The more I blog, the more the purpose of my blog is defined for me. As an example, I went to Richmond, Virginia on Election Day, November 4, 2008, to help shuttle people to the polls. I used this opportunity to document the awesome determination some African Americans had to the voting process. For many of these people, this was their first time voting. It was also, the first time someone photographed them and interviewed them. They felt valued and validated. In that moment, the purpose of my blog was expanded, as I knew this was the result I wanted. I could not wait to get back to enhance the design and content of my blog.
There are several reasons why my blog, Consider This, should be selected for the 2009 State of the Black Union Symposium. My blog is committed to educating people in a captivating way. I seek to give current and popular events, an historical and factual context through research and constant improvement. We make sure that community organizations and agencies receive our blog. My background as a student of human behavior and change technology, and experience as a writer, brings the essential technical integrity to my blog. Most importantly, is my desire to inspire the thinking of those readers who want a different and non-monolithic perspective for themselves, their families and the communities they serve and to offer data and information that empowers them to do so. I will bring the same to the SOBU Symposium. As a motivational trainer, I have the confidence and ability to not only speak, but as a writer, I will bring objective and well trained listening to the SOBU Symposium and will translate what I hear into cogent written form.
The African American audience is diverse and talented and I will address that as a blogger at the SOBU Symposium. I have the ability and skills to ask questions in way that zeros in on what people want to hear or say and are not hearing or saying. I emphasize the need to consider the diversity of conversations and perceptions within one group. My blog does that while also reflecting the voice of people who are not always defining themselves. When I blog, I have already heard, during any given week, the concerns of many African Americans from Anacostia, in Washington, DC, to others from similar communities in Maryland, Virginia, and across the country.
I consider it the responsibility of those who are willing, to share talents and skills towards the empowerment of others, and blogging is one way that I share my willingness. Blogging offers me an opportunity to incorporate the realization of ALL of my information, skills, talents and resources while demonstrating to my readers that they can also do what inspires them .
Consider This, is dedicated to looking behind the assumptions and the hackneyed societal narratives and weaving in the narratives of and from an African American perspective and consideration.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Secret Behind Why Virginia Went for Obama: A True Story
After years of anticipating the advent of responsible, courageous and contagious leadership to come to head the government, I, like many others, was not to be denied. So, come dawn, on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, it's off to Virginia, I go. Not just to be busy, but to take the then Senator Obama across the goal, to victory. So, along with a close friend and a few new ones, we set out to one of the key battleground states, Virginia. Oh, I am driving and the view is wonderful.
I am not big on driving long distances, but when my friend Darrilyn suggested we volunteer to go to Virginia, I jumped at the opportunity rather than spend that historic day waiting for results. The Obama campaign launched a ground operation that was incredible and in Maryland and other states, passenger vans were rented to dispatch canvassers to low voting or voter suppressed areas. We were assigned Richmond. My first reaction was to protest such a long ride until I regained my senses and realized that our mission was to contribute to delivering Virginia to Barack Obama...and so we did.
Here are some pictures that tell the story from the beautiful scenic view to the dedicated team. When we arrived in Richmond, it quickly became apparent that the folk there were unstoppable. We arrived early in the morning to the proud reporting of the few remaining poll workers and stragglers, that long lines of people had been up early in the morning and voting was pretty much done. I photographed and Interviewed some of the poll workers and voters and felt their pride that we soon learned, was reflected throughout Richmond. This was the first time any of these people had been photographed while voting, and the first time their political opinion had been sought. Who are these pollsters, polling anyway?
The voters were diverse. A little girl accompanied her big brother to the polling station; a young couple, who were college students, supported each other to their different polling stations; young African American men took tremendous pride in using their first general election vote in such a major election and an elderly man came by cane, while a disabled Desert Storm veteran, voting for the first time, was serviced in the van.
And Washington, DC celebrated at the Madison Hotel and in the streets, oblivious to these obscure, diverse and proud Richmond voters, who helped to make Virginia possible.
Consider this: Special interest groups vote for the candidate who best represents them and their issues. African American voters, like other "special interest" groups, needed a reason to vote and did so! No big secret there, after all.
