Afghanistan Taught Us Nothing

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPoliticsUncategorized

So let’s have an honest discussion…

We are at point where we can say the United States has been involved in the War on Terrorism for 20 years, at least formally named. In that time a lot has changed in opinions and it’s ok to acknowledge that. It was expected to have occurred and lessons have been learned? But what if I tell you we’ve learned absolutely nothing.

Once upon a time in the not too distant past, we had a President Trump tout his date to be out of Afghanistan and the Right loved “ending forever wars”; heck, part of Trump’s appeal as a candidate was the willingness to call out the “love of war” that existed on the Right politically (and Left too). You saw him in debates get praises from the audience as he took on the perceived (but very real) military industrial complex. It makes it all the funnier now that he and his allies critique President Biden for doing just that.

When President Trump had the U.S. to be “out” by May 31st, it was so well received that it was placed on the Republican page. Trump, even one month ago, bragged how he set the wheels in motion that even if President Biden wanted to stay, he couldn’t now. However, the day the Taliban seized Kabul, suddenly the Republican website was “routinely updated” for convenience. President Biden, who caught faux backlash for extending the May 31st deadline, suddenly “incompetently withdrew” and should have taken just a little longer. But here’s the best part, this critique isn’t just for the Right. Jake Tapper did his best to drive the point home on CNN, liberal announcers feigned tears for the possible human rights violations to come (that’s another topic that’s used only for convenience). My personal favorite is Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado though. In February, she tweeted, “We’ve been in Afghanistan for more than half my life. We need to end the endless wars.” … Only to now tweet, “Joe has a 48 year history of making bad decisions. Add this weekend’s foreign policy decision to the list.”

To his credit, then Vice President Biden advised President Obama against a surge that only delayed the inevitable. Even more to his credit, President Biden took it upon himself to be “the guy” who said no more (now his press conferences leading to this day have aged TERRIBLY in fairness with the swift fall) and no more could be done from us. He took this position when even those on the Left critiqued it finally being done.

Now why do I say we’ve learned nothing?

The answer is simple, politically for three presidents, it was convenient to run on ending wars, but two failed to follow through, and the one who finally did is abandoned by “friendly media” and the opposition media and party suddenly have pivoted. This shows in a moment’s notice, if deemed politically advantageous, they’d keep us in a “forever war” for whatever reason that could be drafted and that is a prospect that after 20 years, should scare you. Our politicians, our media, and even the public at large has not learned anything but to look for political points. Next time you read an article on how we “abandoned” Afghanistan, look closely, you may see a Lockheed Martin notice on the byline as well (yes they really do this).

One last note, President Ford was the Commander-in-Chief when Saigon fell, his approval rating went up 10% within a month, far different from the narrative we are sold today with the end of Vietnam.

Now stay tuned, and I’ll be sure to explain why Dick Cheney (of all people) has been proven right years later based on Afghanistan and Iraq… I know, I can’t believe it either.

200 Strong Defend Maxine

by with One Comment Uncategorized

“As women whose ancestors have lived through the incivility of slavery, segregation, and all other forms of discrimination, racism, and sexism, as people who have historically been told to “wait” for justice, for freedom, for our turn, we consider it an insult to characterize Ms. Waters’ call for the exercise of our constitutional rights as uncivil and un-American.” 

On July 3rd a letter signed by nearly 200 Black leaders and allies was sent to Chuck Schumer and Nanci Pelosi. (The above passage is from the letter.) They expressed their “deep disappointment” in Democratic leadership for what they considered a failure to defend Rep. Maxine Waters. In fact, they’re arguing that Schumer and Pelosi did the exact opposite by publicly criticizing her and calling her actions “un-American.” In a strong defense of Rep. Maxine Waters they quickly reminded Schumer and Pelosi that Black women are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement – at a time when millennials and many in the Black community are questioning the Democratic Party’s leadership, this is probably one reminder that they’d rather not address. While the unusual mid-week holiday might buy them some extra time, it’ll be hard to escape this critique, which seems to be growing within the Democratic Party.

