Archive for March, 2011

Black Beauty

Posted in Society on March 26th, 2011

Tribal Beauty There is a belief that “beautiful” is “White” that many girls and women around the world subscribe and adhere to. The media portrayal of images that support this ideal has promulgated the American and European beauty ideal; pale to fair skin, long straight hair – blond is best – light eyes, slim nose, and a skinny figure.

Even highly paid Black fashion models such as: Iman, Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks, Liya Kebede, Jourdan Dunn, and the ill-fated Katoucha Niane, tended towards having a slim figure, fair skin, and straight or, at least, smooth hair.

In other words, Black models have to be an exotic twist upon normative White features in order to be considered beautiful and employable.

Black Fashion Models

For the most part even the “passable” Black models are consigned to double bookings with a White model and/or to modeling exotica and “urban” fashion.

This has naturally led to Black girls and women being presented with a beauty ideal that they are genetically and physical incapable of fully meeting, though many people were willing to make money selling them “treatments” to get them a little closer to it.

In the U.S. specifically, many Black women were faced with a beauty ideal that did not resemble the reflection in the mirror. Many entrepreneurs began and sustained successful businesses based on selling the white ideal to the Black woman. Skin lightning became a common practice in the Black community

— Kathy Russel
The Color Complex:
The Politics of Skin Color Among African Americans

That’s a crying shame since – leaving all the societal ills caused by cultural self-image problems aside for now – there’s many, many different roads to beauty and/or sexiness and Black women who look like any of the myriad varieties of Black women can and have traveled many of them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Libya – Exit Strategy

Posted in Politics on March 24th, 2011

President Obama has publicly mouthed words to the effect that “our exit strategy would begin this week” but that it’s not really exiting the theater at all, only attempting to change the public face of our involvement.

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us.”

In some ways this actually sounds good; it’s past time for the other nations to step up and bear their fair share of the costs – political, financial, and human – of policing more the feral and savage areas of the world at large.

There are, however, some very serious issues with Obama’s statement and actions, both previous and planned.

Shucking, Jiving, and Nuance

No amount of nuanced statements, “Clintonian” triangulations, or spin doctoring is going to reconcile the inherent contradiction within Obama’s “exit strategy” statement. Moving out of a leadership position in Operation Odyssey Dawn isn’t an exit strategy. Obama’s trying to claim otherwise is and will continue to be nothing but shucking and jiving.

Shades Of Pontius Pilate

Washing his hands of responsibility didn’t work so well for Pontius Pilate’s portrayal by history and Obama’s transparent attempt to have Britain and France play the role of the Sadducees in regards to Libya most likely won’t work any better for Obama or America.

Neither the Muslim World nor the Liberals and Progressives in America are going to forget over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from American ships during the first day of the conflict. Nor are either group likely to believe that UNSCR 1973 was approved without President Obama’s permission, especially since the US’ representative to the Security Council voting in favor it.

What will happen, if things go as badly as they might, is that our allies will be prone to believe that Obama left them holding the bag, much as the unlamented 5th Roman Prefect of Judea did to the Sadducees.

~*~

This boils down to a rookie mistake by the POTUS. A more experienced person would have known to not only start as they meant to finish, but that back-pedaling and waffling on any issue, especially one as incendiary as a war in the Muslim World, would be seen as worse in the long run than just doing whatever it is one meant to do in the first place.

If Obama didn’t approve of this adventure, he shouldn’t have voted by proxy in favor of it. If it was never his intention for US forces to lead Operation Odyssey Dawn, he should have made that and what our role would actually be clear to everyone from the very beginning.

Libya – Impeaching Obama

Posted in Politics on March 23rd, 2011

In the wake of Obama’s new war in Libya there’s some vague talk in Congress about impeaching him – and that talk is coming from the Democrats, not the Republicans!

On the Democratic side, nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.

One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. “President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn’t have congressional authorization. He has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said,” Kucinich told Raw Story in an interview on Monday.

“I’m raising the question as to whether or not it’s an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

That doesn’t mean Obama should in fact be impeached and removed from office, Kucinich said. “That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.”

