Monday, September 15, 2014

Well So Much For That Idea

Changes to make departments more diverse "have not curbed police violence in communities of color" or removed the special challenges of policing disadvantaged neighborhoods, wrote Malcolm D. Holmes and Brad W. Smith, co-authors of "Race and Police Brutality: Roots of an Urban Dilemma," in a recent letter to the National Journal.
Achieving Diversity In Police Ranks No Easy Task You don't say.

Sweden's Problem Isn't Immigration

Returns from the polls in Sweden indicate that the population is moving in the direction of so called "far right" party Sweden Democrats.
The conservative Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, is out*: but we knew he would be. His party’s share of the vote is 7pc down from last year, to 23pc, a rather stunning collapse. But where has that 7pc gone? Not to his main rivals, the Social Democrats: they’re still on 31 per cent, as they were at the last general election

The only real gainer is the Sweden Democrats, who are (as I type) on 13pc of the vote, more than double the 5.8pc last time. All other parties in Sweden refuse to enter coalition with them (and were shocked enough that they got into parliament four years ago). But this has helped the Sweden Democrats play the insurgent card, saying the Stockholm “elite” is ganging up against them.

I certainly do not have a problem with the natives of a country being protective of their culture and wishing for those who enter to play by the rules, but eventually Swedes as well as other Europeans are going to have to deal with the real source of their problem: Low birth rates. The main reasons many of these countries imported people was for work reasons. Technology is going to remove a lot of labour needs but so long as Europe has a very low birth rate, they will need to import people. Not only for labour but also for a tax base to support their very large social welfare systems (they aren't free).

The oddest thing about it is that many in the US argue that people should reproduce when they have the ability to care for and educate children. It's interesting that these countries that have such generous family legislation and even governments willing to pay them directly, simply will not have children (or many of them).

So these people in these countries that are upset about the growing number of immigrants should consider modifying their own behaviors. Either that or do what Japan is doing an invest in a robots

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Let's Talk Domestic Violence: Sometime a Man Fi Get Kuff

The Ray Rice video has talking heads around the country bobbing up and down, mouths flapping saying very little. Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Google + and other places are full of people saying the usual things regardless of their actual accuracy. I've written about this subject in other spaces but I'm going to put it here.

First, let me get this little piece out of the way. Usually when I discuss this topic I get the inevitable: "Have you hit a woman?" "Have you hit a woman and are doing this to make up for it?" And "Have you hit a woman and are in denial about how wrong it was?"

Let me answer these questions before moving onto the meat of this post:

I have not hit a woman. Therefore I am not trying to make up for it nor am I in denial.

Why do I speak on the topic in the way that I do? Because I care about the health and welfare of men and women. I believe that the only way to do so is to be dead serious about domestic violence. No pandering to any party. No excuse making for any party. No treating any party as if they were children. With that lets get to the real deal issue.

Who commits domestic violence?

If you watch the talking heads, or the twitter experts you will be told that domestic violence is men hitting women. This is completely and utterly false. In order to seriously deal with domestic violence we must strike down this particular falsehood.

The July 14,2009 edition of the Washington Times features the following:

Yet more than 200 studies have found that women initiate at least as much violence against their male partners as vice versa. Men account for about a third of domestic-violence injuries and deaths. Research shows women often compensate for their lack of physical strength by employing weapons and the element of surprise — just as Miss Kazemi is thought to have done.
At least as much?

The most recent large-scale study of domestic violence was conducted by Harvard researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study, which surveyed 11,000 men and women, found that, according to both men’s and women’s accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time.
For those who have issues with reading comprehension, let me highlight the important parts:

1) Men account for 1/3 of domestic violence injuries and deaths. When was the last time you heard this from any of the talking heads you listen to?

2) 50% of reported domestic violence is reciprocal. This was illustrated in the Rice video. They were engaged in reciprocal violence.

3) 70% of single sided violence were the perpetrators. For the hard of reading this is when men stand around, or sit around, or lay around and allow themselves to be hit.

Now someone is saying to themselves, this is a news report not the actual report. Where's the actual data? NO problem you can read the actual report here: Therefore anyone who speaks on domestic violence as a one way male perpetrator and female victim is a liar. A dirty, low down, enabler of domestic violence LIAR.

There's another question we have to ask given the above statistics: Why, if there are so many women committing domestic violence, are men the ones overwhelmingly represented in arrests and convictions of domestic violence?

There is a clear answer for this: Male domestic violence victims are routinely ignored by society. Male domestic violence victims are routinely not believed by police. And most importantly, male domestic violence victims, when acting to protect themselves from further violence by attempting to restrain the perpetrator may injure the perpetrator and therefore be arrested as the initiator of domestic violence.

