Have Black Folks Had Enough of President Obama?

He’s been vilified as the anti-Christ and lauded as a savior. He’s been called a liar, a terrorist-sympathizer, a credit to his race, a traitor to his people, incompetent, a fine citizen, a role model, arrogant, un-American, the "perfect American," highly accomplished, a dedicated civil servant, and a closet socialist.

You get it. President Obama has been called a lot of things. Some people hate him, but overall, most black people love him.

Or … at least they did.

But with double-digit unemployment in the black community as well as a general sense that promises made have not been kept, some black folks are getting a little restless. Others are taking the opportunity to declare that they always knew Obama doesn't have black people’s best interests at heart.

This has not been a good month for the President. Between the Associated Press scandal and the IRS scandal and the lingering questions about Benghazi, he’s taken a fair amount of heat. And now some black people are up in arms about Obama’s Morehouse commencement speech, during which he told the young graduates:

"We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices … Growing up, I made quite a few myself. Sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. I had a tendency sometimes to make excuses for me not doing the right thing. But one of the things that all of you have learned over the last four years, is there's no longer any room for excuses."

Some black people consider this statement offensive and misdirected. Dr. Boyce Watkins wrote:

“Telling black Americans to stop using racism as an excuse allows President Obama to create a set of excuses for his own significant, even embarrassing, lack of action to help alleviate the clearly documented, undeniable, legislatively-enforced poison of racial inequality that continues to impact our society."

A few have been supportive, stating that Obama is only speaking the truth, but many others have been anything but. One commenter on a popular blog targeted at African Americans wrote:

“What I don’t understand is WHY did it take so long for [people] to realize Obama has been selling this brand of racial pathology since 2004.”

Another said:

“I have consistently been disappointed by the way this president addresses Black people. The only time that he dares to mention Black people is when he is reprimanding them. He never mentions that the Black middle class has been decimated by the recession that he is presiding over…His policies and lack of backbone has caused a lot of problems for many Black people and it’s time for us to stop blindly supporting him.”

So I ask. Have black folks fallen out of love with President Obama? What do you think?

Whoopi Goldberg Takes on the Bullies

My brother gifted me a copy of Whoopi Goldberg’s book Is It Just Me?, which I probably wouldn’t have bought in a million years, because ever since Goldberg's blackface/Ted Danson thing and her stint on "The View," I just haven’t been much of a fan.

But, back in the early days I was very much a fan, and I remember watching a televised viewing of Goldberg’s one-woman show and being absolutely spellbound by her obvious talent.

So, I was glad to receive the book, thinking it would give me a chance to rediscover the gifts of this woman anew.

Well, the first thing I’ll say is that the book reads like it’s been ghostwritten. However, I want to state in caps that I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT ACTUALLY WAS. But the writing is a little stilted, and all I can say is if the book was ghostwritten I think I could have done a better job. Seriously. For example, in the chapter titled “Road Rude” Goldberg writes:

“Do you think that when you get inside your car and close the door you become magically invisible?”

And I'd have written:

“Getting inside your car and closing the car doesn’t make you invisible, as though by magic or something.”

So next time, Whoopi, call me. That’s all I’m saying.

The second thing I’ll say is, despite the stilted language, I’m enjoying the book. It’s a relatively quick read, and Whoopi (or somebody) talks about stuff I like reading about.

For example, there’s a chapter on bullies, and if you know anything about me at all, you know that I have taken a vow to not rest until this problem is greeted with the seriousness it deserves. Whether we’re talking school yard bullying or workplace bullying or road rage, or what the hell—I won’t shut up until everybody agrees it’s real, it sucks, and we need solutions.

So, I was curious to know Goldberg’s opinion of this issue, and I wasn’t disappointed. Goldberg (or whoever) writes:

“It’s an exercise in power, but it’s also meant to disintegrate someone’s Self. It’s meant to take away their sense of who they are.”

Now, I don’t agree with Goldberg’s reason, as she goes on to say—

“Because they’re [the target] not as strong, or as big, or as witty.”

And that doesn’t square with my experience, at least not in the workplace. Often the targets are stronger. If bullies had to endure the abuse they heap on others, they’d be crying like a little girl, and often when they do get a taste of their own medicine, that’s what they do—run and cry to whoever in the organization will listen.

And I’ve found that targets are often more witty, or more competent, or more whatever, and the bullies are jealous.

However, I will say this about targets. Generally, they don’t like conflict. So they’ll suck up stuff and try and make the best of it. If you want to characterize that as “less strong” then, okay.

But that aside, I like what Goldberg (or whoever) is saying.

She gets that we’re not talking “self-esteem,” here. We’re talking sense of self. Self-esteem is superficial in some respects. Sense of self gets at who we are as human beings, and bullies do their damnedest to mess with that. Not cool.

So, I’m going to keep talking about this every chance I get, and I hope that Goldberg (or whoever) does the same.

