I Am Not An Angry Black Woman, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #259
January 23, 2012 Mike Gold 8 Comments
Last week, FLOTUS announced she was not an angry black woman. Well, I’m not either, but were I her, I certainly would be.
Now before somebody looks at my photo on ComicMix.com and says “you don’t know what an angry black woman is truly like,” trust me, I do. Let’s move on from that.
If anybody has a right to be angry, it’s Michelle Obama. I appreciate that the term is hardly complimentary, and it was hung on her by her husband, POTUS Barack. Man, if she went all angry black woman on her hubby’s black ass over that one, I wouldn’t blame her.
Things didn’t get better. She became a major target of the hysterical right – forgive my redundancy – and was hammered for daring to suggest that we should teach positive eating lifestyles in children’s health classes. Oh, my lord, the right shouted. This woman is trying to brainwash our children into being healthy! That Commie bitch!
Most recently, FLOTUS got hammered for being a confident of her husband’s. Holy Hillary Clinton! Imagine a wife and a husband talking about what’s important in their lives! As if that’s unheard of in your typical right-wing marriage.
Wait a minute. Maybe it is. I really don’t know what a right-wing woman is like; not first-hand. But looking back, I don’t see much difference between Michelle Obama and Betty Ford or Nancy Reagan. For one thing, all three were in favor of anti-HIV programs and education – in the very schools that, today, are denying our children the option of unhealthy foods.
(Let me take a step back and note the degree of my angry black womanhood by pointing out that I am actually defending the food fascists. This is a first. Ever.)
We have an Office of the First Lady. It started unofficially with Martha Washington, which is as early as you can get. It started evolving into a big deal in 1901 with Edith Kermit Roosevelt, who was no relation to the frog. It was and remains an unpaid job (surprise, ladies!) and the office didn’t even have a budget until 1978. Most First Ladies adopted specific causes that went along with their other, more diplomatic chores: Florence Harding was an advocate for animal rights, Jackie Kennedy for the arts, Lady Bird Johnson for environmental beautification, Betty Ford for (actually, against) breast cancer, Hillary Clinton for health care reform, and most recently Barbara Bush for literacy… to name but a few.
Yet Michelle Obama is an angry black woman? The media give her dawn-to-dusk coverage; anything even vaguely resembling an angry black woman would launch a new reality series on Fox “News.”
Ever since Mamie Eisenhower, we have known who the First Lady is before we voted her husband into office. Republican or Democrat, there are no surprises here.
Well, that’s not quite true. There is one surprise. Why isn’t Michelle Obama an angry black woman?
—-
Media metaphysician Mike Gold performs the Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind rock’n’blues show, which streams four times a week on www.getthepointradio.com and is also available at that same venue On Demand. He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com.
George Haberberger
January 23, 2012 - 8:37 am
With the exception of Hillary Clinton’s attempted health care reform, First Ladies generally are advocates for things that no one would or should oppose. However, could Michelle Obama’s healthy food initiative be the reason Hostess is going bankrupt? No probably not. The trend away from white bread/sugary cakes pre-dates the Obama administration. Do they have soda vending machines in schools? Soda is probably the single worst thing anyone can drink. I never drink soda, unless it has bourbon in it. If I’m going to put something that bad in my body, there had better be a good reason.
Rick Oliver
January 23, 2012 - 9:28 am
This is why I’m voting for Newt. I’m pretty sure his wife won’t advocate anything. I’m not even sure she’s alive.
R. Maheras
January 23, 2012 - 10:12 am
Mike — Let’s keep things in perspective here. Barack was elected; Michelle was not.
Other presidents have taken heat if the perception was that their spouses had “too much” influence on their presidential mates. One of the raps against Ronald Reagan is that Nancy had too much influence on HIS decisions. Ditto for the Clintons.
What exactly IS “too much” influence? Well, in the eyes of partisan critics, ANY influence is probably too much — which is, of course, absurd.
In real life, spouses talk, vent and think out loud verbally about their individual jobs. That said, there’s no way in hell my wife was going to come to me for advice when she has to make critical technical decisions about her accounting jobs — a job skill which is far removed from my major career specialties I’ve had over the years. Likewise, when I was, say, troubleshooting a wiring problem on the SR-71 Blackbird electronic warfare systems back in the 1980s, there’s no way I’d call her and ask her help.
