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.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

For Example.....

Since I'm talking about Super White Man(tm) Syndrome, here's a fine example:
Do you even understand the legacy of slavery in America? How can black people who were given their freedom in 1863 complain after all these years that they have been given a raw deal? Consider visiting a public school in an inner city and tell me what you see. Isn’t the public school system in much of the United States in shambles because you refuse to adequately fund it? Quality education—quality anything—does not come cheaply. A hundred and fifty years of inferior education for black people (and other minorities) in the United States is bound to have its consequences.
Lets pause here first.

"Given their freedom." To whom is given, can be taken. But anyway, since we were "given", then we were/are in the inferior position and the "giver" is in the superior position. Definitively, the giver of "freedom" is the superior to the one whom it is given. Who is the "giver"? Super White Man(tm). He who giveth.

Ahh the public school system. Yes it is unequally funded. That is definitely true. I've argued for equitable funding, moving away from the property tax system. But lets be serious. It does not take modern amenities to learn math. Science labs will suffer, but sciences can be taught without any modern amenities whatsoever. And behavior issues? Nothing at all to do with the state of the schools. And what "other minorities" is this person talking about? Chinese? Japanese? Indian? Cause last I checked those "minorities" are doing quite well in school (and elsewhere).

But these black people, you say, have cell phones, TVs, computers, automobiles, so how can the issue be one of inequality? True, they have those consumer goods in part because you have convinced them that they need to have them. But all along the road—segregation, voting rights, economic parity and education—the system you have built in our unequal capitalistic society has been filled with bumps and road blocks and dead ends designed not only to guarantee any sense of equality but—worse—dignity.
They (being black folks)....because "You" (White folks) convinced them...


Super White Man(tm) syndrome in full effect. See, Black folks cannot think for themselves. They cannot critically analyze the messages being sent to them. Black people are so gullible and impressionable, like children, that white people can convince them to do dumb shit like spend all their money on consumer goods (IF that is true).

This Super White Man(tm) syndrome is so clear that I don't understand how supposedly "non racist" people do not realize it when they write the above nonsense. And why can't they (black folks) get ahead? Is it because they cannot think? Is it because they cannot say to themselves "you know what? I don't need this huge ass TV. I don't need to purchase this vehicle, etc? Nope. Super White Man(tm) has so much power that he has made it impossible for black people to think and act in their own interests. And Super White Man(tm) has put obstacles in the way.

Like in Ferguson where Super White Man(tm) had the audacity to have local elections on odd years instead of even years. Everybody knows that black folks cannot vote in odd years. It's a great conspiracy to keep black voters away from the polls so that white folks can continue to rule Ferguson.

No seriously. This was an argument put forth last week to explain why Ferguson is run by white folks.

Super White Man(tm) caused black folks to take out loans for houses they couldn't afford. So it is Super White Man's fault that black folks found themselves losing their homes. Apparently I'm immune to the effects of Super White Man 'cause I figured out that real estate was bloated. And I went to public school! Shocking!!

Can we please kill off this cancer of Super White Man(tm)?

Afraid To Be Seen As Racist

Let's begin this post off by covering a story that appeared yesterday in the UK press
The sexual abuse of about 1,400 children at the hands of Asian men went unreported for 16 years because staff feared they would be seen as racist, a report said today.

Children as young as 11 were trafficked, beaten, and raped by large numbers of men between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, the council commissioned review into child protection revealed.

And shockingly, more than a third of the cases were already know to agencies.

But according to the report's author: 'several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist'...

The lack of reports was partly down to a fear of being racist, Prof Jay wrote, as the majority of the perpetrators were described as 'Asian men', and many were said to be of Pakistani origin.

Afraid to be seen as racist.

Think about that for a few. The people tasked with protecting children in England were afraid to report on dangerous predators because they did not want to be seen as racist. This is the nonsense that certain ideologies on the left have gotten us.

It is why I got a response to one of my posts last week "informing" me that I sounded like "southern white college students" and "elderly" southern white folks with an affinity for golf.

Afraid to be seen as racist.

Telling the truth is never racist. What you do with the truth may indeed be racist, but TELLING the truth is never racist.

There are those who object when I point out the truth that far more black males are killed by other black males than are killed by police. But this is a fact. If black folks are serious about addressing the issues of our communities then we have to face up to these truths. Police aren't in black communities on some cotton plantation overseer type shit. They are there because we have people in our communities that pose a threat to the very people who live there.

When 105 out of 113 murders in a year are of black people with black suspects, where do you THINK the police are going to be present? Where the crime and suspects ARE NOT located?

About a year or so ago, I listened to a podcast of four what I assume to be intelligent and educated black men. They were talking about Trayvon Martin and made the claim that blacks kill blacks and whites kill whites and that's how crime goes and therefore the focus on black criminality is racist.

Well it may be the fact that certain people focus on black crime because they are racist, but that does not change the actual relevant fact that when it comes to violent crime, black males are by far the disproportionate victims and perpetrators of said crimes. That is what we call "a problem". Many of these so called "intellectual black folks"[sic] try to use the booming prison population of proof of conspiracies to jail black men. Indeed in terms of drug related offenses such an argument may be made (crack vs. powder cocaine). But when it comes to a dead body that argument no longer applies. Dead is dead is dead. Generally you go to jail for dead regardless. The thing is that even though you would reduce the prison population of black males due to drug offenses (selling and using), you'd STILL have a disproportionate number of black males in jail for non-drug offenses. So the drug offenses thing really doesn't explain away the issue.