The view, en route, was spectacular.
Some young men voted and some for the first time.
Couples voted as sister and brother, girlfriend and boyfriend, husband and wife, all committed to vote.
I am not big on driving long distances, but when my friend Darrilyn suggested we volunteer to go to Virginia, I jumped at the opportunity rather than spend that historic day waiting for results. The Obama campaign launched a ground operation that was incredible and in Maryland and other states, passenger vans were rented to dispatch canvassers to low voting or voter suppressed areas. We were assigned Richmond. My first reaction was to protest such a long ride until I regained my senses and realized that our mission was to contribute to delivering Virginia to Barack Obama...and so we did.
Here are some pictures that tell the story from the beautiful scenic view to the dedicated team. When we arrived in Richmond, it quickly became apparent that the folk there were unstoppable. We arrived early in the morning to the proud reporting of the few remaining poll workers and stragglers, that long lines of people had been up early in the morning and voting was pretty much done. I photographed and Interviewed some of the poll workers and voters and felt their pride that we soon learned, was reflected throughout Richmond. This was the first time any of these people had been photographed while voting, and the first time their political opinion had been sought. Who are these pollsters, polling anyway?
The voters were diverse. A little girl accompanied her big brother to the polling station; a young couple, who were college students, supported each other to their different polling stations; young African American men took tremendous pride in using their first general election vote in such a major election and an elderly man came by cane, while a disabled Desert Storm veteran, voting for the first time, was serviced in the van.
And Washington, DC celebrated at the Madison Hotel and in the streets, oblivious to these obscure, diverse and proud Richmond voters, who helped to make Virginia possible.
Consider this: Special interest groups vote for the candidate who best represents them and their issues. African American voters, like other "special interest" groups, needed a reason to vote and did so! No big secret there, after all.
The view, en route, was spectacular.
Some young men voted and some for the first time.
Couples voted as sister and brother, girlfriend and boyfriend, husband and wife, all committed to vote.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Racism or Jealousy? The Great Divide
I recently had a couple of thoughts about the future. One was that Senator Barack Obama was President of the United States, but only after a very turbulent and ugly period of violence and strife. Quite reminiscent of over 40 years ago, when some in this nation could not handle the change that John Lewis, Jessie Jackson, Dr. King, Dorothy Height and many of us made possible so that ALL of us could enjoy the American Dream.
The other thought toyed with what would make some people behave so badly. Why were some people so upset that a person of mixed race was running for President and running so well? Possible answers came from two Caucasian male friends of mine and in separate, unrelated conversations. The first was the family member of a prominent wealthy American business who confessed to me what he declared to be a coveted secret among many white males and an issue of ignored and unexpressed conflict : "if they (white males) tell you that they are not deeply attracted to black women, they are lying." That was a remarkable revelation from this man who had only the integrity of our friendship as his motivation. It was a shock to me because I wasn't seeing this enacted on television or in the movies. How then, can people develop a broad sense of one another, when there is so much misunderstanding and conflict? The second answer to this question came from a friend who had done some work in a majority African American community, could not understand why people, who did not have much, who seemed disenfranchised and who were "downtrodden" could smile, laugh, have joy, love and "talk trash." "Things are not how you see them," I said.
Yet, some people think things are as they see them and dig their heels into the sand, clinch their fists and reject any other notion of people. They do not know what it is to be an African American. That in spite of the challenges, there is love, joy, and community in ways that don't even appear on BET, let alone network television. The "great divide" is a program by television and other media, that fails to represent people, of all cultures, as they are. Had that happened, others would know that there are many children and families like Senator Obama and his family. I see them all of time. Children who are raised by single mothers and grandparents who whisper hopeful words of possibility into their ears and hearts and who grow up to lead communities, black organizations, major corporations; who win sports trophies and break barriers and dominate the music industry and create fabulous lines of clothing, who love their children and work and who do more than the media could ever keep up with. Maybe that is why it doesn't. (That's another story.)