So, while I expect Michelle to listen to and console her man after a busy day in the Oval Office, I don’t expect her to have know all that much about the details of Barack’s day-to-day problems. As a matter of fact, if I were to find out she was a key advisor on foreign policy, national security, the economy, or any other critical key issue the president has to wrestle with, I’d find that revelation quite disturbing.
R. Maheras
January 23, 2012 - 10:45 am
Rick — I had an epiphany about Newt earlier this morning. I realized exactly why he’s managed to surprise me and others with his dogged staying power as a candidate: In addition to being smart, he’s also a mean-spirited, argumentative, curmudgeonly old bastard.
No one wants ever wants to go to court, but if one has to, they don’t want a lawyer who’s a nice, dumb pushover. They want a smart, mean, combative bastard in their corner.
This is similar to what people want in their political leadership in a crisis.
Like it or not, I think that’s the wave Newt’s riding right now.
Temperment-wise, Gingrich is of the same mold as a Truman, a Thatcher or a Churchill.
Rick Oliver
January 23, 2012 - 12:07 pm
Russ: I recently had a choice between a bastard lawyer and an honest lawyer. I chose the latter and did not regret it. Newt Gingrich may be smart, but he does not practice what he preaches — which perhaps I should find comforting, because I don’t like what he preaches. Temperament-wise, he’s a loose cannon prone to unpredictable explosions. Not what I want in a president.
R. Maheras
January 23, 2012 - 1:17 pm
Rick — Being honest and being a bastard are not necessarily mutually exclusive traits.
That said, Gingrich has definitely had his honesty issues. But that’s the case with most politicians, unfortunately.
For example, in Chicago we have our own version of the old honesty joke: Q — How can you tell a Chicago alderman is lying? A — His lips are moving.
Need I remind you that Obama was groomed and schooled by the same Chicago political machine that makes that alderman joke ironic and funny (in a sad way)?
In Gingrich’s case, he gives the appearance to supporters that if he is in their corner regarding an issue, he will dig in and fight to the death for it. Maybe he will; maybe he won’t. But he sure has done a nice job lately of projecting that appearance.
Romney simply does not project that tenacity — which is why there have been so many “anti-Romney” Republican hopefuls.
At times, Romney looks and acts like Fred Rogers. At times, Gingrich looks and acts like Oscar the Grouch. But, like I said, sometimes people want that “grouch” around.
Mike Gold
January 23, 2012 - 2:45 pm
George, I agree with you about soda and I take heart in the probability that Hostess products will live on, although once you get past orange cupcakes I can probably deal with the loss.
Soda no, Hostess yes. One learns to live with contradictions.
Mike Gold
January 23, 2012 - 2:50 pm
Russ, Michelle said her discussions do not in any way take the place of the input from the appropriate experts involved. But, given her academic background, I’d certainly listen to her. It’s almost free.
You note “Q — How can you tell a Chicago alderman is lying? A — His lips are moving.” Indeed, but personally I prefer the version in vogue from 1955 to 1976: “Q — How can you tell a Chicago alderman is lying? A — Mare Daley’s lips are moving.”
Rick Oliver
January 23, 2012 - 3:11 pm
Russ: Obama already has the Mr. Rogers vote locked up. Romney will have to find another milquetoast icon. Gingrich can be Oscar the Grouch.
R. Maheras
January 23, 2012 - 3:24 pm
Mike — I like Michelle’s work in support of military families and veterans. It’s a cause near and dear to my heart, and one she seems to have embraced with genuine sincerity and gusto.
R. Maheras
January 23, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Rick — Now THAT would be a hoot on Saturday Night Live: A sketch featuring a debate between Mr. Rogers-Obama and Mr. Rogers-Romney. The setup would be in Mr. Roger’s apartment, complete with podiums. Naturally, the two guys playing Obama and Romney would be sporting the iconic Mr. Rogers sweater.
Ooo! Ooo! The moderator would be Oscar the Grouch, who would get madder and louder with frustration as he chastises the two debaters over and over again for trying to “out-nice” each other.