Oh. You want proof of this? Here you go:

(Andrews et al., 2000; Armstrong, Wernke, Medina, & Schafer, 2002; Caetano et al., 2002; Cunradi, Bersamin, & Ames, 2008; Perry & Fromuth, 2005; Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998). For example, Caetano and colleagues (2002) found that 42% of white females reported perpetrating IPV while only 19% of their white male victims reported this perpetration.
Men underreport by at least 50% the rate that they are victimized. And these are white men, possibly the largest pussified group of men in America. Can you imagine what more "macho" men are hiding?

The next question that follows this is: Why is this the case?

Society is of the opinion that women are allowed to strike men. Men are supposed to allow themselves to be assaulted by women. Men feel that they have to lie to the police to prevent the women who strike them, usually women they are romantically involved with, from going to jail, because no man wants to be "that dude" who sent his wife/girlfriend to jail.

Don't believe me? Here's some proof of this mentality: Here's The Good Men Project [sic] article on why males should "man up" and excuse domestic violence directed at him:

She may scream, punch, take advantage or just quietly manipulate you. The stereotype may be used against you by being told to provide or take care of needs; making you feel guilty, ashamed and less of a man—but please don’t feel this way.

It may have nothing to do with you or maybe you did do something to provoke; either way how do you handle the attack? [My emphasis]

Maybe I did what? This from a so called "feminist" site that is presumably anti-domestic violence? I wonder, did anyone after watching Ray Rice throw his punch ask others "hmmm..I wonder what she did to provoke him?" How about it? What exactly did the soon to be Mrs. Rice do to deserve getting hit? Maybe she called him a name he didn't appreciate. Maybe she flirted with some guy and he caught her. After all according to folks who engage in World Star Hip Hop such a thing is HEE-larious when a woman does it

No. If you asked that silly question, you got drawn and quartered by the Twitter experts.FaceBook experts and if you're lucky Huffington Post experts. But a feminist decided that it was a good idea to write "maybe you did something to provoke?"

Since when is "provocation" (other than self-defense, I'll get to that in a bit) an excuse to initiate domestic violence?

Oh but it's not only the Good Man Project [sic]. Men's Health magazine gets into the act:

Front and center. What is the unmistakeable message being sent here? If a man so much as says something to you (a woman) that "pisses you off", you have the right to slap him AND he should EXPECT that!

What. The. Entire. Fuck?

How is this picture in any way, shape or form acceptable?

Men's Health sees no problem with the idea that mere words from a man is worth getting slapped in the face? That men need to "watch their mouths" lest they get a kuff! to the mouth?

See, I used to think that song was cute. I didn't know better. I do now. But an entire generation (or two) of black boys and girls, mainly of West Indian descent grew up listening to this very song. Imagine that. Teaching young girls that sometimes you need to lay hands on your man because HE NEEDS IT!

And then we wonder why there are men out there who are of the attitude "fuck that" and take to hitting first.

But back to Men's Health. The image is a stock photo from Think Stock Photos. When you do a search for "man hitting woman" you get 3 pictures on the first set of women in the act of hitting a man. Either with hand up or having completed a hit. The actual photos of "man hitting woman" aren't anywhere near as graphic. You have a woman on the ground with a man with a belt or a balled fist. But no clear cut kuff to the face. You have to go to page three to get actual "man hitting woman" pictures. But you'll find plenty of woman hitting man without even searching for it. And for good measure Getty Images will pop up with an advert like this:

I tell you. Anyone who says that society finds it "unacceptable" that a woman can hit a man for whatever reason comes to mind, is a straight up liar. And if those persons think that this pervasive permissiveness of female physical assaults on men does not inform the Ray Rice's of the world, they are total idiots.

But that's not all. I posted a piece called the Gender Bullshit Report on my other blog where I documented many instances of commercial use of domestic violence to sell product!!!.

Would anyone think that the following would be appropriate*?

*Note: None of the brand owners have endorsed these images. They are for educational purposes and in no way, shape or form imply that the companies condone any form of domestic violence.

If it is NOT OK to depict women being hit by men in their lives to push product then why did FIAT get away with it? Why did Campbell the company behind V8 get away with multiple commercials depicting men being hit by their wives or girlfriends because they made "poor eating choices"?

And before you try to wave this off, let me remind you, 50% of domestic violence is reciprocal and 70% of one way domestic violence is done by women. So it is NOT an exaggeration to say that there are women internalizing these messages that it is OK to strike men.

This is NOT acceptable.

Why was it OK for KFC to release a commercial where a man is hit by a woman? To sell CHICKEN? (*note: the owner of the video decided to make the video private)

Frame grab for posterity.

Mind you KFC got heat for that and stopped running the commercial but where was the media? Where were all these people who are suddenly so concerned with Ray Rice and his now wife?

I've been at this for a long time. This isn't some recent thing. I've BEEN talking about this issue. I'm supposed to be impressed by folks tooting their horns now about Ray?