When Rep. Maxine Waters was asked about Schumer’s “un-American” comment, she responded…

“Well, I’m surprised that Chuck Schumer, you know, reached to do that. I’ve not quite seen that done before, but one of the things I recognize, being an elected official, is in the final analysis, leadership like Chuck Schumer will do anything that they think is necessary to protect their leadership.” 

Below are two more passages from the 2-page letter. If you haven’t read it, we encourage you to do so. Whether you agree or not with these 200 leaders and allies, it’s safe to say the old guard in the Democratic Party might be running out of time. Either way, being publicly challenged and reprimanded by your most loyal base is not a good look.

For Black women, who are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement, Congresswoman Waters is our shero… She continues the phenomenal legacy of leadership of Black women who paved the way for all women to break glass ceilings… Disparaging or failing to support Congresswoman Waters is an affront to her and Black women across the country and telegraphs a message that the Democratic Party can ill afford: that it does not respect Black women’s leadership and political power and discounts the impact of Black women and millennial voters.

We call on the Democratic Party leadership to step up and publicly support Congresswoman Waters… We further believe Congresswoman Waters is owed an apology for your public comments insinuating she is “uncivil” and “un- American” for challenging the Trump Administration.” 

Do you agree with them and their letter? Is there anything Schumer or Pelosi can say to calm the waters in their party? And does this signal a bigger problem within the Democratic Party – that their leadership needs to be replaced with millennials and more people of color?

Let us know what you think… your perspective matters.

Subscribe for free to receive similar content. 

“Woke” Dating 101

by with No Comment Uncategorized

In response to Can Someone Be Pro-Black and Date Someone Who is Not Black? 

I pondered over the writer’s initial question, “Can someone be Pro-Black and date someone who is not Black?” In the long and short of it, yes, if you identify as Pro-Black you can date anyone you want. However, the second question, “SHOULD you?,” posed by the author at the end of the article really peaked my interest. In the age of “wokeness” this question of SHOULD a Pro-Black person date someone who is not Black has been raised many times and has led to numerous heated debates. When dating someone with the intent of finding a life partner, one would hope the person you pick is able to understand things about your culture and empathize with your struggles, both past and present. You would hope you can bring them to family and cultural events without them turning up their nose or not understanding the complexities behind why some things just are the way they are (i.e. Black people having a higher level of anxiety around law enforcement).

The majority of human beings are capable of expressing empathy. “Woke” Black people can empathize with descendants of the Holocaust; while, “woke” Jewish people can empathize with descendants of Japanese concentration camps. But in loving your Black heritage in all of your “wokeness,” wouldn’t it be an oxymoron if you preach all things Black but practice all things non-Black in your home? How can you preach about keeping the Black dollar within the Black community when you yourself are fattening non-Black pockets through familial relationships? How can you stress to others the importance of preserving the Black family, when your family is 1/2 Black through your choice of partner or spouse? How can you scream I’m Black and I’m proud but come home and teach your kids I’m mixed and I’m proud? These questions can go on forever. 

I will say the environment in which you are raised plays a major factor in how simple, or not so simple, it would be for a pro-Black person to find a suitable Black person to date. For example, I was born and raised in a predominately Black inner city (and by Black I mean Caribbean, African, and Southern transplants). Here it was easy to find someone to relate to and whom I didn’t have to explain why my friends and family did things certain ways, fought certain fights, or were angered/excited by certain events. However, when I was 15 my parents decided to “move on up” out the hood to a predominately White suburb where I was the only person of color in 95% of my classes. Relating to my new suburban White neighbors and classmates was hard – culture shock even. If I wanted to maintain my dating preferences, I would have to travel at minimum 30 minutes to find a town where the Black to non-Black ratio was more even.

Overall, I think the answer is complicated. Yes, you can be Pro-Black and date someone who is not Black, but you should not want to. With that being said, if a non-Black person is who you fall in love with, as long as they are able to empathize with the Black struggle and help you facilitate Black success then that’s fine; because at the end of the day, to be pro-something does not equate to being anti-something else. 

Subscribe for free and keep up with the debate.

The Best Part of Waking Up

by with 3 Comments Uncategorized

In response to Can Someone Be Pro-Black and Date Someone Who is Not Black? 

How can someone who is on the forefront of fighting racial injustices in America choose to date a white person?

