Continued... I'm HATIN' Featured On The BuzzKlub

Happy Friday, good Haters!

Here is the continuation of my participation as a panelist on The Buzz Klub, hosted by Bintu ‘Honey b.’ Kabba.

As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.



#KeepOnHATIN'

I'm HATIN': Because They Want to Take Away Your Right to Vote, Black People!

Image Captured From:  http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/2012/07/25

Listen up, my fellow African Americans, and all people of color, this post is aimed directly at you.


Our right to vote is being challenged and you don’t even know or care enough to get enraged, engaged or active in the discussion.


I’m HATIN’


Did you know that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Act the prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color," has to be renewed every 25 years? Yes, tis sad but true. And lawmakers are seemingly getting smarter at devising ways to disenfranchise people of color to keep us away from the voting booth and from exercising our right to vote.


Wikipedia states, “In July 2006, 41 years after the Voting Rights Act passed, renewal of the temporary provisions enjoyed bi-partisan support. However, a number of Republican lawmakers acted to amend, delay or defeat renewal of the Act for various reasons. One group of lawmakers led by Georgia congressman Lynn Westmoreland came from some preclearance states, and claimed that it was no longer fair to target their states, given the passage of time since 1965 and the changes their states had made to provide fair elections and voting. Another group of 80 legislators supported an amendment offered by Steve King of Iowa, seeking to strip provisions from the Act that required that translators or multilingual ballots be provided for U.S. citizens who do not speak English. The "King letter" said that providing ballots or interpreters in multiple languages is a costly, unfunded mandate…


The bill to renew the Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 13 by a vote of 390-33, with support from Republican House leadership, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. The U.S. Senate passed the bill 98–0 on July 20. President George W. Bush signed the bill in a morning ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on July 27, 2006, one year in advance of the 2007 expiration date. This extension renewed the Act for another 25 years. The audience included members of the families of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. Also in attendance were the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and other prominent African Americans.”


Does anyone else think it is LUDICROUS that there are members of the House actually voting AGAINST the Act, or that, at this point in our “post-racist society”, the Act has to be renewed at all?


Fast forward to today, right now, as we speak, new laws have been created and put into place that can largely effect this coming presidential election and future voting rights. Voter registration requirements are changing and, if you’re not careful, you won’t be included, and will ultimately be stripped of your God-given right to select the men and women who govern you.


Voter registration and proof of identification are the latest in attack tactics. The New York Times reports, “Advocates say the laws have nothing to do with voter suppression and are about something else entirely: ensuring the integrity of elections, preventing voter fraud and improving public confidence in the electoral process in an era when photo identification is routine for many basic things, including air travel.”


Let me be the first to say that loss of confidence in the electoral process was NOT a direct result of not asking me for ID when I come to the polls, but rather, the entire electoral college process, in which a candidate can win the “popular vote” but can still lose the election. Riddle me this, how can someone win a majority of all of the votes, when counted, reflecting all voters who came out to the polls that day, and still lose the election, based on an indirect election process that specifies how many electors each state is entitled, to cast a vote for President and Vice President? (Electoral College: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States))


The New York Times goes on to say, “Thirty-three states have passed laws requiring identification for voting. Five — Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Georgia — have, what are called strict photo identification requirements, meaning voters must present specific kinds of photo IDs before voting. Six states — Michigan, South Dakota, Idaho, Louisiana, Hawaii and Florida — have less strict photo requirements, meaning voters may be able to sign affidavits or have poll workers who recognize them verify their identities.”


Let’s look at Pennsylvania for a moment, shall we?


Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, who recently signed the law requiring new identification measures, fielded a reporter's question on the subject, recently in Pittsburgh, and couldn't remember the forms of ID he's requiring his constituents to have. Take a look…


Well, Mr. Corbett, here’s a refresher; Your new law mandates that voters be required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day. All photo IDs must contain an expiration date that is current, unless noted otherwise. Acceptable IDs include:

• Photo IDs issued by the U.S. Federal Government or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (including the Department of State Voter ID Card)
• PA Driver’s License or Non-driver’s License photo ID (IDs are valid for voting purposes 12 months past expiration date)
• Valid U.S. passport
• U.S. military ID- active duty and retired military (a military or veteran’s ID must designate an expiration date or designate that the expiration date is indefinite). Military dependents’ ID must contain an expiration date
• Employee photo ID issued by Federal, PA, PA County or PA Municipal government
• Photo ID from an accredited PA public or private institution of higher learning, including colleges, universities, seminaries, community colleges and other two-year colleges
• Photo ID issued by a PA care facility, including long-term care facilities, assisted living residences or personal care homes

- http://www.votespa.com/

Meanwhile, the number of Pennsylvanians who might not have the photo identification necessary to vote this November has more than doubled: at least 1,636,168 registered voters, or 20 percent of Pennsylvania voters, may not have valid PennDOT-issued ID, according to new data obtained by the Philadelphia City Paper. In Philadelphia, an enormous 437,237 people, or 43 percent of city voters, may not possess the valid PennDOT ID necessary to vote under the state's controversial new law.