Too many black people and their white liberal enablers believe in the Super White Man(tm). Whenever black folks mess up, they are quick to point to something white folks did past present or planning to do in the future as an explanation. For them, even though it goes unsaid, the White Man is Super Man.

It's not the S. It's not the yellow rays. It's the pale skin.

White folks up and leave because black folks are moving in? It's white flight and when the schools go to shit and the businesses close up, it's white folks fault. They should have stayed.

White folks up and decide to move in, set up businesses and invest in real estate and the like. It's gentrification. White folks every time. They go and we complain. They come back, we complain. Super White Man is what is the God of these folks.

Black guy gets mad during an argument and beats a guy bloody? It's because he's mad about micro-aggressions done to him by white folks every day.

Black guy walks down the street and decides to shoot at some other guy? This is because white folks have not valued black lives and therefore it is their fault. Never mind its the job of the black guy's parents to instill the value of life. Oh right,their failure is also the blame of white folks.

Shooting at a party? White folks are at fault for having the audacity to create a constitution that allows citizens to possess firearms. Clearly THAT was a long term conspiracy from George Washington HIMSELF. Clearly he thought

many years from now, these niggas gonna use this little amendment to kill each other!! They won't even see this coming. We got these niggas!
Little Tommy doesn't want to do his homework? It's because of all those white folks in the textbooks. Clearly if the books didn't have white names and faces in them, he'd be a math whiz!

Always with the Super White Man(tm). I'm a Garveyite. This blog is called Garvey's Ghost. Marcus Seh:

Anything any other race has done we can do also.....Rise up black man and do what you will! Where is your factory? Where is your shipping company? Where are your men of big affairs?
Garveyites don't believe in the Super White Man(tm) We understand that the White Supremacy System is just that. It is a system designed and maintained by and for white folks. Not that white people themselves ARE superior but that they have ORGANIZED themselves. What did Garvey tell us?
The only way to overcome a system is with an equal or better one. You don't get that from rioting. You don't get that from begging for diversity. You don't get that by being afraid to be "seen as racist".

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Possible Shooting Audio

The NY Daily News is running a report based on CNN's unconfirmed and unverified report of audio of the shooting in Ferguson.

If you listen to the audio you hear 7 shots and then another 4 for a total of 11 (the lawyer says she hears 11 as well).

This can cut two ways in this case since we know that Brown was hit 6 times. This means 5 shots missed and are lodged somewhere down the street.

1) In Brown's "favor" it could mean that officer Wilson shot at him while he was rushing the officer (confirmed by witness accounts) but that Wilson, possibly mad, shot Brown in the second round of 4, one of which hit Brown in the head. That would be a retaliator action on the part of Wilson and could get him put on the hook for manslaughter or murder since it has been concluded that the shot to the head was the kill shot. If a jury deems that the last set of shots were unnecessary then they could choose to indict Wilson.

2) In Wilson's favor the shots could back up his story that Brown rushed him. It is a known strategy to shoot "center mass" to stop an oncoming combatant and then to shoot for the head should the body shots fail to halt the threat. He could claim, if it gets to court (he does not get to testify at the grand jury) that the first set of shots failed to stop Brown and that he shot again to "end the threat". The audio would support this argument since we know Brown was shot 6 times and that the last volley consisted of 4 shots. That means that if he hit with all of the last 4, he only hit twice with the first set. It would also make sense because we know that the kill shot was the head shot.

Had the head shot been in the first set or even the first shot, Brown could not have been shot again, in the front because he was face down. So the head shot would have had to occurred last or in the last set since his forward momentum would have, unlike hollywood movies, sent him forward.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Human [un]employment...

Whenever you hear a politician talking about how more people are needed to "fill jobs" in America, you think about this video.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Update on Facial Injuries

I'm away from my computer so I must be brief. In the interest of facts and truth I need to play this report from CNN on the facial injuries on Darren Wilson.< p /> It is claiming that previous reports of orbital bone fracture is incorrect and that Wilson only had a swollen face. Itstill supports the report of a fight between Wilson and Brown but does change the force used to hit Wilson which goes to motive and intent on Brown's part.

Idiots In the Comment Section of the NY Times

This is the level of idiocy in the public as seen in the comments section of a NYT article:
blasmaic Washington DC 44 minutes ago The prosecutor says he won't release the autopsy photographs because he doesn't want to bias the jury pool, but there isn't going to be a jury pool. There isn't going to be a jury, or a judge, or a trial, or a defendant, or indictment, or even an arrest. No white cop has ever been put on trial for killing a black man, anywhere.
Doris Chicago 53 minutes ago There is a process of selecting only whites for juries and they are known to side with police. I have tried to find one case where ANY policeman who shot an unarmed African American has been convicted, and have found none.
None? Anywhere? Johannes Mehserle who shot Oscar Grant
On July 8, 2010, the jury returned its verdict: Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and not guilty of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.[12]
Once again, I call for all idiots running their mouths, tweeting, facebooking and commenting to be called out, named and put out of the conversation.