So the last couple of weeks I've been watching how men walk. This may say something about me, but it was spurned on by this black man that works in my building. This man got the coolest pimp walk. He is on it hard. Player shoulder hits about a 15 degree lean as he walks. Then when he speaks to me he is always like "What up young blood!" That is some classic ish for you right there. The other event that got me going was watching President Obama walk into a basketball game a month or so ago. This all got me to thinking whether or not this was just a black man's thing? The pimp walk, swagger, strut, ...
Of course I had to do some in field observation. Unfortunately I mainly work around whites in the building I'm in. I've also looked while out and about. The conclusion I have come to is that white men have a much stiffer walk. No real style to it. A couple had a little swagger but overall most didn't. A couple of Asians I saw really had no swagger either. I only have a small sample space to go off of.
So where does this come from? Me personally, I remember perfecting me a stride back in my younger day. Just thought it was cool or the thing to do. Had to have a little hitch in your stride you know. It's real funny cause I have had people ask if something was wrong with my leg! Cracks me up thinking about it. Now though, it is almost like a natural thing. Caught myself in the yard the other day just dapping like I was walking through the club or something. And I know when I feel good or feel like I'm dressed open casket fresh, I'm walking around like I'm the ish! Like Kanye, can't tell me nuthin'.
I've come to see that women notice this kind of thing. My Aunt tells me I walk just like my pops. So is this just a black man thing or what?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
AIG - After It's Gone ...
You can't be trying to take it back. This of course is in reference to AIG and all the "outrage" about bonuses people their are owed. I think a majority of the people in this country would want money they are owed. If you take a job or remain at a job because of a contractual agreement to be paid some amount of money you would expect that money to be paid if you meet your obligation. Many of the bonus' at AIG are retention bonuses. These are given if you remain at a company over an agreed upon time period. This bonus has nothing to do with performance. Whether you agree with this practice or not doesn't matter. They are given in hopes that critical people remain in difficult times or in transition. If their performance is not up to par during this period then fire their ass. If you don't, pay them what they are due. The money they are owed should be part of that company's operating cost. Why Americans are mad at these people for getting what they are due is beyond me. Most of us would want ours. I know I would and America's anger wouldn't make me lose one bit of sleep.
Any anger that is there should be directed towards Congress. Yet they are managing to turn this around on the executives and AIG. They (Congress) rushed the bill that gave them the money with the stipulation in it which says the bonuses can be paid from those funds. It has also been shown that many of those in the administration and congress are former employees of companies that have received bailout money and have friends who probably are getting these bonuses. Geithner was the head of the NY Federal Reserve which gave the first bail out money. They were informed (depending on who you believe). Yet he didn't know? OooooK. Then he says he didn't know until the 10th of March, but there is footage of someone directly asking him about said bonus' at least a week in advance. He is a liar. Most of them are. Our treasury secretary doesn't even want to pay his own taxes. Or he made a mistake. But surely that would make him unqualified to be over the treasury right? How he got the job and still has it at this point seem questionable. Hope he is as valuable as they say. I will continue to pray for him to make good decisions for this country. Anyways, both parties have received millions in contributions from these companies and AIG in particular. None of this strikes us as odd?
But it is taxpayer money. Okay, renegotiate with those people about their money. Don't just tell them they can't have it. And if it is about waste, let us look at Congress and how much they blow with pointless trips and meals. Before Obama first spoke to Congress some of them waited in excess of 8 hours to get good seats. That is good spending of our money though. These people are funny. Taking this as a chance to grand stand and point fingers.
How about we just gut congress and start fresh? This all goes back to Congress and the administration making a mistake in the first place. Own up to it. If any normal person lends someone money and they don't spend it how they thought it would be spent you can't just tell them they can't do that. The money is gone at that point. But no, we are going to let government do whatever they want. Forget the sanctity of a contract as a legal document. We are the government, we do what we want. No one sees this as a problem? But hey, they rushed TARP through and the second stimulus bill. See what that is getting us? Surely there will be more stories of money going places citizens wouldn't want it. We already see companies AIG owed double dipping because they got money directly from the bailout and now indirectly from debt owed to them from AIG. I guess the best solution is to rush something else through congress to fix their mistake because rushing has worked so well in the past. They use fear and anger marvelously. Already these huge bills are just becoming common and we are desensitized to the amounts. It is just like, "oh, they are spending another trillion. Okay."
