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' Featured on TheBuzzKlub

Recently, I was fortunate enough to be asked to participate as a "Beehive" panelist on The Buzz Klub, a contemporary adult web and television series hosted by Bintu ‘Honey b.’ Kabba. Topics of discussion included if 'age is just a number' when dating, domestic violence among celebrity couples and their influence on our culture.

Take a look :-)



Be sure to visit The Buzz Klub online at http://www.thebuzzklub.com/ and view past episodes, including one that featured our favorite men's fashion blogger, TheCuffLink. Also, subscribe to The Buzz Klub's YouTube Channel 

#KeepOnHATIN'

In Response to Reader Comments RE: I'm HATIN': Because They Want to Take Away Your Right to Vote, Black People!

I must say, SR, I love our banter! Thank you for your comments. I tried to post my response under your post but was censored by Blogger for talking too much (i.e. over character limit).

I’m glad we can both agree that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should just BE, and never have to be renewed.

I'm also happy to know I’ve found a friend who shows the same disdain for the electoral college/voting process as I do.

We would almost have a record 3-for-3 on this topic, but I must disagree with you and affirm that, in my opinion, the current laws regarding identification for voting DO have racial suppression implications.

Let me explain…

I think, when it comes to race relations in this country, you see things in black and white, whereas I see things in black, white and all shades in between. To you, at least from what I can gather from a host of your comments on I’m HATIN’ over the years, said issues are either “Racist” or “Not Racist.” I, on the other hand, assess the issue and see some as having racial implications and some not having biases, at all. Both mindsets are neither right nor wrong, just respectively different.

Allow me to respond to your points in an organized fashion:

Point #1: You say, “This is one of those examples where just because it affects one race more than another, we automatically assume it's the white guys fault.”

My Response: I never said it was the white guy’s fault. You see at the end of the post, I give readers recommendations for how to combat the new laws to ensure their rights are protected.

Point #2: You say, “One of these days, minorities are going to need to take some responsibility, when fair, and man up to things they should already be doing. How in God's name do you not have an ID and you’re an adult?”

My Response: I agree. I am not saying we should play the blame game. I am saying we need to see the new laws for what they are and act accordingly. Every adult over the age of 18 should have some type of photo identification. But, let’s be real, we know that many people don’t. For example, veterans, those formerly incarcerated, newly/recently accepted American citizens, hearing/visually impaired individuals, and generally, people who opt not to operate a vehicle; for whatever the reason, not to be judged by you or I, some people just don’t have ID or a current/valid photo identification card. That’s just reality. But just because you don’t own a card with your picture on it doesn’t mean your right to vote should be taken away.

Point #3: Regarding your comment on the statistics and number of people affected and possible data inconsistencies

My response: You’re right. We can’t be totally sure about just how many people it will affect because the government agencies that are supposed to supply the numbers and information have yet to do so. All we have is “may,” “might” and “proabably’s,” based on the numbers that are available. But you must admit, a very depressing picture is painted with the numbers we do have. Also, answer me this, if you can, why did our beloved Governor vote for a law, not knowing just how many people it would affect? You’d think that would be a HUGE consideration for a decision such as this. Is there something he has to gain by signing it into law? I would LOVE to see the breakout of those who do NOT have ID and their specific party affiliation. I would be willing to bet, those without proper ID probably tend to lean more Democratic… seeing that it is heavily documented the African Americans, Hispanics and low-income individuals tend to be registered Democrats.

I bring up the point of Hispanics for a reason; in this post, the headline points directly to black people, however, in the first line of the post, I say “African Americans, and ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR,” which includes Blacks (not necessarily African American (i.e. West Indians and Africans fall under this category), Hispanics, Native Americans and even Asians, my friend. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, even though it was fueled by the Civil Rights Movement, ensures the rights of everyone of every race.

I think you can find some more value in my thoughts through this article/opinion piece I saw on NBCLatino, please read the excerpt below:

“Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania are uniquely burdened by the Voter ID law.  In 2010, to cut down on identity theft, Puerto Rico invalidated all previously issued birth certificates (Puerto Ricans were required to apply for new ones with enhanced security features).  For Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania, who account for about half of the state’s Hispanic population, this means they have to go through two sets of bureaucratic hurdles to obtain ID for voting, one in Puerto Rico, and another in Pennsylvania.” - http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/30/opinion-voter-id-is-offensive-unjust-and-un-american/

Also, in answer to your question of “And, can you name another, valid way to prevent voter fraud without requiring ID?” No, I can’t except by the outrageously expensive and invasive ways you mentioned above, but I have to ask, why is it absolutely necessary? The excerpt below, again from NBCLatino, explains my just HATE for why these laws need to exist in the first place…

