My Uncle Was Murdered by the Illinois State Police.
My name is Otis Grigsby and I play DE for the Minnesota Vikings. I'm not very known but I'm trying to raise awareness on a tragic situation that has hit my family. My Uncle Sandy (Lernard) Grigsby was murdered by Illinois State Police recently and I just want to mobilize as much support as possible because I don't want to see these people enjoying life like law abiding citizens. Please pass this video on to as many people as possible. Thank you and God Bless.
UPDATE...This video was removed by Otis Grigsby, I'm guessing at the request of the NFL
Below is a Food Stamp Challenge proposed by an organization called Mazon. I encourage all that can to please participate and help bring awareness to the issues of hunger in this community, this country, this world. Enter into the world of millions of Americans who eat with $3 per day. Experience the hunger, the nutritional lack and join us in this fight against hunger out of true understanding and not just pity. I challenge you to leave your comfort zone and take the Food Stamp Challenge. For those who want to sign up please contact Mazon, www.mazon.org and then send me an e-mail at sdavis@stlfoodbank.org to stand with the St. Louis Area Foodbank in our fight to feed the people right here in St. Louis and Illinois.
Thank you,
Shante Davis
Food Stamp Challenge
Take the Challenge with MAZON
May 1-7, 2008
The History
Today, over 35 million Americans are at risk of hunger, that's 12.4 million children who go to school with pangs in their belly; and 22.7 million adults who are faced with the decision of paying their rent or putting food on their table. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food Stamp Program is the nation's single most important resource in the fight against hunger.
The Food Stamp Program provides a basic safety net to millions of people. The idea for the program was born in the late 1930s, with a limited program in effect from 1939 to 1943. It was revived as a pilot program in 1961 and was extended nationwide in 1974. The current program structure was implemented in 1977 with a goal of alleviating hunger and malnutrition by permitting low-income households to obtain a more nutritious through normal channels of trade. While this program takes important steps toward addressing hunger in America, there are several improvements that could be made to ensure that no one in the United States is food insecure.
Over the past year, a number of local anti-hunger and poverty groups from throughout the country have sparked public awareness about the inadequacy of food stamp allotments ($21 per week) by challenging their community leaders to try feeding themselves on those allotments for a few days, a week, or a month. In May 2007, Members of Congress led by Representatives James McGovern (D-Mass.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) embarked on a Food Stamp Challenge.
What is the Food Stamp Challenge?
Today, we challenge you to live on a food stamp budget for one week in order to raise visibility and understanding around the challenges that millions of low-income American's face in obtaining a healthy diet under current food stamp benefit levels.
Up for the challenge? Here are the guidelines:
1. The Challenge begins May 1 and ends with your final meal on May 7. 2. Each person should only spend a total of $21 on food and beverages during the Challenge week. 3. All food purchased and eaten during the Challenge week, including fast food and dining out must be included in the total spending. 4. During the Challenge, only eat food that you purchase for the project. Do not eat food that you already own (this does not include spices and condiments). 5. Avoid accepting free food from friends, family, or at work, including at receptions or briefings. (This includes coffee and tea.) 6. (Optional) Please keep track of receipts on food spending and take note of your experiences throughout the week via blog, video blog or podcast and share it with MAZON. Selected entries will be posted to MAZON's website and Facebook page. 7. To sign-up for the Challenge, visit MAZON's Facebook page and link to the Food Stamp Challenge group. If you do not have a Facebook account, please email MAZON and let us know that you will be participating.
Although you are being challenged to live on $3 a day, also consider those who are struggling abroad. Of the 6.5 billion people on the planet, more than 1 billion earn less than $1 a day. What would it be like to live off of $1 a day for a week?
Suggested Activities:
• Get your members of Congress, state legislators, and other local leaders to take the challenge with you: As soon as you commit to taking the challenge, you should issue invitation letters to members of Congress, state legislators, and other local leaders to describe what the Food Stamp challenge is, explain why you are taking it, and invite them to take the challenge along with you.
• Record your experiences to share with the community. Each day, keep a thorough diary of your experience including: what you buy, what you eat, how you feel, what activities you participate in, people's reactions, and other relevant information. The more details, the better people are able to relate to your experience.
• Volunteer in a Food Pantry for one evening that week.
• Arrange to be the op-ed guest in the local paper to write about your experiences.
