From Blackvoices.com:

Essence editor-in-chief Angela Burt-Murray told Black Voices in a written statement that Ellianna Placas, a former fashion editor at O: Home and Us Weekly, is just part of Essence’s growing fashion team.

“I understand that this issue has struck an emotional chord with our audience,” said Burt-Murray, “however I selected Ellianna, who has been contributing to the magazine on a freelance basis for the last six months, because of her creativity, vision, the positive reader response to her work and her enthusiasm and respect for the audience and our brand. We remain committed to celebrating the unique beauty and style of African-American women in Essence magazine and online at Essence.com.”

Click here to read more

Click here to see gallery of top newsmakers

Start Gallery

RELATED:

Controversy Surrounds Hiring of White Fashion Editor

McDonald’s 365 Black Awards Red Carpet Arrivals at 2010 Essence

From Clutchmagonline.com:

On Friday evening, cultural critic and writer Michaela angela Davis tweeted: “It is with a heavy heavy heart I have learned that Essence magazine has engaged a white fashion director, this hurts, literally, spiritually.” Michaela’s tweet erupted a series of reactions, re-tweets, and scores of Facebook comments. Responses ranged from shock, disappointment to utter confusion.

Our immediate reaction? As the publication unofficially deemed “Essence‘s little sister”—a growing young urban women’s online brand for news, critical commentary, lifestyle, fashion and beauty—it felt like our Mom walked us hand in hand to the center of the biggest shopping mall in the state, turned around, and left us. But we are no longer the little girls eyeballing the glossy giant who taught us how to love ourselves. We’ve been finding our way through the life, love and labels for quite sometime now; and the likely abandonment of the counselor who taught us everything we know is now evolving into clearer overstanding. The pressing question for many of us is how much does Time Warner have to do with the hiring?

Click here to read more

Click here to see our gallery of the Top Ten Black magazines

Start Gallery

RELATED:

Janet Jackson, Alicia Keys, Mary J. Blige to Perform at Essence Music Festival

Jet Magazine Aims at Young Readers With New Readers

The State of Utah’s June 18 execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner broke ground in American history as the first execution by firing squad in 14 years and as the first to be ‘tweeted’ across the world by the attorney general who approved the final stage of death.

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff used his Apple iPhone to confirm that he had given permission to execute the two-time convicted murderer by publishing a live update on the Twitter account, #MarkShurtleff:

“I just gave the go ahead to Corrections Director to proceed with Gardner’s execution. May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims.”

The decision to publish the ‘tweets’ online has evoked some staunch criticism of both Shurtleff and the practice of capital punishment in general.

Twitter users and online news consumers have compared America to third world dictatorships, where executions by firing squad would be permitted under elements of the law.

One online commentator claimed, “The death penalty is the greatest blot on the world’s greatest nation.”

Others have directed their disgust at Attorney General Shurtleff, referring to him as “repulsive” and “perverse.”

Shurtleff posted another two tweets before the execution:

“We will be streaming live my press conference as soon as I’m told Gardner is dead. Watch it at www.attorneygeneral.Utah.gov/live.html.”

And, “A solemn day. Barring a stay by Sup Ct, & with my final nod, Utah will use most extreme power & execute a killer. Mourn his victims. Justice.”

He is not the first political figure to be criticized for the questionable use of a Twitter account.

A Republican Party Operative in South Carolina posted in June 2009: “JUST HEARD OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS.”

Republican Senator Mike Parry, tweeted during his campaign for the Minnesota Senate seat in late 2009: “read the exclusive on Mr O in Newsweek. He is a Power Hungry Arrogant Black Man.”

But perhaps the most shocking Twitter moment in recent year was the decision by Rocky Mountain News in Colorado to post almost two dozen live feeds from the funeral of a three-year-old boy.

Some of those tweets included: “family members shovel earth into grave”, “coffin lowered into ground” and “people again are sobbing.”