And since we are talking about black folks the prior report also had this little piece

Race/ethnic specific estimates suggest that African American and Hispanic women report higher rates of IPV perpetration compared to Caucasian women. A nationally-representative survey found the prevalence of female perpetrated IPV to be 30.0% among African-Americans, 21.0% among Hispanic, and 16.0% among Caucasian women (Caetano, Schafer, & Cunradi, 2001; Caetano, Cunradi, Schafer, & Clark, 2000; Cunradi, Caetano, Clark, & Schafer, 1999). [my emphasis]
That is out of the class of women that initiate IPV (that's Domestic violence to you and me), Black women are the most likely, to do so with white women in the Caboose of this sad train. I'm certain that some chicken head reading this will now start talking some "anti-black woman" bullshit in order to deny the "nationally representative survey" because obviously she knows better than the researchers. Just like everyone else with an internet connection. But lets examine one of these women:

Not too long ago Solange Knowles was caught on video attempting to assault Jay-Z. Lets think for a minute how that couldhave gone down had the body guard not intervened or even been present. But lets look at how the press, currently aghast at the work of Ray Rice had to say about Solange's attempt at domestic violence.

Here's the Daily News:

Solange is so far beyond "that thing" that happened in that elevator.

I'm sure Ray Rice and his wife were "far beyond 'that thing' " in the elevator too.

But you know everyone else in America needs to be able to put their two cents in. After all Ray Rice's business is YOUR business as well.

Jay and Solange each assume their share of responsibility for what has occurred. They both acknowledge their role in this private matter that has played out in the public. They both have apologized to each other and we have moved forward as a united family."
Oh. And Ray Rice's wife "took responsibility" for her part in the "private matter'. They "apologized to each other" too. Doesn't seem to matter though. Isn't domestic violence, domestic violence regardless? If so, Why did Solange get the vagina pass?

Solange stuns on the cover of Lucky magazine's August issue in a white and mint casual outfit, and also dishes about her music and personal style.
Wait! The edition was still released? Why wasn't it removed like Ray Rice's jersey? Isn't domestic violence, regardless of who initiates it, WRONG? Oh right:

But wait, there is more:

HK: I don’t know if it’s true, but I’m going to put it out there anyway. In a situation like this, I think of me and my own sister, so if we were in the elevator with my husband and my sister started lunging at my husband, my instinct would be to jump in between them — unless I was in agreement with whatever my sister believed.[ [My italics]
So here is a writer for the Daily News, a media outlet currently frothing at the mouth about Ray Rice, saying that if her husband was being abused by a family member (that would be domestic violence), that so long as she agreed with the reason He was being beat up for, she would be OK with it. How is this acceptable? How does the NY Daily News reconcile this bile with it's current coverage of Rice. Oh wait.

Here'sOne more Daily News item:

From watching the video online, I can say Solange is feisty. She’s really feisty.

I would definitely say she did pretty good for someone wearing heels and being held back.

There’s no doubt she can defend herself. I’d give her a 6, maybe even a 7. She would do better in flats and without being restrained, I think.

I can see she definitely did one kick that was a professional move — it’s called a front kick or a push kick.

She’s definitely taken some classes, either self-defense or maybe done some martial arts in workout classes. I can see one kick that she landed that looked really good.

The punching? That needs some work. I’m seeing more open-handed slapping than punching.

Lets disregards the obvious, which is that Solange was not defending herself from anyone. Lets disregard that Jay-Z was the victim here. Can you imagine this guy saying: "Ray showed good form. Good straight punch. straight to the head to stop the threat. Knocked out his opponent in one blow. This is how you deal with threats to your person." Can you imagine that? No? Then why did the Daily News think it was appropriate to have an article complimenting the finer details on Solanges assault?

I could go on. Really. But I'm not because I've provided enough clear evidence as to the real deal regarding domestic violence. So let me close with the one and only principled stand on the subject:

1) All parties are obligated to keep their hands to themselves unless it is in self-defense.

2) Retaliatory violence is not self-defense.

3) If they hit you once, they will do so again. Leave the relationship as soon as possible after the very first hand raise. A person who raises their hand to you is already showing that they have a tenuous grasp on their self control. Do not wait around for that grasp to fully fail.

4) Men: You are not obligated to allow yourself to be hit, either empty hand or not. You have a right to deflect any blow headed your way. You have the right to prevent any further blows from landing on your person.

5) If you find yourself in an relationship with violence that you cannot for whatever reason immediately leave, ALWAYS BE RECORDING. Invest in a recording app for your phone, buy a cheap audio recorder and anytime there is a conflict or pending conflict (such as raised voice) turn that shit on. You need evidence of your "non-initiating" of violence to establish a self-defense claim.