Advocacy
As the Challenge approaches, MAZON staff will be in touch about ways you can be an advocate on behalf of the millions of individuals who are at risk of hunger.
When blacks vote overwhelmingly for a black candidate, the mainstream media is quick to say blacks are only voting based on race? As if we’re predisposted more than any other candidate to vote for someone based on race. Whites do it everyday and nobody claims they’re voting based on race....even when they are.
The simple truth is that blacks (I’m not speaking for all, but for myself and a great number of black people I know and am related to)....the simple truth is that blacks vote for those who best understand us....in this case it’s Barack Obama....who happens to be black.
Furthermore, blacks have voted for white presidental candidates 100% of the time since we were "granted" the right to vote.
When blacks vote for a black candidate, the MSM says its because they’re black...when blacks vote against a black candidate, such as "establishment types" such as Alan Keys, the MSM implies it’s because we’re stoopid.
Blacks have a long history for voting for white candidates....our judgement only becomes an issue when we "rage against the machine".
I had a conversation with one of my male cousins who was supporting Hillary Clinton because he was afraid Barack Obama would be assassinated if he became President. And it’s not just my cousin...I know many black people who fear for Obama’s life.
To those who do, I want to simply say...
Brothas die on the block everday...why is it somehow acceptable when brothas die in the streets...by acceptable, I mean with live with it....we move on, and where one brotha dies on the streetcorner, another takes his place...we don’t miss a beat.
But somehow in politics, we fear.
Lets say for the sake of arguement, something "bad happens"...we gotta do what we do on the block. Where one brotha dies, another takes his place. we don’t miss a beat.
People are killed everyday...it isn’t about how you die, but what you live for....but if it wer,e I would rather go out 187’d for change.
Slang Editorial: Geraldine Ferraro & the media purposely miss the point...
Slang Editorial: Geraldine Ferraro & the media purposely miss the point...
Call it what you want...
Generally speaking on Legacy, Affirmative Action, Nepotism, what have you... and all the isms from the old guard...
White people have benefitted from being white since the beginning of this country. Non whites have been systematicially denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness since the beginning of this country.
Would Bush be president if his father were not president? No, yet nobody in the media says he only got to where he is because of his father.
Would Hillary Clinton be in the position she is in if she wasn’t married to a former president? No, yet nobody in the media says she only got to where she is because her last name is Clinton.
Affirmative action is a term opportunists like to spin in order to make it appear that any person of color only got to where they are because of their skin color...the reality of the matter is without it, nonwhites and women would not be given the same opportunities as white men, given experience and education being the same across the board. Thats more a testament to white men and their hiring practices and the good ol boy way of conducting business. That is the issue, but nobody dares tread there.
To add insult to injury, millions of nonwhites and white women are force to compete for a tiny percentage of the pie. If employment were based on merit, the number of white males employed would be more in tuned with their percentage of the poplulation.
The biggest myth about Affirmative Action is that its chief beneficiaries are black, denying the the fact that white women benefit more from affirmative action than any other group of people...and since white women are married for the most part to white men, white men are even benefitting.
Imagine a Monopoly game...me and my friends have been playing for hours and we own everything. Then we decide to let you play, only thing is, we aren’t gonna start a new game, we’simply put you on GO and give you $200. No one if their right minds would think this is fair because all you can do is land on our hotels and owe us or go to jail....you might slide on Free Parking, but for the most part the game is stacked against you. Thats black people in America...we’re owed reparations, but we don’t expect them, we do however expect to compete based on merit and not be denied by white men who still control the board.
You can’t have it both ways...either start a fresh game (pay us reparations), stop racist and sexist hiring practices...(sports is the only field where we compete and are rewarded on merit) or shut up about the hundreds of thousands of people of color who compete with white women for the 10-15% allocated to Affirmative Action...we’d trade places "employment opportunitywise" with white men any day.
-b "I’m outspoken, my language is broken into a slang, but that’s just a dialect that I select when I hang" - Special Ed, I GOT IT MADE
Slang Editorial: The Difference between Ferraro & Rev Wright....
Slang Editorial: The Difference between Ferraro & Rev Wright....
The media is going into overdrive on both comments made by Geraldine Ferraro & Rev Wright, the pastor at Barack Obama’s church...but that’s to be expected considering Obama’s run for the presidency based .. in the status quo in the way the United States conducts bizness...
Not only are lifetime politicians with 20-30 years in Washington fearing REAL CHANGE, but also corporate America that owns the radio and tv stations that controls what we hear and see.