SO, what can we do?

• Contact you local legislators, congressmen and voice your concerns. Stay abreast to the current legal battles regarding voting laws and rights.
• Fight fire with fire – Learn the new rules and regulations of your state and update all of your identification cards. State ID’s, Driver’s License anything that has a photo of you.
• Register to vote! I know I blogged about my ambivalence toward voting in an earlier post titled, I’m HATIN: Because Voting and New Logos Aren’t Fancy, but it is still important to be a part of the change you wish to see. Follow this link to find out how you register: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/National_Mail_Voter_Registration_Form_English_2%2015%2020121%20Cor.pdf

Keep HATIN’ Alive

I’m HATIN’: Because The Student Loan Forgiveness Act is NOT What We Think It Is

Like most American’s, I have utilized bank, Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized loans to pay for my college education. And, I too, like many Americans, am still paying… 

Recently, there has been much talk about The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, House Bill H.R. 4170, and as of Wednesday, April 25, 2012, a day known as "1-T Day" - the estimated date on which student loan debt will officially hit a mind-boggling ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, everyone is searching for an answer to this crisis.

Hate to break it to you folks, but H.R. 4170 is not the “God-send” you’ve been waiting for.

High interest rates, 10-year forgiveness plans and the fact that colleges and universities aren’t being held responsible for their part in the crisis, leave me undeniably and certifiably HATIN.’

Edjuma-HATIN’

Let me first dive into The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 and what most civilians think it stands for.

Pegged as a “legislation designed to lend a helping hand to those struggling under massive amounts of student loan debt,” the bill, proposed by Robert Applebaum and submitted into the House of Representatives by Rep. Hansen Clarke, aims to do the following: 

• Create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness, in that if you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness.  
• Cap federal student loan interest rates at 3.4%.
• Consolidate private loans by converting them into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling the new federal loan into the 10/10 program.
• Reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting and provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. 
• Jumpstart the economy by creating jobs and increasing American purchasing power 
• Create jobs by increasing consumer demand for goods and services.    
• Incentivize students to be mindful of educational costs and for colleges and universities to control tuition increases. 

If you ask me, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Here are my major issues with the proposed bill, as it stands:

Familiar Schedule – The repayment schedule looks almost identical to what we have been paying. A majority of loan holders signed promissory notes that span a 10-year timeframe. Am I wrong?

1. The 10/10 Rule – 10% of your discretionary income is completely subjective, and if I’m not working, like the 4.1% of college graduates in the US aren’t (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm), than 10% of $0 is ZERO. Stop calling my house for payments. A recent Rutgers University study found that, in a simply random sample of recent graduates from four-year universities, only 53 percent held full-time jobs. And, with jobs scarce, many graduates are forced into service jobs that don’t fit the expensive qualifications they’ve just spent four or more years acquiring. What’s more, the fine print of the bill reads that an individual, under the new plan, would have to successfully complete 120, on-time, up-to-date payments, over the 10 year period, for the remaining balance to be expunged. 120 perfect payments? Good Luck.
2. Cap On Loan Forgiveness – The cap of $45,520 is a bit unreasonable when you look at how much money one can spend on a college education. Let’s say, for example, I pay $40,000 per year to attend my college/university of choice. At the end of my four years, I owe $160,000. So, I now take my shiny diploma and begin working (if I’m lucky) and pay a whopping $900 per month for my loan (which is more than some people pay in rent/mortgage), some going to principal and some going to interest. After 10 years, I’ve “only” paid $108,000; Meaning that I still owe $52,000+ that CAN’T be forgiven. BULL-ISH
3. Eligibility Requirements – My guess, many of us, who have been paying off student loans for years, are not eligible for much in this new program. Especially those who are near completion. Again, it is subjective, and on a case-by-case basis, held between the borrower and a secretary of the Federal government.
4. 3.4% Interest Still Seems High – If this bill REALLY wanted to held students, it would do an introductory rate of 0% for the first three years and increase, incrementally, up to 3.4% through the life of the loan. This would provide an incentive for borrowers to pay back faster, and, for those out of work and under hardship, would allow them to pay down the principal first.
5. Colleges and Universities Aren’t Made to Help Rectify the Crisis they Created 
   College education is a profitable business. It is documented that since 1980, the average tuition for a 4-year college education has increased by 827%. Since 1999, average student loan debt has increased by 511%. That is RIDICULOUS! As long as colleges and universities are able to jack up the price of education to whatever they want, no amount of debt/loan forgiveness will help. This bill needs to begin with the schools, both private and state funded. There should be something in this bill that provides incentive for colleges lowering/capping costs, i.e. schools charging more than $40,000 in tuition are not eligible for Federal grant money. Let’s hit them where it hurts; their wallets.

Attribution: Christopher Weyant, The Hill

But, don’t just take my word for it, educate yourself and read the entire bill, both the legal document and the simplified version, and make your own judgments.

