There are two problems with such assertions. First of all, Black Lives Matter does not advocate violence against police. The opposition cannot point to any statements made by Black Lives leaders explicitly encouraging violence against law enforcement. If they had such proof, they would have repeatedly broad casted such statements on Fox News and other news stations.

The protest chants that Fox News did broadcast are ambiguous at best. By the way, the term “pig” is not a reference to all police officers. Pigs are police officers who abuse their authority and abuse the people. Pigs are those who unjustifiably harass, intimidate, humiliate, racially profile, beat and kill black people. Such criminals masquerading as police officers have earned our condemnation. Such condemnation is not the same as advocating indiscriminate violence against police.

Second, there is absolutely no connection between the movement and the killer. In fact, Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman acknowledged that he has no “details of a motive.” There is no proof that alleged killer, Shannon J. Miles, was affiliated with the Black Lives Matters movement. There is no proof that he was inspired by the movement. Instead of blaming and condemning Black Lives Matter, the critics should blame and condemn the alleged killer,Shannon J. Miles.

In addition, people have attacked the slogan “Black Lives Matter.” During his press conference, Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said we should “drop the qualifiers” and say “lives matter.” Obviously, the Movement is not saying that non-black lives do not matter. They are emphasizing black lives because American society devalues black lives. For example, police disproportionately target and kill black people. As reported on the Huffington Post,

Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings.

The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police…

ProPublica’s risk analysis on young males killed by police certainly seems to support what has been an article of faith in the African American community for decades: Blacks are being killed at disturbing rates when set against the rest of the American population.

Often, when the police kill black people, the police are not prosecuted. On the rare occasions when they are prosecuted, they are not convicted. For that reason, the emphasis on black lives is appropriate. Washington Post reports:

“To charge an officer in a fatal shooting, it takes something so egregious, so over the top that it cannot be explained in any rational way,” said Philip M. Stinson, a criminologist at Bowling Green who studies arrests of police. “It also has to be a case that prosecutors are willing to hang their reputation on.”

But even in these most extreme instances, the majority of the officers whose cases have been resolved have not been convicted, The Post analysis found.

And when they are convicted or plead guilty, they’ve tended to get little time behind bars, on average four years and sometimes only weeks. Jurors are very reluctant to punish police officers, tending to view them as guardians of order, according to prosecutors and defense lawyers…

Among the officers charged since 2005 for fatal shootings, more than three-quarters were white. Two-thirds of their victims were minorities, all but two of them black.

Nearly all other cases­ involved black officers who killed black victims. In one other instance, a Latino officer fatally shot a white person and in another an Asian officer killed a black person. There were a total of 49 victims.

Such alarming statistics regarding low prosecution rates and low conviction rates generate righteous black outrage. In light of the statistical disparities, it is simply ridiculous for Kelvin Jackson to dismiss the movement as “nonsense.”

We have to understand that this is nothing new. The opposition often deploys Negro proxies to discredit the movement. Those black surrogates buffer claims of racism and add legitimacy to the racist opposition. They use official mouthpieces like Kevin Jackson and Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke to justify racial profiling and police brutality. Sheriff Clarke actually claimed that Black Lives Matter has weakened policing.

Police accountability does not weaken policing. Police do not have to resort to unjustified brutality in order to be effective.  Furthermore, racial profiling wastes resources by unnecessarily targeting innocent black and Latino people based solely on the color of their skin. Such resources should be devoted to targeting actual criminals. Racial profiling and police brutality undermine policing by breeding animosity and distrust in the black community. Without trust, the people are less likely to report crime, and they are less likely to cooperate with the police.

Not only does the opposition use official Negro spokespeople, they exploit gullible, uninformed African Americans on social media. When African Americans get on camera and attack the Black Lives Matter Movement and other prominent civil rights groups, the opposition and corporate media share, promote and make those videos go viral.  Such videos deflect away from police brutality and over emphasize so-called black-on-black violence. They focus on elements of so-called black dysfunction and virtually ignore the police brutality.  Police brutality and inner city violence are two completely separate issues. Those issues must be addressed separately. The suggestion that urban violence must end before we can address police brutality is absurd.