MOTU
January 23, 2012 - 5:28 pm
My mother was a black woman. On occasion she got angry.
Thus ended the lesson.
MOTU
January 23, 2012 - 9:29 pm
Rick Santorum let a supporter tell his crowd that Obama has no LEGAL right to be President and was a Muslim. Santorum played to the crowd by smiling and saying he would ‘try and get him out of there’ THIS is why Black people hate republicans and why Black republicans are considered house niggers.
Mike Gold
January 24, 2012 - 7:56 am
Yep. Rick Santorum is no John McCain. At least McCain told that crazy-scared old lady that Obama was no Arab.
There are lots of ways to get elected. The politics of fear is the worst.
Rick Oliver
January 24, 2012 - 9:42 am
Mike: But if America is NOT in danger of becoming …”a secular atheist country, … dominated by radical Islamists,” I won’t have any reason to vote for Newt! Also my new religion — Secular Atheistic Islam — will never get off the ground.
Mike Gold
January 24, 2012 - 10:29 am
Wait. Let me guess. Secular Atheistic Islam. Hmmm. Five times a day you bow towards Ricky Gervais?
I enjoy telling the Right that George Soros is an atheist. God damn, it’s the nicest thing I can do for them.
Whitney
January 24, 2012 - 12:45 pm
Husbands and wives affect each other. Whether postively like Esther for Xerses, or negatively like Queen Maeve in the Tain Bo Cuailgne, it’s wiser to accept the truth of the dynamic and look at the ramifications when making decisions regarding representative leadership.
And honestly, would we really want a leader who could ignore a person who knows them better than anyone else and have weathered storms beside them? How would you feel about bringing in a busines partner who dumped two wives when they got sick after first violating commitments? Want them to represent your vision in the marketplace and control your checkbook?
Serial adultery is an important issue because it demonstrates what can at least be lack of empathy and a sense of entitlement, or potentially even pathology. Conscience operating cooperatively with the courage of convictions is good and rare to find in a leader – not the ambition to take what’s wanted regardless of the consequences to others.
Unless you are hoping to be governed by a sociopath. Example: Remember when Newt orchestrated a government shutdown because he didn’t like the seat he was given on Airforce One?
I have been in one closed door gathering where Newt was one of the speakers. He is worse than what you see on TV. I don’t see evidence of a conscience.
Whenever I see coverage of FLOTUS Michelle Obama, I feel grateful for being represented by her. Yes, I wrote represented by her. That’s reality.
Rick Oliver
January 24, 2012 - 12:50 pm
Five times a day we receive funding from the federal government to forget to bow toward Ricky Gervais. It wouldn’t be a proper left-wing conspiracy without government funding. Also, free government issue burqas for everyone! Now available in camouflage so we can sneak up on the infidels and snatch their children from under their noses — and then indoctrinate them to be gay Kenyan communists!
R. Maheras
January 24, 2012 - 1:13 pm
Whitney — The way I see it, if a politician is a serial adulterer, he’s probably not very trustworthy in a political, business or other type of professional relationship either.
Then again, since professional politicians ala Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are frequently notorious for compromising their principles and going which ever way the political wind blows, perhaps they are more prone to be philanderers.
Reg
January 24, 2012 - 1:42 pm
Russ said…”Whitney — The way I see it, if a politician is a serial adulterer, he’s probably not very trustworthy in a political, business or other type of professional relationship either. ”
Which is exactly the core reason behind the prescribed penalty of stoning adulterers as established in the Scriptures. In essence, marriage was (is?) considered to be the purest representation of the concept and purpose of Covenant. It carried the weight and power of a blood oath. To establish a covenant meant that one gave the other party to the covenant the right to kill him/her if they forfeited or broke the conditions of said bond. Makes perfect sense when one considers that the lives of individuals and community were at stake if the covenanting partner assumed responsibility to provide, protect, come to the aid of, etc.
So if a person’s word of commitment and fidelity carried no substance with respect to the most important personal relationship that have, they for damned sure aren’t to be trusted with anything else with respect to the needs of the community. Weak, untrustworthy, and potentially harmful link = Hard rock time.
At least in the desert.