For a brief summary of H.R. 4170′s main provisions, go here: http://tinyurl.com/7akydbk

To read the full version of the actual bill itself, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/6txure8

To read answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/8xh4csd

Ultimately, the bill does address the fact that there is a crisis among working Americans, but I think… no, I know, we can do better than this.

Broke and HATIN’

I’m HATIN’: Because is “Minimizing” the military REALLY the best option

I’m not sure if it’s just my paranoia, but when news regarding the 2012 Pentagon and Military budget was released, and I hear our Commander in Chief say that it is necessary to “Minimize the Military” and its spending, I began to pack my bags. Next stop… anywhere but HERE. Needless to say, I don’t believe this new tactic will bode too well for the American people, and for that folks, I’m HATIN.

Let me explain.

I believe that cuts should be made in our military spending, but the issue lies in where our limited, almighty dollar, will garner the best return on investment.

Obama’s proposed cuts to the military, as a New York Times editorial explains, “Is based on the idea that the country must be smarter and more restrained in its use of force… It will mean a significant reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But it doesn’t minimize the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and says the country must still be ready to fight a major land war — although one lasting for years would require another buildup.”

The new tactic shows perceived confidence in dealing with national threats by air power, intelligence, special operations or innovative technologies, like drones.

The Times explains that Mr. Obama wants to “spend less on nuclear weapons and focus more resources on naval and air power in the Strait of Hormuz, to contain an increasingly assertive Iran, and in Asia, to moderate and counterbalance China’s ambitions.”

And, the Pentagon plans to shrink the Army even below current targets, dropping to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade.

Now I’m confused… I thought he wanted to cut spending to the Marines? Are the powers that be aware that the Marines are a large part of the USA's naval-based defense? And what about the idea of cutting the number of "land" soldiers, only to build it back up if a war breaks out and lasts longer than expected? Wouldn't that take time (that we don't have... Hello, we're engaged in war) to build up a new force of soldiers, ready to fight?

#DidntThinkThisThrough

This is where I begin to raise an eyebrow… It doesn’t make much sense to me to shrink/cut soldiers, who, mind you, just returned from fighting two land-based wars, and are trained to kill. Talk about a reason to go "postal." Do we REALLY think that taking away their jobs and cutting their benefits is a proper "Thank You" for their service, or that they would actually stand for it? I think NOT. Why are we eliminating their jobs as opposed to reassigning them to DEFENSE.

I feel that we have a backwards way of thinking here and believe our country to be a bit delusional when it comes to how the world perceives U.S. To put it bluntly – Everyone HATES us. So, as we end our respective wars, and perfect our naval and air strike tactics, it is IMPERATIVE that we reallocate some of those budget dollars on protecting our borders.

Someone please explain to me the usefulness of an unemployed soldier, especially when cuts could be made in many other areas of the military, without the dangerous backlash the current plans could evoke. Here are just a few areas the US could scale back on:

• Hiring/Pay Freeze for Government Officials, Congress and the Pentagon – It’s not fair that the civil service folk and soldiers are the first to experience cuts when we acknowledge a deficit.
• Wasteful Spending on Unsubstantiated/Unnecessary Weapons – If we’re focusing on Air and Water attacks, put a halt to, at least for the time being, on the development of weapons that cannot be used in those two ways.
• Payments to NATO - Obama sought in his address to minimize the military costs to the United States by saying NATO will now take the lead. But the fact is that the United States pays the largest share of NATO’s budget — a key omission by the president.

Live Free, Die HATIN’

I'm HATIN'... But Not On This!

POSTWORTHY!

This video was HILARIOUS to me, but, more than funny, this man actually makes a VERY, VERY good point.

Take a listen...

WARNING: Language used in the video may be considered offensive.

I'm HATIN': Because We The People Just Aren't That Organized

I received the email, enclosed below, this week, about what the American people should do regarding the debt crisis situation, and thought, "What a FANTASTIC idea... Now, if only we could come together to make it happen!"

Sad to say, but we, as American taxpayers and voters, are just not organized, passionate or pissed off enough to illicit the changes we wish to see, in how our country is run.


Here is the email:

Thought this was worth passing on....if it would only work!

I have totally cleaned this e-mail from all other names, sending it to you in hopes you will keep it going and keep it clean. This is something I will fight for and I hope you all read it all the way through. You will be glad you did.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!


I swear, I LONG for the day where we, the people, collectively say enough is enough, follow the footsteps of our ancestors and rebel/revolt against injustices done to us, each and every day, i.e. inappropriate taxation, inequality, racism (yes, it still exists, no matter how much we'd like to believe in the heavily marketed "Post-Racial Society") cuts to federal programs, healthcare, education... the list could go on forever.

I get excited at the thought of marching on Capitol Hill, boycotting in some major way or one day being able to say to my kids, kids, that this country was going to "hell and a handbasket" (random saying, I know, but that's what you say when you're old and you're kids have kids) and I took a stand to give them a better future.

Honestly, I want to pull out, my "Power Fist" afro hair pick, and not just for nostalgia!