So, I understand the resentment and fear of these people who behave badly against Senator Obama and others based purely on race. You see, they do not realize that love prevails among us. They wonder how these people could keep standing when they, themselves, were losing so much? Actually, this new leader shows what many of these people want in their homes. They want what these African Americans have in spite of the odds against them. That's called coveting. Perhaps what we think we are seeing is not racism. Consider that, under any other circumstance, this is called envy. They want this:
Thanks to Clay Aikens.
The other thought toyed with what would make some people behave so badly. Why were some people so upset that a person of mixed race was running for President and running so well? Possible answers came from two Caucasian male friends of mine and in separate, unrelated conversations. The first was the family member of a prominent wealthy American business who confessed to me what he declared to be a coveted secret among many white males and an issue of ignored and unexpressed conflict : "if they (white males) tell you that they are not deeply attracted to black women, they are lying." That was a remarkable revelation from this man who had only the integrity of our friendship as his motivation. It was a shock to me because I wasn't seeing this enacted on television or in the movies. How then, can people develop a broad sense of one another, when there is so much misunderstanding and conflict? The second answer to this question came from a friend who had done some work in a majority African American community, could not understand why people, who did not have much, who seemed disenfranchised and who were "downtrodden" could smile, laugh, have joy, love and "talk trash." "Things are not how you see them," I said.
Yet, some people think things are as they see them and dig their heels into the sand, clinch their fists and reject any other notion of people. They do not know what it is to be an African American. That in spite of the challenges, there is love, joy, and community in ways that don't even appear on BET, let alone network television. The "great divide" is a program by television and other media, that fails to represent people, of all cultures, as they are. Had that happened, others would know that there are many children and families like Senator Obama and his family. I see them all of time. Children who are raised by single mothers and grandparents who whisper hopeful words of possibility into their ears and hearts and who grow up to lead communities, black organizations, major corporations; who win sports trophies and break barriers and dominate the music industry and create fabulous lines of clothing, who love their children and work and who do more than the media could ever keep up with. Maybe that is why it doesn't. (That's another story.)
So, I understand the resentment and fear of these people who behave badly against Senator Obama and others based purely on race. You see, they do not realize that love prevails among us. They wonder how these people could keep standing when they, themselves, were losing so much? Actually, this new leader shows what many of these people want in their homes. They want what these African Americans have in spite of the odds against them. That's called coveting. Perhaps what we think we are seeing is not racism. Consider that, under any other circumstance, this is called envy. They want this:
Thanks to Clay Aikens.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
How low income borrowers and Blacks Are Responsible for the Financial Crises of 2008
In order for low income borrowers and Blacks to have had a role in this mortgage meltdown, then it has been brewing for over 30 years. Let's see what happened. The right to Equal Housing did not guarantee the right to equal loans. It was not until President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 that lending opportunities began to open up for low income people. Nineteen seventy-seven was a mere 13 years after the signing of the Civil Rights Act and nine years following the Equal Housing Act prohibiting discrimination of housing based on race, gender, age, physically ability and the ability to pay. Less than 150 years after the signing of the 14th Amendment that gave blacks citizenship in America, were many allowed to own homes. It is safe to say that the thinking of lenders and many in our great nation, had not kept pace with the laws, so the realization of home ownership by low income and African Americans (not the same group, by the way) remained illusive. Thus, the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged community banking in low income communities.
Keep in mind, many of the communities were in urban areas which were still smoldering from the riots of 1968 and remained undeveloped. It was like the story of the two competing shoe salespersons who both canvassed a town where the people did not wear shoes. One reported her observations back to the home office and was advised to leave and return home while the home office of the other advised their salesperson to open up business. It took the leadership of President Jimmie Carter’s administration to advance the idea that there was a market for loans in low income communities and if companies and banks were to invest some of their profits back into these communities, everyone would benefit.
Oversight of the CRA went into warp speed by the Federal government and public groups alike. It had a four tier oversight system (which is way more than the so-called “bail out” has) and the current urban boon in these other wise depressed cities, is evidence of the success of CRA.
