PREFACE: The Society Hill has deliberately refrained from reporting on the scandal involving Tiger Woods following his car accident a few weeks ago. What has evolved as a result of this car accident that Tiger Woods has sustained has become a sordid tale fit for tabloid press with daily play-by-play articles and accounts by national and international media outlets. The Society Hill DOES NOT engage in tabloid press. Given what has already been exposed by national and international media outlets, The Society Hill will not recap or rehash the scandal. Out of respect for Tiger & Elin Nordegren Woods and their children as well as for the other parties involved in this case, The Society Hill will not add fuel to the fire. Tiger Woods has admitted his wrongdoings before an international audience and as such the following is being reported:
Tiger Woods announced today via his website that after much soul-searching and amid growing revelations with regard to his infidelity which was exposed following a car accident he sustained a few weeks ago, that he is taking an indefinite leave of absence from professional golf. Tiger admitted his wrongdoing and has repeatedly expressed remorse even as the revelations become more sordid in their details. Woods stated that the indefinite leave of absence is to try to heal and mend but also reconnect with his family, his wife Elin and their two young children.
Tiger Woods full statement can be read on his website: www.tigerwoods.com
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
In Memoriam: Willie Maxine Perry (1945-2009)
Willie Maxine Perry, who helped inspire the character Madea played by her movie producer son Tyler Perry, has died. She was 64.
Tyler Perry announced her Tuesday death on his Web site, where he thanked fans for their prayers. He did not say where his mother died or anything about the cause.
Perry's publicist, Keleigh Thomas, would not give further details Wednesday afternoon.
Perry owes much of his popularity to his portrayal of Madea, a sharp-tongued, iron-willed Southern matriarch played by Perry in a padded suit and wig. She is the central character in films like "Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail,"
In an October interview, Perry told CBS' "60 Minutes" that the character is a celebration of strong black women who is based in part on his own mother.
"Madea's a cross between my mother and my aunt — she's the type of grandmother that was on every corner when I was growing up," he said. "... She's a strong figure where I come from, in my part of the African American community."
But the character has also earned criticism from some black community figures who argue Perry is reinforcing stereotypes of black women as overbearing, violent and brash. Film maker Spike Lee recently labeled Perry's TBS sitcoms and films "coonery."
Arlene Barron, executive director at the Jewish Community Center in New Orleans, said Maxine Perry had worked there as a nursery school assistant for about 10 years from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s.
Tyler Perry announced her Tuesday death on his Web site, where he thanked fans for their prayers. He did not say where his mother died or anything about the cause.
Perry's publicist, Keleigh Thomas, would not give further details Wednesday afternoon.
Perry owes much of his popularity to his portrayal of Madea, a sharp-tongued, iron-willed Southern matriarch played by Perry in a padded suit and wig. She is the central character in films like "Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail,"
In an October interview, Perry told CBS' "60 Minutes" that the character is a celebration of strong black women who is based in part on his own mother.
"Madea's a cross between my mother and my aunt — she's the type of grandmother that was on every corner when I was growing up," he said. "... She's a strong figure where I come from, in my part of the African American community."
But the character has also earned criticism from some black community figures who argue Perry is reinforcing stereotypes of black women as overbearing, violent and brash. Film maker Spike Lee recently labeled Perry's TBS sitcoms and films "coonery."
Arlene Barron, executive director at the Jewish Community Center in New Orleans, said Maxine Perry had worked there as a nursery school assistant for about 10 years from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
New York Amsterdam News Celebrates 100 Years
The New York Amsterdam News one of the longest running African American based weekly newspapers recently celebrated it's 100th Anniversary. The paper founded by James Henry Anderson first debuted on December 4, 1909. Over the years, The Amsterdam News has been at the forfront of NY local news geared toward African Americans while also reporting on national, international and entertainment news from an African American perspective. At its height, the paper published articles by W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell and Malcolm X and has a readership of over 100,000 readers weekly. The current editor and publisher of The New York Amesterdam News is Elinor Tatum, daughter of late Amsterdam News Emeritus Wilbert "Bill" Tatum. The paper recently held its anniversary gala at the David Koch Theater at Lincoln Center. Congratulations to The New York Amsterdam News...here's to another 100 years.
