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’M HATIN’: Because Technology is Making Us as Dumb as a Box of Rocks

Technology is making all of us dumb and dumberer.

I’ve been struggling with this post for some time now and am not so sure how to capture all of my anger, frustration and general confusion over the subject except to say, we are being stupefied by technology and are too dumb to know or care about it. And for that, my friends, I’m HATIN.’

I’ll try to make this post short and sweet seeing that, through research, I found out that most Americans, teen aged through adult years, only have a span of about 8 seconds for focused attention… 20 minutes for sustained attention, which is the level of attention that produces consistent results on a task over time… like reading this blog.

Technology is a double-edged sword. It is great in that it fuels the progression of our society, makes life easier through use of machines and devices and creates an air of possibility, posing the question of “what will they think of next?” But we have to ask ourselves, at what cost will all of this have on future generations.

Today’s millennials, also known as the “Google Generation,” are most at risk. In reading over a dozen articles/news stories about this topic, one conclusion is clear; today’s youth don’t know the basics of what most of us know (or should know). Now, I hear you asking, ‘well, what exactly don’t they know?’, so I’ve created a list of daily “do’s” that today’s teens should be familiar with, but aren’t. If you are a teenager and are reading this blog, I, a) want to applaud your attention skills, and b) implore you to review this list and rate yourself honestly against it. Today’s kids don’t know (and probably will never learn) how to:

• Read maps (GPS has that covered, I guess)


• Convert simple measurements, i.e. cups to quarts, tablespoons to cups, etc.


• Recount days of the week (we think it’s simple, but with schools opting for “block scheduling,” many students see weekdays as letters, not dates)


• Write checks or even balance a checkbook


• Use a ruler


• Read/interpret a food labels (no wonder their obese)


• Tell time with an analog clock (yes, I mean a traditional clock with a face and hands)

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The problem really lies in the fact that technology has increased our response time to sending and receiving information and data, accounting for our decreased attention span, while also creating a world of distractions.

Even as I write this, I have my Facebook and Twitter pages up, have answered at least 3 text messages and checked incoming email from two different accounts.

Another adverse effect of technology is social interaction. I wholeheartedly believe that technology is the main cause for the increase in school violence and teen suicides.

Let’s face it, in this era of “Twitter Thugs,” (See I’m HATIN’ The Biggest Black Shames of 2010 post) instant digital video recordings and being able to bash/bad talk “friends,” classmates and peers with 140-characters or less, our kids have not had to deal with actual, face-to-face confrontation.

I find it hilarious that the media portrays bullying as this brand new phenomenon. It’s not. Grade and high schools have been hot beds for bulling since the beginning of time. I can say, with almost 100% certainty, that everyone, at some point in time, has been bullied. Maybe not beat up, but made fun of or talked about in some way. Right or wrong (mostly just wrong) it’s a part of growing up. But today’s kids don’t know how to handle bullying. With so many outlets, like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and YouTube, used to bash and bully people, I don’t know if I’d be able to handle it either.

Today’s youth have, on average, 387 Facebook “friends.” Not REAL friends. They spend more time alone, in their rooms, connecting with people digitally as opposed to sitting, face-to-face, conversing. If they only know how to communicate online, why does it shock us that they deal with confrontation online? Technology has made speaking to one another passé; you want to talk to a teenager today? Text them. Facebook them. Mention them in a tweet.

I cannot solely blame technology for our new-found stupidity; we are also to blame. We need to set boundaries and limitations as it relates to our use of technological devices. We must not be afraid to turn off our cell phones, mobile apps, iPad’s, Facebook and Twitter. The digital world will continue on without us. And I’m not saying, go cold turkey, but if your teenage kid is spending 6 hours a day on social media and internet sites or playing Xbox, unless otherwise doing homework, give them three hours, shut everything off and tell them to go outside or read a book… you know, that bound, 4 x 7 inch paperback instrument with words.