“For starters, our country does not have a voter fraud problem.  In 2011, the Republican National Lawyers Association listed 400 voter fraud prosecutions over the last decade.  That works out to less than one case per state per year.  A five-year investigation by the Bush Department of Justice found virtually no evidence of voter fraud.  In Pennsylvania, the state government concedes there has not been any voter fraud in the state.  None.” - http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/30/opinion-voter-id-is-offensive-unjust-and-un-american/

Point #4: You say, “The 2011 census says 83.8% of PA is White and 11.3% is Black. Statistically speaking, this law affects more Whites than Blacks. So…how is that racist again? Let’s dig further. Because 2011 isn’t out for some reason, the 2010 census says 41% of Philly is White and 43.4% is Black. This is even playing field – so it affects both.”

My Response: Your numbers are a bit skewed. The 2011 census says that 83.8% of PA is White. That is kinda true. When you look at that same census report, you will see a line that reads “White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011” which represents 79.2%, which is a better represented number. Many times the census counts mixed race Caucasian Hispanics as “white” as opposed to “Hispanic.” So, the 79.2% is a better represented number. Even with the number clarification, you are right in saying that it still affects a larger number of whites, but you can’t deny that it does affect a great number of minorities (more than 20%).

As it pertains to Philadelphia, White persons, non Hispanic, represent 37% of the population, blacks 44.3%, Hispanics 12.6%, Asian 6.6%, Native American .8% and Pacific Islander .1%. The minority vote comprises roughly 63% of the vote for Philadelphia – no where close to an “even playing field.”

And regardless of what the numbers say, whether it affects 99% of voters or .0001%, it is NOT acceptable to disenfranchise any voter. Period.

#JustSayin

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 ‘Right to Bear Arms’ Should Not Give You The Right to Become a One Man Army

Image From: http://media.modbee.com/

Let’s talk about gun control.


I’m not going to argue the validity and necessity of our constitutional right to own and operate an automatic weapon; I am going to argue that we have a constitutional right NOT to be shot in the ass!


Apologies if I began this post a bit aggressive, but it KILLS me when national tragedies like the recent Aurora, Colorado shooting, in which innocent moviegoers experienced a rain of fire as gunman, James Holmes, without warrant or known cause, burst into a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises," dressed head-to-toe in combat gear, tossed gas canisters into the crowd and opened fire, causing the death of 12 people and injuring more than 79 others.


Our President and his opponent held press conferences with “heavy hearts,” and were deeply saddened by the events that took place, but neither said very much exude confidence that events like this won’t happen again, or address the real, underlying issues, which are that our process and procedures for acquiring weapon permits, licenses to carry and the actual purchasing of weapons, needs a major overhaul.


I’m not sure why the founders and creators of our great constitution saw fit to have our right to “bear arms” as the second amendment (seems like so many other rights should have come before this) or why we, as Americans, have bastardized this right, but stricter gun control is needed and no one seems to be saying it. And for that, good readers, I’m HATIN.’


Let’s begin with the process of obtaining a license; in my research I have found that you do NOT need a license to own a gun! You do, however, need a license to carry a concealed weapon, but more on that later. So, what is needed to purchase a gun?, you ask; only to fill out minor paperwork and be 1. Over the age of 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun, and 21 for purchasing handguns, machineguns, etc., 2. Not a convicted felon, and 3. Patient… wait time is typically between 48 or 72 hours for processing. Honestly, it seems easier than getting a driver’s license.


Now, if you wish to hunt, you must go through and pass a state sponsored Hunter’s Safety Course, typically 10 hours of training, over a two-day period.


As it pertains to obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon; Wikipedia explains, “While there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry permits, 49 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from local government and/or law enforcement.”


Here are just a few of my problems with the current gun laws:
Why doesn’t the exam, in part, consist of a psychological evaluation? I hate when someone owns a gun, kills a bunch of people, then tries to escape persecution by using the “insanity plea.” Adding a “psych eval” as part of the permit/license process keeps guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. Also, it takes away, in part, this pathetic attempt for getting away with murder. Win Win!


Why is there no oversight on the number of weapons any one individual purchases? And why is there not stricter control of internet sales? Only after a horrific crime does some source/expert come out of the woodwork and say “Well, the individual had an arsenal of 80 pistols, 50 shot guns, 10 AK47’s and the atom bomb. Who knew they would be a danger to society?” Ummm… I did. Anyone who chooses to become a one man army is capable of being a danger to society. For example, in the recent Colorado shooting, CBS News reported, "Through the Internet he (Holmes) purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition, more than 3,000 rounds of .223 ammunition for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks in his possession and 300 rounds for the 12 gauge shotgun." Yea, he didn’t plan to do anything dangerous or harmful.


