Friday, July 31, 2009

The Brotha-in-Chief ate crow again

July 29, 2009

Have you ever tasted a chewy drumstick of a cooked crow? If you have not or you want to have a taste for it, then you’d better attend a dinner at the White House, because you’d definitely see more crow-eating parties over next four years daily until Obama’s party expires.

The next party will be at 6:00 pm on Thursday July 30, at the outdoor on the White House lawn, hosted by the First Negro Prez with two exclusively invited guests, a Negro elitist and a white blue-color-class POPO.
There’s a bizarre common denominator: all of them are related through common Irish lineage and heritage. (The Negro professor is a descendant from an Irishman and a black slave girl)
The one thing I can assure you is that crow meat doesn’t taste so bad if it’s served on the White House china.

When the Prez Obama waded into the bowl of racial pottage, calling a white Cambridge cop stupid and an uppity Black Harvard Professor a victim of the racial profiling, it was a highly charged and most animated performance he has ever displayed in his political career.

In other words, it was not a slip of the tongue when Obama blurted out that the white cop acted stupidly... Obama clearly knew the fact that in America such incidents of racial profiling against the black and Latino occur in every minute and at every corner street, and he simply wanted to comment how race remains as an established fact in the American society.

Obama unequivocally and bluntly stated that the not-so-secret dirty secret shared by most of Americans, black or white, is that race is still an absolute determinant factor in the so-called “post-racial” United States of America in 2009 when a brotha or Latino is stopped, frisked, arrested, and incarcerated by cops simply because average Joe or Jane looked the POPO in the eye, asked them to show their badge, or did not call them Yessa, Massa, Sir, or Ma’am.

However, when Obama sees a tsunami of protests from the police union, talking heads, and editorial pundits on his comment, he hurriedly backtracked and readily ate crow, sheepishly yammering that he should have calibrated word, stupid, more refined way...
He did not elaborate which word would be better, appropriate, acceptable, or deferential toward the racist POPO whose power in America has been appreciated with the same level of the Roman Centurion.

For Obama or any American blacks, eating crow is not an unusual diet but a routine behavioral pattern of three-meals-a-day activity.
For example, Obama, 12 hours after he was nominated the Democratic Candidate for President, prostrated on all fours at the Jewish altar of the AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee) and ate crow by declaring that he is an uncompromising friend of Israel to protect the interests of the Jewish State, while totally forgetting his words of conscience that “there are no people around the world more suffering than the Palestinian people are”.
Obama was no exception to lick the Jewish spittoon in order to convince Jews that he is kosher.

Negro people in America, historically, were categorized by white people typically in terms of obedience, three kinds that there were good blacks, there were model blacks, and before that there were Head Negro in Charge (HNIC).
Most of Negro people belong to this category are “non-black” in appearance (read lighter or fair-skinned) and speak a dialect with an accent white people are familiar with.
Particularly, unlike “uppity niggers” like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Cornel West and “pet niggers” like Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice who all display a dark-skinned faces, Obama belongs to the shining example of Good Blacks.

However, all of Good, Model or Head Negroes carry the common denominator: they are charismatic, rhetorical, stylish, and visceral, but unaccountable to the very people they claim to speak for, namely Black other words, they all are good only for posture or symbolism but no substance to their own race as they constantly bellow the latest hogwash buzzword, “post-racial” America as if they have transcended the racial division after Americans elected Obama as their Commander-in-Chief: Mission Accomplished!

Indeed, it’s mind-boggling but somewhat mysterious to see a celebrity TV personality plus Ivy League Professor like Henry Lewis Gates Jr. was hauled into the city jail in Cambridge, Massachusetts for the disorderly conduct in his own home where the Mayor of Cambridge, the Governor of Massachusetts State, and the President of the Nation, all of them are Blacks, while the arresting cop is a white local sergeant with the Irish ancestry.

The funny thing here is that there appears retrospectively to be a déjà vu of a history between Irish immigrants and Negroes in America fighting over the same breadcrumbs in the 19th Century.
In this fighting of zero-sum game, the Irish pushed the Negroes out of the lower-class jobs and neighborhoods they originally shared and the Irish immigrants evolved from an oppressed, unwelcome class becoming part of white class that embraced strong racism against Negroes.
Here white is not just a color, but a social position in which Irish immigrants did their damnedest thing to become the white people as a matter of survival and they got the enough supports from labor union, Catholic Church, and their oppressor, Anglo-Saxon.

Today’s racial conflicts in America did not begin yesterday...which created a crushing legacy of poverty, crime, inequality and exploitation.
For Blacks and Latinos, Obama’s cold beer party is a joke that could be sold in the late night talk shows where the group of rah-rah bozos laughs off the issues of life and death for unprivileged, indigent, and desperate underclass.
For Obama who is a half black talking white talk, a confab at the Irish Pub may provide him a chance to trivialize and avoid both the white furor and black anguish over a glass of cold ale.

Obama was elected on a platform of “CHANGE”, which has gradually and consciously clothed a deceptive colors and smells of GWBUSH.
From the foreign policies in the Middle East and Afghanistan to the domestic issues of Immigration, he is closely following what GWB had executed during his eight-year term of Presidency.
Ending the Iraq War is not the same as Ending the Occupation in Iraq or Redeployment in Afghanistan.
The section 287g Immigration Program that Obama ‘s regime got from GWBUSH and expanded by his Homeland Security Department increasingly pressed for more racial profiling and community insecurity in places where black elitist, celebrity, or HNIC does not reside.