But, the one thing that this otherwise AMAZING email is missing is the ACTION STEPS! Emailing it to eachother is just the beginning. After everyone has seen it, what then? How are we to get it passed? How are we to apply pressure and get what we want? Lots of questions, very little answers!

Keep HATIN' Alive, People!


Just for fun, I've also included, for your viewing pleasure, a HILARIOUS... but kinda sad, take on the debt crisis situation, as told by John Stewart and the Daily Show.

SMH

The Daily Show - Armadebtdon 2011 - Nonfiction Captain America
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I’m HATIN’: Because bin Laden is “Dead” and We’re Still Up Crap’s Creek

You know I had to talk about Osama bin Laden!

In writing this post, I tried to wait until the fanfare surrounding his ALLEGED death, died down, to truly get to the bottom of this issue. With the US’ ‘Public Enemy’ number one now ALLEGEDLY dead, who will we blame EVERYTHING on?

The America public is gullible, The US government, liars and, therefore folks, I’m HATIN’

I’m not going to get into my thoughts on the details of Osama bin Laden’s SUPPOSED death, but more on what we’re going to do now that he is “out of the picture.”

I was listening to NPR (no judgment) last week and a gentleman by the name of Rob Schultheis, author of Hunting bin Laden: How al-Qaeda Is Winning the War on Terror, was on the air, discussing the recent news on bin Laden’s death, President Obama’s decision to keep American troops in Afghanistan and what the US can expect as retaliation from al-Qaeda. Yes, retaliation is inevitable... or use of fear tactics surrounding retaliation is inevitable. But moving on… Mr. Schultheis said something in that interview that REALLY resonated with me and spoke to me on another level, and, as a result good HATERS, I’ve had an A-HA moment. In the interview, he mentioned that al-Qaeda is winning the ‘War on Terror’ by hitting the US where it really hurts; our capitalist wallets.

Let’s break this down, shall we?

Schultheis explained that the 9/11attacks, known worldwide as a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001, outside of killing thousands of Americans, has cost the US more, financially, than it cost the terrorist to plot and execute.

Think about it; the US has spent billions of dollars trying to rebuild and repair much of New York City, where the towers fell; medication for those directly affected, i.e. fireman, police officers, etc.; going to war (which we are still fighting, by the way); enhancing and beefing up airport security; training pilots on how to fight against terrorist take-over; and hiring special agents to fly the not-so-friendly skies, as a safeguard. The list could go on forever, just tallying up what we now spend on American safety. It may have taken a few years to plan and thousands of dollars (maybe even millions) to assault the US, but we’re the ONLY ones still paying for it, almost 10 years later.

Think about how even smaller-scale, planned attacks have affected us… chemical warfare, anti-terror raids, missile attacks, etc. – We’re paying for that too.

From this interview, I realized that we are being attacked in the smartest way imaginable… by fear and by weakening our own economy. Spending money we don’t have and relying on other countries for resources foreign to our own territories.

As of May 6, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States of America was $14.32 trillion, meaning that we are borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend. That’s INSANITY (bet your credit debt isn’t looking so bad, right about now).

Terrorists understand that the US has an exhausted military and expense account and are taking advantage of that. What’s worse, we’re helping them. Our recession, almost new-age depression, may be a terroristic attack and we don’t even recognize it.

So, while people are concerned with the REAL story about Osama bin Laden’s death, body buried at sea and how the US has “won,” our dollar is weakening, the poverty rate is increasing and we’re showing our vulnerability by breathing easy at the “death” of a leader and assuming that the hate, ideologies and plans weren’t passed along to those who formerly followed.

Silly U.S., Terrorism doesn’t work that way… It’s not for kids!

Oh, So HATIN

I'm on Facebook at work too... But, In my defense, I am NOT in charge of running a country

House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)

The guy sitting in the row in front of these two....he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.

And these are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1. The same ones in control of your health care, cap and trade, etc. This is how they spend one of their 3-DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for (salary is about $179,000 per year, per person).

Certifiably HATIN'

I'MHATIN': Because Voting and New Logo's Arent FANCY

Voting… They need a HATIN’ Button

I start off this blog post in an utter state of confusion about the practice of voting. I pose this question to all my faithful readers (and even the not-so-faithful): Is it better to vote based on principal, regardless of whether or not you know who and what the candidates are about, or better to stay home and forfeit your God-given, long-fought right? Needless to say, I’m torn, good HATERS.

The entire election process is a sham, if you ask me… and for that I’M HATIN’

Where do I begin?

As an African-American woman, it was instilled in me at an early age that voting was of the utmost importance. I can remember my mother and father going out to the polls every election and reminding me that when I turned 18, it would be my duty to do the same. I was told constantly by school, church and home that many people, both forward thinking blacks and women, had died to give me this right, and that it was my responsibility to make sure they didn’t die in vain. A lot of accountability on my shoulders and also that of the American people.

But as each year passes, and I see one awful campaign commercial after another, I have to ask myself, “What are the outcomes of me going to the polls?, especially when I know that for far too many elections, that I’ve participated in, I didn’t even know who I was voting for.”