New York State Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Legalization By Large Margin
ALBANY, NY -In a major blow to the gay rights movement, the state Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly killed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
After two hours of emotional and often deeply personal debate, the Senate voted down the measure 38-24, effectively killing its chances before next year's elections.
Democrats couldn't muster enough votes on their own and some Republicans who were open to the idea voted no because they were fearful of a conservative backlash, advocates said.
New York now joins a list of 31 other states to shoot down gay marriage. Five states have approved same-sex unions.
The Senate's 30 Republicans were joined by eight Democrats in voting against the measure. Except for Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx), none of the naysayers stood up during the debate to explain his or her vote publicly.
The Assembly passed the bill just after midnight, the third time that body has approved the measure since 2007.
"I'm angry, I'm disappointed, I'm sad, I'm let down, I'm betrayed - but I am not going away," vowed the bill's sponsor, Sen. Tom Duane (D-Manhattan), the only openly gay member of the Senate.
Paterson, who at one point stood holding hands with Duane, made a rare trip to the Senate floor to support the bill.
The governor had pushed for a vote in the Senate even though the bill's fate was uncertain - an unusual move in Albany, where legislation usually gets considered only if its passage is guaranteed.
Several senators told stories of struggle, and many argued it was not a fight about religious beliefs and morality but about justice.
Sen. Ruth Hassell Thompson (D-Westchester) revealed for the first time she had a gay brother shunned by his family and forced to live overseas and a minister sister opposed to gay marriage.
"People have the right to choose...and if there is a condemnation in that choice, which is something that my church preaches, then that's between them and God," a choked-up Hassell Thompson said.
Sen. James Alesi, a Rochester Republican many thought would vote for the bill, also looked near tears as he rubbed his head and quietly uttered "no" during the vote.
Alesi prior to the vote said he believed politics and the bad economy would keep many Republicans who may be sympathetic to the cause from voting for gay marriage this time around. "In a different atmosphere, there would easily have been five members on the Republican side voting 'yes,'" he said. "But our primary focus has to be on the fiscal crisis we're in."
Gay marriage opponents were not only elated at the defeat but also with the larger-than-expected margin.
"Today was a good day for marriage in New York," said Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.
After two hours of emotional and often deeply personal debate, the Senate voted down the measure 38-24, effectively killing its chances before next year's elections.
Democrats couldn't muster enough votes on their own and some Republicans who were open to the idea voted no because they were fearful of a conservative backlash, advocates said.
New York now joins a list of 31 other states to shoot down gay marriage. Five states have approved same-sex unions.
The Senate's 30 Republicans were joined by eight Democrats in voting against the measure. Except for Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx), none of the naysayers stood up during the debate to explain his or her vote publicly.
The Assembly passed the bill just after midnight, the third time that body has approved the measure since 2007.
"I'm angry, I'm disappointed, I'm sad, I'm let down, I'm betrayed - but I am not going away," vowed the bill's sponsor, Sen. Tom Duane (D-Manhattan), the only openly gay member of the Senate.
Paterson, who at one point stood holding hands with Duane, made a rare trip to the Senate floor to support the bill.
The governor had pushed for a vote in the Senate even though the bill's fate was uncertain - an unusual move in Albany, where legislation usually gets considered only if its passage is guaranteed.
Several senators told stories of struggle, and many argued it was not a fight about religious beliefs and morality but about justice.
Sen. Ruth Hassell Thompson (D-Westchester) revealed for the first time she had a gay brother shunned by his family and forced to live overseas and a minister sister opposed to gay marriage.
"People have the right to choose...and if there is a condemnation in that choice, which is something that my church preaches, then that's between them and God," a choked-up Hassell Thompson said.
Sen. James Alesi, a Rochester Republican many thought would vote for the bill, also looked near tears as he rubbed his head and quietly uttered "no" during the vote.
Alesi prior to the vote said he believed politics and the bad economy would keep many Republicans who may be sympathetic to the cause from voting for gay marriage this time around. "In a different atmosphere, there would easily have been five members on the Republican side voting 'yes,'" he said. "But our primary focus has to be on the fiscal crisis we're in."
Gay marriage opponents were not only elated at the defeat but also with the larger-than-expected margin.