We must defend the Black Lives Matter movement. We should not allow anyone to label the movement as a hate group. In the words of Malcolm X, “a label can kill you.” Remember the government labeled the original Black Panther Party (“BPP”) as a hate group. While the larger black community just sat back and watched, BPP leaders and members were jailed and killed. We cannot allow that to happen Black Lives Matter. We must defend, protect and strengthen them.

[Originally posted at New Possibilities]

The post #BlackLivesMatter: In Defense of Black Lives Matter appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Might I remind you, the Republican party has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential election cycles. But hey, keep hope alive.

Yes, because this, like 2012, is the, “We’re tired of this n*gger,” and now, “Anybody but that Clinton b*tch,” election campaign. You know, the typical bigoted tripe and weaponized stupid that fuels the ideological bankruptcy that is the Republican party. Just look at the current frontrunner!

The best thing that could have happened during tonight’s debate on FOX would have been a group of GOP voters screaming, “Black lives matter!” But, that didn’t happen; nor did I ever expect it to. Hell, the Republican party has given no fucks about black people since slavery. If they did, maybe, just maybe, there would be at least some form of general consensus about the value of the lives of black people, other than the racist dog- whistle political pandering to its knuckle-dragging base.

You know, the ones angry and brave enough to shoot and kill black people at churches and the occasional movie theater? Yes, they’re included in that group of America-loving patriotic voters.

But, we expect Republicans to care all of a sudden?

My man Charles D. Ellison makes a good point on The Hill:

We haven’t really seen a true #BlackLivesMatter “win” — oh, yeah, save embarrassing moments for presidential candidates suddenly forced to rescript already scripted messaging. Yet, embarrassing moments and taped rants that go viral don’t necessarily mean group empowerment. It’s all momentary face-saving and low hanging fruit. Calibrating a talking point can be briefly fulfilling, but is the candidate really in your pocket? Sure, those moments are currently forcing folks on both sides to not forget about black voters, but the jury is still out on whether that’s forced any significant realignment on the issues beyond mere wedgie-inspired statements that “yes, OK, OK, you got me, stop, it hurts … Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter!”

 

But, what’s the policy pledge beyond that? Is anyone saying they’ll push or sign a law that forces rigorous national policing standards or demands totally enforced federal tracking of police brutality or gives real teeth to Justice Department audits of state and local agencies? And what’s the plan to combat linked issues such as crumbling schools, high poverty and systemic housing segregation once they get elected?

 

With one known national weekend convention in Cleveland under its belt, there is no real sense of what the big plan or mission is. When you ask, organizers are unresponsive. Some are outright dismissive: either you’re in or you’re out (a strange feed-the-crowd mindset for any social justice movement pushing for universal equity, fairness and transparency). Keep inquiring or offering insight on the essential political mechanics, and it becomes a generational shutdown (that’s “old school”) or visceral the-system-can-kiss-my-ass anarchy (“we tried that already” when, um, sorry, no, you really didn’t). Or, ask more and you are slowing down momentum and attempting to dismantle the cause, even if the questions are coming from a good place.

 

But these are important questions; decisive questions that will determine if it’s a one-hit wonder like its Occupy Wall Street cousin or whether it can really last. Will there be a sophisticated, multi-state voter registration and mobilization campaign in 2016? Is there a robust national political action committee in the works? Are you relying on conditional grants or are you raising the kind of grassroots money that makes public officials – and the law enforcement bosses they hire or approve – wet their bed at night when they think about it?

 

Graduate students from Yale University and the University of California, Berkeley recently conducted the first “randomized’ field study that showed what we sort of knew all along: “money equals access to candidates.” So, what’s your government relations or lobbying effort on Capitol Hill since, with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, lots of bills are being introduced but not much has passed (well, you’ve got the feds tracking police shooting data now, but what good is that if loosely enforced?). Several senators ban together on legislation in response to Cecil the Lion’s death — including one of only two black members of the Senate — and you’re wondering why they haven’t pushed anything yet on #BlackLivesMatter?

 

People might be talking about #BlackLivesMatter. But do candidates, policymakers and influencers really fear it? If not, you’ll still find yourselves frustrated and faced with the same issues and the same folks in power with no change of guard or policy in sight.