HATIN’: JLChapple Tested and Approved

It’s a SHE Thang: Women in Business are Kind Of a Big Deal

I AM WOMAN- Watch me lead. Just in time for the recognition and celebration of Women’s History Month, The White House officially released “The State of American Women” and I must say, Sisters are doing it for themselves and, specifically, in the boardroom, business has never been better. But, what makes women such a vital component to the success and viability of today’s businesses? Is the post recession-era business model better suited for the fairer sex? And, what is it about the management style and work environment of women-owned businesses that trumps that of their male counterparts? Let’s dissect this “new-age working woman” phenomenon, shall we. Job Creation and Financial Domination- Used to be a “HE Thing” but now it’s a “SHE Thang” A recent article on Forbes.com claims that “Women are becoming the nation's job-creation engine,” starting and sustaining small businesses and establishing new jobs at a rate that far exceeds males. Female-owned small businesses, now just 16% of total U.S. employment, will be responsible for creating one-third of the 15.3 million new jobs anticipated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics by 2018. This job growth projection is based on factors that include faster growth rates of female-owned vs. male-owned businesses; higher college graduation rates by women than men; predicted growth of industry sectors and occupations traditionally dominated by women; and the fact that female-owned businesses, are more often self-funded than male-owned ones, therefore ending a reliance on bank financing at a time when lending practices are more restricted. When it comes to CEO pay at the top companies in the world, a handful of elite female executives are earning more, just ask Yahoo's Carol Bartz, who pulled in $47.2 million last year; Kraft's Irene Rosenfeld's, who brought home $26.3 million; and Indra Nooyi, the CEO of Pepsi Co., who earned $15.8 million. Bloomberg News recently reported that “Sixteen women heading companies in the S&P 500 Index averaged earnings of $14.2 million in their latest fiscal years, 43 percent more than the male average. The women who were also CEOs in 2008 got a 19 percent raise in 2009 -- while the men took a 5 percent pay cut.” Resourcefulness, Empathy and Inclusion as a Diligent Approach to Business Management- It’s a She Thang… Not Really a HE Thing Let’s face it, men and women are different. We have unique personality, physical, mental and psychological traits that set us apart, so why keep acting like we’re the same? Studies have found that female small-business owners and employees execute a deeply engaged, inclusive and horizontal approach to business, counteracting the top-down, command-and-control style long practiced by male-dominant businesses. When it comes to operating, running or working in most industries, women are shown to be concerned about:

• Creating a positive working environment and opportunities for all


• Employee satisfaction and happiness; giving employees reasons to feel part of a team


• Valuing the range of business information and input available to them from sources such as the Internet, professional associations, hired consultants and employees


• Having a succession plan in place and preparing for retirement


• Keeping the customers they have


• Cultivating customers who appreciate what they do


• Meaningfully differentiating their businesses from their competitors'


• Taking advantage of economic conditions, and


• Knowing what other businesses in their like are doing to improve, succeed or fail

Male dominated business is typically authoritative in nature, brash and competitive and tends to stifle creativity and collaboration- undesirable for the post-recession business model.

WINNING Because Failure is Not an Option- The Most Important SHE Thang

Women have been undervalued, underpaid and underutilized in business since its very beginning. As a result, women have had to adapt, show strength and ability, and in many cases work twice as hard as their male counterparts to be recognized as an asset.

A 2007 MSNBC.com survey suggests that one of the most damning obstacles blocking women from the boardroom is negative attitudes about women leaders — attitudes women themselves still harbor.

“One cannot live in a sexist society without absorbing some of those messages, which make women feel worse about themselves and suspicious of other women," said Janet Lever, a professor of sociology at California State University in Los Angeles, who helped conceive the survey. "The enemy is omnipresent cultural messages, not women themselves."

“It’s all about preconceived notions of the leader image,” says Claire Babrowski, the former CEO of RadioShack. “When people close their eyes and visualize the top dogs sitting around the corporate table,” she explains, “We picture men in leadership roles. As a woman you already have this hurdle to overcome.”

But we DO overcome. With more than 10 million female-owned businesses, more than 66 million women employed in the United States and by recently surpassing men and becoming the majority of the workforce for the first time in our country’s history, we continue to show and prove.

Like I said, it’s a SHE Thang!