RELATED STORIES

Texas Judge Says Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional

Trial Set To Begin In Newark, N.J. Schoolyard Murders

Start Gallery

From TheRoot.com:

Lisa Warren thinks Tiger Woods and Barack Obama are two Black role models who’ve been toppled by their hubris. Yep. From The Huffington Post:

In the past few weeks, the two most famous and arguably most successful black men in America have taken a huge fall. It has become clear that both pro golfer Tiger Woods, just named Athlete of the Year by the Associated Press, and the American president, Barack Obama, the first black person to lead the country, suffer from a surfeit of hubris which has finally caught up with them. If both men somehow thought they were untouchable, they have been put to right. Both have crashed to earth and it may well be true that they can never recover their earlier status again.

While Woods’ “indiscretions” affect only himself and his family, he has felt the sting of the media invasion and a permanent loss of privacy. His reputation as sport’s good family guy is gone. For Barack Obama the honeymoon is really over, even those who wanted to give him a chance are getting tired of what is not getting done, what was promised and reneged on. There is disappointment enough in both of them.

It is tragic when an icon falls. When a black icon stumbles the tragedy seems doubly problematic. Mike Tyson, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jackson were all at the tops of their fields before revelations that made them less palatable as heroes and less of a role model for young black men. They have all been partially rehabilitated but not without a huge cost.

10 Most Clicked Stories Of 2009

Start Gallery

And now while the news if full of Tiger Woods’ penchant for tawdry moments with women who can’t hold a candle to the physical beauty of his wife, the information we get on Obama, while far less salacious, is even more disillusioning. The expectations of real change that had people in tears a little over a year have been so thoroughly dashed that too many of his supporters feel betrayed by their naiveté; they feel, as I do, almost foolish for believing that the status quo could really be kicked out the door. Is it even possible for our national landscape to change? Can we really progress from a country of individuals all looking for their stake to a country that actually has the notion that a stake for everyone means more for all? Having worked for weeks and months for Obama, having written glowingly about his oratory skills and his ability to gather even the disenfranchised together, as well as capture that ephemeral youth vote, I stood at rallies and allowed myself that enormous surge of hope that connected me with the rest of the country. But what was our choice?

Click here to read more.

[Lisa Warren's original piece has been removed by the Huffington Post but we found the full story here.]

RELATED:

Tiger Woods & Barack Obama To Play Golf Together

OPINION: What Tiger & Barack Can Teach Us About Success

From WashingtonPost.com:

The Obama administration has all but abandoned plans to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release to live in the United States, administration officials said yesterday, a decision that reflects bipartisan congressional opposition to admitting such prisoners but complicates efforts to persuade European allies to accept them.

Click here for full story.

I’m not one for Royal ettiquette and I don’t believe anyone is beyond reproach. Still people in the media are making a spat over Michelle Obama hugging the Queen. Here’s Jack and Jill Politics take on the matter. Apparently you are not supposed to touch the Queen but some are saying the Queen touched Michelle first. Time Magazine also wrote about the ettiquette issue so I don’t have to.

The Obamas Meet the Queen at Buckingham Palace

Obama Goes to Europe

Check Out a Gallery of the Obamas Trip to Europs

Obama Invited To Give Commencement Speech At Notre Dame | CLICK HERE

Jimmy Carter came to Notre Dame in 1977. So did Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush in 2001.

The University of Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting new presidents to speak at graduation. But this year’s selection of President Barack Obama has been met by a barrage of criticism that has left some students fearing their commencement ceremony will turn into a circus.

Many Catholics are angered by Obama’s planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.

The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation’s largest Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.

“People are definitely entitled to their outrage, but I think the main thing is to see that it’s an honor to have the president of the United States come to speak here whether you agree with him or not,” said Katie Woodward, a political science junior from Philadelphia.

Justin Mack, a senior film major from Dallas, agreed.

“I didn’t vote for him and there are a lot of things I don’t agree with him or support. But I feel like for this event people need to put that aside,” said Mack, a senior film major from Dallas. “My hope is that doesn’t distract too much from what the weekend is about, which is the graduation.”