The fact that there were black folks on social media who were upset because‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ wasn’t acknowledged at the GOP debate, on FOX News – I repeat, on FOX News – made me laugh really hard. Like, really hard. I mean, it’s FOX News! They practically lynch black people on live television over there, for fuck sake. Okay, so I’m only kidding; but just a little.

Some were even more upset that the name Tamir Rice wasn’t even mentioned, although the debate was held in the very city where he was killed by a police officer. Which is really a joke when you think about the fact that Cleveland, Ohio is a blue collar working city long ignored by the Republican party since its industrial manufacturing heyday. Tamir Rice? Are you kidding me?

Hell, thanks to Republicans in congress, we can’t even get a jobs bill to land on the desk of President Barack Obama that would surely bring joy to the many unemployed black people in America. But yet y’all are upset that a bunch of REPUBLICAN candidates running to become president of these United States had the gall to ignore the lives of black folk?

Newsflash: It’s the Republican party! They haven’t given a damn about black people since the cause was ending slavery. And, this was at a time when the GOP was largely a party of northerners before realignment after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. But hey, perhaps the cause is better served by tweets of righteous indignation, rather than crafting and advancing real policy positions for which we can hold elected officials accountable. But, of course, it’s a lot easier to sit around waiting around for that hope and change will magically rain down upon us from the White House before Obama leaves office. You know, anything that’s not like actual work to build political influence outside of the silly hashtag that issues an ultimatum to the Democrats.

Yeah, good luck with that…

And while you’re doing just that, do remember that it is the Republican party leadership that’s trying their damnedest to make it harder for people of color – and black people in particular – to cast votes. Oh well, I suppose black lives do matter after all.

The post GOP Debate Gave “No Fucks” About #BlackLivesMatter appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Now, it seems that conservatives, for the most part, are trying to distance themselves from the mess that is Bill O’Reilly, especially when he’s going around threatening those who had the balls to call him out. MSN reports:

The editors in chief at Mother Jones this morning sent this email/letter to Fox News Channel’s primetime star Bill O’Reilly and one of the network’s communications execs, saying it is concerned for its Washington bureau chief’s safety after O’Reilly called for him to be “in the kill zone.”

“Mother Jones writer David Corn yesterday responded to Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the magazine’s piece about O’Reilly’s claims regarding his work for CBS News covering the Falklands war, saying “A discerning reader of Deadline can easily see that Bill O’Reilly is hiding behind name-calling, rather than dealing with the substance of the matter,” and that Mother Jones sent O’Reilly a long list of detailed questions about his comments regarding his experience as a war reporter. ” He and Fox News declined to respond. Instead, O’Reilly hurls invective, seemingly to distract,” Corn told Deadline.

“It’s a total hit piece,” Bill O’Reilly told Deadline about the report Corn wrote in Mother Jones about O’Reilly’s claims in re his coverage of Falklands war. In the post, Corn said some of O’Reilly’s stories “don’t withstand scrutiny — even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.”

O’Reilly blasted the piece to other news outlets as well, and is continuing to do so today — during which he has been quoted by at least one outlet, TV Newser, as saying he expected those reporters with whom he spoke to “verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone.”

Wow! And the scariest part is that O’Reilly’s supporters and Fox News disciples will be angry enough not only to agree, but will find ways to carry it out. So yes, I too would be worried for David Corn.

The bottom line is that those who worship the insidiousness and caveman-like mentalities of modern-day conservatism who believe in personal responsibility need to practice what they preach and take accountability for one of their own who’s going off the deep end with lies and anger management problems and not blame everyone else for their fuck ups. Rather, Bill O’Reilly needs to man up and own his mistakes. His reputation has always been shady, but now there is proof. It is not a liberal plot to undermine the “purity” of America and go after a proud American. This is what real journalism is about, going after corruption. And Bill O’Reilly, through the years has proven just how corrupt he is.

The post When Conservatives Face the Music (Bill O’Reilly is a Liar) appeared first on Madness & Reality.