I’M HATIN’: Because “She Gon’ Leave With Half”... And May Not Deserve It

With Valentine’s Day right around the corner, I decided, that instead of following the masses and continuing with the incessant barrage of commercial expressions of love and spam promoting the latest, greatest gifts to get your boo (sidebar: when did we start spending Apple iPad money for Valentine’s Day? I mean, REALLY? Close to $1,000 to say, “I love you?” I guess love doesn’t know it’s a recession), I’d like to reflect on the anti-love campaigns that have been even more prevalent this year.

I have received, seen and heard more “Love is for Sucker’s”-type of sentiments and advertisements than ever before and wholeheartedly believe that this is now the new norm. With the national divorce rate at more than 45%, more than 50% of the entire female population unmarried and the marriage rate in a constant, steep decline, it’s no wonder people are starting to bank on the failure of love. It’s profitable... and, hell, love costs.

Speaking of love costing more than a “thang,” the recent celebrity dramas surrounded by whether or not, after a divorce, the not-so-famous spouse should get half of the riches, intrigues me.

Think Tiger Woods and ex-wife, Elin Nordegren, who walked away from Cheetah... I mean, Tiger, with a reported $750 Million. Or Michael and Juanita Jordan; she reportedly left their union with $168 Million and also got to keep the couple's seven acre estate in Chicago and custody of their 3 children. Even Kelsey Grammer and his soon to be ex-wife Camille are fighting over the $10 Million she demanded as settlement.

These women are setting the new standard for big divorce paydays, but with the price tag of break-ups soaring, I have to ask, how much is too much?

From the breed-winner perspective, I can see how shelling out millions of dollars to your ex is not ideal. Did your other half put in the long hours at the office? Were they shooting the baskets and winning the games, unbeknownst to you? Did your spouse experience every hi and low that was associated with your climb to fame? It’s hard to say.

But, I also see the homemaker’s side. Kids don’t raise themselves. Long hours, in one way or another, takes a toll on them too. No, he/she didn’t exactly make the shots or produce the films, but comforting you when things weren’t going right or selling first copies of your CD’s out of the trunk of their Toyota Tercell still constitutes as work.

Personally, I like to look at marriage like a business deal/transaction because that’s precisely what it is. Remove the love and religious implications and ultimately what you have is a contract between two individuals; one that states what both parties are allowed to do and not do. The way I see it, when the contract ends both individuals should split the assets acquired together, equally and leave the union with whatever they had separately, prior to marriage. In the case of either party breaking or not fulfilling the contract, i.e. infidelity, violence, deception, etc., than the party who committed the infraction is at fault and should be held liable. It’s like when you break your cell phone contract and are forced to pay a cancellation fee, maybe there should be a marriage cancellation fee, minimal not in millions.

I think lawyers and disgruntled exes have gone too far in demanding financial retribution. When we start petitioning for money to maintain or “upkeep lifestyle,” monthly child support that rivals the cost of brand new sports cars and alimony in excess, we move past ending things amicably and begin to show traits of greed and entitlement.

If we look at other countries around the globe, many cultures and societies still consider divorce taboo and rarely allow it. In Ghana, for example, if two people decide to divorce, it means that both the man and woman have failed and brought shame to their respective families. And in Bali, Indonesia, as many of us learned through the novel and movie Eat Pray Love, the woman has absolutely no rights in the divorce proceedings and receives nothing, not even the children, once the union is dissolved.

The solution to this issue of how much is too much, as I see it, falls within the creation of a simple formula to assess just how much one should be awarded in a divorce settlement.

Judges should take into consideration the following marital attributes, prior to rendering their decisions:

• Time- How long the couple was married? If anything less than 2 years, neither have a leg to stand on and each should take their own, individual bearings and go.
• Income- This includes, of course, annual household income, but also factors in what each individual makes and what they made prior to the marriage, including a measure to account for inflation. This would help in eliminating the “gold digger” complex.
• Children- How many were produced and a value of their general care.
• Reason for Divorce- This is where we factor in the terms of the marital contract that were broken, pinpointing the individual at fault, and finally,
• Future Selves- This is where we determine how well each party would live/survive without the other. If one half of the couple doesn’t work and has been out of a job for some time, consideration has to be given. And vice versa, if the divorcee is signing deals to be on the latest installment of Real Housewives of Bitter or Whatever County or already is on to the next boy/girl friend, then, obviously, their monetary settlement would decrease.

