Does GM Stand for "Grossly Misleading?"

In the wake of U.S. oil barons holding petroleum, and Americans hostage, General Motors has come up with a diversionary tactic meant to recharge the Republican Party, and revive a sagging economy. Through the graciousness of their hearts, the moguls at GM have agreed to reduce the price of gasoline to $1.99! At the time of this writing, the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline (87 grade) is roughly $2.95 based on AAA reports. The "savings" that GM offers is almost $1.00 per gallon. What a bargain!

"What's the catch?" you may ask. Good question! The catch is that the deal is offered only in California and Florida. two of the largest states in the Union, and both Republican strongholds for the moment. There is another major catch...

One hitch to the promotion is that customers must also agree to enroll in the OnStar vehicle diagnostic service, which is free for the first year but after that will cost $16.95 a month. The other is that many of the eligible vehicles are serious gas guzzlers. The offer is only good for 2006 and 2007 model year vehicles.

In California, eligible vehicles are the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban sport utility vehicles and Impala and Monte Carlo sedans; the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL SUVs; the Hummer H2 and H3 SUVs; the Cadillac SRX SUV; and the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse sedans.

In Florida, eligible vehicles are the Impala, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and LaCrosse.Customers must buy or lease an eligible vehicle between May 25 and July 5 and enroll in the OnStar diagnostic service, which automatically runs checks on the vehicle and sends e-mail notices to owners each month.

Great! I'm getting bent over in Anytown, USA for gas to get to work, and they're offering deals to CA and FLA residents who purchase new vehicles and allow Big Brother into their lives. What the.....??

Each month for one year, GM will give drivers a credit on a prepaid card based on their estimated fuel usage. Fuel usage will be calculated by the miles they drive, as recorded by OnStar, and the vehicle's fuel economy rating. GM will credit drivers the difference between the average price per gallon in their state and the $1.99 cap. The credits can be used through December 2007. Consumers wouldn't get any credits if gas prices fall below $1.99.

Great, so now Big Brother knows where I am, and once a month for a year, GM will issue me credit on what they estimate my milage usage to be...What a bargain!

When GM says it will "cap" gas prices at $1.99/gal we wonder if it's vernacular trickery for "We'll give wealthy Republicans an incentive to buy gas-guzzling vehicles as opposed to investigating alternative fuels, or alternative fuel sorces."

From The Spook
Who Sat By The Door
To The Rich White Man In The Room

Lynn Swann, pro football Hall of Famer and current Republican candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania was referred to as “the rich white guy in this campaign” by opponent Bill Scranton’s campaign manager, James Seif during an interview of candidates on Pennsylvania’s Government Access Cable channel PCN on Thursday, January 26, 2006. “The rich white man in the room”. Candidate Scranton, a former lieutenant governor who is white, comes from a wealthy family.

The statement caught me off guard. I did not know what Seif could have meant by the statement. Was he saying that Swann, because of his wealth and/or stature, wasn’t a real black man? Nah…That wasn’t it. The remark was made because Swann is black. It was just the opposite. Seif’s remark was not a term of endearment or one of inclusion for Swann. This was a racial slur towards Swan and African Americans of wealth and stature. It was about old money versus new money. Prominence versus provenance. It’s about how no matter how high a black man climbs in this society he is never completely accepted by those he may feel that he has assimilated with. Nor has he associated himself with the ilk of people who look beyond color. The common term is “color blind”. The term should be something more positive like “diversity astute”, rather than one that incorporates a term generally used to describe an impairment or disability. The problem is peoples’ inability to recognize and appreciate differences. But, I digress. The ease of which the term was used indicates to me that this is how some rich white people refer to rich African Americans. In this case, rich white Republican men.

Scranton immediately fired Seif and issued an apology to Swann and the viewers.

As we sat at the Urban Round Table and discussed this issue, it became very clear, that “The Rich White Man In The Room” was not a compliment. It was code. It was vernacular trickery… for “uppity nigger”.

Arse Hole...or the Whole of an Arse?

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security.

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.
Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.
There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.
These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels of alarming proportion.
Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.
In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.
Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.

Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.
Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action that Followed
Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam -- we were at war at the time -- were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.
Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.
Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.
The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.

With all that being said, we at the Urban Coffee Table wonder if "George W. Bush" is vernacular trickery for "Arse hole"...or at the very least "The Whole of an Arse"?

Where'd I Go Wrong?

Overheard in a classroom one day:

Teacher: As I point to you, I'd like each child to stand up, introduce themselves, and tell the class what they'd like to be when they grow up. (Teacher points to a young man)

Stan: "My name is Stan, and when I grow up to be a man, I'd like to go to Japan...if I can."

Teacher: "Very good, Stan." (Points to a young lady)

Sadie: "My name is Sadie, and when I grow up to be a lady, I'd like to have a baby...if I can."