I don’t know about you, but even when I do my research and look up the candidates on the ballot, when I arrive to my voting station, I’m always surprised to see new names on there that I don’t recognize. Now, here I am in my lil’ booth, BLINDLY picking names that sound remotely trustworthy… even within my registered party. Horowitz sounds like he could be good with money… vote for him. Johnson sounds like he has his finger on the pulse of the community… he can get a vote… Lee… well, I just like the name Lee. Vote for Lee.

It’s RIDICULOUS.

And is it me, or have the party lines become so blurred that you can’t quite decipher which supposed “team” you’re on? I lean right on some issues; left on others… it’s become a hodgepodge of right and left to the point that nothing makes sense. The proverbial “Can’t do Wrong Right.”

After I’ve done my civic duty I feel both good and ashamed at the same time, wondering what it all will equate to; four more years of horrible taxes, four more years of sticking the seniors and single individuals (such as myself- single, not senior) and four more years bitchin’ about why things aren’t better. Talk about “in vain.”

But, am I wrong to stay home and NOT vote? Many shun the idea, but please tell me what the difference is between not voting and uneducated voting… ultimately the vote is either thrown away or thrown at someone who may or may not best represent you and your ideals.

Whichever way you decide, the Public Service Announcer in me reminds you that Tuesday, November 2, 2010 is election day. The rest is up to you!

Republican and Democratically HATIN’

“FANCY” Huh?

UGH!! I am beyond tired of the concept of “FANCY”

UrbanDictionary.com and Rapper/Singer Drake defines “Fancy” as “Utterly charming, resourceful, and pretty. Noun - Laotian for bad ass.” The term is typically used when speaking affectionately about a woman/lady.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: How could I HATE on a positive complement? It’s better than other names spewed at women daily.

And while I must agree, it is a nice compliment, it has been misused by both the male and female sexes and disillusioned many women into believing that they are in fact “FANCY,” when their situation and circumstance prove otherwise.

I cannot tell you how many Facebook and Twitter updates boast or quote being “FANCY” and show absolutely NO validation for such claims. Let’s just put this out there… If you have 5 kids, 6 different baby daddy’s and live with the assistance of the U.S. Government and the tax payers, you my friend, are NOT “FANCY.” And it’s OK not to be.

Being “FANCY” is nice, GREAT even, but it has a level of exclusivity in which not all apply. It’s the equivalent to a woman purchasing a Birkin Bag. These bags typically cost upwards of $4,000, and then some. The bag has a target audience and is intended to attract/appeal to a select few. It’s not for everybody. EXCLUSIVITY!

Please don’t get caught up in the hype.

The song and concept are GREAT and an ego boost to women. Period. But let’s not get carried away.

Gap Logo Redesign- What’s the Big F’in Deal, B*tch?

Apparently, change is not good!

Gap, Inc., the company of billboard-like sweatshirts and the definition of “comfortable apparel,” recently redesigned its logo (for reasons unbeknownst to the consumer) and posted it to its website, only to receive waves of criticism from design firms, mainstream publications and bewildered bloggers and consumers alike. As a result, the company went back to its original logo.

I pulled, for your viewing pleasure, a few comments that were posted on the company’s Facebook page, sourced from Yahoo ® Finance, provided by The Atlantic. Take a gander:

• 'Looks Like it Cost $17 From an Old Microsoft Word Clipart Gallery' notes Abe Sauer at Brandchannel, who deemed it a "monstrosity." The writer explains: It "demonstrates a prototypical brand panic move. With things not going in its favor, the brand decides to change the one valuable element it has going for it."

• Makes Old Navy 'Look Like a Luxury Brand' scoffs Armin Vit at Brand New: "The shaded square on the corner doesn't help at all either -- I'm not one to critique something by saying it looks as if it were done in Microsoft Word but this one is just too unsophisticated to warrant anything more than that."

• This Doesn't Make Any Sense writes David Brier at Fast Company. "It's all a cosmetic band-aid which is so unbelievable for a brand as big and 'mature' as Gap. I'll be surprised if a few people won't lose their jobs as this is basic Branding 101."

• Gap Sales Are Declining Anyway dismisses Jim Edwards at BNet. "There's a clue to what might have triggered the misstep in the fact that same-store sales at Gap are down 4 percent. ... Brand managers need to resist that temptation when they see revenues decline. There are lots of reasons sales might be down -- the recession, lack of discounts, off-trend product -- and not all of those respond to a new trade dress."

• Everybody Hates The Logo ... Except Us Time Newsfeed writer Nate Jones goes out on a limb saying that he "personally does not mind Helvetica, and so this new logo brings to mind visions of a streamlined, technologically dominant future America where everyone wears white suits and cool glasses. Sure, it's generic, but don't you know that in the future everything looks alike?"

My response; Is it really that serious?

As many of many of you know, and for those of you that don’t, I am a PR, advertising and marketing professional. And in my line of work, many times I come across FANTASTIC ads that I believe are so awesomely clever, smart and downright persuasive (as all advertising should be), that it boggles the mind and makes me wonder “who are the geniuses that came up with such an ad.” But, sometimes, you come across some not-so-great ads and wonder to yourself “What genius came up with this crappy ad.” Either way, I never really see it as something to get “up in arms about.”