Now, I’m no mathematician, so figuring out the numerical/monetary values associated with the listed attributes and developing a Theorem of Love and Marriage is not my job, but ultimately you should arrive at a fair and decent number, in which both parties can live and be comfortable with.

Because if the roles were reversed and, let’s just say for sake of argument, your ex is now in the poor house, would we be so quick to demand half of his debt? Half of his repossessed car, truck or foreclosed home?

I don’t think so.

The Biggest Black Shames of 2010: Let the HATIN’ Commence

The Biggest Black Shames of 2010

The official Biggest Black Shames of the year 2010; Let the HATIN’ Commence!

Hate it, or despise it, these were the African Americans who negatively made headlines this past year and were the very people of 2010 that made you say, “Damn, I wish they weren’t Black.” Here is the countdown of urban celebrities and organizations whose actions and statements we could’ve done without...

Antoine Dodson







If you don’t recall him by name, maybe you’ll recall Mr. Dodson’s infamous interview with Alabama NBC affiliate, WAFF-48 News, where Dodson is quoted saying, “...Hide ya’ kids, hide ya’ wife, hide ya’ husbands, cause they’re rapin’ everybody out here!”

What should have been a typical news story about a thwarted sexual assault attempt in a housing project, where Dodson resided, is now a catastrophic, bastardized auto-tune monstrosity, available on iTunes.

Dodson’s doo-rag and permed hair, flamboyant personality and choice of words has made him an instant internet sensation, with more than 16 million hits on YouTube (as of August 2010), more than 100,000 sales of the “Bed Intruder” song on iTunes, reaching #89 on Billboard's Hot 100 list (September 2010), more than 1 million ringtone downloads (September 2010) and exposure from numerous TV appearances along with his short performance on BET’s 2010 Hip Hop Awards.

But wait, there’s more.

Mr. Dodson has also made a profit from selling imitation Halloween costumes of himself and T-shirts with his signature lines from the interview.

Head in hands, HATIN’

What’s next for Mr. Dodson? I know, why not put on a minstrel show. Yea! He can round up his family and housing project neighbors and put on a show, chock-full of “country-bumkin’” humor, blackface included. That will REALLY elevate the status of African Americans in this country.

I’m not 100% sure Mr. Dodson knows the total extent of damage he has caused by profiting off of his new-found celebrity. What I do know is Black people never looked so bad.

Bishop Eddie Long

...Or should we call him Longstroke?



In September 2010, Bishop Eddie Long, prominent pastor of a 25,000-member megachurch, outside of Atlanta, GA, and an anti-gay advocate, was accused by three different men, of using his influence and gifts - including cars, cash and travel - when they were 17 or 18 years old, to coerce them into sexual relations.

Long denies the allegations in a statement where he said, "Let me be clear. The charges against me and New Birth are false."

In his career, Long has called for a national ban on same-sex marriage and his church counsels gay members to become straight. In 2004, he led a march with Bernice King, daughter of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to support a national constitutional amendment to protect marriage "between one man and one woman." He also has released several gospel albums, authored books on relationships and spirituality and hosts a weekly television program.


This scandal shows the hypocrisy, greed and politics that exist in forms of organized religion, completely negating all of the good works that may have preceded the events in question. And whether the allegations are found to be true or false, it remains a low point for blacks in 2010.

Twitter Thugs


Yes, there is such a thing.

As insignificant as petty celebrity squabbles, to the more serious bickering between African-American youth, resulting in flash mobs and even murder, Twitter Thugin’ is all the rage and a terrible stain on the black pride banner.

Let’s review the evidence, shall we:

• LA Lakers Matt Barnes vs. Basketball Wives Star, Shaunie O’Neal
  The basketball star went on a tirade and called out Ms. O’Neal and the other “Basketball Wives” for being every derogatory name in the book.
  
  Check out the Twitter Postings below to see for yourself.
  
  

• Chris Brown vs. Soulja Boy
  
  I’m not even sure how this started… but, seemingly out of the blue, Soulja Boy tweeted "#ListenBitch @ChrisBrown & @BowWow followers together u still aint half way f**kin wit me lol."
  
