LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Furquan R. Stafford, Sr., chairman and CEO of C.P. Plasma Center Inc.

Comments: Comments Off
Published on: July 30, 2012

Please sign Furquan R. Stafford, Sr.’s petition.

As you may know, Dr. Charles Richard Drew was a 20th Century black physician who did pioneering medical research into blood transfusions. His medical research efforts made large-scale blood banks possible.

Building a business based on Dr. Drew’s work is one Furquan R. Stafford, Sr.

Now, I do enjoy meeting and supporting businesspeople, especially black men and women who are successful and passionate about a cause of importance. Furquan R. Stafford, Sr. is the chairman and CEO of C.P. Plasma Center Inc. (CPPC), harnessing the economic power in Dr. Drew’s medical research for black people and seeking to mitigate racial disparities in US health care. Take a moment to read about Stafford’s business and his passion.

And when you’re done, if you’ve not done so already, I ask you, again to please sign Furquan R. Stafford, Sr.’s petition.

If you need another reason to support him, then please visit his site.

Peace

Has the Oval Office been Church-ified?

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: July 29, 2012

Obama in the

America has never been here before.

True, there have been outstanding black orators throughout the nation’s history. True also that they were heard outside the black community. After all, many non-blacks can quote portions of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

[dailymotion]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x833ml_martin-luther-king-i-have-a-dream-s_news[/dailymotion]

Perhaps a smaller number have adopted Malcolm X’s “By Any Means Necessary” into their normal dialog.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhg6LxyTnY8[/youtube]

America’s black folks like preacher types, whether or not they like church. Clerical robe or no, we want to see and hear a confident black man deliver a strong message about our concerns with passion and conviction. Often, the message itself can stink on ice, as long as the emotion with which it is delivered is right; that’s the way we roll. We like leaders who can get us worked up, use their passion to communicate important themes beyond the surface level. As Obama is the first black president under the US Constitution, (provided you overlook questions regarding Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, and, Dwight Eisenhower), America has not had that type of a “preachy” leader in the White House.

Now, and you may call this a “black thing,” it does seem that sometimes how a leader speaks is more important than what he says. We like that traditional, build-to-a-climax, message which leaves at least half the room up and shouting, even those who have no idea what the man was talking about. That style over substance thing can be a problem.

Which brings me back to…Obama.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mnv37Aqbi8[/youtube]

Granted it is only an excerpt, and it may not have been his best effort. However, you see the same result that you would in a black church service when “the Spirit is high” – wild applause, shouting, people out of their seats…y’all know what I’m talking about.

Is there a problem with this? Well, generally no; a leader who cannot motivate emotionally will never be effective. But what did he say? That HE was fighting, and HE needed the folks to get with HIM, and that the folks needed to stop complaining and get on board?

That is not how King motivated while he was the “moral leader of our nation.” The message was consistently about the issue of black citizenship rights, not about what what King was doing or how people needed to get on board with him. His speeches demonstrated WHY every and anyone should be on board.

Malcolm also, while less conciliatory to the white national majority than King, did not make his messages about him and how he needed support. He knew how to choose and describe an issue that demanded support. People followed Malcolm and King, not because they asked for help, but because they spoke and took on issues where they could be of help.

You know, in a “good” church, the preacher, puts his heart and soul into a message that will help the people’s standing with God. In a not-so-good church, the preacher’s heart and soul goes into a message about…the preacher. However, in both places, you will find those who say, “That man is PREACHIN’!” And blacks will keep a sorry preacher around for awhile – the money can be funny, the church building can be falling apart – as long as he gets them to shoutin’ come Sunday morning.

With deficits at historic levels, with not a single budget being in place during his term, with the national debt now equaling the size of the economy, with black unemployment having risen to levels not seen in more than 7 decades with no end in sight, and with government initiatives that force individual liberty to take a backseat to the collective “good,” the US is not as good a church as it once was or can be. Additionally, it is not addressing the issues where people need help.

Still, as evidenced by the video clip, there are many blacks, and especially Obama himself, who yet believe that man is preachin’.

I’m just not sure he’s saying what the people need to here.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

Do Y’all Know What Ice-T Got Just About Right?

Comments: 1 Comment
Published on: July 25, 2012

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txuTBE6QQzQ[/youtube]

Ice T, soundin’ a bit like a Foundin’ Father.

Tracy Marrow, also known as Ice T, went on TV in the UK after the “Batman Rises” shooting in Colorado to defend the 2nd amendment. Check out the video above.

What got my attention were these words: “The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.” The brotha sounds downright Jeffersonian. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Our current gun laws serve the purpose of making it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen who wants a gun to keep and bear one. Of course, the idea is to make people safer by having guns in the hands of very few people…outside the government. Does anyone believe that works?

When the SCOTUS, in 2008, declared Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional and sent Chicago’s gun ban back to a lower court, the local governments went into overdrive to keep their cities safe from guns and gun violence. Predictions were for blood to run in the streets as everyone turned already violent cities into a re-incarnation of the Wild West.

But a funny thing happened while the politicians were wringing their hands, telling us to fear…we wound up with less to fear.

It seems that where you have more gun-toting, law-abiding citizens, you also have more law-abiding, period. Perhaps because good people can only be made into victims when outgunned, either by the government, or by other people who aren’t so good.

So why do politicians fight so hard to limit gun ownership? To stop incidents like the one in Aurora, Colorado? As if the guy could not have used his government assistance to buy illegal weapons and ammo, instead of the legal ones he used in the massacre? Yeah, right.

Try this: maybe politicians fear being pushed around by a citizenry that not only does vote, but also is armed to protect itself from governmental excesses. Maybe Ice T got it just about right.

Finally Jefferson also said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” I live in a nation where people are afraid of the IRS, the EPA, the ATF, the CIA, and the FBI – each of those government organizations are packin’ (yes, the IRS has armed agents.). I also live in a nation where many fear outlaws who break the law to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, while they themselves are discouraged from even having a gun. It’s clear to see who is under tyranny. It is also clear to me what we should do. What’s clear to you?

25 July 2012, 1:52 AM, Pacific Time

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

What do you see in this face?

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: July 23, 2012

Saw this image on Facebook:

Mass Murderers come in all colors. All of them have an ideology, political or otherwise, that allows them to do the horrific things they do. Whether you shoot up a college campus, strap a bomb to yourself to blow up others, fly an airplane into skyscraper, park a truck full of fertilizer in front of a federal building, or take guns and tear gas into movie theater, you are evil.

Not surprisingly, we always have, among our people, SOMEBODY who wants to say “if a black man had done it, then they would think….” Looking for a label to put on evil in accordance with the ETHNICITY through which it comes upon its victims serves the same purpose as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Everything is not about what a black person would do, or how something would be seen if a black person had done it. Somehow, I don’t think those who survived being shot, or the families of those who did not survive, care a great deal for the color of the man who tried to kill them all.

I know what he looks like, but all I can see is what he’s done. All I can see is evil.

23 July 2012, 11:10 PM Pacific Time

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

page 1 of 1

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Thursday, April 25, 2024