I must, however, raise an eyebrow to the technique used by Gap, Inc., in its “redesign” campaign because I smell a publicity stunt. The launch of the new logo was a “soft launch,” i.e. no elaborate press conference, news release, promotional campaign, etc. This strikes me as odd. Typically, a company looking to rebrand attempts to lure in new consumers, whoever they may be, while maintaining the relationship with its current market, typically done through new ads, special discount offers- the whole nine yards. This was not done. Also, why would Gap pay a large design firm mega bucks to make a new logo and NOT show it off or, at the very least announce it?

Consumers, I think we’ve been had.

I suspect that Gap wanted to get people talking about them. How best to do that, create an advertising faux-pas and get the entire online community, from Twitter to national bloggers talking about you. Pretty clever.

But, just for the sake of HATIN’, let’s assume that they just did a horrible job at rebranding and that they REALLY did want to change looks and were brutally rebuffed by the American public, I have to ask, WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL?

I’M HATIN’

Gap, Inc.: You should have picked a better design, PR, Advertising and overall marketing team. And have a backbone. I wonder how many of your actual consumers HATED the new logo… how many of them even cared? The new logo was crappy but whatever happened to artistic integrity? You chose the new logo for a reason… stand firm on that.

Logo Designer: Shame on you… well, maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh. Ultimately you got paid big bucks to design a logo that probably took 10 minutes (being gracious) to make. Maybe you guys are the geniuses. I hope Gap, Inc. money is LONG b/c your name will probably be dragged in the mud, at least in the short term.

Bloggers/Commenter’s: Why so serious? Aren’t companies allowed to change and evolve? I know we’re all entitled to our own opinion, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I feel like you mercilessly bullied Gap, Inc.; talked about its mama, pushed and slapped it around. Make your comments, but let’s keep it classy.

Fall into the… HATIN’

I’M HATIN’: Because “Drill Baby… Oops” Isn’t As Catchy

I can’t believe it is still leaking.

The internationally significant, oil spill known as the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, which exploded on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers and injuring 17 others, is still spewing approximately 200,000 gallons of oil per day, 5.8 million gallons of oil in total… so far (or that they can count). Many are estimating its size of the oil spillage to be that of the state of Rhode Island… and growing.

Aside for the obvious implications of this disaster, the TRUE HATIN’ is in the details:

1. The fact the U.S. Government downplayed the severity of this disaster.

If you can recall, 29 days ago when the rig exploded and began the gusher that is still taking place today, the original, breaking news stories were all to eerily calm. It focused on the explosion, the lives lost… but not much on the massive amount of oil spilling into the ocean. Maybe they were just not aware of it, but to me, if the pressure of the oil being drilled is so momentous that it could cause an explosion that kills 11 people, you may have a bit more than a spill meant for Brawny ®.

Even today, almost an entire month after the spill began, the powers that be are still mum on what this disaster is doing to our eco-system. I am hearing speculative story, after story, about the new methods they are using in an attempt to plug the massive hole they’ve created in the earth, or to fix the equipment that was used for drilling, but where are the stories about how this will affect our water supply, animal and marine life, worldwide, especially if they can’t contain the spill soon?

Also, where is Obama on this matter? Many news outlets are calling this disaster his “Hurricane Katrina,” and are liking him to George Dubbya by claiming that he hasn’t taken a strong enough stance on accountability and clean-up of this disaster. I’m on the fence when it comes to his responsiveness because he’s been a bit “wishy-washy.” Obama stated in his first speech on the subject that BP would be held accountable and that this was their mess to clean. Sounds good… until you realize that this same speech about the spill, was given on May 2, 2010, 12 days after the spill first began. Lacking a bit in our sense of emergency, eh?
What was George W’s response time to Katrina? Four days to make a public announcement of the government’s plans to help; five days to sign a $10.5 billion relief package (using the Hurricane Katrina timeline via Wikipedia). It’s not looking too good for you Obama.

The one GOOD thing that this disaster has done; it shut up many drilling enthusiast and Tea Party participants. Not much coming from their corner these days. I think they’re eating a bit of oil-filled crow.