Obama Invited To Give Commencement Speech At Notre Dame | CLICK HERE

But the distractions have been mounting, including sharply worded letters from two bishops. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Phoenix Diocese on Wednesday called Obama’s selection a “public act of disobedience” and “a grave mistake.” On Tuesday, Bishop John D’Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, which includes Notre Dame, said he would not attend the ceremony because of Obama’s policies.

Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue have sent letters to the student newspaper, and a coalition of conservative student groups has announced its opposition.

University spokesman Dennis Brown says Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation. Anyone associated with the university can recommend a commencement speaker, he said, and the president consults with university officers to see who would be most appropriate.

Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama’s policies but that it’s important to engage in conversation.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama believes everyone has the right to express their opinion, saying the president met last week with Chicago Cardinal Francis George and others to discuss topics Obama and the Catholic church are interested in.

“He looks forward to continuing that dialogue in the leadup to the commencement, and looks forward to delivering the address in May,” Gibbs said.

Bob Reish, the student body president and a graduating senior, said there is a “general excitement” about Obama’s visit, although he is aware there are people on both sides of the issue.

As of 2 p.m. Thursday, The Observer, the student newspaper, had received 612 letters about Obama’s appearance — 313 from alumni and 299 from current students.

Seventy percent of the alumni letters opposed having Obama giving the speech, while 73 percent of student letters supported his appearance. Among the 95 seniors who wrote letters, 97 percent supported the president’s invitation.

Sophomore Kelsey Fletcher, a Japanese major from nearby Elkhart, said she doesn’t think the university should have invited Obama to speak.

“He shouldn’t be giving the commencement address because of his policies, but once you invite him you can’t disinvite him,” she said. “That would be rude.”

Others noted that Obama is only speaking at three universities this year.

“We can’t just forgive his viewpoints, we can’t just let it go without expressing our thoughts on it,” said Thomas Heitker, a freshman biology major from Columbus, Ohio. “But he’s only speaking at three universities this year and to be one out of so many is something we should be proud about.”

Chris Carrington, a political science major from the Chicago area, said he doesn’t see how Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame contradicts Catholic values.

“To not allow someone here because of their beliefs seems a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be,” he said.

RELATED:

Obama Invited To Give Commencement Speech At Notre Dame | CLICK HERE

Hundreds of same-sex couples seeking to wed were turned away from the city marriage bureau Thursday, part of a nationwide protest aimed at recent decisions restricting the right to marry to a man and a woman.

Wearing signs that said “Just Not Married,” the activists were part of a wave of demonstrations expected throughout the day at marriage bureaus or county clerks’ offices from New York City to California, in communities large and small.

Matt Flanders, 37, of Brooklyn, participated with his 29-year-old partner, Will Jennings. Both wore gold engagement rings.

When he was denied a marriage license, Flanders said he told officials: “‘I should be able to marry the person I love.’ And they said, `We can only offer you a domestic partnership.’”

Micah Stanek, 23, stood outside in a floor-length wedding veil after he and his partner were rejected. He said he moved to New York from San Francisco after gay marriage was outlawed in California on the November ballot.

“New York is especially important because the rest of the country follows what happens here,” he said.

Outside the bureau, protesters sang “Love and Marriage” and chanted, “What do we want? Marriage! When do we want it? Now!” One man held a sign that read: “Love your husband? Let me love mine!”

The protests, part of the 12th annual Freedom to Marry Week, were considered more important than ever this year because they come in the wake of California’s Proposition 8 vote that overturned gay marriage and just as New Yorkers look to their state Senate to pass legislation that could lead to legalized gay marriage.

Some of the largest gatherings were expected in California, where the state’s Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 5 over whether to restore California same-sex marriages. The court could render a decision as early as June.

In New York, same-sex marriages cannot legally be performed. However, Gov. David Paterson has issued a directive requiring that all state agencies recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith has suggested that he and his fellow Democrats lack the votes needed to pass a same-sex marriage bill this year. However, Smith said several days ago that he and fellow legislators are “committed to pursuing its passage.”

The line at the New York City’s marriage bureau also included straight engaged couples.