Back in the day, the Folgers Coffee Company became popular due to a very catchy commercial jingle. The famous “the best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup” jingle became synonymous with having a cup of morning joe. If younger readership is wondering what I’m talking about, Starbucks effectively took over the morning coffee fix with no jingle, but that’s another article entirely. 

I brought up the Folgers jingle to reference the newest racially oriented hot topic, which is “can someone who is woke date a white person.” Specifically, white, the emphasis on white because white people in this country have done the lion share of oppressive acts against nonwhite people – in other words, history. Knowing this factoid, some wonder if a black person can call themselves “woke” and still wake up to a white lover (by now you should get the Folgers reference). 

This all comes off the heels of Donald Glover aka Childish Gambino’s This is America video which in an artistic and cerebral way displays the many racial problems throughout American history that still persist today. Many people gave huge nods to the video’s representation of racial issues; however, some walked away questioning the authenticity of Glover’s passion for the cause considering he dates a white woman.

On the onset – the notion that a “woke” black person, meaning someone who is not only aware but also actively engages in the fight against racial disparities, chooses to date a white person can be dismissive. I understand it; however, I just don’t agree. It’s easy for us in America to view everything through a racial lens, and rightfully so, given our history of racism and discrimination. And for that reason, I understand those questioning Glover’s authenticity; but I don’t agree, because in my opinion there’s simply no way with true validity to judge another persons passion to fight racial disparities based on who they decide to love. Impossible.

No two people would be together if they allowed the outside world to give their two cents on their relationship.  I also understand “this is America,” pun intended, and everything can be construed as a racial issue. But there are different levels of debate when discussing issues that involve race, and there’s nothing with more in-depth layers and elements than romance. For that reason, I side with love.

Lastly, there are many people checking off black on their census card and don’t have a clue or interest about racial disparities in this nation. That is a more of a concern or problem than someone who has dedicated parts of their life for the cause and decides to date outside their race. 

Do you agree?

Subscribe for free and keep up with the debate.

Can Someone Be Pro-Black and Date Someone Who Is Not Black?

by with One Comment Uncategorized

In the midst of the wild events that are unfolding domestically and abroad, I’ve seen the same debate being had on various platforms: Can someone be pro-black and date someone who is not black?

The origin of human beings has long been debated between science and faith groups. Faith-based schools of thought believe that human beings were created by a higher being thousands of years ago. Science-based schools of thought believe that we have evolved over millions of years. I believe that both faith and science would agree that we are human beings, the only surviving species of the genus Homo.

Since human beings began mass populating the planet to the point where we could recognize distinction, we have divided ourselves by tribe, by nation, by wealth, by religion, by culture, by pigmentation, etc. The evolution of this division led to groups believing that they were superior to other groups (even within their own grouping!). This social system took a nefarious turn when humans began the wholesale selling, trafficking, and enslavement of other human beings. It’s evil to enslave your own people but it’s a greater form of evil to purchase and enslave someone else’s people without war. So in order to execute these human transactions, human beings convinced themselves that the group that was being sold was less than human. Most even believed that they were not even the same species altogether. These slaves were not homo sapiens (i.e. human), they were homo naledi (i.e. gorillas).

Fast forward to the 21st century where most human beings still haven’t cognitively evolved their thinking to fully embrace the complexity and nuance of our species while overlaying the impacts of our history and culture as it is applied to our existence. If we did, human beings across the planet would understand that we are more alike than we are different. If we did, we would understand that man-made concepts of “whiteness” and “blackness” are distinctions created to empower one group over another. If we did, we would better understand how the human brain, the nervous system, emotions, and personality all intertwine. If we did, we would better understand that culture impacts who we are but does not change the composition of who we are as a species. If we did, we would ultimately understand that debates around groups of human beings procreating with other human beings based on pigmentation are cognitively beneath us as a species.

Like any other species on this planet, life is all about survival. The empirical evidence shows us that in order to continue the species, we need to eat, sleep, and procreate. The mating process is critical to the preservation of the species. Over time we have increased the complexity of this process by including man-made social constructs into the procreating consideration set. Cynically, I believe that these social systems were developed to divide, control, and oppress us. Therefore, to whittle down my experience as a human being to just being black is a futile attempt to rob me of my ability to think, to create, to build, to feel, to love, to emote, to stand erect and walk, to use my thumbs, and to act in a manner that is not in line with the evolution of our species. When we continue to breathe life into these social divisions we give life to the same ideologies that empowered one group to enslave another.