One could easily sink themselves in the morass of conflicting laws and legal precedents, and of conflicting clauses and articles in our Constitution, that surround any POTUS sending American forces into a foreign armed conflict under the auspices of a United Nations or NATO agreement, request, or demand to do so. Finding one’s way back out of that morass would prove a lengthy and difficult process.

Rep. Kucinich’s statement does, however, bring up another question and it is much simpler – If he truly believes that President Obama’s actions were in violation of the Constitution and, hence, constitute an impeachable offense, why isn’t he talking about about impeaching Obama and removing him from office?

Fish, cut bait – or get your useless ass out of the boat, you filthy, pathetic, intellectually or morally defunct gnome!

An American is forced to wonder at Kucinich’s statement that the question of the crime should be separate from the application of the law. A few rationales for this schism immediately present themselves:

  • Politics – It’s somehow different when the POTUS in question is of the same party as the Congressional complainant and it’s the start of 2012 election season.
  • Race – “Race Savviness” once again requires that the bar for required, acceptable, and/or appropriate behavior be lowered because the subject in question is identified as Black.
  • Racial Politics – It’d be foolish and self-destructive for the Democrats to anger or alienate the Black Vote, their largest and most dependable bloc, and being seen or portrayed as attacking the First Black President would most certainly do that.
  • Street Cred – Kucinich doesn’t believe the arguments he”s made in the first place and is just trying to maintain his anti-war “cred” with the Far Left by mouthing these statements.

I would personally guess that it’s a disgusting amalgamation of all four rationales that causes Kucinich to raise the specter of Obama’s war in Libya being an impeachable offense but claiming that the question of whether Obama should be impeached is a separate matter.

In any event, it was a grossly pathetic display by Kucinich and one that will cost him dearly, though for all the wrong reasons and none of the right ones.

Libya – Israel’s Pain

Posted in Politics on March 23rd, 2011

Looking at what is happening in Libya right now brings an odd, but not entirely unpleasant, thought to my mind. The thought is that prosecuting UNSCR 1973 is going to give Mu’ammar Qaddafi, President Obama, and whole bunch of other people a small, but still bitter, taste of the pain that Israel suffers every single day.

UNSCR 1973, alongside calling for a “No-Fly Zone,” demands the protection of civilians:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council

Old Mu’ammar Qaddafi, Libya’s more than slightly deranged dictator, is fighting a civil war against rebel forces in Libya’s eastern provinces. These insurrectionists wear no uniforms or identifying badges and fight from within urban zones with concentrated “civilian” populations, blending with those populations.

Obama and the coalition forces, required to use only air and sea assets, are trying to disable Qaddafi’s air assets and his heavy weapons capabilities. Sadly for them, many of these assets are mobile and Qaddafi has shown no hesitation in moving them into civilian areas and using his civilian population as human shields against airstrikes or missile strikes. Qaddafi has also seemingly shown no hesitation in moving civilians into his fixed military installations, again to use them as human shields.

It’s ironic and a little pleasant – schadenfreude is a fact of life – to see Israel’s enemies facing the same problems that Israel has been faced with daily for the last half century or so as they’ve fought a war against the Islamist Terrorists of Hamas and Fatah who refuse to wear uniforms, fight from densely populated urban areas, and regularly make use of civilians as human shields.

Obviously Qaddafi will be branded a war criminal. What, if anything, will Obama be labeled though? He’s no more or less guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity than his predecessor President George W. Bush was and many decry him as a war criminal and seek to prosecute him for those supposed crimes.

Reverse Cowgirl

Posted in Humor, Society on March 23rd, 2011

There’s just something about a hot chick doing reverse cowgirl that makes men happy…

Reverse Cowgirl
Pretty Babe Riding – Reverse Cowgirl Style

Whoa! What’d you think I was posting about? You’ve got a prurient turn of mind there, neighbor. 😆

That, of course, seems to make you part of the normative masses, so it’s all good I guess – and the woman in the pic doing “reverse cowgirlis beautiful and a joy to behold, so you shouldn’t be too disappointed with my bit of humor.