  In case you can’t understand the misspelled, ignorant lingo spewed by Soulja Boy, allow me to interpret: Chris Brown and Bow Wow you do not have as many Twitter followers and friends as I do. Nan Nananah Nananah. Insert sticking out tongue here.
  
  Chris Brown then replies: "@souljaboytellem yall funny… lol." AND "@souljaboytellem and @bowwow what yall make in a show I make for an hour at an afterparty… jus sayin."
  
  Don’t know why Bow Wow was brought into this feud, but I’m glad he didn’t dignify this ridiculous back-and-forth banter with a response.
  
  In essence, Brown and Soulja Boy exchange a few more posts until Soulja Boy declared himself the winner.
  
  #LAME
  


• The last infraction of 2010 involved Raz B vs. Chris Brown (AGAIN)
  
  This time, Raz B, formerly of boy band group B2K, started in on the dissing and, not one to be “disrespected,” Chris Brown retaliated.
  
  See their Twitter posts below. Although politically incorrect, I must say I agree with the sentiments of rapper/actor Xhibit when he was quoted as saying “Twitter beef's are like the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.”
  
  And, now, for the tragic…
  
  Twitter taunts between two young men, who grew up together, ends in blood.
  
  It started with140-character spurts of anger by victim Kwame Dancy, 22 and accused killer Jameg Blake, 22. But the tough talk exploded out of cyberspace and onto the streets of Harlem, where Dancy, a college student, was gunned down.
  
  Hours before the shooting, Dancy taunted Blake with a tweet: "N-----s is lookin for u don't think I won't give up ya address for a price betta chill asap!"Blake's Twitter account is also full of online disses, though only one tweet mentions Dancy by name: "R.I.P. Kwame" on Dec.3.
  
  Dancy's mother, Madeline Smith, is appalled Internet chest-thumping could have led to blood spilled on the sidewalk."That's not a reason to shoot somebody," she said last week. "That's crazy. I don't know what's going on with that Twitter thing."
  
  Dancy, who was studying to be a nurse, was killed by a shotgun blast to the neck Dec. 1 across from Lenox Terrace in Harlem, where he grew up with his father.
  
  Blake - who lived on the same floor as Dancy, was arrested two days later.
  
  Police sources said the two had a rocky relationship and the Twitter messages they posted - with friends jumping in - only made it worse.

Twitter Thugin… Something to LEAVE behind in 2010.

The NAACP

Many fights, not many wins.

This year, under the leadership of president Ben Jealous, the NAACP has engaged in many battles and wars against injustice and civil rights, but have very little to show for their efforts. Most notably, their battle with the Tea Party and in the case of Shirley Sherrod, the NAACP is getting further away from the national advocacy powerhouse that it used to be.

In July, the civil rights organization came out swinging against the far right Tea Party, filing a resolution condemning its racist factions. NAACP made claims that the Tea Party was responsible for promoting bigotry as well as calling African-American congressmen obscene names. Tea Party leaders weren't fazed, however, with Sarah Palin denouncing the claims as "typical divisive politics."

Not long after the NAACP accused the Tea Party of harboring racists, conservative blogger, Andrew Breitbart, fired back by posting a video excerpt from a NAACP meeting in which Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, appeared to describe how she had racially discriminated against a white farmer — as the audience nodded approvingly.

Once the footage surfaced, Sherrod resigned. Everyone rushed to judgment — INCLUDING the NAACP, and condemned her remarks. But just one day later, general opinion had a complete change of heart, as Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized for forcing Sherrod to step down. It seems that Breitbart had posted an edited version of the speech, lacking the latter half in which Sherrod described how the white farmer had led her to see beyond race, to see him as another poor person getting shafted by the system.

My question to the NAACP: what happened to the support? If you’re supposed to be the backbone of black America, we need a realignment.



Black Politicians- The Blame Shame Game

This includes you, Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters.

Not a great year for African-American political leaders.

First, let’s begin with NY Rep. Charles Rangel.

Beginning in 2008, Rangel faced a series of allegations of ethics violations and failures to comply with tax laws. The United States House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct focused on whether Rangel improperly rented multiple rent-controlled New York City apartments, improperly used his office in raising money for the Rangel Center at the City College of New York and failed to disclose rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic. In March 2010, Rangel stepped aside as Ways and Means Chair and in November 2010, the Ethics Committee found Rangel guilty of 11 of 13 accused counts of violating House ethics rules. On December 2, the House approved a sanction of censure against Rangel.