In fact, the program was so successful that both the Democratic and Republican administrations built on it to the point where the first Bush Administration redefined small community banks to “intermediate small banks” therefore, banks with billion dollars assets started to play and as we can see, they played too much. “The Clinton administration stirred in Freddie and Fannie and the pot has subsequently boiled over. In early 1993 President Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[5]”
According to a United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998 467 billion dollars in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to CRA-eligible borrowers. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.
As the earning potential for low income groups, African Americans and immigrants grew, the desire to supply housing, sell loans and increase investment profits in the mortgage and other lending games grew along with it. As with all aspects of our society, predators came out of dark corners, swooped down from high places and even jumped out of our television sets with offers of “no doc” loans and rescue opportunities for anyone who had gotten in over their heads. The desire for home ownership can be as strong as the desire for food and in America, has the same result--over-consumption and gluttony.
Who doesn’t want a home for their family or food on their table? Food and shelter are the basics of life and those who benefit from the provision of them have a due diligence responsibility.
So, indeed had African Americans, low income and other groups of people, who had heretofore been denied access to the housing market, not forced fair housing laws, or increased their wealth, and demanded equity in the American Dream, things would be different. The predators would have remained lurking in their dark places and we would not be in this mess. We would be in another mess -- still fighting, rioting, protesting, burning down cities and otherwise demanding equity.
Consider this: Is America at parity yet or do some secretly blame African Americans and low income borrowers for the housing mess? How Congress offers to help home owners could well reveal the answer.
Keep in mind, many of the communities were in urban areas which were still smoldering from the riots of 1968 and remained undeveloped. It was like the story of the two competing shoe salespersons who both canvassed a town where the people did not wear shoes. One reported her observations back to the home office and was advised to leave and return home while the home office of the other advised their salesperson to open up business. It took the leadership of President Jimmie Carter’s administration to advance the idea that there was a market for loans in low income communities and if companies and banks were to invest some of their profits back into these communities, everyone would benefit.
Oversight of the CRA went into warp speed by the Federal government and public groups alike. It had a four tier oversight system (which is way more than the so-called “bail out” has) and the current urban boon in these other wise depressed cities, is evidence of the success of CRA.
In fact, the program was so successful that both the Democratic and Republican administrations built on it to the point where the first Bush Administration redefined small community banks to “intermediate small banks” therefore, banks with billion dollars assets started to play and as we can see, they played too much. “The Clinton administration stirred in Freddie and Fannie and the pot has subsequently boiled over. In early 1993 President Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[5]”
According to a United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998 467 billion dollars in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to CRA-eligible borrowers. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.
As the earning potential for low income groups, African Americans and immigrants grew, the desire to supply housing, sell loans and increase investment profits in the mortgage and other lending games grew along with it. As with all aspects of our society, predators came out of dark corners, swooped down from high places and even jumped out of our television sets with offers of “no doc” loans and rescue opportunities for anyone who had gotten in over their heads. The desire for home ownership can be as strong as the desire for food and in America, has the same result--over-consumption and gluttony.
Who doesn’t want a home for their family or food on their table? Food and shelter are the basics of life and those who benefit from the provision of them have a due diligence responsibility.
So, indeed had African Americans, low income and other groups of people, who had heretofore been denied access to the housing market, not forced fair housing laws, or increased their wealth, and demanded equity in the American Dream, things would be different. The predators would have remained lurking in their dark places and we would not be in this mess. We would be in another mess -- still fighting, rioting, protesting, burning down cities and otherwise demanding equity.
Consider this: Is America at parity yet or do some secretly blame African Americans and low income borrowers for the housing mess? How Congress offers to help home owners could well reveal the answer.
How low income and Blacks Are Responsible for the Financial Crises f 200
8
The right to Equal Housing did not guarantee the right to equal loans. It was not until President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 that lending opportunities began to open up for low income people. Nineteen seventy-seven was a mere 13 years after the signing of the Civil Rights Act and nine years following the Equal Housing Act prohibiting discrimination of housing based on race, gender, age, physically ability and the ability to pay. Less than 150 years after the signing of the 14th Amendment that gave blacks citizenship in America, were many allowed to own homes. It is safe to say that the thinking of lenders and many in our great nation, had not kept pace with the laws, so the realization of home ownership by low income and African Americans (not the same group, by the way) remained illusive. Thus, the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged community banking in low income communities.