Aristotle put it squarely: “If there is menial and servile work to be done, there must be menial and servile people to do it.”
Obama, a Good Black, takes a marching order from the White, Israeli Jews, CEOes, Elites, not from a homeless, indigent, Joe &Jane Six Pack.
And he will MOVE ON in that direction as Henry Lewis Gates Jr. have suggested after he accept the invitation for crow meat party.

Obama said in fatherly tone that the Cambridge incident was “a teaching moment”...
For the Blacks, Obama, as a Brotha-in-Chief, admonishes:
1. Do not look the cop in the eye.
2. Grovel at the authorities like the Good, Model, Head Negro in Charge do.
3. Whimper loudly but subserviently Yessa! (Yes Sir!), Ole Massa! (Old Master!).
4. Do not call me! Ever! Never! Just go home and sprawl on your bed and get some sleep.
5. Then, after you cool down, you go and get some beer, and be happy to be still alive.
6. Play Gandhi, Buddhist bonze, or Yoga, but No John Wayne or Martial Arts.


In America, anything ever changes and nothing changes, no matter a Good Black man keeps chanting “CHANGE!”
If America ever changes, it’s just a symbol not a substance.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Ban Ki-Moon is more a secretary than a General

Nowhere Man
Why Ban Ki-Moon is the world’s most dangerous Korean

For such a seemingly crucial position, the secretary-generalship of the United Nations has historically had a rather low bar for success.

Kurt Waldheim?
In his memoir, A Dangerous Place, Daniel Patrick Moynihan recounted that Waldheim functioned as "a post office, a somewhat antique but reasonably efficient public service run along Austro-Hungarian lines.
As one sat down with him, he would be mentally sorting the mail while making small conversation."

Boutros Boutros-Ghali?
His arrogance and fecklessness as the Serbs laid waste to Bosnia prompted the Clinton administration to veto a second term.

Kofi Annan? Brought low by his son Kojo's financial peculation in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.

Even in this unimpressive company, though, Ban Ki-moon appears to have set the standard for failure.

It's not that Ban has committed any particularly egregious mistakes in his 2½ years on the job.
But at a time when global leadership is urgently needed, when climate change and international terrorism and the biggest financial crisis in 60 years might seem to require some—any!—response, the former South Korean foreign minister has instead been trotting the globe collecting honorary degrees, issuing utterly forgettable statements, and generally frittering away any influence he might command.
He has become a kind of accidental tourist, a dilettante on the international stage.

Not for him bold speeches or attempts to mobilize public opinion behind what could be an organization that helps tackle nuclear proliferation or reconstruct Afghanistan.

Not for him championing human rights, or even rallying in defense of beleaguered civilians.
Visiting Malta in April for yet another honorary degree, he was evasive when asked about the island's penchant for sending illegal African immigrants packing off to Italy, saying, "I am not in a position to intervene."

As tens of thousands of Tamil refugees lingered under fire on a narrow strip of beach in Sri Lanka, Ban and his advisors did little more than huddle in New York and wring their hands, only making a trip to the war zone after hostilities ended.

Under his stewardship, the United Nations isn't merely an unhelpful place—it's a largely irrelevant one.
Ban's flaws were obvious dating back to his decades toiling in the South Korean foreign ministry, where he earned a telling nickname, "The Bureaucrat."
Luckily for Ban, if not for the rest of the world, The Bureaucrat was exactly what the Bush administration was looking for after years of tussling with the assertively anti-American Annan.

When it became Asia's turn to nominate a secretary-general, Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, made Ban's election her pet project.
But Ban failed to charm outside observers.

In his book The Best Intentions, James Traub recounts a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations during Ban's campaign to become secretary: "[B]etween his anodyne oratory and his unsteady grasp of English, I found that I had been lulled to sleep."

As secretary-general, Ban's soporific effect has never left him.
One U.N. watcher told me that Ban is like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one around to witness its crash—if you don't hear him, does he really exist?

Aside from his role as a subsidiary of South Korea, Inc.—lining his office walls with Samsung televisions and hiring his South Korean buddies as senior advisors—his imprint has been negligible.
Even Ban seems aware of what a nonentity he is: Last August, speaking to senior U.N. officials in Turin, he described his management style as elevating teamwork over intellectual attainment.
But he went on to bemoan his difficulty overcoming bureaucratic inertia, ending with a gnomic admission of general defeat: "I tried to lead by example. Nobody followed."

At their best, U.N. secretaries-general can serve as a goad to the world's conscience and a genuine catalyst for change.

Dag Hammarskjold, for example, sought to expand the United Nations' mandate by undertaking high-profile and frequently risky missions, from meeting with Chinese leaders under Mao to securing freedom for 15 American pilots captured during the Korean War to traveling several times to the Congo in hopes of averting warfare during decolonization.

During the 1980s, the urbane Javier Pérez de Cuéllar earned high marks for conducting talks between Argentina and Britain after the Falklands War and for bringing about Namibian independence from South Africa.

So far, Ban has no such successes to his credit. It's not as if there aren't enough crises around the globe for him to make his mark, whether in Sri Lanka or Sudan or the Middle East.
But Ban hasn't given any indication that he's going to have an impact in any of these places—or even that he wants to.