Man-made social constructs like “blackness” or “whiteness” or “dating” are still relatively new to concepts for our brains to grasp. As a member of this culture, I participate in understanding these classifications but my primal being wrestles to reject them. Specifically, around ideas that I should not “date” and/or mate with another human being that is not also a member of my ethnic grouping. I would be foolish to dismiss the psychological impacts of the systematic oppression of darker pigmented human beings at the hands of lighter pigmented human beings. While I do not dismiss this altogether as it relates to love, mating and procreating; I do not leverage that man-made ideology into the consideration set of whom I choose to be with. So to answer the much-debated question, yes one can be pro black AND date someone who is not black. However, I believe the more evolved question that we should be asking one another is can one be against the oppression of a group of human beings and be with someone who is in favor of the oppression of a group of human beings?

Syria, the Office Potluck of International Relations

by with One Comment Uncategorized

“When you’re invited to the holiday or general office potluck, there’s a natural reluctance to jump right in and grab a plate. The United States engagement with the Syrian Civil War is no different. The reluctance to intervene should be maintained for as long as possible.” 

There’s a wide range of opinions on the current Syrian Civil War. I can bet dollars to doughnuts, no one who isn’t in Syria or Syrian has a true clue on what they’re talking about. That goes from the President of the United States to the AmandaRyan Facebook page of your high school classmate and husband who post their very narrow suburbs of Atlanta point of view of the conflict. The Syrian conflict is much more layered than seeing awful video clips of children being rushed to hospitals, and the knee jerk reaction post of the AmandaRyan account, stating, “Why don’t we do something?!”

Speaking of AmandaRyan, one of them thought it would be a good idea, instead of getting catered food, for the office to have a potluck. Potlucks are a hairline above spaghetti night at vacation bible school. And no, I’m not a foodie or food snob, I just don’t like bad food and neither does my stomach. And potlucks produce nothing but questionable looking and even more questionable tasting food. Why? Cause people can’t cook, just that simple. Some people have no business dabbling in the world of cuisine for they don’t know what they’re doing. They prepare and cook based on what they think should go into a recipe, or worse based on how they think it should taste. The result is crockpots full of boiling goo that’s supposed to be jambalaya. No, thank you.

Back to Syria.

Syria is in a sense a potluck. For starters most don’t even know where Syria is, they don’t understand the variables involved in the Syrian war, and they don’t understand why. Yes, in a simplistic way the Syrian war is between the government of Bashar Al-Assad vs rebellious forces vs a group who calls itself the Islamic State. The group was said, by then candidate Trump, to have been co-founded by Hillary Clinton and President Obama. The denouncement Trump gave is equal to someone saying, by me not liking the Backstreet Boys, it led to the creation of One Direction, crazy! Anyway, there’s three legitimate groups fighting. None of them are factions in which the United States should side with. None have pure intentions in their actions – meaning neither of the factions are fighting to establish a wholesome, non-oppressive, democratic society. No, all sides are fighting to control Syria the way they see fit, and we simply don’t know enough to understand or decide which fit is best. Which is bad.

Potlucks are generally bad for their cuisines made to the liking of a specific individuals. Unlike restaurants or people who cooked something so good all types of people request it from them, the United States should never get involved in a foreign affair in which the clear purpose and clear reasons is not understood by both the United States and the people we’re supposed to help. Simply go down the list of every bad American intervention and I don’t have to explain myself.

For a potluck, the best plan of action to avoid eating and being labeled antisocial is to simply go into the break room to show you’re aware and your presence will be noted. However, at no point are you getting a plate. The United States has already made its presence known regarding the Syrian conflict, and there’s no need to do more. Syria may look like jambalaya and we know how to get down on some jambalaya, but in actuality it’s a cold and unseasoned minestrone soup. 