"Today was a good day for marriage in New York," said Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
South Africa To Expand AIDS Testing
South African President Jacob Zuma announced that his nation will treat all HIV-positive babies and expand testing throughout the country. President Zuma made his remarks in a speech observing World AIDS Day. South Africa has more people living with HIV or AIDS than any other country in the world. President Zuma's remarks were viewed as a turning point for a nation struggling to overcome a distrust of drugs developed by pharmaceutical companies particularly those provided by the United States, to keep AIDS patients alive. South Africa has encouraged and promoted more holistic,traditional remedies/solutions for the treatment of AIDS which has long been held as national policy. In his remarks President Zuma said "At another moment in our history, in another context, the liberation movement observed that the time comes in the life of any nation when there remain two choices: submit or fight, the time has now come in our struggle to overcome AIDS".
President Obama Announces Afghan Troop Increase; Plans Withdrawl in Mid-2011
WEST POINT, N.Y. — President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing American forces home in the middle of 2011, saying the United States could not afford and should not have to shoulder an open-ended commitment.
Promising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
“America, we are passing through a time of great trial,” Mr. Obama said. “And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.”
The military escalation Mr. Obama described and defended in his speech to a national television audience and 4,000 cadets at the United States Military Academy here, the culmination of a review that lasted three months, could well prove to be the most consequential decision of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
In his 33-minute address, he sought to convince an increasingly skeptical nation that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the continued existence of Al Qaeda across the border in Pakistan — what he called a “cancer” on the region — were direct threats to the United States, and that he could achieve the seemingly contradictory goals of expanding American involvement in the war even as he sought to bring it to a close.
The scene in the hall was striking and somber: row after row of cadets, in their blue-gray uniforms, listening intently to a strategy that could put many of them in harm’s way. “If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said. “So no, I do not make this decision lightly.” He called on foreign allies to step up their commitment, declaring, “This is not just America’s war.”
He delivered a pointed message to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, saying, “The days of providing a blank check are over.”
Addressing critics who have likened Afghanistan to Vietnam, Mr. Obama called the comparison “a false reading of history.” And he spoke directly to the American people about the tough road ahead.
“Let me be clear: none of this will be easy,” Mr. Obama said. “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.”
With the economy weak and the issue of jobs foremost on Americans’ minds, the president conceded that the new strategy would carry an expensive price tag, which he put at an additional $30 billion in the first year.
Yet with some Democrats talking of a war surtax, Mr. Obama offered no details of how he intended to pay for his new policy, saying only that he was “committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.”
White House advisers said they expected the administration would do so in the coming weeks, as officials including Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify on Capitol Hill starting Wednesday.
The approach laid out by Mr. Obama — not so much a new strategy as a doubling down on the one he embraced earlier this year — incorporated the basic goals and came close to the force levels proposed in the counterinsurgency plan that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, put forward in September.
In that report, General McChrystal said, in stark language, that unless significantly more troops were sent, the war in Afghanistan was likely to be lost.
But by including an explicit timetable to begin a withdrawal, Mr. Obama highlighted the seemingly conflicting pressures defining the debate over how to proceed: to do what is necessary to ensure that the region is not a launching pad for attacks on the United States and its allies, and to disengage militarily as quickly as possible.
Senior administration officials suggested, however, that any initial withdrawal starting in mid-2011 could be very limited, depending on the military situation at that point.
“The pace, the nature and the duration of that transition are to be determined down the road by the president based on the conditions on the ground,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy.
The initial political reactions showed the crosscurrents facing the White House. Republicans applauded the buildup of troops but questioned the commitment to a timetable for bringing them home.
“Setting a draw-down date before this surge has even begun is a mistake, and it sends a mixed message to both our friends and our enemies regarding our long-term commitment to success,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.
But among many Democrats, the response ranged from noncommittal to outright opposition.
“I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues — like our economy — to deal with in this country,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York.
Mr. Obama is calculating, administration officials said, that the explicit promise of a drawdown will impress upon the Afghan government that his commitment is not open-ended.
Mr. Obama was less clear publicly on how he planned to address the issue of Pakistan, which many administration officials say will prove to be a far more intractable problem in the long term than Afghanistan.