Be sure to check out my colleague Slim Jackson’s in depth piece on Hon. (or not so honorable) Charles Rangel in his post Rangel is Walking on Water.


Rep. Maxine Waters’ case, however, revolves around allegations that she improperly intervened with federal regulators to help a bank that her husband owned stock in and on whose board he once served.


Waters denies any wrongdoing.

"Congresswoman Waters has chosen to go through an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing, rather than accept any of the counts from the investigative subcommittee," a source close to the case told POLITICO.

Trial date to be determined.

And lastly, I came across this New York Times article that questions the funding and double standard loopholes of the Congressional Black Caucus, suggesting that it is a “hotbed for privilege and corruption.” In Black Caucus, a Fund-Raising Powerhouse .

So, Here’s to 2011… Let’s bring BLACK back with no more shame in our game.

Good News From I'm HATIN'

Good Evening Family, Friends, Colleagues and Faithful Haters,

I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday, snow and days off.

I write today with good news about my blog, I'M HATIN'. It was recently picked up by NV Magazine, a national, bi-monthly

business magazine for urban professionals, entrepreneurs and forward thinkers. As a new columnist for NV, my rants and raves will be featured in their NV NCorrect section of the magazine and it's website, dishing out my opinions and unique views (HATIN' style, of course) on current events and topics of interest.

Check out my first blog post/column below or by following the link to NV's website:

http://www.nvmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_idoblog&task=viewpost&id=308&Itemid=0

I want to thank everyone for their continued support, blog ideas and following of the blog, it's appreciated more than you know.

Sincerely Yours,

Jennifer Chapple

Keep On HATIN'

POST

I’M HATIN’: Because Black Business Enthusiast Aren’t Playing with a Full Deck... Just Race Cards

Black business, white business, Asian

or Hispanic; The younger generation of business leaders and executives only see one color… GREEN.

*Insert infamous “Love of Money”, Pink Floyd lyrics here*

Let me preface this column/blog post by saying I work for a black-owned business. So, theoretically, I wholeheartedly believe in the usefulness and need for black-owned companies and enterprises, seeing that that’s where my proverbial “bread and butter” comes from. But, in this ever-evolving world we live in and with the emergence and adoption of the “post-racial society” concept, it’s understandable that businesses and consumers, alike, find no REAL reason to think black... especially over mainstream or other minority groups, for as far as the new America is concerned, race and color are a non-issue.

This fact doesn’t make buying black a racial issue, but an evolution issue and your confusion of the two, Black Business Enthusiast (BBE), is why I’m HATIN’.

There are a few reasons, from what I can gather, why black-owned companies are struggling for support and receiving very little consumer and business cooperation or attention, including:

• The now, socially acceptable “No Such Thing as Racism” attitude
• Black business owners not having majority control, and
• African Americans not bred to support their own.

Let’s break this down, shall we?

First let’s begin with the definition of a black-owned business and the argument for keeping black money in black hands.

A working definition of a black-owned business is a proprietorship, partnership, corporation or joint-venture that is 51% owned, operated and controlled by United States citizens who are members of the African American racial group. Ownership is defined as the owner of record having control of 51% or more of the company's voting shares, and control of the day-to-day operations.

Preliminary Estimates of Business Ownership by Gender, Ethnicity, Race and Veteran Status: 2007, from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2007 Survey of Business Owners found that there were approximately 1.9 million black-owned businesses in 2007, up 60.5 percent from 2002. Receipts of these businesses totaled $137.4 billion, up 55.1 percent from 2002.

In 2007, 37.6 percent of black-owned businesses were in health care and social assistance, repair and maintenance, and personal and laundry services.

Now that we understand more about black business, let’s examine the black consumer.

Target Market News estimates the African-American population of the U.S. at 41.1 million, with a buying/spending power of $803 billion (2008). The top five expenditure categories, in which African Americans most frequently purchase, include, Housing ($166.3 billion), Food ($65.3 billion), Cars/Trucks ($31.5 billion), Clothing ($26.9 billion) and Health Care ($23.9 billion). With a spending power like this, it’s no wonder why BBE’s want to keep black money within black communities. Intent is admirable, at best, but execution is all wrong.