In recent history, Bill O’Reilly had a stand-up routine about Beyonce’s agenda to pushteenage pregnancy. Here is an excerpt of what Bill O’Reilly actually feels:

Bill re-upped his outrage on Friday while talking about Bey’s TIME cover, saying — “she knows that young girls getting pregnant in the African-American community now is about 70% out of wedlock. She knows and doesn’t seem to care.” [1]

To add to the punch line, Bill took things even further. He even noted that she was not deserving of the TIME cover because she does not encourage abstinence [2]. In short, Bill O’Reilly has a problem with the inner messages of Beyonce’s music.

You have to hand it to Bill O’Reilly: he does take the time actually make his brand of slap stick comedy accessible to the world. Too bad he is missing that counterpart to balance his foolishness (*cough* Cam’Ron *cough*). I mean, somebody has to treat Bill like the political stooge that he is.

The Bill O’Reilly-Beyoncé Issue

Here are a few things that are off about his issues with Beyoncé:

Legally, she can whisper “Hail Hydra” in her boo’s ear.

1.)    Beyoncé is married: It is extremely hard to promote ideals that you, yourself, are not openly apart of unless you mention them in a guided fashion. Nowhere on Beyoncé’s new album is there a reference to premarital sex. In fact, Beyoncé has been married for quite some time now. So, Beyoncé can be as raunchy and subtly sexual as she wants to be. Here is the newsflash: she is a married woman. So, she has that right to do what she does.

2.)    The “marriage in wedlock” issue: I think I covered this with the Melissa Ortiz female that wanted to go on a simple minded rant about Black people. Personally, I think she was mad at her own dysfunctional-loon ass family. At any rate, I explained the entire marriage-out-of-wedlock issue plainly:

Another problematic stat she spoke up on is the “75 percent bastard baby rate”. Yeah, that rate is misleading in its own right. The problem is that the birth rate for married AND unmarried Black women is dropping [3]. It just so happen that those said children are “bastard babies”.

Now let us move on.

3.)    Teen pregnancy is on the decline: Can you believe it, people? Teen pregnancy is on the decline in all communities as a whole [4]. That isn’t the only major development that Bill O’Reilly got wrong. He also did not note that teen pregnancy in the African American community has dropped 51 percent between 1999 to 2009 [5]. So, Bill is caught in a mental time warp where Puff Daddy may have been wearing shiny suits and Tommy Hilfigermade his clothes accessible to the African American community.

The Skinny on the Bill O’Reilly-Beyonce Madness

It is hard to take Bill O’Reilly seriously anymore. Too many times he is either misinformed or just plain lying. So, all I can take him as is a comedian. Too bad many conservatives see him as some sort of political/social pundit. Then they would realize that Bill O’Reilly takes more pie to the face than Martin Clare.

The post Hey, O’Reilly: Beyonce Isn’t Making Girls Get Pregnant appeared first on Madness & Reality.

That said, it’s good to know that they’ve taken time to celebrate Black History Month.

This from Media Matters:

Fox News celebrated Black History Month with several five-second spots highlighting the accomplishments of African-Americans. The brief tributes in February stand in sharp contrast with Fox’s pattern of race-baiting and offensive rhetoric on race throughout the rest of year.

For this earth shattering gesture, we here at TIOMAR would like to call a truce — albeit temporary — to thank the fine folks Fox News. I’m not sure how their viewers would take to such a pleasantry, but we’d like to remind them that giving up 28 days of hate-driven racist programming that they have come to enjoy might be good for their health. Besides, still have 11 other months of the year tp masturbate while watching Rupert Murdoch’s white supremacist porn network.

After all, it isn’t like Malcolm X wasn’t a Republican.

Thank you for loving us black folks, Fox News…

You guys are awesome!

The post FOX News Celebrates Black History Month (Sorta) appeared first on Madness & Reality.

This is what was on display before the Super Bowl this past Sunday. For some reason President Obama agrees to this annual idiot fest, where O’Reilly interviews him on national television before the big event. Why he subjects himself to this torture is anybody’s guess. Maybe he wants to show that he is willing to be interviewed by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Or maybe he knows there are millions watching and it’s a good way to reach so many in just a few minutes. Or maybe he wants to show all of those people what an idiot O’Reilly really is. I think that might be it.