Teacher: "Very good, Sadie." (Points to another young man)

Dan: "My name is Dan, damn Japan, when I grow up to be a man I wanna help Sadie with her plan...if I can!"

While sitting around the Urban Coffeetable again I mused about what this world is coming to as far as our kids are concerned. I mean, theses kids need their asses kicked somethin' fierce. ...talkin' back to their parents, teachers, and elders in general; cussin' like some kinda daggone sailor. And when did young girls start gettin' so fast? I've seen more 10-13 year olds shakin' what their mammas gave them than I care to count. Man, there's even lesbian gangs in high schools--lesbian gangs?!? What...the...phuck?!?! Oh well, I guess if priests can rape little boys, lesbians can form gangs. And speaking of boys, you can't get a young man to keep his shirt tucked in for nothin', and if you're not wearing the Dickies black or dark blue "prison" uniform, well, you're just a beyotch!

With all the good things there are going on in the school systems around the country, sometimes I just can't see the forest for the trees. Teaching is great, but I often wonder if the words "I'm a teacher" are just vernacular trickery for "where did I go wrong with my life?"

What's in a word/phrase?

While sitting at the urban coffee table, I mused about a few offensive terms that some Americans throw around with reckless abandon. Such words, or terms that come to mind are “Indian giving”; “Jewing down”, and the term “Blackmail”.

The vernacular trickery that embeds itself in these terms may seem obvious—but is it? Indian giving is a derogatory term that means simply to give someone a gift, and then take that gift back. To the best of my knowledge, the Native American never reneged on any treaties to the American government, or took back any gifts they had given in good faith. So why, then, has the term of taking back been labeled “Indian giving”? Simple: to denigrate Native Americans. Never mind the inherent denigration that comes from calling them Indians; that’s another story (and Christopher Columbus has a holiday!).

When bartering for a better price on an item, or attempting to secure the best possible deal for oneself, one has been said to have “Jewed down” another. With the predominant recollection of Jewish history (to Gentiles) generally being the Holocaust, how is it that a total race of people has been denigrated to being cheap? Simple: to humiliate and infuriate people of the Jewish faith.

That leads us to the term “blackmail”. Webster’s Dictionary defines the term as extortion through intimidation. Hmmmm, with exception to what we do in our own communities to each other, when has the Black male been in a position to extort anything through intimidation? This term has nothing to do with the mail, and it has nothing to do with the color black…is it mere vernacular trickery in an effort to denigrate the Black male, as such terms have done to “Indians” and “Jews”? It begs consideration. What has the Black male done to deserve such a charge from English vernacular? If anything at all, the Black male has been the victim of blackmail for over 200 years!! What a funny concept! When your land; family; dignity; religion; name, and culture have been taken from you by force and intimidation, how appropriate it becomes to juxtapose that feeling back to the Black male.

It should be incumbent upon American people to purge these terms from the common vocabulary. That, would be mighty White of you!!

Chrysler Crossfire: Whites Only Car?

Chrysler has been adding new vehicles with much success since being purchased by Daimler-Benz. The redesigned Chrysler 300 has been very popular with the African-American community and has been affectionately dubbed the "Ghetto Bentley". The Crossfire has received lukewarm acceptance in the black community, mainly because of its name. How insensitive for the Germans to name this car after a symbol that is so painful to Black Americans. Is "Crossfire" vernacular trickery for the "Official Car of the Ku Klux Klan"?

Terrell Owens--"Property" of the Philadelphia Eagles?
Does anyone have a problem with professional athletes being designated as "property" as opposed to "employee"? Well, the fact of the matter is that employees, whether salaried or at-will, have the right to vacate their employment. In other words, they can quit their jobs and seek employment elsewhere. Professional athletes, specifically those in the NFL don't have such latitude, as reflected in an arbitrator's ruling this afternoon that has drawn the ire of the NFLPA (NFL Players Association). In short, the arbitrator ruled that the Eagles were within their rights to suspend Owens without pay for four games (at a cost to him of approximately $764,704 in base salary) and also within their rights to deactivate him (with pay) so that he is not free to seek employment with another NFL team for the remainder of the season.

Regardless of your feelings on the ruling, the collective bargaining agreement sanctioned by the NFLPA does allow for such action. T.O. is in effect, the property of the Philadelphia Eagles. Why isn't he (or all professional athletes for that matter) labeled as "contractual employees in the irrevocable servitude of their employers"? Is the oft used term "property" nothing more than vernacular trickery for "slave"?

Let's take a look at the origin of this "property" issue:

All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.
- Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705

I think the term "property" is indeed vernacular trickery for "slave". Fair thee well T.O., I guess it's on to your next massa.