebooks and vice versa?  But rather than getting into all that now can we please stick to one topic at a time? I believe 'guy killed needlessly by cop' still has the floor. And I suspect if you actually did give a damn about BoB crime you'd bring it up other times, not just when you're uncomfortable with the current subject."

Artwork provided by Erin Rogers Pickering

You Cannot Be Serious!!!!

Whatever happened to notions like civility, decorum, self control, keeping it to yourself if "it" isn't very pleasant? In recent days we've had several public displays from people acting as if they didn't know no better when of course they did. Rep. Joe Wilson got the ball rolling by shouting out "you lie" when the President of the United States was speaking during Obama’s address to Congress. Since then he has offered a mild apology, refused to repeat it, and has yet to acknowlege that in addition to being obnoxious and incredibly disrespectful to the office of president in general and President Obama specifically, he was also dead wrong because nothing untruthful was being said.

The kindest thing I can think to say about Wilson is that at least he kept his rude language clean. This certainly can't be said of Serena Williams who lit into a line judge for calling a foot fault on her during a critical point of her semifinal match at the US Open versus Kim Clijisters. It was an awful call at a terrible time. The match should have been decided by the players, not an official. Serena Williams deserved to be allowed to fight to the last point to defend her title, as did Kim Clijisters. They, along with the fans, were robbed of match point taking place on court with the ball in play because of what I consider to be unprofessional and very unnecessary interference. But none of this excuses the response that followed from Serena. She visibly took a moment to collect herself, but instead of using it cool down apparently employed it to decide she'd rather make her point than continue fighting for the match. So she proceeded to berate the line judge using far harsher language than the patented "you cannot be serious". It would not be a far stretch to categorize her reaction as threatening, although by the time she was informed that an additional point and therefore the match was being given to her opponent as result of her unsportsmanlike conduct, she seemed resigned to the outcome. In the press conference afterward all traces of anger were gone, but this did little to erase the image of Serena's outburst. As a professional athlete she is a role model for kids whether she wishes to be or not. As a prominent African American athlete in a sport which doesn't feature a great many of them, I feels she bears a little extra responsibility to present herself with class and composure, win or lose. Extra magnification of her behavior may not be particularly fair, but I don't see it as asking for that much either. It's not as if professional athletes aren't compensated well enough to require some decorum. She can continue to be emotional and fiery. If she wants to remain dismissive of the efforts of her competition, chalking up losses to bad play on her part rather than good play on theirs, so be it. But she should be able to express her frustration with words that are acceptable to say in front of your mother...in church. Raise the volume if you must, pace and stomp if necessary, but keep the content of your rebuttal clean.

Like Rep. Joe Wilson, Serena Williams got caught up in the heat of a moment. I don't feel the same can be said for Kanye West. Was it surprising that Taylor Swift won an award for best video by a female artist rather than Beyonce? Perhaps. Highway robbery? Maybe, although the matter is subjective and by definition a matter of opinion, not fact. Was it necessary to jump onstage during the girl's moment to express this thought? Absolutely not. Perhaps Kanye has impulse control problems, or maybe he has a compulsive need to draw attention to himself whenever the spotlight happens to be directed elsewhere. Regardless, I can see getting overheated over the subject of healthcare, or on the battlefront when contending for a Major tennis championship. But to act like an ass over the chosen winner of a video award in a category you're not even nominated in is inexcusable. There are more entertaining and dignified ways to be the squeaky wheel.

Those are my opinions on these matters. I won't be budging from them anytime soon. What do you think?