If I were the President I would do the interview but only if it were conducted by a real news person, not an entertainer. Just allowing O’Reilly to conduct the interview gives him a sort of cashe that he doesn’t deserve. But anyway Obama is Obama so he does the interview. The first question was about Obamacare. But O’Reilly didn’t ask about the CURRENT state of the ACA or how many people have signed up or even legitimate questions about some road bumps, no O’Reilly went back four months to the roll out, something that has been out of the news (except on Fox News) since November when it was fixed. Obama brought up the fact that it was indeed fixed and that over 3 million have signed up along with 6 million who are now signed up for Medicaid.

The ACA question would be the MOST legit question of the interview. It was all downhill from there. It was as though O’Reilly was stuck in a Fox News news cycle, one that only exists in their world of paranoid conspiracies and erection inducing Obama bashing that their older (nearly 70 avg age) white viewers masturbate to on a daily basis.

O’Reilly asked about Benghazi and the I.R.S. Once again bringing up those golden oldie questions about whether it was a terrorist attack or some dudes who were annoyed at the video tape. O’Reilly brought up Susan Rice again, making it look like she was wrong when she said it was probably a result of the video, even though we now know she was right.

O’Reilly continued the false belief that the I.R.S. went after right wing groups and tried to (god forbid) make them pay taxes since they are all political organizations when it’s a known fact that they targeted groups on both sides of the aisle. Groups that should damn well be paying taxes.

No matter though, whether it was about Benghazi, the I.R.S. or the ACA. The answers didn’t matter. You see O’Reilly wasn’t looking for answers, he was looking for red meat to through at his ‘Love to bash Obama’ audience. It was the key words that mattered..Benghazi, I.R.S., Obamacare, Rice, Sebelius, Terrorist, Scandal, Conspiracy… on and on. This is all that mattered.

You could see the Fox News 70 plus year old white males sitting up in their comfy Archie Bunker chairs and cheering on the idiot O’Reilly, the way they would their favorite football team. “Get em Bill!” they would yell, “You tell em Bill O!” while their own Edith’s yell at them to “Calm down before you get a heart attack!”

This is what the interview was all about. It’s why O’Reilly would constantly interrupt as soon as Obama began his answers. The keywords and phrases were out and that’s all that mattered. Yes Obama made Bill look like an idiot but that’s an easy thing to do when the guy knows he’s an idiot. O’Reilly knows the answers to his own questions because they were all answered ages ago. Answered many times by Obama himself as well as through hearing after hearing. O’Reilly knew the answers, knew the truth, yet he continued to play the idiot for his 70 plus year old white male audience.

Hey, does anyone remember all of those interviews Bush gave with Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann?? Neither do I. Or do any of you recall those interviews O’Reilly did with Bush where he asked him about the failures on 9/11 or in Iraq? Neither do I.

You see we have a President who plays ball. He gives the interviews most likely because he feels it’s the right thing to do. He is telling the truth so why not do them? None of this matters though. Only the key words matter.

O’Reilly is the idiot, playing to idiots who are no better than one of Pavlov’s dogs. Salivating when they hear a word that makes them go into heat.

The post Why Bill O’Reilly Is An Idiot appeared first on Madness & Reality.

When I was a kid, I knew two different Santa Clauses. The first had a fat belly, rosy cheeks, a long white beard, and skin as pink as bubble gum. He was omnipresent, visiting my pre-school and the local mall, visible in all of my favorite Christmas specials.

Then there was the Santa in my family’s household, in the form of ornaments, cards, and holiday figurines. A near-carbon copy of the first one—big belly, rosy cheeks, long white beard: check, check, check. But his skin was as dark as mine.

Seeing two different Santas was bewildering. Eventually I asked my father what Santa really looked like. Was he brown, like us? Or was he really a white guy?

My father replied that Santa was every color. Whatever house he visited, jolly old St. Nicholas magically turned into the likeness of the family that lived there.

In hindsight, I see this explanation as the great Hollywood spec script it really is. (Just picture the past-their-prime actors who could share the role. Robert De Niro! Eddie Murphy! Jackie Chan! I smell a camp classic.) But at the time, I didn’t buy it. I remember feeling slightly ashamed that our black Santa wasn’t the “real thing.” Because when you’re a kid and you’re inundated with the imagery of a pale seasonal visitor—and you notice that even some black families decorate their houses with white Santas—you’re likely to accept the consensus view, despite your parents’ noble intentions.