Administration officials said that Mr. Obama had signed off on a plan by the Central Intelligence Agency to expand C.I.A. activities in Pakistan. The plan calls for more strikes against militants by drone aircraft, sending additional spies to Pakistan and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.
The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said.
The new Afghanistan strategy draws heavily on lessons learned from Mr. Bush’s “surge” and strategy shift in Iraq in 2007, which Mr. Obama opposed.
In addition to the influx of troops and the training of the Afghan Army, administration officials said they were taking other lessons from the Iraq buildup, like empowering local security forces to stand up to Taliban militants in their communities and enhancing the training of national forces by embedding American troops with Afghan counterparts and later pairing American and Afghan units to fight side by side.
The 30,000 troops that Mr. Obama is sending are part of what one administration official characterized as a short-term, high-intensity effort to regain the initiative against the Taliban.
Administration officials said that they were hoping to get a commitment for an additional 5,000 to 8,000 troops from NATO allies — perhaps as early as Friday at a foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels — which would bring the number of additional troops in Afghanistan to close to the 40,000 that General McChrystal was seeking.
Mr. Obama is sending three of the four brigades requested by General McChrystal. The first Marines will begin arriving as early as Christmas, and all forces will be in place by May, a senior administration official said.
The 30,000 new American troops will focus on securing and protecting the country’s top population centers, including Kabul, Khost and Kandahar, the Taliban’s spiritual capital. Military officials said that two brigades would go south, with the third going to eastern Afghanistan.
Military officers said that they could maintain pressure on insurgents in remote regions by using surveillance drones and reports from people in the field to find pockets of Taliban fighters and to guide attacks, in particular by Special Operations forces.
The strategy also includes expanded economic development and reconciliation with less radical members of the Taliban.
In addition, Mr. Obama is making tougher demands on the Afghan government; he spent an hour on the phone Monday with Mr. Karzai, White House officials said, and pressed him on the need to combat the corruption and drug trafficking, which many Western officials say has fueled the resurgence of the Taliban.
During the conversation, Mr. Obama, described by one White House official as “very explicit,” pressed Mr. Karzai on the need to take steps that would show progress. Mr. Obama congratulated Mr. Karzai on setting up a corruption task force, but also pressed him on the need to make sure that officials appointed by the government are untainted by corruption.
Promising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
“America, we are passing through a time of great trial,” Mr. Obama said. “And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.”
The military escalation Mr. Obama described and defended in his speech to a national television audience and 4,000 cadets at the United States Military Academy here, the culmination of a review that lasted three months, could well prove to be the most consequential decision of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
In his 33-minute address, he sought to convince an increasingly skeptical nation that the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the continued existence of Al Qaeda across the border in Pakistan — what he called a “cancer” on the region — were direct threats to the United States, and that he could achieve the seemingly contradictory goals of expanding American involvement in the war even as he sought to bring it to a close.
The scene in the hall was striking and somber: row after row of cadets, in their blue-gray uniforms, listening intently to a strategy that could put many of them in harm’s way. “If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said. “So no, I do not make this decision lightly.” He called on foreign allies to step up their commitment, declaring, “This is not just America’s war.”
He delivered a pointed message to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, saying, “The days of providing a blank check are over.”
Addressing critics who have likened Afghanistan to Vietnam, Mr. Obama called the comparison “a false reading of history.” And he spoke directly to the American people about the tough road ahead.
“Let me be clear: none of this will be easy,” Mr. Obama said. “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.”
With the economy weak and the issue of jobs foremost on Americans’ minds, the president conceded that the new strategy would carry an expensive price tag, which he put at an additional $30 billion in the first year.
Yet with some Democrats talking of a war surtax, Mr. Obama offered no details of how he intended to pay for his new policy, saying only that he was “committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.”
White House advisers said they expected the administration would do so in the coming weeks, as officials including Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify on Capitol Hill starting Wednesday.
The approach laid out by Mr. Obama — not so much a new strategy as a doubling down on the one he embraced earlier this year — incorporated the basic goals and came close to the force levels proposed in the counterinsurgency plan that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, put forward in September.
In that report, General McChrystal said, in stark language, that unless significantly more troops were sent, the war in Afghanistan was likely to be lost.