6) Men: Do not let any woman get away with hitting you. Call the police and have her arrested and processed. This is the only way to have the criminal stats catch up with the actual incidences of female initiated violence. Buy failing to report this criminal act on your person you are assisting in the continued misconception that women do not commit, or only commit small amounts of domestic violence.

7) Women: You have no social right to put your hands feet or object on a man for any reason short of self-defense. A "real" man will not tolerate this behavior from you. A just society will not tolerate this behavior from you. If you wish to be treated as an equal under the law, then it is high time you get control of your arms and feet and emotions and act like the adult you wish to be considered to be.

Bottom line: Keep your hands to yourself except for self-defense.

Lets call these spades spades. Most of the people running their mouths about domestic violence don't give a shit about domestic violence. If they were actually serious about domestic violence they would have pointed out all the things that I laid out here. It would be front and center.

Most of these people talking are saying what they are saying because they are afraid to be that guy or that girl "defending an abuser". Fact is that telling the truth is not defending the abuser. Telling the truth prevents future incidences of domestic violence.

1400 girls were raped in England because the authorities didn't want to seem "racist". How may men and women will be beaten (to any extend) because the majority of the fools out there don't want to seem "sexist" or "supportive of abusers"?

Enough of the bullshit. Tell the truth and shame the liars and abusers!

Just Because...

Emily Cleath on poverty:
A picture of you standing in front of your dirty car doesn’t mean that your car has always been and always will be dirty – or that it’s dirty because of some personal failure of yours. Nor does it mean you’re the only person around whose vehicle may become less than sparkling. But that is the impression many have of people living in poverty in the U.S.
Certainly a snapshot, a single moment in time, doesn't explain much. But in reality few sane people base their opinions on a single freeze frame of an event. Rather they look for patterns and signifiers of behavior. Lets look at the "dirty car" in a more realistic way:

You are standing by your car. It is dirty. You are dressed in expensive clothes, expensive shoes and a fresh cut. It could very well mean you that you value your clothes and personal appearance more than you do the state of your car.

Say that you have been observed with the expensive clothes frequently but the car tends to stay unwashed. That would certainly indicate that you have a low regard for your vehicle.

Say that over the space of 4 weekends, you are observed hanging out, shopping and doing other social things and your vehicle stays dirty. It would be reasonable to assume that you do not value the looks of your vehicle since one had a month to clean it and did not.

Say that in addition to having a dirty car, the place where you live has an uncut lawn, needs painting and has litter about. It would be reasonable for the observer to think that you simply do not care about appearances.

While poverty can strike anyone (the number one cause of poverty being an unexpected large medical bill) there is ample evidence that some (many) people who are poor are poor due to their own behavior and thinking. To shame people for observing such a thing simply is not fair, nor does it help those who are in poverty due to their own behavior.

You buy a house you cannot afford? Why should you be bailed out?

You bought a car you cannot afford the payments on? Well that was your fault, not the dealer who happily took your money. The dealer didn't put a gun to your head and demand access to your bank account and signature.

You're broke but have a shoe habit? Excuse me while I don't give a damn.

You're broke and buying pre-cooked meals? Oh, OK.

Oh you like to get your party on every weekend? Do you.

You're broke but have a lace front? Weave? Oh. Ok. Excuse me while I keep moving along.

Oh you have a child you can barely afford and are having some more? By a new man? No wedding? Oh, excuse me while I put my sympathy back in my pocket.

Oh you're unemployed and sitting at home watching TV? Oh ok. So that.

These are a few examples of behaviors that will get you broke (or more broke) quickly. It isn't mean to point these behaviors out. Some people are broke/poor due to circumstances beyond their control. Some not so much.

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Russia Is Again An Example Of What Happens When You Depend Upon Others

France has decided to suspend it's contractual obligation to supply two warships to Russia.
France’s decision to suspend the delivery of the first of two Mistral helicopter carrier ships to Russia shows Paris’ obedience of American diplomacy, said National Front leader Marine Le Pen. Russia still believes that France will fulfill the contract...

The situation is serious. Russia’s recent actions in the east of Ukraine contravene the fundamental principles of European security,” said a statement from the office of President Francois Hollande. [Italics original]

While Le Pen is absolutely correct in that the action is clearly a sign of obedience to the US, it also underscores why Russia and any other sane nation, would be wise to not depend on "western" companies for anything that is in the national interest.

This was shown with the payment processor suspension early in the Ukraine crisis.

China is very aware of the problems this poses in the technology field and is actively trying to create it's own standards and the like and using it's huge population to push adoption. I think China will prevail in the long run primarily on demographics. If you need to sell to a billion people and the cost of doing so is adopting the national standards, I don't see businesses NOT doing business. This is particularly true if the markets in the "West" continue to either stagnate or decline. There are far more people outside of the US and Europe than there are IN these places. As the fortunes of those persons outside the "West" rise, they will be less catered to than in the past. The fact that carmakers make special China editions of their vehicles simply because the Chinese like large back seat spaces, is indicative of this.