Two decades later, America is less and less white, but a melanin-deficient Santa remains the default in commercials, mall casting calls, and movies. Isn’t it time that our image of Santa better serve all the children he delights each Christmas?

A very good question, in my opinion. As a child growing up in the Caribbean, I too questioned the cultural and ethnic identity of Santa Claus. More to that point, I always wondered why in the world did we even pit up a Christmas tree decorated with snow, when I had never seen as much as one snowflake in my life. And then, like Harris, I always wondered why Santa Claus never looked anything like me when the closest thing to “whiteness” I knew on the island, happened to be a few my great aunts who could pass for white women, thanks to my white Scottish great-grandfather.

But curiosity aside, here is what Megyn Kelly said:

So, do we really need to reinforce that narrative by adding the mythology of a Kunta Claus?

When it comes to Jesus and Santa being white, like Megyn Kelly, I thought everyone knew this to be true. Certainly if Jesus wasn’t white, there’s no way that my grandmother would have had a picture of a blond-haired blue-eyed Jesus on her wall when I was a kid. And let me tell you, my granny went to church eight days a week and three times on Sunday. So when I say my granny knew Jesus, trust me, she was practically dating the man; so, with that said I’m sure she knew he was in fact the same man in that picture on her wall and not some Palestinian-looking guy from the middle-east like religious scholar Reza Aslan claims. I’m just saying: my granny taught me a lot, and she had to learn it from somewhere; and I’m sure it wasn’t from watching FOX.

My grandmother will be 100-years-old a few days after Christmas this year. Yes, and she still lives in the Caribbean. That said, there’s no way in hell that I or any of you can convince her that Megyn Kelly, and all the Megyn Kelly’s of the world are wrong. Forget about the whitewashing of history or that through slavery and colonization religion was introduced to Africans and their descendants in the new world by men who looked exactly like my white Scottish great-grandfather. You know, the descendants of the same white men who invented Christianity for political reasons?

Yes, let’s not have that debate; yes, let’s leave that out of it and instead minimize the growing pains of people of color like this. You know, sort of like what Megyn Kelly did when she blatantly disregarded how it must feel to be black? Especially to be black and live in two worlds?

Seriously, would Santa get any love if he was black?

Look, Santa Claus is as white as Jesus Christ and he needs to stay that way. I mean, lord forbid if in our quest for post-racial bliss we start accepting the idea of a black Santa Claus and subject him to racial profiling, being shot by overzealous police officers or neighborhood watch captains. Or face the possibility of being wrongfully incarcerated like many black men in America. Not to mention the indignity of not being able to find paid work when not attempting to bring Chistmas cheer. Or even worse, having his birth certificate questioned in an attempt to undermine his legitimacy.

I could go on and on, but hopefully you get where I’m coming from on this one. Besides, if Santa was black, what reason would white folks have to visit the ghetto once a year in the spirit of love, just to be able to feel better about themselves. So yeah, why start changing now and making certain folks uncomfortable?

The post Megyn Kelly Was Right: Santa Claus is White and He Should Stay White appeared first on Madness & Reality.

The truth is that most people with cancelled policies as a result of the new health care law, will be able to buy cheaper insurance through the exchanges; and, they will also receive more benefits. Now I don’t know about you, but getting more bang for your buck has always been a good thing, yes? That is of course with the exception of living in that Republican alternate universe and perpetual echo chamber devoid of facts on FOX News. Having said that, it’s good to see at least one of the FOX faithful, Juan Williams, challenge at least one of the many lies on “Fox News Sunday”.

Fox News analyst Juan Williams hit out at Republicans on Sunday over their opposition to Obamacare.

Williams appeared on a “Fox News Sunday” panel. He responded to Chris Wallace’s charge that some Americans are losing their health insurance plans under Obamacare.

“I get the sense that people on the Republican side are enjoying this moment, but this is empty rhetoric,” Williams said. He added that some plans are being cancelled because they do not meet Obamacare standards, but that those affected have received offers “for better packages at lower costs with more benefits.”

“This is not the apocalypse,” Williams added.

Brit Hume disagreed, saying, “The president promised explicitly — we heard it on this program—if you like the coverage you have now you can keep it, period… They’re now being told they can’t have those polices anymore. They must have policies that involve coverage for things they may feel they don’t need.”