“They didn’t bother us on our big day and they have a right to protest,” said King Lau, 30, as his bride-to-be, Cheryl Zhang, 25, nodded in agreement.

Freedom to Marry events around the country are listed on Web sites, including those run by two major organizations behind the protests _ Join the Impact and the national grass-roots organization Marriage Equality USA.

A cartoonist by the name of John Shapiro is being sued for a cartoon in which the leader of Souther Africa’s ruling party, Jacob Zuma, was seen about to about to rape lady justice.

Read THe New York Times Full Report

The Notorious B.I.G. was Lil Kim’s mentor and was also romantically linked to the rapper. Their sometimes rocky relationship is depicted in the new movie “Notorious,” but Lil Kim doesn’t think it’s very accurate.

In a statement, she said: “The film studio and producers involved were more concerned about painting me as a ‘character’ to create a more interesting story line instead of a person with talent, self-respect and who was able to achieve her own career success through hard work.”

She added: “Even though my relationship with Big was at times very difficult and complicated (as with most relationships we have all experienced at one time or another), it was also genuine and built on great admiration and love for each other. Regardless of the many lies in the movie and false portrayal of me to help carry a story line through, I will still continue to carry his legacy through my hard work and music.”

But Wallace’s mother, Voletta Wallace, dismissed Lil Kim’s criticisms of the movie in an interview on Monday.

“This is not a Lil Kim movie,” she said. “This is a Christopher Wallace movie. It has nothing to do with Lil Kim. If she’s disappointed and upset, that is her problem.”

At the film’s New York premiere last week, “Notorious” screenwriter Cheo Hodari Coker said he understands why Lil Kim might not like the film, but added: “I think that Naturi (Naughton) did a great job playing Kim. I think people are going to be a lot more sympathetic towards (Lil Kim) after seeing the movie.”

Wayne Barrow — Biggie‘s former manager and a producer on the movie — expressed less patience with Kim’s attitude.

“Our job as producers … was to deliver for three individuals. That’s his mom and his two children. Everybody else: Stand in line, buy a ticket and enjoy the show.”

“Notorious” chronicles the life and untimely death of the Notorious B.I.G., who was shot to death in 1997 and remains one of rap’s most important figures. It opens in theaters this Friday.

From HuffingtonPost:

Coulter appeared on CBS’s The Early Show where she told anchor Harry Smith that he was her favorite for having her on this morning after The Today Show had canceled her. Smith allowed Coulter to rant, but then pushed her on claims of right-wing victimization and urged her to “take a breath.” He also called her “goofy” and “sophomoric.”

WATCH the video here.

Click here for Ann Coulter dissing Michelle Obama.

Click here for the Top 10 Obama Playa Haters.

An examination of the FBI complaint against Blagojevich and the days immediately following Obama’s historic election victory suggests the governor was highly interested in Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett as a potential Senate appointee, albeit with a steep price tag.

The 76-page complaint contains multiple references to “Senate Candidate 1,” whose description clearly fits Jarrett, a former finance chief for Obama’s earlier campaigns and incoming senior White House adviser.

In secretly recorded conversations, the Democratic governor said he’d be willing to appoint Jarrett — Obama’s supposed favorite to replace him — in return for a high-paying job at a national union organization called Change to Win.

At a news conference Thursday, Obama said his office was assembling any information about possible contacts “between the transition office and the governor’s office,” and that he intended to release any such detail in the next few days.

“But what I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any dealmaking around my Senate seat,” Obama said. “That I’m absolutely certain of.”

It remained unclear whether anyone on Obama’s team had been in contact with Blagojevich or his associates regarding the Senate seat.

According to the complaint, Blagojevich met Nov. 5 with an official of the Service Employees International Union-Local 1 who is believed to be Tom Balanoff, a longtime Obama supporter who spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

Blagojevich “understood” that the SEIU official was “an emissary to discuss Senate Candidate 1′s interest” in the Senate seat. Though just a day after the election, media reports had already identified Jarrett as being interested in the job.