As the US and Europe continue to meddle in the financial systems of other countries, they will increasingly figure out that being beholden to these entities is not a tenable situation.

As for France, it would be in the best interest of France to seriously reconsider following the NATO line on this. Russia is not the threat to be worried about. ISIS and the french citizens who will be returning from there (as well as the ones already IN France) is an actual concern.

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

These "Leaders" Don't Really Care

I've been telling anyone who will listen that the folks who are trying to get press on Ferguson really don't care about black folks. Here's some proof:
e. Cook is also frustrated because she recently reached out to community leaders to participate in her annual march against crime and got no response.

‘What angers me the most is the community leaders, religions leaders where were you when I sent you an email to march with us it hurts. We are all hurting since we don`t have our children anymore.’ Said Cook

No response.

The Example Of Camden

In the past we posted on the alarming crime statistics in Camden NJ. In light of the recent events in Ferguson it is of interest to read the latest out of that city.
CAMDEN, N.J. — In the summer of 2012, the year this city broke its own record for homicides, there were 21 people murdered here. This summer, there were six.
Mind you that six is still high and only accounts for the summer months but we also know that summertime is the high season for gun crimes.
Just as remarkably, with shootings down 43 percent in two years, and violent crime down 22 percent, Osvaldo Fernandez now lets his sons walk to school alone. Nancy Torres abandoned plans to move to Florida. And parents from Center City Philadelphia are bringing their children here — notoriously one of the nation’s poorest, most crime-ridden cities — to play in a Little League that has grown to 500 players from 150 in its first season three years ago.
Large drops. How did this happen? National Action Network? NAACP? Urban League? No. No and no.
ispensing with expensive work rules, the new force hired more officers within the same budget — 411, up from about 250. It hired civilians to use crime-fighting technology it had never had the staff for. And it has tightened alliances with federal agencies to remove one of the largest drug rings from city streets.[My emphasis]
As mentioned in the past when we look at the sequential equation we find that the +i;+s;.... is the order in which national change happens. The intellectual transformation informs the social transformation of society. Crime and the criminal mindset are of the -i;-s; etc. When the black community has high levels of crime it negatively affects the social fabric of those communities. Thus a HIGH priority has to be set to disrupting the -i, in this case drug rings and the associated violence.
Average response time is now 4.4 minutes, down from more than 60 minutes, and about half the average in many other cities. The number of open-air drug markets has been cut nearly in half.
These actions signal a non tolerance of the criminal class. Non-tolerance of the criminal class yields results. Every time.
In June and July, the city went 40 days without a homicide — unheard-of in a Camden summer.
And by coincidence is around the average for homicides of whites in St. Louis is 2013.
“We’re not going to do this by militarizing streets,” Chief Thomson said. Instead, he sent officers to knock on doors and ask residents their concerns. He lets community leaders monitor surveillance cameras from their home computers to help watch for developing crime.
Firstly, I am of the opinion that the surveillance state is a militarized state. I also think that the reference to "militarizing streets" is a political point getter to reference Ferguson. I'd like to see how it works if a riot happens in Camden.

Secondly, again we have the "community leaders" doing their part to not tolerate the actions of the criminal class. This is a part of the +I.

Chief Thomson’s theory is that in a city of 77,000, there are thousands more well-intentioned people than bad, and that the police must enlist them to take back the streets.
This is not a theory. It is a fact. The Ghost has been saying this for over a decade right here. The Black community is in certain places under siege by a small minority of people who have been allowed to negatively transform the communities they live and "put in work" in. Once the majority of people stop tolerating their activities and presence there would be huge changes.
Dealers sold drugs in plain sight of surveillance cameras, confident the police would not intervene. Residents, too, had largely given up on the police; microphones recording gunshots in the worst neighborhoods showed that 30 percent went unreported.
This quote is out of order but highlights what I mean by "tolerating the criminal class and their behavior".
“For a city to be prosperous, it needs to be safe and busy,” he said. “The police are a variable in that equation, but we are just one variable.”
Duh Factor? 10.
“It’s absolutely a different place,” said Tim Gallagher, a social worker who works with students. “You feel safe walking the streets now. The police officers aren’t afraid to come out of their cars and interact with the community, and that’s changed how people feel about them.”
Police should never be afraid to "come out of their cars and interact with the community". The state should never be afraid to govern. Any so called self-proclaimed nationalist who thinks otherwise is not worthy of the title.
The increased police presence has pushed drug dealing off the streets, and as a result, pushed a majority of homicides inside — and random gunfire away from children playing on sidewalks.
In other words, on the street, off the cuff, "you stepped on my shoe" violence dropped because it was clear that the community (state) was not having it anymore. And the "'cause I thought I could get away with it" thinking made it clear that such disputes weren't worth it after all...kinda like how the rest of us think without police being around.