Keep in mind, many of the communities were in urban areas which were still smoldering from the riots of 1968 and remained undeveloped. It was like the story of the two competing shoe salespersons who both canvassed a town where the people did not wear shoes. One reported her observations back to the home office and was advised to leave and return home while the home office of the other advised their salesperson to open up business. It took the leadership of President Jimmie Carter’s administration to advance the idea that there was a market for loans in low income communities and if companies and banks were to invest some of their profits back into these communities, everyone would benefit.
Oversight of the CRA went into warp speed by the Federal government and public groups alike. It had a four tier oversight system (which is way more than the so-called “bail out” has) and the current urban boon in these other wise depressed cities, is evidence of the success of CRA.
In fact, the program was so successful that both the Democratic and Republican administrations built on it to the point where the first Bush Administration redefined small community banks to “intermediate small banks” therefore, banks with billion dollars assets started to play and as we can see, they played too much. “The Clinton administration stirred in Freddie and Fannie and the pot has subsequently boiled over. In early 1993 President Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[5]”
According to a United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998 467 billion dollars in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to CRA-eligible borrowers. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.
As the earning potential for low income groups, African Americans and immigrants grew, the desire to supply housing, sell loans and increase investment profits in the mortgage and other lending games grew along with it. As with all aspects of our society, predators came out of dark corners, swooped down from high places and even jumped out of our television sets with offers of “no doc” loans and rescue opportunities for anyone who had gotten in over their heads. The desire for home ownership can be as strong as the desire for food and in America, has the same result--over-consumption and gluttony.
Who doesn’t want a home for their family or food on their table? Food and shelter are the basics of life and those who benefit from the provision of them have a due diligence responsibility.
So, indeed had African Americans, low income and other groups of people, who had heretofore been denied access to the housing market not forced fair housing laws, and increased their wealth, things would be different. The predators could have remained lurking in their dark places and we would not be in this mess. We would be in another mess -- still fighting, rioting, protesting, burning down cities and otherwise demanding equity.
Is America there yet?
The right to Equal Housing did not guarantee the right to equal loans. It was not until President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 that lending opportunities began to open up for low income people. Nineteen seventy-seven was a mere 13 years after the signing of the Civil Rights Act and nine years following the Equal Housing Act prohibiting discrimination of housing based on race, gender, age, physically ability and the ability to pay. Less than 150 years after the signing of the 14th Amendment that gave blacks citizenship in America, were many allowed to own homes. It is safe to say that the thinking of lenders and many in our great nation, had not kept pace with the laws, so the realization of home ownership by low income and African Americans (not the same group, by the way) remained illusive. Thus, the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged community banking in low income communities.
Keep in mind, many of the communities were in urban areas which were still smoldering from the riots of 1968 and remained undeveloped. It was like the story of the two competing shoe salespersons who both canvassed a town where the people did not wear shoes. One reported her observations back to the home office and was advised to leave and return home while the home office of the other advised their salesperson to open up business. It took the leadership of President Jimmie Carter’s administration to advance the idea that there was a market for loans in low income communities and if companies and banks were to invest some of their profits back into these communities, everyone would benefit.
Oversight of the CRA went into warp speed by the Federal government and public groups alike. It had a four tier oversight system (which is way more than the so-called “bail out” has) and the current urban boon in these other wise depressed cities, is evidence of the success of CRA.
In fact, the program was so successful that both the Democratic and Republican administrations built on it to the point where the first Bush Administration redefined small community banks to “intermediate small banks” therefore, banks with billion dollars assets started to play and as we can see, they played too much. “The Clinton administration stirred in Freddie and Fannie and the pot has subsequently boiled over. In early 1993 President Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[5]”
According to a United States Department of the Treasury study of lending trends in 305 U.S. cities between 1993 and 1998 467 billion dollars in mortgage credit flowed from CRA-covered lenders to CRA-eligible borrowers. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.