SEIU officials released a statement Thursday saying the organization had been in contact with the U.S. attorney’s office and had no reason to believe the union or any union official had been involved in misconduct. The statement said the union, and specifically Balanoff, were “fully cooperating” with the probe.

During a Nov. 5 call, Blagojevich said the Senate appointment was a thing of value, something not given away “for nothing.”

Two days later, Blagojevich allegedly suggested he’d be willing to “trade” the Senate seat to Jarrett in exchange for the Health and Human Services secretary’s job. He repeated that desire during a separate, three-way call involved Blagojevich, Chief of Staff John Harris and someone identified only as “Advisor B,” a Washington-based consultant.

Harris noted that Blagojevich also would consider being appointed to a high-paying position at Change to Win and that Balanoff, who declined numerous requests for an interview with The Associated Press, could guarantee the appointment.

In return, Obama would be expected to help Change to Win with its legislative agenda on a national level, said Harris, according to the criminal complaint.

As the FBI listened in, Harris suggested the three-way deal would give Obama “a buffer so there is no obvious quid pro quo” regarding Jarrett. And “Adviser B” said “they should leverage the President-elect‘s desire to have Senate Candidate 1 appointed to the Senate seat” in exchange for a big job at Change to Win.

On Nov. 10, Blagojevich, his wife, Harris, the governor’s chief counsel William R. Quinlan and several Washington-based advisers conducted an extraordinary two-hour conference call.

Blagojevich conceded he probably wouldn’t get the HHS job or an ambassadorship because of so much negative publicity surrounding him.

Using several expletives, Blagojevich said he was reluctant to give Obama “his senator” without anything in return; he said he’d appoint a deputy governor before giving the job to Candidate 1. He also considered appointing himself to the job to avoid impeachment.

During the next 36 hours, the governor grew angry and suggested Obama’s camp was not interested in making a deal.

“They’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. (Expletive) them,” Blagojevich told Harris in an intercepted call Nov. 11. The men talked about alternative candidates and perhaps starting a nonprofit organization that could possibly be funded by a wealthy Obama supporter, perhaps Warren Buffett.

Asked Thursday why the governor might have believed the Obama camp wasn’t going to cooperate, Obama refused to speculate.

“I can’t presume to know what was in the mind of the governor during this process,” he said. “All I can do is read what was in the transcripts, like the rest of you have read it, and shake my head.”

On Nov. 12, major news organizations, including the AP, quoted sources as saying Jarrett was not interested in the Senate seat. The Chicago Tribune said it had received an e-mail from Jarrett declaring, “I am not interested in the Senate seat.”

But as the day wore on, Blagojevich continued to discuss the possibility of appointing “Senate Candidate 1″ in a series of calls; Blagojevich would stay on as governor and ostensibly run the nonprofit.

“Adviser B” told the governor he liked the Change to Win job best because “from the President-elect‘s perspective, there would be fewer `fingerprints’” because the union organization was already in existence and fully funded.

During one of the calls, Blagojevich informed the union official — believed to be Balanoff — that he’d heard Obama now wanted other candidates considered. Balanoff said he would find out if “Senate Candidate 1″ wanted to keep pushing for the Senate seat.

The discussion during a Nov. 13 call between the governor and “Adviser A” made it clear Blagojevich wanted a deal from Obama whether his pick was Jarrett or someone else, according to the complaint. And in subsequent recorded conversations, the governor indeed moved on to other possible candidates, including Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

On Nov. 15, Obama announced the appointment of Jarrett as one of his key advisers. And yet nine days later, Blagojevich may not have given up on the idea that Jarrett was still his way to cash in: According to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., he spoke to the governor about Jarrett on Nov. 24.

“The governor asked me, `What about Valerie Jarrett? Do you think she’s serious?’” Durbin said, an apparent reference to her withdrawal from consideration.

“I said, `Yes, I talked to her. She said she doesn’t want this. She’s going to stick with Obama,’” Durbin said.

Republicans are challenging lame-duck President George W. Bush on the proposal, arguing that any support for the domestic auto industry should carry significant concessions from autoworkers and creditors and reject tougher environmental rules imposed by House Democrats.