And since we mentioned the NAACP, what was the local NAACP person saying?

“Why should I believe that 250 rookies are going to be more effective than veteran police officers we had before?” asked Colandus Francis, who heads the local N.A.A.C.P.
It's not the rookie, it's the signal the presence of the state sends. Of course if the NAACP was a true nationalist organization it's officers would know this. But the NAACP is not so orientated.
He, like others, accuses the police of harassment, for pulling over cars for having tinted windows or playing loud music, or for rolling through stop signs. But Eulisis Delgado, who protested the new force for months before it began, now says residents should be grateful. “It’s almost like a normal town,” he said. “You do something bad, they are going to stop you.”
Like I posted yesterday. Captain Lock was right. Can't think but five minutes in front of your face. The "harassment" will go down once the state has regained control over the violence. Once the community has regained control over the criminal class. Then that goes down. And face it. since Camden is mostly black, it's not racial profiling, so....

Lets see how long this lasts. I hope it is permanent. It can be done. I say again: It can be done. But it won't be done with the usual complaining suspects out for political points and their white enablers trying to distract us, black folks, from what has to be done.

Monday, September 01, 2014

Commander Lock Was Right

You all can't think but five minutes in front of your face.

This is one of my favorite lines in The Matrix. My favorite being the commentary about cause and effect. But this line so encapsulates one of the many things that went wrong in Ferguson last month.

Apparently there are some folks in Ferguson who think that the business owners they looted and/or burnt out of business have to come back and provide for them.

CBS interviewed three young men in Ferguson, Missouri this week. One protester Gunny warned officials:

“To be honest, if they don’t come and restore these neighborhoods for these people, like when you gotta go travel miles to Walmart and to get gas and stuff like that, it should be right here. If they don’t restore this community for people who stay here it’s gonna be hell to pay…

A second protester chimed in:

Yeah, that’s why people looting, because they can’t get no jobs.

Whenever you hear someone talk about white flight as THE CAUSE of lack of certain businesses and jobs in what became a black neighborhood, you look right at the above quite and see it for the lie that it is. White flight is a product of the above attitude.

First of all, if these fellows were so concerned about how far the food and gasoline is, why. The.Fuck did they look and burn the places they prefer to go to?

"Can't think but five minutes in front of your face."

And what is this "hell to pay" that they are talking about? Tell me dear reader, would you open up a business somewhere where the residents make open threats about how they think you should run YOUR business?

And being the Garveyite that I am I must ask: Why haven't the black folks stepped in and provided these apparently necessary and desired businesses themselves? Why are our youth on video threatening [presumably] non-black folks to provide for them

And lets look at that last part:

Yeah, that’s why people looting, because they can’t get no jobs.
Oh. So it wasn't about Mike Brown. I did say that a long time ago didn't I? Oh right, that was me channelling old white southern folks. Let me suggest that one of the absolute worst ways to show folks that you have the goods for gainful, non-dead end employment, is looting.

Think about it. You loot a store. You get shown on video. Later you go wherever the employment is and either someone recognizes you OR once they see "Ferguson" your resume, if you have one, is tossed in the garbage. And when you get that "ok sir, we'll call you if we have any openings." You'll know it's because your dumb ass looted.

When the sign says "help wanted" but "They'll call you..." Yeah you know the deal.

Should that happen? Nope. But those who own the businesses make the rules. You can make all the threats you want but know that the only reason anyone is going to open [back] a business that was burnt and looted is because they can make a profit. That they can siphon money out of that community into their own. And there you are begging for it and some of these folks have the nerve to fly the red black and green.

"Can't think but five minutes in front of your face"

Friday, August 29, 2014

Guardian's Stupid "I Could Have Been Mike Brown"

I didn't even bother reading the entries because the premise of the entire piece is flawed. First and foremost, Mike Brown was not "profiled". Mike Brown was blocking traffic by walking in the street and was asked to move to the sidewalk. That's not profiling and ANYONE who has had to deal with mofos walking in the middle of the street and/or taking their own sweet half time cutting diagonally across the street as if oblivious to the 2 to 3 ton vehicle coming knows how annoying that is.

The second problem with the premise is just like the premise of domestic violence. There is the fact that witnesses and Wilson's testimony line up with Brown striking officer Wilson. I don't know about YOU but I don't go around striking police officers. Do you? Even if I'm stopped for reasons I feel are suspect I don't strike police officers. Do you?

So if you don't walk willy nilly down the middle of the street blocking oncoming traffic then how could you have been Mike Brown?