Mike Gold
January 24, 2012 - 2:00 pm
I think there are only two possible responses when a spouse asks for an open marriage: yes, and goodbye. I think the question itself is like a pre-nup: you either get that before the “I do” part, or you’re SOL.
Or you’re the royal head of state. Newt’s just a royal pain in the ass.
Reg
January 24, 2012 - 3:11 pm
I mean, really…what can one say to this?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-23-2012/indecision-2012—the-gingrich-who-stole-south-carolina
Jonathan (the other one)
January 25, 2012 - 10:50 am
“One of the raps against Ronald Reagan is that Nancy had too much influence on HIS decisions.”
Actually, my recollection was of the complaint being that Nancy had influence over Ron’s decisions, as one might expect from a married couple – AND that before giving him advice, she would consult an astrologer.
The complaints about Hillary Clinton seemed to be more of an effort to portray Bill as weak and effeminate, a problem compounded by the success of American involvement in the Balkan issues. (Compare and contrast to the more immediate, “manly” intervention in the Middle East – which cost us thousands of soldiers, and has yet to reach any sort of proper conclusion ten years on. The Libyan intervention, carried on in the same manner as that in the Balkans, may also be instructive in this regard.)
OTOH, the only comments I recall about Barbara Bush had to do with her uncanny resemblance to the icon on the Quaker Oats logo…
R. Maheras
January 25, 2012 - 11:09 am
Jonathan — Ha! Your comment got me thinking… I’ll bet astrologers have a better predictive track record than some of the presidential advisors from both parties over the years — ESPECIALLY economic advisors.
Reg
January 25, 2012 - 11:52 am
“OTOH, the only comments I recall about Barbara Bush had to do with her uncanny resemblance to the icon on the Quaker Oats logo…”
I know I shouldn’t laugh…but you should go to your room for that one. 😀
Rene
January 25, 2012 - 2:50 pm
I am not defending Newt in any way, I think he is repulsive both as a politician and a human being, but…
I wish Americans would understand that the way a man (or woman) deals with his marriage has nothing to do with his capabilities in politics or any other profession. And vice-versa.
I do think popular culture has caused a lot of damage in areas we least expect. Both in fairy tales and romantic cinema, the hero/heroine is the one with the epic, loving, heartfelt relationship. The villain is often mean to his family and cold to his spouse, or domineering, or downright abusive.
In real life, I bet that if you got 10 great presidents and democratic leaders and 10 dictators, strongmen, and tyrants, and compared all of their family lives, you’d find no easy patterns there.
I do think this is more evident to people who live in Third World countries. Plenty of corrupt politicians who rob the taxpayers blind and a lot of that money is spent on their wives and kids, that they love and treasure so much.
Mike Gold
January 25, 2012 - 3:05 pm
I have a problem, perhaps aesthetic, with Newt’s being so sanctimonious about his extra-marital affairs after having lead the movement to get Bill Clinton impeached for the same thing. There’s hypocrisy, and there’s Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich, Clinton, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Harding… and probably half of the rest.
Not my business what they do with their pants down. It’s when their belts are buckled that I start having problems.
Rene
January 25, 2012 - 3:12 pm
Yes, Mike.
I also have a problem with Newt’s hypocrisy. The GOP made “family values” their bread and butter, the pricks are fair game for criticism when they don’t live to their own hype. Doubly so for Newt.
But I do have a problem with the mindset that Russ exemplifies when he says a politician’s family life is any indication of his integrity and honesty on the job. Like I’ve said above, too many public men have done dishonest things to help their families, that is the definition of nepotism right there.
MOTU
January 25, 2012 - 9:28 pm
Rene,
I’m with you 100%, what people do behind close doors is NON of my business.
That said, Newt led the Family Values crusade and set himself up as a person of superior morals.
At the same time he was going after Clinton (a GREAT President) for getting a blow job he was fucking outside of his marriage a LOT. That makes him a lying fat, Porky Pig looking, bastard, NOT a President.
That’s all folks.
Mike Gold
January 26, 2012 - 8:16 am
MOTU —
Hey, I LIKE Porky Pig. “Porky In Wackyland” is my all-time favorite cartoon (perhaps because it is oddly prophetic). His work for director Bob Clampett is nothing short of amazing. Please do not compare my hero to that fat, lying, racist fuck from Georgia.