2. Why haven’t we shut BP down?

In researching for this post, I came across an article in the Huffington Post titled, “BP Oil Spill: 7 Secrets BP Doesn’t Want you to Know.”(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/7-secrets-bp-doesnt-want_n_563102.html)
I found a few things of interest that I’d like to share:

• In 2005, an explosion at BP's Texas oil refinery left 15 workers dead and injured 170 others. The cause? BP had ignored its own safety regulations and left a warning system disabled.
• In 2006, 267,000 gallons of crude oil spread onto the tundra of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay due to a tiny hole in the company's pipeline. The company had been told to check the pipeline in 2002, but ignored the warning. The spill was not even discovered until five days after it occurred, and was the largest in the region's history.
• Just last fall, BP fought off safety regulations, continuing with business as usual; In a September 14, 2009 letter to MMS, Richard Morrison, BP vice president for Gulf of Mexico production, fought against an MMS proposal that would require operators to have their safety program audited at least once every three years, instead of the voluntary system that is currently in place. Morrison wrote: "We are not supportive of the extensive, prescriptive regulations as proposed in this rule. ... [the voluntary programs] have been and continue to be very successful." MMS has estimated that the proposed rules would cost operators about $4.59 million in startup costs and $8 million in annual recurring costs.
• A Wall Street Journal report also found that BP's oil well in the Gulf of Mexico did not have a remote-control shut-off switch that is used by two other oil-producing nations as a last-resort safeguard against underwater spills. The device is voluntary in the U.S., and while it is not clear whether it could have prevented the spill, it is another indicator of BP's lax safety measures and proclivity for convenience over caution.

The list goes on.

BP has also proven, time and time again, that they'd rather pay off their mistakes rather than take steps to prevent them. They have paid $485 million in fines in the U.S. alone in the past five years. BP paid $87.43 million to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in October 2009 -- the largest fine in OSHA's history -- for the Texas refinery explosion. They paid an additional $50 million to the Department of Justice for the same explosion. Last month, BP paid $3 million to OSHA for 42 safety violations at an Ohio refinery. The company was also fined $20 million by the Department of Justice for the Alaska Prudhoe Bay spill, which violated the Clean Water Act.Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard notes that all this is pocket change compared to the company's $5.65 billion in profits in just the first quarter of this year, up 135 percent from last year. According to CNBC, while this increase in profit does have to do with an increase in oil prices, it is also due to the company's extensive cost-cutting.

After all of this information, my question is simple: Why is BP still in operation?
How many more disasters does it take to keep these guys from operating? We clearly see that there is some, albeit laxed, oversight and fining when problems are found, but the fact that there are so many, persistent issues calls for the company to be denied from operating until it can clean up its act.

3. Almost Out of Options.

In 29 days they have tried almost everything. Burning the oil failed (Side note: how much did seeing fire under water freak you out? For me, it was a bit un-nerving to see that everything I have ever been taught about the make-up of both elements could be refuted in one fouls swoop.), as well as all attempts at fixing the three points of seepage. Pouring chemicals into the water to dissipate the oil was deemed too risky to the composition of the water, especially because the effects of the chemicals weren’t clear on what it would do to sea life. Let’s face it… they are running out of ideas for a) how to stop the leaks and b) how to clean up the spill.

You know it’s bad when the government and BP begin accepting suggestions and ideas, from us pedestrian commoners, for how to fix this terrible mess. Mark my words; this disaster has the capacity to change the entire course of our eco-system for years and even decades to come.

Get out your Brita and Pur Filters... and KEEP ON HATIN’!

HATIN’ on the Health Care Reform Bill… Because Being “Sick and Tired” is a Pre-Existing Condition not Covered

On March 22, 2010 the controversial, heavily debated Health Care Reform Bill passed and went in to law for the American people. Through it’s Hi’s and Low’s, cheers and jeers, the bill and what it means for Americans, is currently under fire.

In this post we’re going to look at the bill and its many attributes, assessing the good, the bad and the HATIN’.

Let’s Get To It

HATIN’- The Length of the Bill

Now, I know what you’re thinking… “Who cares about how long the bill is.” I DO, for one. The bill is approximately 2,700 pages long. That’s right, you heard me, 2,700 pages. I personally have never read 2,700 pages of any, one thing/document and my bet, neither has most of the free, literate world. My concern lies with what has been laced in those more than 2,000 pages? What legal jargon, amendments to litigation, exceptions and exclusions are found in that document? For example, under the new law, all children are to be covered/insured, even if they have pre-existing conditions. GREAT. But somewhere in that document does it say that said children are only covered up to a certain amount for expenses? Does it say, only if they have 10 fingers and 10 toes, or else they don’t apply? You laugh, but we just don’t know.

Also, in almost every news story I have seen on the bill and what its effect on the general public will be, they have been able to summarize the bill in less than five pages. If you can sum up a 2,700 page document in less than five pages, either you are FANTASTIC at summation or there is a lot of fluff and unnecessary BS that will ultimately screw… you guessed it, The Taxpayer (a.k.a. us).

HATIN’- Too Many Opinions on What Should Be Included

Sir Alec Issigonis, in 1958, wrote: “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”
It is said that the defining characteristics of "design by committee" are needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision. Health Care Reform Bill, Anyone?

The fact that it was fought, tooth and nail by both Democrats and Republicans alike, revised too many times to count and received input by those who benefit the most from our current crappy health system (i.e. the pharmaceutical companies, current health insurance companies, etc.), I already know that many issues will arise from just having the proverbial “too many cooks in the kitchen.” I can only hope they prove me wrong.