If you don't go around striking police officers in the face when they stop you (for good or no good reason) then how could you have been Mike Brown?

How is it that millions of people every year have contact with police for good and no good reasons and don't get shot? By the Guardian's reckoning that shit is nigh impossible.

If you want to post a story about racial profiling, which does in fact happen, please leave out the Mike Brown angle cause most of the time (though not all the time per Oscar Grant) the ones who get shot are the runners and the fighters. If you don't do either of those you have a high probability of NOT being a Mike Brown.

Oh, and for those confused about the domestic violence angle let me explain. I hear all the time about how it's wrong when after a woman has hit a man with or without an object, a man strikes her back. That may be fair enough, but I always ask: So you strike men regularly? See the implication here is that somehow not only is it OK for women to get physical, but that women ought to be excused from the standard "keep your hands to yourself" rule as well as the consequences of acting out (like babies). I say, if you don't accept that hitting is right and don't engage in it, why the sympathy for those who so engage and catch the consequences?

The Growing Nanny Corporation

I don't know if many of the readers remember back in the day (or were even alive back then) when TV shows and the like would regularly post notices that "the views expressed by (so and so) are not necessarily the views of (name of organization)." Essentially the business was saying that they are simply a presentation medium and not an endorser of whatever was said. This was essentially a means of covering themselves in the case the person said or wrote something libelous or slanderous.

Part of this disconnect of the company and the person(s) was the idea that the only time a company had any say over your behavior was when you were on the clock. It was not the business of the business what you did off the clock and off premises. But of late this has changed quite dramatically.

A few years ago a state employee went to a protest over the "Ground Zero mosque" and proceeded to burn a Koran. People called for this guy to be fired. First amendment and prior restraint issues aside, I was quite bothered by the idea that people think that people ought to be unemployed, possibly for the rest of their lives, if they engaged in behavior, on their own time, particularly protected behavior, that others did not approve of but was not criminal.

In lesser observed news, obese people were and are being threatened with unemployment if they fail to get healthier. Why? Insurance reasons. It costs more to insure a fat person as they pose more of a risk. At first I thought that such thinking wasn't a problem. But then I thought about me. I'm not obese by any stretch of the imagination but I engage in behavior that would be considered "risky". I bike in traffic. Sometimes without a helmet. That puts me in a higher risk category for medical coverage that of a non-cyclist. And that behavior is entirely voluntary. Should my employer forbid me to ride a bike? Should my health insurance be higher? I rollerblade. I might get an ACL injury due to that. It is definitely a higher risk than non roller-bladers. Should my employer ban that behavior? I skateboard. I could fall off, veer into oncoming traffic. Twist my ankle and cost my employer. Should I be banned from that behavior?

I swim. I love big waves. I could be pulled out to sea and drown. Should my employer forbid me from that? I drive a convertible. The risk of a head injury is far higher than in a standard frame vehicle. Should my know the deal. If it's OK for an employer to discriminate against an employee for behavior and body types that are either voluntary or not "to save money" is a very slippery slope. Why is the employer in your personal business? The only thing that matters is whether the employee is doing the job which he or she has been employed to do. That is all.

This brings me to the recent NFL decision in regards to domestic violence:

Goodell said that effective immediately any N.F.L. employee — not only a player — who is found to have engaged in assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involved physical force will be suspended without pay for six games for a first offense. Second-time offenders will be banished from the league for at least one year.
While I am in no way belittling domestic violence, my problem here is like the previous commentary. Why is the NFL, a corporation involving itself in the personal, off premises activities, of it's employees? And it appears to me that there isn't even a consideration of criminal charges being proven. That aside, why should the NFL put itself in between the issues of it's employees and the people they are in relationships with? if the NFL wants to hold itself to a higher standard as they claim, they SHOULD have said that we believe that corporations ought not be involved in the personal lives of it's employees beyond those activities directly related to their ability to perform the jobs they are hired for.

Domestic violence is bad. Unfortunately domestic violence is initiated by both men and women. What is the position of the NFL if your significant other, a non-NFL employee, decides to threaten an NFL employee with a knife and the NFL employee disarms that person and in the process injures the significant other? Will the NFL suspend the employee? In essence the NFL has decided that only one party in what is often (as in 50% of the time) an act initiated by another party. It threatens the life long employment of it's employees (mostly men) in order to play politics. And when you read the letter sent by Goodell it is clearly aimed at men, with absolutely no regard to the facts of domestic violence.

The NFL should leave punishment for crimes to the justice system. If an employee is convicted of domestic violence, he or she should do the time, pay the fine and go back to work. What happens if/when every company takes such a position? What happens if/when such positions are taken on a whole range of behaviors (criminal or not)? Permanent unemployment? Really?

Be vary wary of the growing nanny corporation.