As the earning potential for low income groups, African Americans and immigrants grew, the desire to supply housing, sell loans and increase investment profits in the mortgage and other lending games grew along with it. As with all aspects of our society, predators came out of dark corners, swooped down from high places and even jumped out of our television sets with offers of “no doc” loans and rescue opportunities for anyone who had gotten in over their heads. The desire for home ownership can be as strong as the desire for food and in America, has the same result--over-consumption and gluttony.
Who doesn’t want a home for their family or food on their table? Food and shelter are the basics of life and those who benefit from the provision of them have a due diligence responsibility.
So, indeed had African Americans, low income and other groups of people, who had heretofore been denied access to the housing market not forced fair housing laws, and increased their wealth, things would be different. The predators could have remained lurking in their dark places and we would not be in this mess. We would be in another mess -- still fighting, rioting, protesting, burning down cities and otherwise demanding equity.
Is America there yet?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Is McCain Well?
Did anyone pay attention to the answer John McCain gave Bryan Williams last night? In an answer to Willam's question about McCain showing up for the debate, towards the end McCain answered: *....if he (Barack Obama) had done what I asked him and had the town hall meetings...." He went on to make the point that things would not be where they are now.
Is McCain carrying a grudge and being revengeful? Such is the concern about McCain's temperament that was raised by Obama in his convention speech and Barbara Boxer reiterated three weeks later. Under any other circumstance, when a person says that another grown man should do what another grown man says he should, the hair would stand up on the back of our necks. Yet, no one in the media, not even Bryan Williams, has addressed this comment, which has been made by McCain, severall times. What does it suggest when a person makes such a comment? It can suggest that one views the other subordinate to him such that when he (Obama) doesn't do what he is told to do, he can expect consequences.
The consequence in this case is the threat to the debate. Senator Obama did not do McCain's debate format, so why should he do this one? McCain's reaction is revealing a lot about how he thinks and has organized his view of the world. It shows us that he can be condescending and prone to revenge, and would bring such traits to a presidency. How would that work in a presidency? We already see it. While issues are going on around him, he has gone to Washington, DC to get his revenge and do nothing else.
Is this the only example I can site? Indeed not! During the "important" 35-40 minute meeting convened by the White House on September 25, 2008, McCain lapsed into inappropriate laughter at its beginning that was questioned by some and dismissed at hand. During the pre-meeting photo session, McCain started to laugh and only one journalist asked about it. Most people who comment to me noticed a definite change in McCain's countenance this past week that seemed angry, aged and annoyed. Some pundits on MSNBC and CNN made the same observations.
What does this mean? It raises a red flag that we have to be aware of. Cumulatively, there is something going on that is as much a concern to the country as it is to the man. When one of my relatives (or clients of mine ) started showing signs of irritability, impetus behavior, inappropriate laughter and grandiosity, we knew we had a problem on our hands.
Doesn't our current economic crises emphasize to us the need to pay attention to the signs?
Is McCain carrying a grudge and being revengeful? Such is the concern about McCain's temperament that was raised by Obama in his convention speech and Barbara Boxer reiterated three weeks later. Under any other circumstance, when a person says that another grown man should do what another grown man says he should, the hair would stand up on the back of our necks. Yet, no one in the media, not even Bryan Williams, has addressed this comment, which has been made by McCain, severall times. What does it suggest when a person makes such a comment? It can suggest that one views the other subordinate to him such that when he (Obama) doesn't do what he is told to do, he can expect consequences.
The consequence in this case is the threat to the debate. Senator Obama did not do McCain's debate format, so why should he do this one? McCain's reaction is revealing a lot about how he thinks and has organized his view of the world. It shows us that he can be condescending and prone to revenge, and would bring such traits to a presidency. How would that work in a presidency? We already see it. While issues are going on around him, he has gone to Washington, DC to get his revenge and do nothing else.