Of course I realize that being forced to pay for cheaper and better health care coverage might not sit with some. But hey, that’s because nobody takes the occasional voice of reason on the political right seriously. Williams is absolutely correct. Many Americans have seen their insurance plans cancelled due to the Affordable Care Act. But of course Williams is black like Obama, so why should any of you take anything he says with a grain of salt. Well, for those of you who are of this opinion and skeptical, here’s a little something from the folks at Kaiser:

FOX News Contributor, Juan Williams

The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost — especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.

[…] An estimated 14 million people purchase their own coverage because they don’t get it through their jobs. Calls to insurers in several states showed that many have sent notices.

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

Some Policies Targeted

Both Independence and Highmark are cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Now tell me, how can anyone with common sense be upset about this?

For the past week, the Republican party and the national media have gone around foaming at the mouths about some troubles people are experiencing with the Healthcare.gov website. What an outrage! – Because, you know, buying health insurance in the individual market used to be just so simple until Obamacare came in and messed things up. Also, because it’s not like there’s a toll-free number with quick answer time (1-800-318-2596) isn’t available to consumers who are having trouble on the website or would rather pick up the phone, or human navigators who could help.

But America’s uninsured aren’t buying the media’s poutrage. They are signing up in droves. Already, federal and state exchanges have completed 700,000 applications (and this is yesterday’s number) – and given that an application may cover a whole family, the number of individuals covered by those applications are likely well over a million. That’s 24 days into a 180-day open enrollment period.

The post Juan Williams Calls Republican Obamacare Opposition “Empty Rhetoric” appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Case in point, checkout the following excerpt from his latest piece titled What’s the Matter With White People? A Modest Call for Personal Responsibility. In it, he takes on the tired arguments levied by conservatives retread in the wake of the “Not Guilty” verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial for killing Trayvon Martin. As I pointed out recently, the usual suspects at FOX News are attempting to derail a much-needed conversation on race. By bringing up issues like black-on-black crime, out-of-wedlock births, and every “black pathology” known to white man, conservatives are pulling from the white supremacist playbook to diminish all discussions of inequality in the criminal justice system. Naturally, given the racial demographic of the average viewer of FOX News and their propensity for ignorance, much of what is said is being digested hook, line, and sinker. But just like I did recently as it relates to black-on-black crime, Tim Wise breaks it down on out-of-wedlock births with a twist.

In fact, Tim Wise does a better job:

Despite the alarm bells rung regularly by hysterics on the right, there is evidence that progress is being made in the black community on the very issues about which conservatives love to bray. For instance,teen pregnancy rates have been falling considerably for African American youth, contrary to popular perception. From 1991 to 2010, the rate of births to black teens, 15-19, fell by more than half, with a full 9 percent drop just between 2009 and 2010 alone. Likewise, from 1980 to 2008, the birthrate for all black women under 18 fell by more than half. Indeed, the birth rate for African American teenagers is now at an all-time low.

In fact, since the early 1990s, the rate of out-of-wedlock child birth for all women — not just teenagers — has fallen for blacks, while actually climbing for whites. From 1990 to 2010 the white out-of-wedlock birth rate grew by one-third while the rate for black women fell by more than 28 percent. Since 1970, the rate of out-of-wedlock births has more than tripled for white women, while falling among black women by nearly a third.

But how can that be? Over 72 percent of black babies born today are born out-of-wedlock, as opposed to 66.5 percent of all black babies in 1990, and only 37.5 percent of black babies born in 1970! Doesn’t this prove that single black women are becoming less responsible in their childbearing patterns? Doesn’t it prove a cultural tendency in the black community to bring children into the world, despite the lack of a father in the home? Well no, and anyone who knew how to interpret basic statistical concepts would know why. The fact that right-wing blowhards like Bill O’Reilly and pretty much everyone on FOX makes this same point, incessantly, only indicates their statistical illiteracy. A brief examination should explain.