Thursday, August 28, 2014


Continuing on our expose on negroes and their white enablers who believe in the church of the Super White Man(tm) and the No Agency Negroe(tm) here's another Counterpunch article

First let me address this phenomenon which is white folks (liberals mainly) who are using black folks for their own political ends

Some on the left are viewing the Ferguson uprising as the (the) long awaited American Spring in which resistance to the routine murder of black youth becomes the wedge cracking open the (a) system revealing itself to be rotten to the core.
This explains the frequent sightings of white faces in the protests in Ferguson as well as the eventual hostility to those persons expressed by the people who live in Ferguson who were having none of that.
It may become that. What happened to Michael Brown was all too typical and while his life was cut short by real bullets, so too does an entire generation see its prospects figuratively murdered as Wall Street consigns it to a future of permanent debt slavery abetted by militarized police forces crushing any attempts at mobilizing in opposition to it.
All too typical? What part? The shooting or who did the shooting? And bullets do not have agency. Bullets are set off by someone. This is typical blame-the-inanimate-object thinking that is in fact "too typical" of thinking [sic] in certain quarters.

While the issue of debt slavery and militarized police forces is indeed a valid point, here it is irrelevant. The incident here involved a single police officer, responding to a call, a single handgun and an alleged scuffle. Beware folks who come in and start yapping about the "bigger picture". They often don't care about the people or places they swooped into. Anyway, here's the meat:

Reverend Al Sharpton who, according to Cooper, presided over the Brown funeral by

“stick(ing) to safe truths, convenient ones, about the problem of militarized policing, particularly in black communities. Sharpton chose not to be a prophetic voice for the people of Ferguson but rather to do the work that the Obama administration sent him to do. That work entailed the placating of the people by ostensibly affirming their sense of injustice, while disaffirming their right to a kind of righteous rage in the face of such injustice.”

Well first of all, anyone paying attention saw that Sharpton quickly changed his tune when Obama got elected. It will be interesting to see when (if?) he gets put down and tossed out once Obama has left office; particularly if he (and others) are unable to mobilize black folks to vote for the next [non-black] Democratic nominee .

But again, the issue in Ferguson wasn't militarized police. That was made into an issue by outsiders. The folks in Ferguson were/are mad about what they consider the killing of an innocent person by a white police officer. There really isn't a reason for him to discuss anything else.

More troubling was Sharpton’s appearance at the funeral for Eric Garner the day before where, according to Byron York in the Washington Examiner, pro forma criticisms of the NYPD functioned as an introduction to hectoring his audience with the “bootstraps” line associated with Bill Cosby and Sharpton’s increasingly close confident President Obama.

“We’ve got to be straight up in our community, too,” he said. “We have to be outraged at a 9-year-old girl killed in Chicago. We have got to be outraged by our disrespect for each other, our disregard for each other, our killing and shooting and running around gun-toting each other, so that they’re justified in trying to come at us because some of us act like the definition of blackness is how low you can go.”

Ahh yes, folks were MAD at Cosby. Not because he said much wrong (I think his discussions of names was out of order) but because it was picked up by the media and "made black people look bad" by "seeming racist". We covered the whole "seem to be racist" angle already.

But here's the thing though, the quote from Sharpton wasn't not factual. Why would anyone be upset by the truth? It's one thing for Obama to take Father's day as an opportunity to shit on fathers in general and black fathers in particular. That's just an inappropriate time for that. But according to the author there is no time where these things can be discussed.

Many in the audience were “enraged, among them Eddie S. Glaude Jr., professor of religion and African-American studies at Princeton who “found the middle part of the eulogy profoundly disturbing.”
I'm confused here. Is Princeton's religion professor "profoundly disturbed" by the fact that we have a outsized problem with violent crime or that it was mentioned? I'm a sane person and therefore I am "profoundly disturbed" by the levels of violence in our communities and not by the fact that it is mentioned in someone's speech.

Lastly let me address this:

Ferguson, a relic of Jim Crown in its apartheid white governance of a black majority is a distraction from this reality.
This is a total whitewash of the history of Ferguson. Ferguson used to be 90+% white up until about 1970. It is only recently that it became a majority black area (64+%). The white governance of Ferguson is in fact caused by two things:

1) The historical fact that Ferguson was once almost entirely white.

2) That black Ferguson residents fail to show up at the polls to vote for assumed black candidates.

Given the latter, not a single person can blame the Super White Man(tm) for the failure to act by black folks. If black folks in Ferguson were intent on controlling the government ALL they have to do is run. The demographics would almost guarantee a change in demographics. Is expecting black folks to vote for their own representatives racist? Is that disparate impact? Or is it the same thing we expect of any other group?

Of course what these people are suggesting is that once the town tipped to a majority black area, the white folks should have just up and resigned and abandoned office. You know what? That would have been fun to watch.