minnesota nice

i had somebody at my school ask me if i was from minnesota (its had for people to believe that there really are black people there even though the twin cities is 30% black).  i replied yes but i knew the question was loaded.  the person then went on to ask me how i feel about the republican national convention being held there and what it says about the area.  remember now people...i am currently living in...texas.  so i responded

it makes sense for the republicans to try to mobilize and get support in minnesota, it is only one of the most progressive states in the country.  both the senate and the house have twice as many democrats than republicans.  speaking specifically for minneapolis, its one of the best places to live...and not just because it's my hometown.

-it was recently ranked the most literate city; our school systems public and private are among the est in the country

-we headquarter tons of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies so the employment opportunities for young professionals is great

-we have one of the cleanest and healthiest cities in the country

-we have the best of all seasons; statistical fact that the twin cities has the greatest variation of temperatures in the world

-we have amazing facilities for entertainment; museums, restaurants, galleries, parks, theaters, blah blah blah

-the state fair; quite possibly the only state whose state fair is in the metropolitan area 

-we have a progressive tax system, great healthcare benefits

-wonderful housing accommodations

-diversity; all jokes aside because i know how that word is thrown around so loosely

-ok our sports teams currently suck...but people still support them hahaha

i could go on and on and on but theres a point to be made and its trying to figure out why the republican party would want so badly to turn the state of minnesota red...simple as that.  plus there was all this talk about mccain selecting minnesota governor tim pawlenty as his running mate...which wouldve really made sense

minnesota governor tim pawlenty

a little bit about pawlentys track racord

-since being governor in 2002 he took the $4.5 billion dollar deficit and turned it into a $2.2 billion surplus.

-he spent $800 million dollars to improve the school systems

-developed health care reforms with no increase in premiums and one of the best perscription drug plans in the nation

-increased the state's ethanol standards to increase the use of alternative fuels and lower the dependence on foreign oil

so he's done good things for the state...now mccain would choose him for his track record and the fact that he has the following positions

-pro-life

-protecting the traditional idea of marriage

-harsher sentencing for criminals (including a proposition to reinstate the death penalty in 

minnesota)

-proposed an illegal immigration task force

-believes in faith based initiatives

-supports performance pay systems for both teachers and politicians

see! he would've been a great choice for republican vice president and it wouldve definitely went over well to have the convention in his home state, and possibly been a factor in turning minnesota into a red state; considering the great things that governor pawlenty has done for the state, many minnesotans (who arent convinced by senator obama, would definitely consider voting for pawelnty because of his history of improving conditions for the people he represents.

so there...that's why the republican national convention is being held in the twin cities...now somebody in texas tell me why our library is named after george bush and there are statues on campus erected to ku klux clan grand wizards!

~charity

or maybe we should wake up...

tonight at 8 pm e.s.t (calculate it for your various time zones), i suggest you all to turn into cnn for their program "reclaiming the dream."  it's a discussion in partnership with essence magazine to discuss issues facing african americans today like marriage, education, hiv/aids, incarceration and others.  for the discussion, "influential" blacks like cornel west, juliane malveaux, t.d. jakes, hill harper and others have been chosen to weigh in on the various topics.

as always i think that these discussions are fun to watch, but often times the speakers end up preaching to the choir.  the people who will watch it, are the people who are already aware of these issues.

one thing about this discussion that i do find very progressive is an opportunity provided by www.ireport.com.  the site is allowing viewers to ask a question pertaining to one of these issues on video and they will play the video questions throughout the discussion.  you know im cynical though, so i'm sure they're going to filter through the questions for those that fit into "direction" that they're heading with the show, but i still might submit the following questions

this show is called "reclaiming the dream" but what is the dream? and why does it need to be reclaimed?  is it perhaps time to reformulate the dream, or how we conceptualize it? 