Fortunately today I heard something from our president along the lines of let us not pass something in haste because of anger. I am writing this post out of anger/frustration. Frustration because people think it is okay to say someone can't have something they are contractually obligated to receive. I don't care who gave the money. They are owed that money. And then for that money to amount to such a small percentage of the total given (.001%). Whether or not these people get their money won't cause them to recover faster or slower. It just looks good to not let them have and makes those of us who are struggling feel better.
The government felt/feels compelled to bail out AIG. Part of that includes money owed to employees just the same as money owed to other companies AIG is in debt to. They didn't want to pay that then they should have stipulated that money could not go there or not bail them out. But we have to bail them out? Really? Are they sure? Do they really understand how all this works? They don't have time to understand the damn legislation they write themselves.
Any anger that is there should be directed towards Congress. Yet they are managing to turn this around on the executives and AIG. They (Congress) rushed the bill that gave them the money with the stipulation in it which says the bonuses can be paid from those funds. It has also been shown that many of those in the administration and congress are former employees of companies that have received bailout money and have friends who probably are getting these bonuses. Geithner was the head of the NY Federal Reserve which gave the first bail out money. They were informed (depending on who you believe). Yet he didn't know? OooooK. Then he says he didn't know until the 10th of March, but there is footage of someone directly asking him about said bonus' at least a week in advance. He is a liar. Most of them are. Our treasury secretary doesn't even want to pay his own taxes. Or he made a mistake. But surely that would make him unqualified to be over the treasury right? How he got the job and still has it at this point seem questionable. Hope he is as valuable as they say. I will continue to pray for him to make good decisions for this country. Anyways, both parties have received millions in contributions from these companies and AIG in particular. None of this strikes us as odd?
But it is taxpayer money. Okay, renegotiate with those people about their money. Don't just tell them they can't have it. And if it is about waste, let us look at Congress and how much they blow with pointless trips and meals. Before Obama first spoke to Congress some of them waited in excess of 8 hours to get good seats. That is good spending of our money though. These people are funny. Taking this as a chance to grand stand and point fingers.
How about we just gut congress and start fresh? This all goes back to Congress and the administration making a mistake in the first place. Own up to it. If any normal person lends someone money and they don't spend it how they thought it would be spent you can't just tell them they can't do that. The money is gone at that point. But no, we are going to let government do whatever they want. Forget the sanctity of a contract as a legal document. We are the government, we do what we want. No one sees this as a problem? But hey, they rushed TARP through and the second stimulus bill. See what that is getting us? Surely there will be more stories of money going places citizens wouldn't want it. We already see companies AIG owed double dipping because they got money directly from the bailout and now indirectly from debt owed to them from AIG. I guess the best solution is to rush something else through congress to fix their mistake because rushing has worked so well in the past. They use fear and anger marvelously. Already these huge bills are just becoming common and we are desensitized to the amounts. It is just like, "oh, they are spending another trillion. Okay."
Fortunately today I heard something from our president along the lines of let us not pass something in haste because of anger. I am writing this post out of anger/frustration. Frustration because people think it is okay to say someone can't have something they are contractually obligated to receive. I don't care who gave the money. They are owed that money. And then for that money to amount to such a small percentage of the total given (.001%). Whether or not these people get their money won't cause them to recover faster or slower. It just looks good to not let them have and makes those of us who are struggling feel better.
The government felt/feels compelled to bail out AIG. Part of that includes money owed to employees just the same as money owed to other companies AIG is in debt to. They didn't want to pay that then they should have stipulated that money could not go there or not bail them out. But we have to bail them out? Really? Are they sure? Do they really understand how all this works? They don't have time to understand the damn legislation they write themselves.
Monday, March 16, 2009
One more thing on monkeys
This was just so unbelievable to me when I saw it in the base paper where I work that I had to share. I really thought this was a joke, but apparently people really pay money for this stuff. A lot of money.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Hit a woman? I'm just saying, I understand.
In light of all the Chris Brown, Rihanna talk out there, this seems like a good time to express my views on the topic of hitting a woman. Beating a woman in no situation is okay. Hitting a woman on the other hand... Well I don't condone this but at the same time in some instances when a man is provoked, I understand. I personally have never hit a woman and hope that I never do. I've witnessed abuse and know of some who have been abused and it is sickening to me. Makes me want to go open up a can on someone. After I read what allegedly happened to Rihanna, if Chris Brown would have seen me it would have been on and poppin'.