Is this the only example I can site? Indeed not! During the "important" 35-40 minute meeting convened by the White House on September 25, 2008, McCain lapsed into inappropriate laughter at its beginning that was questioned by some and dismissed at hand. During the pre-meeting photo session, McCain started to laugh and only one journalist asked about it. Most people who comment to me noticed a definite change in McCain's countenance this past week that seemed angry, aged and annoyed. Some pundits on MSNBC and CNN made the same observations.
What does this mean? It raises a red flag that we have to be aware of. Cumulatively, there is something going on that is as much a concern to the country as it is to the man. When one of my relatives (or clients of mine ) started showing signs of irritability, impetus behavior, inappropriate laughter and grandiosity, we knew we had a problem on our hands.
Doesn't our current economic crises emphasize to us the need to pay attention to the signs?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Cell phones and Johnny Cochran's Brain Cancer
Debate continues on cell phones and their connection with brain tumors and brain cancer in people.
Johnny Cochran's doctor, Dr. Keith Black and Dr. Sanjay Gupta were on Larry King Live, Tuesday, May 27, along with Cochran's wife, Dale Cochran educating people on the need to avoid putting a cell phone to one's ear. The controversy is that the magnets and microwaves are connected to brain cancer. Brain cancer is becoming the number one cancer killer in children as young children are using cellphones more often.
The lack of science on the issues forbade these doctors from emphatically making the link to brain cancer and cell phone use. However, Dr. Vini Khurana of Camberra, Australia did not hesitate to do so. All of these people use an ear piece and advise the public to use the speaker phone and hold the phone away from the ear. Oh, did I mention, the phone manuals give similar instructions for how to safely use a cell phone which includes holding the phone away from your ear.
The brain tumors of two well known businessmen, Reginald Lewis (author, "Why Should White Guys Have All The Fun?) Johnnie Cochran, and with some speculation that Senator Kennedy's brain tumor were all related to heavy cell phone use. The facts are not consistent and the American Cancer Society, for some reason, is taking a position that there is no correlation. Wonder who some of their donors are!
Head phones are recommended. Not blue tooth ear pieces as they pose a similar threat. OMG, I just brought one, because the earphones I had never worked right. As weird as the bluetooth looks, its sound is so much clearer. Now, I have to locate a clear earpiece that is safe. As soon as I do I will broadcast it.
Meanwhile, there is more information at the Johnnie Cochran Brain Center at Cedar Sinai Hospital.
Consider this: "If Black (Doctor Keith Black) is using an earpiece, than we all need to be using one." Johnnie Cochran
Johnny Cochran's doctor, Dr. Keith Black and Dr. Sanjay Gupta were on Larry King Live, Tuesday, May 27, along with Cochran's wife, Dale Cochran educating people on the need to avoid putting a cell phone to one's ear. The controversy is that the magnets and microwaves are connected to brain cancer. Brain cancer is becoming the number one cancer killer in children as young children are using cellphones more often.
The lack of science on the issues forbade these doctors from emphatically making the link to brain cancer and cell phone use. However, Dr. Vini Khurana of Camberra, Australia did not hesitate to do so. All of these people use an ear piece and advise the public to use the speaker phone and hold the phone away from the ear. Oh, did I mention, the phone manuals give similar instructions for how to safely use a cell phone which includes holding the phone away from your ear.
The brain tumors of two well known businessmen, Reginald Lewis (author, "Why Should White Guys Have All The Fun?) Johnnie Cochran, and with some speculation that Senator Kennedy's brain tumor were all related to heavy cell phone use. The facts are not consistent and the American Cancer Society, for some reason, is taking a position that there is no correlation. Wonder who some of their donors are!
Head phones are recommended. Not blue tooth ear pieces as they pose a similar threat. OMG, I just brought one, because the earphones I had never worked right. As weird as the bluetooth looks, its sound is so much clearer. Now, I have to locate a clear earpiece that is safe. As soon as I do I will broadcast it.
Meanwhile, there is more information at the Johnnie Cochran Brain Center at Cedar Sinai Hospital.
Consider this: "If Black (Doctor Keith Black) is using an earpiece, than we all need to be using one." Johnnie Cochran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)