But by including an explicit timetable to begin a withdrawal, Mr. Obama highlighted the seemingly conflicting pressures defining the debate over how to proceed: to do what is necessary to ensure that the region is not a launching pad for attacks on the United States and its allies, and to disengage militarily as quickly as possible.
Senior administration officials suggested, however, that any initial withdrawal starting in mid-2011 could be very limited, depending on the military situation at that point.
“The pace, the nature and the duration of that transition are to be determined down the road by the president based on the conditions on the ground,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy.
The initial political reactions showed the crosscurrents facing the White House. Republicans applauded the buildup of troops but questioned the commitment to a timetable for bringing them home.
“Setting a draw-down date before this surge has even begun is a mistake, and it sends a mixed message to both our friends and our enemies regarding our long-term commitment to success,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.
But among many Democrats, the response ranged from noncommittal to outright opposition.
“I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues — like our economy — to deal with in this country,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York.
Mr. Obama is calculating, administration officials said, that the explicit promise of a drawdown will impress upon the Afghan government that his commitment is not open-ended.
Mr. Obama was less clear publicly on how he planned to address the issue of Pakistan, which many administration officials say will prove to be a far more intractable problem in the long term than Afghanistan.
Administration officials said that Mr. Obama had signed off on a plan by the Central Intelligence Agency to expand C.I.A. activities in Pakistan. The plan calls for more strikes against militants by drone aircraft, sending additional spies to Pakistan and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.
The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said.
The new Afghanistan strategy draws heavily on lessons learned from Mr. Bush’s “surge” and strategy shift in Iraq in 2007, which Mr. Obama opposed.
In addition to the influx of troops and the training of the Afghan Army, administration officials said they were taking other lessons from the Iraq buildup, like empowering local security forces to stand up to Taliban militants in their communities and enhancing the training of national forces by embedding American troops with Afghan counterparts and later pairing American and Afghan units to fight side by side.
The 30,000 troops that Mr. Obama is sending are part of what one administration official characterized as a short-term, high-intensity effort to regain the initiative against the Taliban.
Administration officials said that they were hoping to get a commitment for an additional 5,000 to 8,000 troops from NATO allies — perhaps as early as Friday at a foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels — which would bring the number of additional troops in Afghanistan to close to the 40,000 that General McChrystal was seeking.
Mr. Obama is sending three of the four brigades requested by General McChrystal. The first Marines will begin arriving as early as Christmas, and all forces will be in place by May, a senior administration official said.
The 30,000 new American troops will focus on securing and protecting the country’s top population centers, including Kabul, Khost and Kandahar, the Taliban’s spiritual capital. Military officials said that two brigades would go south, with the third going to eastern Afghanistan.
Military officers said that they could maintain pressure on insurgents in remote regions by using surveillance drones and reports from people in the field to find pockets of Taliban fighters and to guide attacks, in particular by Special Operations forces.
The strategy also includes expanded economic development and reconciliation with less radical members of the Taliban.
In addition, Mr. Obama is making tougher demands on the Afghan government; he spent an hour on the phone Monday with Mr. Karzai, White House officials said, and pressed him on the need to combat the corruption and drug trafficking, which many Western officials say has fueled the resurgence of the Taliban.
During the conversation, Mr. Obama, described by one White House official as “very explicit,” pressed Mr. Karzai on the need to take steps that would show progress. Mr. Obama congratulated Mr. Karzai on setting up a corruption task force, but also pressed him on the need to make sure that officials appointed by the government are untainted by corruption.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
World AIDS Day Observed With Solemn Rememberance
Today, December 1, marks World AIDS Day. World AIDS Day is designed to raise awareness about HIV and AIDS through educational programs, health screenings and much more. World AIDS Day also brings to light before an international audience, the far reaching global effects of this horrific disease. World AIDS Day also launches a global campaign to bring awareness, responsibility, and accountability to non third world countries to help in the providing of much needed medications to third world countries, the African Diaspora in particular, who do not have the means and cannot afford to provide the needed medical care to stop the spread of AIDS in their nations. As World AIDS Day is observed, let everyday be a day of rememberance and a call to action for us as a global community to do all that is neccessary to stop the spread of AIDS around the world...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