As you can see, in the second section of the table linked above, labeled “percent of live births to unmarried mothers,” it is undeniably true that as a share of all births to black women, those that are out-of-wedlock have indeed grown dramatically over the past four decades. And yet, as the first part of the table indicates (and as I noted above), the actual unmarried birth rate for black women has been declining steadily. So, how can these two facts both be true? How can the actual rate of unmarried births to black women be falling and yet, at the same time, the percentage of births to black women that are births out-of-wedlock be climbing? Easy. These facts represent two different social realities, only one of which indicates anything about the behavior of unmarried black folks. And the one that mattersisn’t the one white conservatives like to talk about.

If unmarried black women are having fewer babies than ever — and that’s what the table demonstrates — then this means unmarried black women are increasingly doing exactly what conservative moral scolds would have them do: namely, be more “responsible” about their sexual activity, and not bring babies into the world that they are presumed less likely to be able to support because of the absence of a father. But if, despite this trend towards “responsible” behavior, the share of black births that are out-of-wedlock continues to rise, what can explain such a seemingly contradictory phenomenon? There is really only one possible answer, and it has nothing to do with cultural pathology or bad behavior. Simply put, it must be that black married couples are having far fewer children than in the past. Indeed, the rates of birth for married black couples must be falling faster than the rates for unmarried black women, such that out-of-wedlock births as a share of all black births will continue to climb, even as unmarried black women cut back on childbearing. That is, in fact, exactly the culprit here. Black married couples are having far fewer children than ever before, and far fewer than white married couples, by the way, unlike in the past when their families tended to be larger. (Read More)

Check out Tim Wise in a recent lecture at the University of San Francisco this year:

The post Tim Wise: The “Black Out-Of-Wedlock Birth” Canard is Racist appeared first on Madness & Reality.

According to author and FoxNews.com contributor Suzanne Venker, the war on women’s rights is a thing of insignificance, because a subculture of men she’s come across have apparently been pissing and moaning about the evils of the Feminist movement, and how it’s prompting them to harbor feelings of inadequacy and resentment.  Venker’s piece does little else than invoke nostalgia for the antiquated social mores that kept women in line and propagate patriarchy in contemporary society… In fact, it reads like a pro-MRM manifesto that places blame for men’s insecurities, perceived shortcomings, and unwillingness to evolve on women who’ve dared to make a decent quality of life for themselves …

“Women aren’t women anymore. To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically. In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly.” She writes.

What Venker refuses to grasp amidst all of her “research” is that the anger and defensiveness she chastises women for, is frustration and wariness at having to constantly be on alert to ward off the bellicose barrage of attacks on our civil rights and person. Lest she, and that subculture of men whose chauvinism she insists on affirming forget, this election year was filled with Welfare Queen Tropes about American women of color, pro-rape rhetoric, anti-reproductive rights agendas, and an attempt to footnote us in a narrow binder of foolery; not to mention that this current cult of personality seems to relish upholding abuse culture and aggression towards women and young girls. Then there’re those of us who’re derided and made to feel less than, because we’ve opted not to choose motherhood and/or marriage as a path towards [our] fulfillment.

The politics of respectability that Venker defers to dictates; women need to know their place and if we would just step in line, stop being successful, “act like ladies” and be the docile lambs we’ve been designated to be and allow men to have agency over our beings, they won’t be so angry at us or resort to psychopathic irresponsible behavior as she further writes …

“Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men.“

“[…]So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that Suzanne Venker wrote this piece from the lens of a White woman with  privilege, so not only does she try to reinforce the illusory big, bad, man-destroying feminazi, she also doesn’t take ‘intersectionality’ within women’s rights into account, since she also opined – “[…] women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

As a single Black woman on a tireless quest for respect and recognition of my humanity, I don’t recall ever being at the head of the line to be placed on the proverbial pedestal.

For all of Suzanne Venker’s coddling of those men who undoubtedly could care less about my place on the social hierarchy, yet expect me to permit them the right to continue marginalizing me, I’ll show up at a quarter past never for that whine and cheese party and stay righteously indignant towards attempts to silence my voice and will continue to take advantage of opportunities that a mostly patriarchal and racist system would rather I not have. Playing the mule in an age where I don’t have to has never been an aspiration of mine.

The post Sorry, Suzanne Venker: Feminism Didn’t Kill Marriage – War on Men? appeared first on Madness & Reality.