A Tangled Web, Mueller Eyes Cohen

by with No Comment Uncategorized

After a short lull in developments in the Mueller probe, the F.B.I. conducted a raid of Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room on Monday. While this is a significant development, it’s probably not as definitive or conclusive as some might wish. However, it is very interesting, and adds another layer to the complex network of connections this investigation is uncovering.

First, Mueller’s team didn’t order the raid, and it doesn’t appear to be directly related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But Mueller, apparently not willing to investigate all of the evidence his team uncovers, referred the matter to prosecutors unconnected with the investigation. Then the Justice Department gave the green light. This is a big deal. Trump’s own Justice Department authorized the raid.

So, what does this mean?

It doesn’t mean that Cohen had anything directly to do with Russian interference, although that might come up later. The search warrant includes documents from several years back, which might indicate that there’s a long history of shady dealings. One of those was a pitch by close Trump associate Felix Sater about a property deal in Russia. This is not a revelation; emails were uncovered recently between he and Cohen discussing the potentially lucrative deal.

It does mean that something big may be happening. Search warrants authorizing raids like this are used only in situations when it’s strongly believed that the subject will not willingly turn over potential evidence, and in fact may attempt to destroy it. While the raid isn’t because of suspicion of interference in the election, it could dredge up evidence that happens to have that connection. And this evidence will be shared with Mueller’s team. So, it would seem that Mr. Cohen has a lot to worry about, one way or another.

Cohen has been one of Trump’s closest confidantes for more than a decade. He’s been privy to many of the inner workings of the Trump Organization, and no doubt has many sensitive documents full of privileged information. Any evidence uncovered could have far-reaching consequences.

Trump can scream to the rafters that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt, but the search is an indication that there is a rumbling of a volcano that will surely erupt into real charges. When is anyone’s guess, but Mueller better have something solid to show pretty soon.

His job is more at risk now than ever before.

Where Are the Stun Guns?

by with 2 Comments Uncategorized

Not tasers. Not rubber bullets. Not tranquilizer darts. Not mace. Not anything we have seen before.

Where is the weapon that can effectively incapacitate its target without lethality? What brilliant mind is developing this revolutionary defense mechanism that could save millions of lives (and earn millions of dollars)?

Let me be specific: this is a weapon that can paralyze, immobilize, or knock unconscious its target without killing them. To my knowledge, it doesn’t exist yet.

If such a weapon existed, here are some of the enormous societal problems it could alleviate:

  1. Home Security. Many families are reluctant to have a gun in their home because of the danger it poses to children or even negligent adults. A stun gun would be a safe home defense tool that would at most knock out an intruder. The worst misuse would be an accidental, unintentional shooting of the self or another; but since no deaths would occur, the damage would be only temporary and not permanently traumatizing to a family or community.
  2. School Safety. Every teacher could have a stun gun without fear of causing unintended mortal damage to someone at the school. The weapon could be like a fire extinguisher: “Break glass in case of emergency.” The penalty for abuse of the stun gun would be severe, possibly a federal crime. But once again, the worst case scenario is that someone is rendered immovable for a time; not killed or permanently injured. Unfortunately, even an armed security guard might be too incapacitated (or cowardly) to stop an attack, so stun guns would offer a last line of defense for teachers or even for students in the worst case scenarios.
  3. Police Shootings. For every nefariously motivated murder by a bad apple in the police force, there are dozens of good officers who shoot innocent victims out of fear or immediate safety concerns. A stun gun would allow police to shoot first and ask questions later if they felt their safety was at high risk. If this weapon truly was non-lethal, then the worst that could happen is that a police officer immobilizes an innocent person until all fear of imminent danger is gone. Much like improper arrests warrant lawsuits against officers who abuse their power, likewise a citizen could sue for damages if unjustifiably stunned. However messy the legal and financial entanglements, no human lives would be forever lost in such a case.
  4. Robbery and Assault. Stores and Businesses that are subject to being looted could carry this much safer defense option (vs. a shotgun) that could deter or at least give pause to potential criminals. Also, individuals who are walking alone in dangerous places could feel a stronger sense of security knowing that they have the means to protect themselves against assault or robbery.
  5. Most people have an innate, fundamental aversion to killing another human being. This has been proven in studies about war and the large number of soldiers who purposely fire up or down instead of straight ahead to avoid causing the death of even a hated enemy. A stun gun allows a person to take action against another human being in extreme circumstances without hesitancy on account of this aversion to killing, knowing that a K.O. is the worst possible outcome.