But today women want to be equal and independent. Cool. So this same train of thought should apply to a wide variety of areas. I feel like this. If your ass wants to take on the role of a man and act like a man by putting your hands on a man with punches (or however).... If he halls off and pops you one good time... I understand. Being a woman gives you no more right to put your hands on someone in a violent manner. I say a man should grab your ass or give you a good shake before hitting you, but if he takes another route... It is not like a man can call the cops. He shouldn't have to. That isn't manly. Cops would laugh at your ass. You could end up like this cat though: http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Cops-Buccaneers-linebacker-stabbed-by-girlfriend/Ft4FBJk8e0icMRySZ3KRfw.cspx (if you don't go to the link, basically this man was stabbed with scissors in the head and then stabbed with a knife in the neck) He could have died. Now after she stabbed him in the head, maybe she needed a good punch to calm her ass down. Don't know what I would have done but it would take a lot for you to get a second chance to stab me.
I'm just saying that women need to conscious of their actions as well. No one should be putting their hands on anyone else. If ya'll get to that point then you need to walk away till you are calm enough to talk things out. If you can't do that and your relationship has physical altercations then that relationship needs to end. And please don't get it twisted, I am not for hitting a woman. I pray that I never will.
But today women want to be equal and independent. Cool. So this same train of thought should apply to a wide variety of areas. I feel like this. If your ass wants to take on the role of a man and act like a man by putting your hands on a man with punches (or however).... If he halls off and pops you one good time... I understand. Being a woman gives you no more right to put your hands on someone in a violent manner. I say a man should grab your ass or give you a good shake before hitting you, but if he takes another route... It is not like a man can call the cops. He shouldn't have to. That isn't manly. Cops would laugh at your ass. You could end up like this cat though: http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Cops-Buccaneers-linebacker-stabbed-by-girlfriend/Ft4FBJk8e0icMRySZ3KRfw.cspx (if you don't go to the link, basically this man was stabbed with scissors in the head and then stabbed with a knife in the neck) He could have died. Now after she stabbed him in the head, maybe she needed a good punch to calm her ass down. Don't know what I would have done but it would take a lot for you to get a second chance to stab me.
I'm just saying that women need to conscious of their actions as well. No one should be putting their hands on anyone else. If ya'll get to that point then you need to walk away till you are calm enough to talk things out. If you can't do that and your relationship has physical altercations then that relationship needs to end. And please don't get it twisted, I am not for hitting a woman. I pray that I never will.
ILLEGAL Alien
Webster's definition of illegal: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful , illicit ; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
That right there to means to send all their asses back where they came from and don't pass GO! And if it was up to me, they would never be eligible to come back. They would at the least have to wait a long time to apply to come to America. I'm not sure kids they have while in America should be granted citizenship either. Should something legal come from that which was ILLEGAL?
How are people defending this behavior? I can't manage to get past the fact that they are ILLEGAL! There was/is talk of granting citizenship or some legal status to those that are already here in America. Give them money, credit cards, sanctuary, etc... What the hell? Umm... They are ILLEGAL. If I break the law am I suddenly going to go scott free with no punishment? Yeah right. My black ass would be hemmed up somewhere.
I ask about those going through the process legally. I have a friend that has had trouble working and going to school because of their citizenship status. But at least they are trying to do things the legal way. Anything short of kicking those who have broken the law out makes a mockery of the process of coming to America.
Most importantly, those who hire and profit from these illegals should be heavily fined and/or jailed. You sell stolen goods, what happens? All of this really comes down to money. Too many people have profited from the cheap labor provided by ILLEGAL aliens. But money is always one of the biggest reasons to break the law. Apparently this doesn't apply if you are in the right circles where your law breaking can be justified and overlooked.
I admit that I speak on this somewhat ignorant of the other side of the argument, but it's hard to justify ILLEGAL actions. Especially when a legal process for this sole purpose. I say let's start deporting people by plane, train, bus, car, or foot.
That right there to means to send all their asses back where they came from and don't pass GO! And if it was up to me, they would never be eligible to come back. They would at the least have to wait a long time to apply to come to America. I'm not sure kids they have while in America should be granted citizenship either. Should something legal come from that which was ILLEGAL?