- Roy Pickering (Author of PATCHES OF GREY)

Favre is back - Palin won't leave

Back on 9/29/08 I wrote the following piece on this blog. At the time I was close to being equally wired about what was going on in the worlds of sports and politics. In the former, my beloved Jets had just enjoyed a history making victory over Arizona Cardinals with then quarterback Brett Favre throwing six touchdowns. Ironically it was the Jets who would fall apart after a 8 – 3 start and end up missing the playoffs while the Cardinals found themselves in the Super Bowl with a fourth quarter lead before eventually going down. None of this was foreseeable as I sat down to write last September. When it came to football, all was right with the world. Brett Favre seemed poised to deliver precisely what Jets Nation desperately hoped for, a return to respectability and perhaps dare we even think it, to greatness. Super Bowl III happened a long long long time ago. Could it be that the hired gun / NFL legend we convinced to change the shades of green on his uniform would turn back the clock and pull off the improbable if not downright impossible? Apparently not. Brett’s throwing arm betrayed him (specifically the bicep) and then he betrayed the Jets by retiring when I suspect he knew all along that he longed to still play. Perhaps betrayal is the wrong word though, for I also suspect that both parties knew all along he would be a 1-year rental. Even had the Jets won the Super Bowl with Favre I still wouldn’t be shocked if he subsequently retired only to unretire and join the Minnesota Vikings. Winning a Super Bowl with the Jets would not have been sufficient vengeance against the Green Bay Packers. Only winning as the shining star of their arch enemy Minnesota Vikings would accomplish that. If Favre cared only about continuing to play in the NFL and not so much about spite, he’d still be playing for the Jets. The Packers pissed him off by setting up provisions in his trade to the Jets that made it impractical for New York to turn around and trade him to Minnesota where he wanted to be all along. Green Bay made it inevitable that his attempt at revenge would have to wait at least one year. That year has come and gone as quickly as they all do. Brett’s a Viking now, about to start at QB in their second preseason game. The Jets did their part (preplanned?) to move his plan along by relinquishing their rights to him after trading up in the draft to obtain Mark Sanchez as their quarterback of the future. If anyone seems destined to be the reincarnation of the hope and success Joe Namath brought to the franchise way back when, Sanchez appears to be that guy. As for Brett Favre, he is simply following up on what he has wanted to do since the day Green Bay told him that Aaron Rodgers was the guy they planned to go forward with. His desire for payback and to scream out “I TOLD YOU SO” is the worst kept secret in the NFL. He played amazingly in his final season as a member of the Packers and had the Jets poised on the brink of greatness after 11 games last season. So I don’t doubt what he's capable of and wish him well on his quest, somewhat juvenile though it may be. He wants to play and the Vikings want him to play for them, so nobody has been harmed by his annual pre-season song and dance other than Green Bay fans who can only see him from the perspective of a devoted cheesehead, which is also understandable. The chips will fall where they may as they always do. When the Jets landed Favre last year it seemed almost too good to be true, and in the end that’s pretty much what it was. Like their 8 – 3 start, Favre’s tenure with the team was basically a mirage. The present and future in Jetsville belong to Mark Sanchez and company. As usual, the goal for the upcoming season is greatness or bust.

I don’t have nearly as much to say in follow-up to the second half of my 9/29/08 posting where I discussed Sarah Palin and her then upcoming debate against Joe Biden. Whereas Super Bowl winners only get bragging rights for one year, winners of presidential elections have them for no less than four years. Team Obama-Biden won in a rout and now have their hands full presiding over a nation. If any man is up to that task it is Barack Obama, or at least that’s what I hope for a variety of reasons. Former President Bush and former presidential candidate John McCain have been respectful of the current administration primarily through silence, leaving the noise making to former Vice President Dick Cheney and former VP hopeful, Sarah Palin. Cheney has picked on his old boss nearly as much as he’s complained about President Obama, but Palin is only looking forward to four years from now so doesn’t bother criticizing McCain or Bush or anyone else from the past. This isn’t to say that she hasn’t been looking at the past, particularly Obama’s, choosing to align herself with silly conservatives (aka birthers) who question the President’s U.S. citizenship. Her other post election day accomplishment of note is quitting her job as governor of Alaska, apparently to spend more time on Facebook and Twitter. Guess she figures that the internet worked wonders for Obama’s presidential bid, so why not for her own future one. As they frequently say on Twitter – SMH – an acronym I once had to look up to learn that it means “Shaking My head”.

By Roy L. Pickering Jr. (author of Patches of Grey)