Keep in mind, most tv and radio stations in the United States are owned by a handful of conglomerates and their routinely biased, one sided self serving coverage of the issues (and even more so of non issues) is purposeful, intended to spark a particular reaction in viewers without telling "the other side" of the story.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the media’s coverage of controversial statements made by Geraldine Ferraro and Rev Wright....despite the fact that there are major differences between the two.
First, Geraldine Ferraroo made public comments in the media and repeated them over and over again to anyone who would give her print, radio or airtime on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Rev Wright made his comments in the privacy of his own church. Ferraro’s comments were made in recent days, Wright’s were made years ago.
Second, Geraldine’s comments attempted to belittle Obama’s accomplishments and to imply that he is where he is because of Affrimative action....and in an attempt to give more credence to such remarks, she also stated she was put on the ticket to serve as Walter Mondale’s running mate because she was a woman.
Now, as a former democrat (now independent) I have a problem with that for a coupla reasons, for one because in making such comments, she’s giving Republicans permission to use affirmative action as a wedge for any non white male democratic running for office for years to come....and second, it simply isn’t true.
Opportunists use affirmative action as a wedge time and time again, as to imply that it is not needed, that we are all truly equal and get equal opportunity, which of course is something else that simply isn’t true.
We’re not all given equal opportunity...women still get paid far less than men for equal work. Blacks are forced to overcome obstacles such as dysfunctional schools, lack of resources in our community and a society that spends more money incarcerating non whites than educating them....no to mention a society that continuously overlooks the correlation between crime and lack of education opportunities...
From the comments I’ve seen by Rev Wright on television, his remarks weren’t all that different from views expressed in Michael Moore’s OSCAR WINNNING DOCUMENTARY Farhenheit 911...translation...when a white man says it, give him an award, when a black man says basicially the same thing he’s villified.
Even when you factor in religion, the villification of Barack Obama’s pastor is still a case of "villifying a black man for making similar statements as a white man"... Revs Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have made similar "chickens coming home to roost" statements shortly after 911.
Jerry Falwell said God allowed 911 to happen because of moral decay, the ACLU, abortionists, feminists and gays. Pat Robertson made similar statements and no one claimed either was anti American. No one in the media scrutinized all their sermons for controversial statements...even with their records of making controversial statements PUBLICIALLY separate from PRIVATE sermons in their churches.
Last I heard, no one in the media has asked any white politician who supports either to speak against them...or any of the other white evangalists that serve as spiritual advisors to white politicians.
There is a big difference in how both Clinton and Obama dealt with these statements and similar controversies in their campaigns...
If you remember the last debate, Hillary stated rejecting these types of statements wasn’t enough, they must be denounced. She never denounced Geraldine ferrario personally, instead allowing her to step down from her supposed non existant position within Hillary’s campaign and to continue to "speak for herself", meaning she would continue to attack Obama, but without Hillary’s official blessing.
Obama on the other hand, opened himself up to criticism from the main stream media in interviews about Rev wright, rejected and denounced his statments publicially and I have yet to see Rev Wright making the rounds on the news shows adding more fuel to the fire.
But that doesn’t tell the half...
There’s a bigger story in how these campaigns dealt with controversy and transperency...just this week, Obama opened himself with his hometown newspapers to answer any question posed to his about Rezco...and he did to the satisfaction of Chicago journalists who have been covering Rezco since day one and have more knowledge than mainstream media pundits who don’t know the whole story outside of quick soundbites and ziners.
The conclusion they came to...
"When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him. Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict... Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged." - The Chicago Tribune
Obama opened himself to more scrutinty in keepin with his pledge for transparency in government by releasing his tax returns (Hillary has yet to do so...and surprisingly, has not PUBLICIALLY releasf any tax returns since she’s been in elected office)....
Furthermore Obama has releasef his earmarks, Clingon and McCain have not...and probably won’t....hell McCain won’t even release his health records, which is a major issue for voters who want to make sure he’s healthy enuff to make it through a 4 year term.
They say politics make strange bedfellows, and no where is that more obvious than Hillary Clinton making the statement that both she and John McCain bring a lifetime of experience to the election process...and Obama brings a speech. I have lost what little regard I had left for Bill and Hillary Clinton....McCain was just endorsed by Bush. Bill Clinton says Hillary and McCain are good friends and would run a polite campaign should they both get their party's nomination...McCain got his...and now Hillary is determined to get hers, or so bloody Obama to ensure a McCain victory. If McCain wins, she can come back in four years, if Obama wins, she risks 8 years becore she can run.