Not the time to mention “bacon,” my friend. Uh-uh.
George Haberberger
January 26, 2012 - 8:49 am
…after having lead the movement to get Bill Clinton impeached for the same thing.
I am not trying to defend Gingrich, but just in the interest of accuracy, Clinton was impeached for lying under.
That fact that he has been disbarred has nothing to do with his sex life.
George Haberberger
January 26, 2012 - 8:50 am
…lying under OATH.
Whitney
January 26, 2012 - 2:55 pm
I like Porky Pig. He is one of my friends. I TiVO him and watch him with oatmeal and a glass of merlot at 5 a.m… Newt, Sir, is no Porky Pig!
R. Maheras
January 26, 2012 - 4:45 pm
I told you guys — Newt is Oscar the Grouch — minus the green hair.
Mike Gold
January 26, 2012 - 5:11 pm
Oatmeal, merlot and Porky Pig … at 5 AM? Wow! That’s beautifully original.
(At least I think so. For all I know, millions of people do that. I mean, it would come as a serious shock to me, but hey…)
Rene
January 26, 2012 - 6:58 pm
George,
Yeah, every conversation I’ve been about Clinton has at least one Conservative saying that it wasn’t about the blowjob.
Bull. The only reason he lied was that he thought it would be political suicide for the POTUS to admit that he had had a blowjob outside his marriage.
It’s more or less like setting a building on fire to roast somebody alive, and when the unfortunate victim jumps from the windows to his death, you claim it wasn’t the fire that killed him.
George Haberberger
January 27, 2012 - 7:48 am
Rene,
In your building fire analogy you state someone else set the fire. Translating that to the Clinton affair, (no pun intended), Clinton set the fire himself.
The only reason he lied…
Yeah, he lied under oath. That was the basis for impeachment.That’s is why he is disbarred.
What else could he have done? Not lie under oath.
Rick Oliver
January 27, 2012 - 9:37 am
Generally, what people do behind closed doors is none of our business — except when it involves criminal activity. And in Gingrich’s home state, adultery is a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail. Similar to the punishment for possession of marijuana.
MOTU
January 27, 2012 - 2:23 pm
MICHAEL DAVIS LIVE ON THE RADIO SAT JAN 28.
THAT’S TOMORROW!
10AM EST-7AM PST
WWSU 106.9 FM / http://listen.to/WWSU
DON’T MISS IT-THERE WILL BE A TEST!
Mike Gold
January 27, 2012 - 3:17 pm
Why?
Rene
January 27, 2012 - 3:47 pm
No, George.
The people who create the climate of invasion of privacy in the name of decency set the building on fire. The people who use puritanism as political capital set the building on fire. The people who pressed the issue and inquired into Clinton’s private matters set the building on fire.
But Clinton was wrong to lie. He should’ve said something like “it’s not your damn business what I do in the bedroom.” I think Liberals are as much to blame as Conservatism for the puritanical climate in the US. Because they usually bow to pressure and try to weasel out, instead of responding with a “fuck you.”
George Haberberger
January 27, 2012 - 4:30 pm
The people who pressed the issue and inquired into Clinton’s private matters set the building on fire.
Well, he was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones so “pressing the issue” was a matter of a legal procedure from which even the President of the US is not immune
He should’ve said something like “it’s not your damn business what I do in the bedroom.”
Is it our business what he does in the Oval Office?
Martha Thomases
January 27, 2012 - 4:41 pm
@George: It’s not our business what he does (consensually) with his dick.
MOTU
January 27, 2012 - 5:38 pm
I think,
MICHAEL DAVIS LIVE ON THE RADIO SAT JAN 28.
THAT’S TOMORROW!
10AM EST-7AM PST
WWSU 106.9 FM / http://listen.to/WWSU
DON’T MISS IT-THERE WILL BE A TEST!
Mike Gold
January 27, 2012 - 8:41 pm
George, Clinton was hardly the first President to get off in the Oval Office with a person not his wife. Hell, Warren Harding was getting it on with a friend and his wife barged in, trying to beat the shit out of POTUS but was pulled off her husband by the Secret Service before she could do much obvious damage.