The House approved the plan late Wednesday on a vote of 237-170. It would infuse money within days into cash-starved General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Ford Motor Co., which has said it has enough cash to make it through 2009, would also be eligible for federal aid.

Supporters cited dire warnings from GM and Chrysler executives, who have said they could run out of cash within weeks, and concerns that a carmaker collapse would erase tens of thousands of jobs and jolt an already bleak economy.

Democrats and the Bush White House hoped the Senate would vote on the legislation as early as Thursday. But based on concerns raised by GOP senators — and a still-uncertain level of support even among Democrats — they had a lot of work to do.

A leading Senate Republican opponent said Thursday that he cannot back spending $14 billion of taxpayer money on a plan that would call for a restructuring of the industry, but which fails to detail just how that would be accomplished.

“I think that is putting the cart before the horse and isn’t reponsible in terms of tax dollars,” Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said on CBS’s “The Early Show.”

The measure’s murky outlook reflected the difficulty of approving another federal financial rescue on the heels of the deeply unpopular, $700 billion Wall Street bailout, as the clock ticks down on the current Congress and Bush’s influence is at a low ebb.

“People realize that this bill is an incredibly weak bill (and) is the product of an administration that wants to kick the can down the road and let somebody else deal with it,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

Even Republicans representing states with automobile plants said the proposal was far from ideal. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., whose state is home to five auto plants, said he wanted to see changes. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said the bill lacked the necessary Republicans to pass the Senate.

The measure would create a government “car czar,” to be named by Bush to issue the loans, empowered with the ability to yank back the loans and force the carmakers into bankruptcy next spring if they fail to cut quick deals with labor unions, creditors and others to restructure their businesses and become viable.

Opposition wasn’t limited to Republicans.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana is opposing the measure because of a provision to bail out transit agencies that were involved in transactions now considered unlawful tax shelters.

Under the House-passed bill, the carmakers would have to submit blueprints on March 31 to the industry overseer showing how they would restructure to ensure their survival, although they could be given until the end of May to negotiate with the government on a final agreement.

The automakers initially asked Congress for $25 billion, then returned two weeks later to plead for as much as $34 billion. But with the White House refusing to dole out new spending for the Big Three, congressional Democrats agreed to use an existing program that was to help carmakers retool their factories to make more fuel-efficient cars.

That fund yielded only $15 billion in emergency loans, and when negotiators agreed to leave some money in the environmental program, the amount fell to $14 billion.

Democrats agreed to scrap language — which the White House had declared a deal-breaker — that would have forced the carmakers to drop lawsuits challenging tough emissions limits in California and other states. But they kept a provision to force the automakers to abide by those states’ limits — a kind of consolation prize for environmentalists, who already were livid at the raid of the fuel-efficiency program.

Senate Democrats unveiled a nearly identical measure that omitted the requirement, but that bill still faced long odds.

The Bush administration is expected to work with President-elect Barack Obama‘s team on choosing the industry czar. The overseer would have say-so over any major business decisions by the automakers while they were taking advantage of federal aid, with veto power over any transaction of $100 million or more.

The measure also would attach an array of conditions to the bailout money, including some of the same restrictions imposed on banks as part of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue. Among them are limits on executive compensation, a prohibition on paying dividends and requirements that the government share in future profits and taxpayers be repaid before any other shareholders.

Also included in the bill is an unrelated pay raise for federal judges.

From Ben Smith at Politico:

The floating of the name of former Rep. James Ramstad as Obama’s drug czar has drawn some fire in liberal drug policy circles, and today a black police organization writes Obama opposing it.

Click here to read the letter.

My erstwhile African-American-studies-minored self would love nothing more than to publish a dissertation on why this piece in Salon, written by Erin Aubry Kaplan of the Los Angeles Times, is destructive, superficial and historically unsound. But what would be the point?

I would say how dare you continue the objectification of a black woman, but mostly what I want to do is scream in outrage.