Social Media Etiquette—Thumbs Down to the Thumbs Down

Having the ability to vote “thumbs down” or thumbs up” in response to someone’s online comment is a popular option. And I confess that I like to see how most other readers are responding to a particular comment.

But I'm not a huge fan of the thumbs down, and I definitely don’t like getting the thumbs down.

Can you just SAY something? Disagree with words? Let me know what you’re thinking? Let me know where our views diverge?

Don’t just give me the silent thumbs down.

And there's absolutely no need to give me the thumbs down AND leave a nasty rejoinder. That’s just gratuitous and slightly mean. You and I are the only ones left in this damn conversation. Everyone else has scattered to go weigh in on a more hot topic. So, I KNOW that thumbs down was you. Humph.

And it’s not just on my behalf that I don’t like the thumbs down. No. During a heated online discussion, I’ll go through the unpopular comments and just give people the thumbs up, even if I don’t agree with what they’ve said! (Exception: If the comments are hateful, I just leave them alone …)

Because my view is, these folks are taking an unpopular stance, and people are just silently hating.

Nope. Nope. Nope. In my book, if you want to disagree the only fair way to do it is with words. Preferably words combined in a logical and compelling manner. Let’s have an intelligent public debate, people, not a gosh darn free for all.

So no, I’ve never given anyone the “thumbs down.” I will silently back you up, but I will not silently tear you down.

Oh, I know I’m probably taking this far too seriously (that’s my personality after all), but I think your mute thumbs down is just too easy and even a little passive aggressive.

That’s all I’m saying.

More Reasons to Handle Your Stress

According to the scientists, stress kills.

Stress affects our brain chemistry and our neurological system and makes us gain weight in all the wrong places, like around the belly.

Some scientists say that the lower your place in the social hierarchy, the more stress you’ll have. That doesn’t sound terribly shocking, considering some of the difficulties of being poor. But what is shocking is that these studies weren’t conducted on the poorest of the poor, they involved middle class folks in middle-class jobs making their middle-class widgets. Apparently, being a subordinate sucks.

Even more surprisingly, some studies suggest that stress passed on in utero from mother to child can have life-long effects, making these adults more sensitive to stress and more prone to depression and other mental health issues—and now it’s official. Your mother is indeed the cause of all your problems.

(Look, I’m no doctor, but how do these folks know that the children aren’t genetically prone to depression or whatever and weren’t necessarily subjected to stress in the womb that caused their adult maladies? Perhaps this is a fine point, but it’s a point nonetheless.)

Regardless, I don’t need to be convinced that individuals subjected to high levels of stress for long periods are likely to experience physical and psychological effects as a result. Been there, done that. Anecdotally, I find that sometimes people don’t even realize how much they’ve been affected by stress until the symptoms are pretty dramatic. And, again, if we’re talking about the workplace, this is yet another reason for leaders to think twice about turning a blind eye to incivility and all its attendant costs.

Many people have written much about how to beat stress at work but my favorite list so far comes from Hannah Nicholas from Money NZ (New Zealand), of all places. Nicholas recommends laughter, exercise, time away from work, adequate sleep, and if all else fails, another job. I just find her list to be very practical. Other writers recommend trying to think of work as “just work” or “just a game,” but if you’re not built like that I can’t see that advice helping.

I’d add to Nicholas’ list prayer and helping others, which often takes our focus off us and our stress.

Whatever you do, do something. Because as I said the science is in—stress is no joke, and while we seem to know this, we’re still trying to do fifteen things at once while disdaining leisure.

And according to the scientists, it's making us sick and fat.

Go Ahead and Let the (Blankety Blank) Burn

In light of the recent IRS scandal, some politicians are calling for the agency to be scaled back. They say the IRS has entirely too much power, and we’re now seeing the chilling result of an organization that’s out of control.

And I say, “Yahoo!”

Not that I'm exactly hopeful that significant change will happen, but I’d be happy if it did.

As I've mentioned before, I can’t stand doing taxes. I see no downside to instituting a flat tax (a real one), consolidating the IRS, and eliminating annual filings. Just take my money already and leave me alone.

That said, I think the talk about how this scandal has caused some to lose confidence in the agency is interesting. Were there people who actually has trust in the IRS? I surely wasn’t one of those. The only trust I’d put in a large bureaucracy is in its inability to organize itself well enough to do actual harm, and shucks, I was wrong about that.

Now make no mistake, what the IRS did is shocking. A lot of the media characterizes the abuse of power as “targeting conservative groups,” but it was more than that. These officials focused on groups seeking 501(c)(4) status, a designation for nonprofit groups promoting social welfare causes. One would be hard pressed to NOT infer that, by scrutinizing these applications and making it difficult for certain organizations to function, the IRS was attempting to unduly influence the political arena. Since the scandal broke, a few agencies have gone on record as stating that their attempts to qualify for 501(c)(4) status became so burdensome, they just stopped trying. Not good.

So, perhaps I’m being shortsighted, but I could see benefit in a smaller IRS, and I’d enthusiastically welcome a real public dialogue on the topic.

What about you? Do you think the IRS should be down sized?