If developed, this stun gun would obviously not solve all of the problems mentioned above. But I would be curious to see how anyone from either side of the current debates about gun control and the 2nd Amendment would take issue with such an invention.

My intention with this article is not to take sides or discuss the merits of opposing ideologies. I am simply pushing this idea out into the ether in hopes that a more qualified mind than mine can bring it to fruition.

Sometimes, the solutions to our gravest and largest dilemmas in civil society today are not exclusively A or  B; but they are the yet-to-be-invented C.

I don’t know what this weapon will ultimately look like or entail, but I leave the matter up to the ingenuity of our world’s best and brightest. We have microchips, nuclear power, and space exploration… bring on the stun guns. 

Want to stay up to date with Stoic Troubadour and other LCR perspectives? Subscribe for free by clicking here: LCR

The Maybach Music of Policing

by with 2 Comments Uncategorized

“A bad police department is much like a bad sports team. The first victory is won in the front office. The first sign of a good police department is in city hall.” – Trae Lewis, a former Baltimore City Police Officer

In previous articles for The LCR, I promised to never use another Training Day reference. I wished I hadn’t, for this article centers around police misconduct and corruption; and what better movie to highlight police misconduct and corruption than Training Day. However, I was actually a cop for possibly the most profiled police department in recent memory for all the wrong reasons, the Baltimore City Police Department. Yes, I was a real cop for Baltimore City. To quote Rick Ross, “I knew Noriega, the real the Noriega,” for Rick Ross his emphasis was on the validity of his drug connects. I know – bad example to highlight police corruption especially when a lot of their recent corruption centers around drugs being planted on people. Well, Rick Ross is currently under critical medical care, and I’m wishing him well. Plus it’s just a cool line.



Anyway, as opposed to those who speak on police misconduct, corruption, and brutality via the voice of an observer or an unfortunate victim, I can speak on the subject from the experience of being a cop for more than five years.

 To quote another Rick Ross line, “It’s deeper than rap.” 

Historically speaking, the face of police corruption is a white male cop wrongfully beating, arresting, or doing anything you can think of to mistreat a person. This is very true. The business end of police corruption has been black people, largely young black males. The doer of the business has been white males; however, many principles came into play before that outcome. 

Get ready for a very complicated explanation. Just like how Rick Ross somehow was a major drug pusher, yet his previous job before becoming a successful rapper was one of a correctional officer. ? 

People question the abuse of police against citizens, especially young black males. The answer begins with the entity that empowers the police, for they themselves mistreat citizens, especially young black males. From lack of funding for proper education, carelessness for environmental standards (cough Flint, Michigan), gross gentrification, and countless other traits of a badly ran town, city, state, and federal government including the administration. Furthermore, find me a municipality with government corruption, mismanagement of resources, etc., and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that their police department is responsible for many of the notable negative incidents in its past.

This, of course, does not excuse the acts of blatant wrongdoing of some police officers. However, it’s hard to expect an efficient and properly managed police force when their city hall is messed up from the floor up. 

A department like Baltimore City police is tasked with “cleaning up the city” with none of the underbelly social structures needed to help neighborhoods. A major lack of planning from city hall. So the result, as we saw in the early 2000s with Baltimore, was a war of attrition. The city thought it could literally arrest itself out of its problems. In the mid-2000s, Baltimore police arrested over a 100,000 people yearly and the city only had a little over 600,000 citizens to begin with. The theory of arresting as many people as possible to stop the wrongdoing obviously had no merit, most arrests were bogus. The arrests stretched the boundaries of what’s considered lawful – like the arrest of Freddie Grey, and the result is… well, everything from planted guns and drugs on people to officers on the take.

As Rick Ross said, “God forgives and I don’t,” and though I don’t forgive the acts of wrongdoing by police officers, I do think of the Magnificent (a Rick Ross song) job countless cops do a daily basis. And more importantly, I know in order to get a workplace truly right you don’t just go after the workers, you go after the boss (of course, in my Rick Ross voice).  

Want to learn more about Trae? Check out… traelewis.com