GOOD- Taking Positive Steps for Change

No one can dispute that an overhaul had to made with the current health care system in place. Everyone was miserable, and rightfully so. Citizens were tired of inadequate or lack of care based on their income. Hospitals are tired of being slaves to the insurance companies and denying those who couldn’t afford certain procedures. Doctors were tired of paying absorbent insurance costs to practice and of being sued by money-hungry individuals. The whole system was a mess.

We were so far gone, that at this point, any steps taken are steps in the right direction.

BAD- Reform Bill Extremist, Both For and Opposed

The overly radical have gotten out of hand. We have so many people who bash or praise the bill with such zeal, you wonder if we’re being sucked in to a Hitler-esque society or whether this is the best thing since sliced bread.

Either way, Health Care Reform Extremist, both for and opposed to the bill, have gotten out of control.

To the nay-sayers who think that Obama is a “Socialist”, who is out to ruin America with this bill, please PROVE it.

I understand that you don’t want to pay more in taxes, no one does, but if it is for betterment of our country as a whole, I believe the tax dollars are warranted. Look to understand the bill. In case you didn’t already know, we have been paying for the health care of others for quite some time now. Have you ever heard of Medicaid and Medicare? Insurance benefits for the impoverished/needy and the elderly. The bill, from what I have read and can see, is simply enhancing those services and restructuring the guidelines and laws of all current insurance providers.

To the people PRO health care bill, you too need to understand that the bill is not a “cure all.” Understand that the government, through tax dollars, is not paying for everything. You still will need insurance (especially by 2014 because you will have to pay a penalty if you don’t, say’s the new law); the bill just helps lower the costs and red-tape impediments that kept you uninsured in the first place.

Before becoming a radical, either for or against the bill (or any issue for that matter) please research it. Below, I’ve included a link to the Washington Post’s website where you can assess what the bill means for you and your finances.

LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

Also, check out LINK: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2824522/health_care_bill_summary_and_timeline.html?cat=5

It has a good summation of the bill and timeline of changes to take place.

Stay informed people, and as always Keep On Hatin’

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize: Because Hatin’ On the President of The United States is truly American

This is an I’m Hatin’ First… I have absolutely no idea which position or who, for that matter, to hate on.

Let’s look at this rationally.

In my opinion, we really only have three potential parties to hate on; The selection committee for choosing Obama, the nay-sayers who don’t think he deserves it, or the pro-Obama people who think this honor is long overdue and justified.

Now, I’m not taking sides; just being the devil’s Hatin’ advocate, but what was the criterion for which Obama was nominated and won. According to the Nobel Peace Prize website, http://www.nobelprize.org/, Obama was selected "For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Probably true enough. Hey the exact language says “Efforts” not “Results.” But for the sake of assessing both sides, maybe it was ill gained. Before I can say that, I must also have to ask, who else was in the running for the prize, because based on whomever was his competition, Obama may truly have the upper hand and may have been the valid choice. Sadly, after researching just who was in the running with our fair president, I found out that (and this can also be found on the same website) “every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting a qualified and select number of people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later, but the Nobel Peace Prize committee does reveal the number of nominees each year. 205 names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. This is the highest number of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize ever.” So, it looks like we may never know if Obama truly earned it. So selection committee, you’re in the clear (from being hated on) for now. We’ll see you in 2059!

Now on to the nay-sayers.

Since we don’t know who Obama was up against, you cannot make a strong argument for why he shouldn’t be chosen. So, what is your problem? I keep hearing that Obama won it because he is Black, because the Nobel Prize is politically based, etc. What do I say to those people? Show me the proof. If it’s because he’s black, explain to me why that influenced the decision in his favor, because, to me, that rationale doesn’t have a colored leg to stand on. I mean, as an African American woman, I don’t recall many situations where being black was the trump card and got me in to an exclusive club or gave me awards of high honor and prestige… actually more of the opposite. So again, to show is to prove.

Now, if you think that it is based off of political relationships, I’d say that is more feasible. The only objection I have to that is the current status of the US, as perceived by the world. Right now, we don’t hold much weight. We’re in a war that won’t end, we’re broke, aren’t really running ish’ like we used to and look as though, given enough time, we will destroy ourselves by means of greed. So, political connections? I dunno. Why would anyone want to go down with a sinking ship?, so to speak.

Again, if you got the proof, show me.

To the pro-Obama people: Why do you think he got the award and why does he deserve it? This I can’t answer. Again, we really need to see the scale in which this years nominees were graded on. Although, I must say, to be awarded a prize of this magnitude only after 261 days in office and as President of the United States, is HUGE. I mean, Mohandas Gandhi was nominated and didn’t win off of the technicality of being dead… and Obama is no Gandhi (yet?).

So what makes Obama suitable to win this prize?

My ears are open for ideas!

Now, if there is one thing I cannot stand for, it’s HATIN’ for no reason. So HATERS, if you’re going to hate, which I definitely condone, make sure you know why you’re HATIN’ and what you're HATIN' against. Taking from a quote from my friend Adrienne M. on Facebook “Obama is to the Nobel Peace Prize as Taylor Swift is to the VMA apparently. So many Kanyes!”

Respect the Hate People!