Yeah, I know you knew this. I just wanted the opportunity to say “George Clinton” at the top of a message.
Reg
January 27, 2012 - 8:46 pm
Dr. Mike, you get ‘Gold’ for that, bruh.
http://youtu.be/LuyS9M8T03A
George Haberberger
January 27, 2012 - 9:09 pm
It’s not our business what he does (consensually) with his dick.
Well that’s just it. He was being sued for what he did non-consensually with his dick.
The apparently consensual actions with Lewinsky, (someone young enough to be his daughter and more importantly a subordinate), were only relevant because of the Paula Jones suit. His actions testified to a pattern of behavior.
It’s hard to believe this still comes up after almost 14 years. It is part of history now. I merely pointed out the charges of Clinton’s impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice, because the narrative is that he was impeached for something private and not the public’s concern and that is just not true.
Yes, Gingrich’s actions were offensive also. I do not defend them but in his case they really are private and not the public’s concern… until he lies about it under oath.
Reg
January 27, 2012 - 9:59 pm
I’m sorry…but doesn’t anyone else think that an elected official’s personal life is just a wee (I made a funny) bit tied to his/her ability to effectively govern? ESPECIALLY if it’s as messy as Clinton, Haley, Gingrich…and lest we forget…Mark (Mi Mami Caliente)Sanford who actually abandoned the duties of his office? Surely their ability to effectively govern was impacted by the extreme (self generated I might add) emotional stress in trying to hide and cover their consensual shenanigans?
So yeah…I beg to differ…If you’re my elected official, there are aspects to how you govern your personal life that absolutely is my business…if your inability to keep your penis or vagina in check runs the very real (and proven) risk that you’re gonna make some more bad decisions that may very well negatively impact me from a governance aspect.
John Edwards anyone?
MOTU
January 28, 2012 - 12:54 am
Reg said
“’Im sorry…but doesn’t anyone else think that an elected official’s personal life is just a wee (I made a funny) bit tied to his/her ability to effectively govern? ‘
Clinton was a great President-so no, I don’t think that someone’s personal life affects their ability at all. Hell, Kennedy was a man whore and he saved the world from an atomic war.
The issue I have is when elected officials present THEMSELVES as morally outstanding people and then are caught cheating on their wives. THAT says that they are lying hypocritical bastards and being a lying hypocritical bastard certainly affects the way they would govern.
Rene
January 28, 2012 - 5:48 am
What MOTU said.
The best American President in the last century was FDR, who had multiple affairs outside his marriage. The worst was Richard Nixon, who may have been a devoted family man.
Clinton was the best American President in my lifetime, even though I didn’t agree with all his policies (I think he was a little too Conservative in economic policies).
It’s a fairy tale idea that “heroes” have good family lives, and “villains” have bad ones. We should grow up.
I don’t blame Ken Starr for doing his job, but I do blame American society in general for its puritanism (if Clinton had lied about ANY OTHER MATTER, he probably would not have been inpeached), and most of all, I blame the GOP hypocrites that made such a show of indignation over it, when almost all of their key players at the time were adulterers themselves, it would later come to light.
This is from wikipedia:
Republican congressman Livingston had been widely expected to become Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in the next Congressional session,[38] then just weeks away, until Flynt revealed the affair. Livingston resigned and challenged Clinton to do the same.
Flynt’s investigation also claimed that Congressman Bob Barr, another Republican House manager, had an affair while married; Barr had been the first lawmaker in either chamber to call for Clinton’s resignation due to the Lewinsky affair. Barr lost a primary challenge less than three years after the impeachment proceedings.[39]
Dan Burton, Republican Representative from Indiana, had stated “No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties ….”[40] In 1998, Burton was forced[by whom?] to admit that he himself had an affair in 1983 that produced a child.[41]
Newt Gingrich, Representative (R-GA) and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994,[42] resigned from the House after admitting in 1998 to having had an affair with his intern while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky.[43][44]
Republican Helen Chenoweth-Hage from Idaho aggressively called for the resignation of Bill Clinton, and admitted to her own six-year affair with a married rancher during the 1980s.[45]