It doesn't surprise me that the mainstream media is turning on Obama....an Obmam presidency means changing the way government is conducted, with the special interest and lobbyists out the door...the same special interests and lobbyists owned by the media.
They're all in bed together.
Wake up....the supreme court forced Bush down our throats...and not we risk the Democratic Party forcing Hillary down our throats, despite the fact Obama has more pledged delegates....aka Bush v Gore II but twisted, this time with the candidate with more pledged delegates losing..
Newsweek: The latest attacks on Obama insult voters’ intelligence.
The Clintons' Patronizing Strategy
The latest attacks on Obama insult voters' intelligence.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:29 AM ET Jan 24, 2008
The last major presidential candidate from Illinois, Adlai Stevenson, was approached by a voter in the 1950s. "Governor, you have the vote of every thinking American," she said. "That's nice," Stevenson replied. "But I need a majority."
Politics, as Bill Clinton said Tuesday in South Carolina, is "a contact sport." And while Barack Obama is trying hard to shed his professorial and all-too-Stevensonian air, he's just not a good enough eye-gouger at the line of scrimmage, especially with two people teaming up against him.
Obama's best hope is that Democratic voters aren't as dumb as Hillary and Bill Clinton think they are. The outcome of the primaries depends on whether, amid their busy lives, voters can get a general fix on who is more often telling the truth about the barrage of charges and countercharges.
This is ironic, because the way Bill Clinton survived impeachment was by betting on the intelligence of the American public. Now he's betting against it.
In South Carolina, Hillary is airing a radio ad that goes back to a theme she pushed in the debate there Monday night: that Obama liked Republican ideas. As Obama pointed out in his response ad, this is "demonstrably false," as referees from ABC News to the Washington Post to factcheck.org have established. (The Obama response ad ends with a new tag line that Hillary will "say anything and change nothing.")
The Republican story goes back to an interview Obama did with a Nevada newspaper in which he praised the way Ronald Reagan communicated with the public and changed "the trajectory of American politics." He added that, unfortunately, the Republicans had some fresher ideas than the Democrats in recent decades.
These are completely ordinary comments. In fact, as Obama pointed out in the Myrtle Beach debate, Hillary is considerably more effusive about Reagan in Tom Brokaw's new book, "Boom." Bill has also made many statements over the years that were much more complimentary toward Reagan. Nobody paying attention thinks either Obama or the Clintons likes Reagan's right-wing politics.
But instead of moving on to another line of attack with more grounding in what Bill Clinton called "indisputable facts," the Clinton campaign decided to bet that this Reagan horse could be flogged for more votes among less educated voters in South Carolina who might be inclined to believe Hillary's preposterous version.
Less educated? Yes, downscale voters are their target group. Obama is stronger among well-educated Democrats, according to polls. So the Clintons figure that maybe their base among less educated white Democrats might be receptive to an argument that assumes they're dumb. Less well-educated equals gullible in the face of bogus attack ads. That's the logic, and the Clintons are testing it in South Carolina before trying it in Super Tuesday states. They are also road-testing major distortions of Obama's positions on abortion, Social Security and the minimum wage.
I'm all for aggressive, even negative, campaigning, but I'm not so sure this patronizing approach will work for Hillary down the stretch. Let's take the battle in New Jersey, a delegate-rich state that votes on Feb. 5. Hillary will almost certainly win there, in her backyard, but the question is by how much. New Jersey delegates are awarded proportionally, which means that if Obama can come within five or ten points, he's ahead of the game in the national delegate hunt.
As the Reagan ad aired in South Carolina, Hillary was campaigning in New Jersey. That gave the Obama campaign an excuse to assemble a rapid response team to create a little backlash in the Garden State.
Cory Booker, the inspiring mayor of Newark, is especially popular with white liberals in the suburbs. Here's what he said about the Clinton ads, beyond calling them "outrageous" and "dishonest":
"We're trying to offer an alternative to the Republicans' fear and smear campaigns, and now we're being dragged down to their level by the Clintons."
I live in New Jersey and can attest that plenty of Democrats there will be responsive to Booker's argument, as well as that of New York-area newspapers blasting Hillary for the Reagan shot. Disgust with this kind of thing may help bring Obama closer than expected.