i assume it is a reference to the famous speech by the late dr. martin luther king jr. but i think that over time it has lost its way and that this concept of this "dream" might be holding us back and be one source of the division among black people because after all it is...a dream, and a dream that we don't all share.   it is a dream established by those in the civil rights movement so anyone who doesn't aspire to this "dream" runs the risk of being accused of not being about the business of improving life for blacks.  i think that holding on to a specific idea of what is right and wrong for all blacks is very dangerous and shows a false sense of superiority associated with those who believe to be carrying on the legacy of dr. king.  

as i was watching excerpts from the show, one of the speakers discussed the mentality of blacks towards the issue of teenage pregnancy and pregnancy out of wedlock, condemning the mentality of those today and favoring the methods during his time when young mothers were "sent down south if they got pregnant, to save their parents from embarrassment."  i'm sure the speaker meant well but he is obviously romanticizing the way things were done in his time and condemning the way they're done now not recognizing that times have changed so methods have changed and the most productive thing to do is try to deal with conditions as they exist instead of comparing them to the way they were.

as always im interested to see how many people of my generation are even allowed "at the table" to speak on these issues, or if we are still sitting at the "kiddy table," not yet respected enough to join the adult discourse.  at this point, i'll have the tivo cued up as to fast  forward the bullshit.

honestly, dreaming is cool but i'm with the boy Dap on this one...waaaaaaaaake uuuuuuuup

who run it?!

both us and uk ambassadors expressed their disgust at russia's vote against the draft of a security resolution council to impose sanctions on zimbabwe's president robert mugabe at the g8 meeting in japan.  there were 15 countries represented in the vote for sanctions, 9 countries voted for the sanctions (belguim, burkina faso, costa rica, croatia, france, italy, panama, uk, united states; 5 countries voted against the sanctions (china, libya, russia, south america, vietnam); 1 country abstained from the vote (indonesia).  because of its position as a permanent council member, russia's vote against sanctions meant a veto of the proposal so their decision to not to vote in favor of the sanctions along with the other members of  g-8 present at the council,  russia received the most criticism and their position in the g8 has been questions to the point where they may be replaced...so who is this infamous g-8?

(from left to right: canadian prime minister stephen harper, uk prime minister tony blair, 

european commission president jose barraso, french president nicholas sarkozy,

 russian president vladimir putin, japanese prime minister shinzo abe, 

german chancellor angela merkel, italian prime minister romano prodi and

 us president george bush

the g-8 is a group of 8 countries and their leaders:  france, germany, italy, britain, japan, canada, russia and the us.  basically, this is the billionaire boys club of world leaders and they get together and meet on how the rest of the world should operate. 

when asked why he decided to vote against the sanctions russian ambassador vitaly churkin said that in this case, sanctions went beyond the un mandate arguing that the conditions in zimbabwe were of no threat to international security.  upon hearing this, it seemed like he was implying that what happened in zimbabwe was of no consequence to the rest of the world, but then south african representative for the african union dumisani kumalo bolstered churkin's reason by saying that sanctions would interfere with existing dialog going on to bring improvements to african countries in both the humanitarian and economic situations.  in addition, the nations who voted against the sanctions never said that they supported mugabe, and some even went on record to call his actions deplorable (at the least), but they don't think that un sanctions are the proper way to being about change.

i agree with that, looking how sanctions have (not) worked in the past, right now they're just a way for the world's "superpowers" to show solidarity and flex their muscle on the rest of the world.  they're lip service used to assuage the reality that there will be nothing done to improve the real problems in zimbabwe.  as we've seen with many other countries; sanctions only make world leaders use more creative ways to further their agendas; oh you want to put us under an arms embargo; well...we'll just begin to develop our own arms industry and in no time we'll be exporting our own semiautomatic weapons.

in addition, i am opposed to the concept of the g8 because they are only going to look seriously at things that help them sustain or even increase their amount of power.  protestors at the meeting in japan from all over the world have offered serious critiques of the g8 to even attempt to address the global food crisis.  the g8 claims to be promoting globalization, but it will surely be for their benefit and at the cost of the rest of the world.

but what does that mean for me, a citizen of one of the most powerful of even the g8 nations?  as stated before, it most likely means i will soon be moving to another country!  people have told me to wait for obama, he'll change things.  i doubt that very highly (c) q-tip.