The article is, essentially, an ode to the black butt—specifically Michelle Obama’s. It is titled, predictability: “First Lady Got Back.” Lame title aside, it is a clear demonstration that despite the historic events of Nov. 4, there is still a lot to do about how we talk and think about black people in this country. This is especially true of black women who, whatever their accomplishments, are often seen as no more than the mere sum of their body parts, especially that part.

Click here for the full post.

IS MICHELLE OBAMA’S BACKSIDE OFF-LIMITS?

The debate rages on…

From LATOYA PETERSON at racialicious.com:

While the commenters debate back and forth about whether or not the [Salon] article is “joyful” or “disrespectful,” a large part of me wonders when Salon will publish an article on what faces Michelle Obama in the White House, or an article about racial trends in America penned by a woman of color, or a review of a book like Naked which lays all these issues bare.

My problem with the article isn’t that it’s a lighthearted musing on Michelle’s attributes, as seen through the eyes of another black woman (who – according to Kaplan’s website – has also whipped out personal essays on her own butt, as well as musing on J.Lo’s.)

My problem is that articles about Michelle Obama’s wardrobe, booty, and mom duties are what is fit to publish, what is seen as relevant to a mass audience.

Click here for the full post.

See the referenced Salon article here, posted 11/18/2008:

From ERIN AUBREY KAPLAN at Salon.com:

Free at last. I never thought that I — a black girl who came of age in the utterly anticlimactic aftermath of the civil rights movement — would say the phrase with any real sincerity in my lifetime. But ever since Nov. 4, I’ve been shouting it from every rooftop. I’m not excited for the most obvious reason. Yes, Obama’s win was an extraordinary breakthrough and a huge relief, but I don’t subscribe to the notion that his capturing the White House represents the end of American racial history. Far from it. There is a certain freedom in the moment — as in, we are all now free from wondering when or if we’ll ever get a black president. Congratulations to all of us for being around to settle the question.

But what really thrills me, what really feels liberating in a very personal way, is the official new prominence of Michelle Obama.

Click here for the full story.

From newser.com:

Sarah Palin may not have earned the title of vice president, but a rumored book deal could net her as much $7 million, the Times of London reports.

“She’s poised to make a ton of money,” said a top PR agent. To compare: Bill Clinton took $10 million for his post-White House tome. “There is so much curiosity surrounding her and her life. If they move fast, then a $7 million advance could be worth it,” an insider noted.

Click here for the full story.

With President-elect Barack Obama’s historic election run now complete, Atlanta rap star Ludacris is finally breaking his silence on Obama’s marked criticism of his July dedication song.

On the track entitled “Politics As Usual” taken from DJ Drama’s Gangsta Grillz: The Preview, Ludacris professed his full support for Obama.

That support was overshadowed by controversial lyrics that labeled President Obama’s former Democrat rival Hillary Clinton as a “b**ch,” and alluded to Republican John McCain as being close to disability.

Ludacris also took aim at George W. Bush, calling the 43rd President of the United States “mentally handicapped.”

“The song was my artistic expression and was meant to get people who weren’t involved in the political process involved,” Ludacris reasoned to AllHipHop.com. “Being as though it was the first mixtape to reach the United States government was a bit overwhelming.”

Obama, who in 2006 first met with Ludacris privately to discuss community activism and Hip-Hop’s role in it, was not understanding of Luda’s vitriolic words and publicly condemned the track.

Read the Rest at AllHipHop.com

Reginald Hudlin, BET’s Director of Programming, will step down after a tumultuous history with the network. Hudlin left voluntarily, per reports from the network but had his feet to the flames after pushing some questionable shows to the foreground.

From Greg Braxton of LA Times Blog: 

Hudlin’s announced departure comes on the heels of critical acclaim that greeted the network’s new comedy “Somebodies,” which premiered Tuesday as the first scripted series in BET’s 29-year history.

It was not immediately announced when Hudlin would leave the network. Stephen Hill, BET’s executive vice president of programming and talent, will serve as interim entertainment chief.

Related article: BET Premieres First Original Sitcom