How are people defending this behavior? I can't manage to get past the fact that they are ILLEGAL! There was/is talk of granting citizenship or some legal status to those that are already here in America. Give them money, credit cards, sanctuary, etc... What the hell? Umm... They are ILLEGAL. If I break the law am I suddenly going to go scott free with no punishment? Yeah right. My black ass would be hemmed up somewhere.
I ask about those going through the process legally. I have a friend that has had trouble working and going to school because of their citizenship status. But at least they are trying to do things the legal way. Anything short of kicking those who have broken the law out makes a mockery of the process of coming to America.
Most importantly, those who hire and profit from these illegals should be heavily fined and/or jailed. You sell stolen goods, what happens? All of this really comes down to money. Too many people have profited from the cheap labor provided by ILLEGAL aliens. But money is always one of the biggest reasons to break the law. Apparently this doesn't apply if you are in the right circles where your law breaking can be justified and overlooked.
I admit that I speak on this somewhat ignorant of the other side of the argument, but it's hard to justify ILLEGAL actions. Especially when a legal process for this sole purpose. I say let's start deporting people by plane, train, bus, car, or foot.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Infedelity - A moral question.
I've always wondered if you know of someone cheating should you tell? Most people hat I have talked to about this say no it's not your place. Yet depending on the situation and your relation to the cheater could or could not make a difference for you. Then there is always the question of whether you would want a friend to tell you if someone was cheating on you. Part of me says that a real friend would ell you and that friendship would survive. I mean, how would you feel if you found out later that they knew and didn't tell you? You need proof? Well with these damn camera phones you can be caught up in minutes.
Really I just wanted to pose a situation that I caught wind of from someone. Hearing the story made me realize we all have some moral line that exists for us and where that line lies differs. Basically, let's say that your close friend is dating a married person. They are in fact openly dating this person. Often when you and your friend hang out the married person they are dating shows up. So you basically end up hanging out with them. What would you do?
Now I have to say that I feel pretty strongly about marriage and being faithful. If I ever get married, I hope that I don't go down that road. First off though, I hope that no one I consider a close friend would be in this type of situation. I think that it would make me question their morals and whether this is the type of person I want as a close friend. I mean, if you have a friend hat you know is a thief, do you remain their friend? A drug dealer? All depends on your moral line. My friend would be getting a mouthful from me on a regular basis about them dating someone who is married. Furthermore, all that overlapping of time with the married person and the times we hang out would have to stop. Or we would have to stop hanging out, if I still wanted to be around the person.
Maybe I sound like I'm above this behavior, but I'm not. I myself have cheated. Yet some forms of cheating are harder for me to stomach. My moral cheating line is crossed when someone does it repeatedly as if they are not in a relationship or if you basically have a relationship with multiple people who are unaware you have multiple girlfriends. But a simple vacation fling or similar, while it is wrong, I wouldn't question our friendship or want to tell on you. In the end I'm not sure when if ever I would tell. Never have. I had a friend tell me my girl was cheating once, and I never was mad at him. So maybe I should be like that.
Really I just wanted to pose a situation that I caught wind of from someone. Hearing the story made me realize we all have some moral line that exists for us and where that line lies differs. Basically, let's say that your close friend is dating a married person. They are in fact openly dating this person. Often when you and your friend hang out the married person they are dating shows up. So you basically end up hanging out with them. What would you do?
Now I have to say that I feel pretty strongly about marriage and being faithful. If I ever get married, I hope that I don't go down that road. First off though, I hope that no one I consider a close friend would be in this type of situation. I think that it would make me question their morals and whether this is the type of person I want as a close friend. I mean, if you have a friend hat you know is a thief, do you remain their friend? A drug dealer? All depends on your moral line. My friend would be getting a mouthful from me on a regular basis about them dating someone who is married. Furthermore, all that overlapping of time with the married person and the times we hang out would have to stop. Or we would have to stop hanging out, if I still wanted to be around the person.
Maybe I sound like I'm above this behavior, but I'm not. I myself have cheated. Yet some forms of cheating are harder for me to stomach. My moral cheating line is crossed when someone does it repeatedly as if they are not in a relationship or if you basically have a relationship with multiple people who are unaware you have multiple girlfriends. But a simple vacation fling or similar, while it is wrong, I wouldn't question our friendship or want to tell on you. In the end I'm not sure when if ever I would tell. Never have. I had a friend tell me my girl was cheating once, and I never was mad at him. So maybe I should be like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)