As I stated above, the concept of race in the business place has changed, and if black-owned companies want to compete, not just for black dollars but everyone’s business, it will have to evolve its business model and practices. This is evident in the decision of fast food conglomerate, Burger King’s recent move to pare down its marketing and advertising assignments, officially letting go UniWorld Group, the agency of record for its African-American branding efforts, and LatinWorks, agency of record for Hispanic marketing. Myself, columnist from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal all agree that this change within the company is indicative of a trend that has taken off, full-speed, as younger consumers, who are often less likely to use traditional labels of race and ethnicity, have become more of a force in the marketplace and in terms of spending power. As a result, advertisers are folding minority departments into their own organizations or only accepting bids from companies who appear diverse.

Mike Kappitt, chief marketing officer, Burger King North America, said that the company was making the change “based on where our consumer is” and particularly when considering “the X and Y generations” and their beliefs in the “melting pot.”

To add salt to the wound, Burger King also announced that it intended to have its African-American ads be created by Wunderman (a white firm, who has been their agency of record for “mainstream” advertising) and its Hispanic advertising done by Crispin Porter & Bogusky (yup, you guessed it... also white).

Of course, black business owners were outraged.

Janice L. Mathis, vice president and counsel, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, said "the remarks attributed to Burger King's chief marketing officer, Mike Kapitt are so inappropriate that we believe there must be a better explanation of the company's recent advertising decisions."

Mathis went on to say, "There is something deeply troubling about the assumption that white agencies can communicate with everyone and black and brown agencies can communicate only with racial and ethnic minority customers. If there was going to be a change, minority-owned agencies should have been invited to compete for the general market business.

Is it fair for Burger King to change firms... YES. It’s their money and they can do with it, what they see fit.

Do black business owners have a right to be upset? Sure. But, it doesn’t alter the fact that they are being put out of business as a result of being pigeonholed to a niche market, and instead of crying about the loss of a contract should be figuring out their competitive advantage in the new marketplace.

Moving on...

Our second issue pertains to black-owned firms, which, after becoming popular and profitable, do not retain its black-ownership status. This is where we talk about the sell-outs. Below, I pulled up a short list of well known, formerly black-owned companies that are now corporate subsidiaries.

• Rocawear – Bought by Iconix in 2007 for $204 million
• Phat Fashions – Bought by Kellwood in 2004 for $140 million
• Soft Sheen – Acquired by L’Oreal in 1998 for an unreported sum, estimated to be around $160 million
• Burrell Communications Group – Merged with Publicis Groupe in 1999
• Translation Consulting and Brand Imaging – Acquired by Interpublic Group in 2007 for a reported sum of between $10 and $15 million
• BET – Acquired by Viacom for $2.34 billion in 2000
• Essence Communications Partners – Acquired by Time Inc. in 2005 in a transaction reported to be valued $170 million

Visit the Atlanta Post online for more information about the mergers listed above. Link: http://atlantapost.com/2010/07/07/7-businesses-that-went-from-black-owned-to-corporate-subsidiaries/7/

I ask, to my BBE’s, are we to still continue patronage of these companies? What about companies who are black-owned but not black operated? The definition I gave above clearly added the operational element to the argument. Are these companies worthy of conducting business with or should we outcast them to the mainstream and away from our niche?

My biggest complaint with those who take the pro opinion on this subject is how do we ever know/designate if a company is “black enough.”

This leads me into my last and final point regarding African Americans not being trained and educated to support their own, both as consumers and business entities.

It’s the long-heard tale about crabs in a barrel; the cyclical event where one tries to climb to the top and is pulled down by the others.

We, as African American people, do NOT encourage self-preservation. We do not effectively initiate our own “buy local/buy black” initiatives. We tend to go to everyone else for everything we need, specific to our lifestyle. And worse, if ever scorned by an African-American business owner/vendor, vow to never do business with anyone of our race, ever again. EVER!

This is a problem and I suggest that my black business enthusiast get behind the root of this issue as opposed to trying to put out fires, everywhere, caused by elements out of their control.

Power to the HATIN’