Bill Clinton rightly complained in the 1990s about the politics of personal destruction. In both 1992 and 1996 he managed to run general election campaigns against George Bush and Bob Dole that mostly stayed on the high road. Then, in 1998, he survived a withering assault by relying on the common sense of average people.
On the day his testimony about his sex life was being replayed on TV—arguably the most embarrassing day in the history of the presidency—I slipped into a reception for Clinton in New York.
He was amazingly serene. With enough time and information, the president told me, the American people figure out the truth. They aren't as dumb as [former House GOP strategist] Tom DeLay thinks, he suggested. "The people always get it right," Clinton said.
They did then, supporting Clinton against a witch hunt. But will they now?
Watching last nite's debate on CNN and The Billary show for the past couple of weeks got me to wondering...exactly who is Barak running against again? Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton or both?
Hillary can't have it both ways... on one hand she wants us to accect her as a strong independent viable candidate, a candidate of both experience and change...
On the other hand, she's running on Bill Clinton's record...we all know his experience, but what is hers? Being the wife of a Govenor and President? (The same as Laura Bush). Being a US Senator (the most visible and well connected US Senator yet unable to lead her party at stopping Bush in Iraq)...even with all the cards stacked in her favor, Hillary has been a mediocre politican at best.
The last thing American needs is 4-8 more years of political bickering...of dems vs reps...of us vs them. Hillary Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics...second only to Karl Rove...even Democrats are openly saying they won't vote for her, not to mention independents and republicans...both which are needed to bring this country together.
While all of that is more than enuff reason to pass on Hill, the main reason is simple: Is she her own woman or not? And if so, why doesn't she show it instead of using Bill Clinton to do her dirty work. Since when is 2 vs 1 a fair fight? When the 1 is an African American. I don't see the same zeal in their attacks of Edwards or any other candidate.
Is this what we can expect from a Billary presidency? Haven't we had enough of divide and conquor politics....of false statements and misleading interpretations... If Hillary wants to attack Obama, then attack him straight up, don't hide behind Bill...and as for Bill, take responsibility for his comments...Stop with the "I'm here, he's not" while running on his record (conveniently overlooking that bogus welfare reform and NAFTA)
....and please, no more crying.
Finally, a former first lady, turned senator on the coattails of her husband is not exactly my definition of a female candidate making it on her own...another legacy (look at where the last legacy got us).
Is Hillary her own woman?
I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
-b
"I'm outspoken, my language is broken into a slang, but that's just a dialect that I select when I hang" I GOT IT MADE - Special Ed
The Billary Mistrel Show: BET Founder Sells Black America Out Again...
The Billary Mistrel Show: BET Founder Sells Black America Out Again...
My issue isn't that Robert Johnson supports Hillary Clinton, he's free to support whomever he chooses, my beef is with how he stooped to using Karl Rove like tactics to attack Barak Obama's admission of past drug use in his book. I find it laughable that Mr. Jonhson has the audacity to comment on drug use when BET, the network he founded and profited from glorifies drug use, violence and the exploitation of women.
America needs to get real when it comes to drugs...the War of Drugs is a colossal failure....it doesn't and never addressed how drugs get into this country (the maja playaz), instead focusing on the little guy on the street corner...and second it doesn't attempt to deal with the "legal drug game" (doctor shopping...ie Rush Limbaugh) and addiction to prescription drugs.
Hillary is running on "experience", but what experience does she really bring to the table? Her healthcare plan failed...she hasn't led the Dems to success in stopping Bush on any issue, and while it's true that Barak Obama hasn't either, Hillary's been in Washington longer, she's a former First Lady and 'has more clout...and tends to go along to get along..
Obama didn't inject race into this issue, Hillary did with her comments about MLK...leaving the job of directly attacting Obama to Robert Johnson...more divide and conquer politics the democratic party is known for when it comes to dealing with African Americans...I live in St. Louis a city run by white democrats who use the same tactics. It's not Dems vs Reps here...its white democrats vs black democrats, with whites in control excluding black elected officials, backing big business at expense of the little people and conceding as little as possible to minorities. Worse than Republicans because at least they apply vaseline before they fuck us over.....this is why I support Obama over Hillary....because the Democratic Party, like American needs change.
And as for Robert Johnson, I am insulted that he would think I am "so stupid" as to condone his comments.