CBS also affirmed that “Sources say over the past several months, Holmes spent about $15,000 as he was putting together his deadly arsenal -- guns, chemicals, explosives, and ammunition.”


Why does the law differ, with regard to age, for certain types of guns? Because all 18 year olds, who can’t legally consume alcohol, should undoubtedly have the right to own a shot gun! That makes TOTAL sense. #SarcasmRules


Why is there no mandated training for operating a weapon, as part of the sales process? We’re encouraged/made to take classes for operating a car, motorcycle, commercial truck, why not for guns? Both, if left in the wrong hands, can kill someone.


And my list of questioning could go on forever…


Allow me to end this post by saying that I fully understand and respect the notion that “Guns don’t kill people; People kill people,” but, where I find fault is people killing people… with GUNS!


#NowRunTellDat

Image From: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com 

I’m HATIN’: HATED It – School Daze

So, here are a few issues from last week, surrounding the teen and young adult population that are still just cause for HATIN. I’ll try to keep this short and sweet.

Image from Dunaiji.com    

Twitter Beef between Chris Brown, Meek Millz, Drake and Rihanna

Let this INSANITY end!

It’s the typical “he said, she said” scenario, where everyone is talking big but, at the end of the day, NO ONE CARES.

This is how it all went down – Meek Millz started the online squabble by tweeting
"You took me off your song cause she let me watch da throne #dreamsandnightmares," Presumably a cheap shot about Chris Brown and his recent decision to not feature Millz on his soon-to-be released song, "Don't Judge Me." Millz added, “Taking these hatin’ ni88as bi***es every time”. Presumably speaking of his alleged romance with singer/actress Rihanna, Chris Brown’s former flame.


Brown, not new to “Twitter-Thugin’,” responded indirectly by tweeting “She's a dream chaser! There are alot of dreamers so she'll be running forever!", referenceing Millz mixtape, “Dreamchasers.”


Millz retorted, "Dese chicks belong 2 da game... not u! Never get confused and think that's all u!"


Drake, who has publicly acknowledged his feelings for Rihanna, jumped in to Meek's defense, writing on Twitter, "Oh that's your ho? That's our ho too. Lol. We get gyal eeeeaasy."


Brown, in an effort to have the last word tweeted, but than later deleted, "I'd like to send the bullshit a BiG FUCK YOU from the bottom of the ballz! Lol.. Real nigga! Goodnight!" He then tweeted, “This would be a dope ass movie!!!”


Rihanna, also not one to shy away from a good Twitter beef, especially one surrounding her, responds to the madness by saying “The best part is that EYE get to choose.”


DONE! This is high school drama in the worst kind of way.


Say it with me, ya’ll… HATED IT!

Image from  GlobalGrind.com

Athletic Scholarships to Rich Kids

So, the world is upset that Justin Combs, son of Sean “P Diddy” Combs, received an athletic scholarship to UCLA to play football. My advice?... Get Over IT!

Critics are attacking Justin for accepting the scholarship offer when his father, who’s estimated net worth is upwards of $550 million dollars, could easily afford the $54,000 annual tuition.

When did family earnings begin coming into play for athletic scholarships?

I think that people forgetting the fact that a Division I football scholarship is a significant achievement. Forbes estimates that there are roughly 250,000 high school seniors playing football each year and only 1,500 or so receive a scholarship to a BCS school. Telling Justin that he shouldn’t accept the scholarship diminishes the work he put in to get the offer.

What work, you ask? Well, Justin graduated with a 3.75 GPA, defining a model student athlete, and puts in more than 40 hours a week for football conditioning, practicing and school work.

Not only that, apparently the kid is talented enough to get recruited by top-notch schools/programs like UCLA.

Justin took to Twitter last week to defend his scholarship saying, “Regardless what the circumstances are, I put that work in!!!! PERIOD.”

Nuff Said!

Would we even be having this conversation if it were Donald Trump, Bill Gates or the Jolie-Pitt kids? I don’t think so.

Still HATIN’

A Follow-Up to I’m HATIN’: Because The Student Loan Forgiveness Act is NOT What We Think It Is

Recently, I had the pleasure of speaking with the folks at Let Your Voice Be Heard Radio about the thoughts expressed in my last post, I’m HATIN’: Because The Student Loan Forgiveness Act is NOT What We Think It Is, and the topic of the Student Loan Debt Crisis.


Click below to listen to my interview segment



Click below to listen to the full radio broadcast (recommended)