Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Human Rights and Illegal Immigration

Over at Blackademics There is a post regarding Elvira Arellano who had holed up in a church in order to avoid deportation. This individual was compared to or called "the next Rosa Parks" in that she supposedly is standing up to unjust laws in the US. I, among others object to the comparison. Those comparing the two claim that both were standing up for human rights, which I doubt given a couple of things which includes the hidden history of Rosa Parks political ideas. But I wanted to focus on the human rights issue because I think it is a term oft used and rarely understood much less defined. What exactly are human rights? Well the UN, in 1948 produced a document that codifies what global human rights are. So let's take a look and see what is relevant to the issue of illegal immigration.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

basically everything in the document applies to everybody. Fair enough.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Even the illegal immigrant is recognized as a person. Fair enough.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

So the immigrant who has broken the law by entering the country without permission or who has overstayed their visa has broken the law. The law states that such persons can be subject to immediate deportation. This is not discriminatory. The illegal immigrant is a person before the law. The law states what it states and the illegal immigrant is being dealt with in accordance to the law irrespective of their gender, race, class, color, national origins, etc. So no violation of human rights yet.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Elvira was not arbitrarily arrested detained or exiled. Any arrest was effected by her violation of law which we covered above.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Yep, in the US it's called immigration court. So even if it is determined on sight that one is in the country illegally there is still a legal proceeding to attend before being sent to ones country of origin. The person may not want to go but that is beside the point. No one said that a person had to like the decision of the host country. The only provision is that the host country impartially observes proceedures in regards to the "legal person".

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

After the last Amnesty, to my recollection immigration law was still in effect. Furthermore the penalties for being in the country illegally have been and still are the one can be deported. Therefore Elvira has no case since at the time she either entered the country or overstayed her visa, she was already in violation of the law. That the law finally caught up to her is entirely irrelevant.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Pretty much self explanatory. Elvira can go where she pleases in her country. That freedom is explicitly not discussed as it pertains to a citizen in one state going into another country. Therefore it is clear that even the UN charter on Human Rights recognizes that a country has the right to limit the movement and residency of "aliens" so long as that state does not interfere with the free movement of said citizen to return to his or her own country. In the case of illegal immigrants they conflate the right to leave their country with a supposed right to enter another. there is no human right to do so.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Illegal immigrants may in fact be persecuted and the US has a system of applying for asylum. Doesn't mean it will be granted (unless you're a Cuban) but it exists. As is noted in this article, economic hardship is not grounds for seeking asylum.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Section 2 is an interesting issue. Clearly on the basis of this document a country that denies medical attention at publicly funded hospitals are acting in accordance with stated "human rights" though I would find that highly unethical and immoral to do. Oddly the illegal immigrant in the US has access to many public services that the host state is under no obligation to give. In other words the illegal immigrant in the US is in a way making out good which of course is the reason the risk to enter illegally is done in the first place. This is in contrast to article 25:

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

I'm not entirely sure how section 1 of Article 25 squares legally with Article 21 and 13. I read it as article 25 discusses the obligations of the state to it's citizens. If all states are obligated to provide that which is in Article 25 then regardless to what country a citizen enters they could expect the same. As I've said before I would have a low opinion of a country that denied even those in it's borders illegally medical attention.

Now lets contrast that with Rosa Parks. Rosa parks was a citizen of the US. As a citizen, she was being denied equal access to travel freely on the basis of her race. This is a clear cut violation of Article 2. The voting situation in the US was also a clear violation of Article 21. Those who suffered at the hands of the authority, all citizens of the US were clearly victims of violations of articles 6,7,9 and 11.

So it is pretty clear from a human rights perspective that Elvira is not comparable to Rosa Parks by any stretch of the imagination because nothing in her case or the case of just about any illegal alien in the US rises to the level of a violation of human rights.

This is entirely different than the issue of corruption in places such as Mexico and the predatory corporations operating there (I target Mexico since most illegal immigrants in the US originate from there). These issues should and must be addressed for the benefit of both Mexicans AND US citizens. However, the continuous mis-appropriation of Rosa Parks is wrong and needs to stop.

Technorati Tags: ,

Monday, August 27, 2007

Interfaith Dialog

I stumbled across The American Muslim website via a Negrophile twit. The linked article had an interesting quote:

The leadership has erroneously preached that after the coming of Prophet Muhammad, all other religions are null and void, and that the Quran supersedes all other religious scriptures — when the fact is: That Quran came to bring the “ignorant Arabs” on par with other revealed faiths – because the Arabs had never had an Arabian Prophet nor a revelation in Arabic, The Quran. (Ref. 5:19,26: 192 to 200, 32:3 & 41:44). This interpretation lays the groundwork for religious diversity, pluralism and tolerance.

This quote is pretty interesting. I have repeatedly written that Islam was a unifying force for Arabs and was/is a vehicle for Arab nationalism no different in my view of how Christianity became the unifying theme for Europeans. The author of the above then makes the exact argument that I have been making. I won't get into the "revealed faiths" issue but it is interesting that Arabs who apparently needed "an Arabian Prophet" would then seek to convert other people to an "outside" religion when they themselves (by word of the quoted author) did not see it as satisfactory to adhere to or follow non-Arabic revelations.

Of course it is also the case that if Islam was meant to bring Arabs "up to par" in regards to other religions, then it would undermine arguments for even converting to Islam simply because if one is already practicing a so called "revealed" religion, then Islam is merely the "johnny come lately" (to borrow the words of Dr. Clarke) and arguments such as the NOI's "Islam is the original religion of the black man" fall flat. So too does the concept of "reversion" to Islam, since by the quoted author's writing:

Prophet Muhammad preached, “To every people was sent an Apostle in their own language and in their own country ( Ref: 10:47, 14:4 & 16:36), and that more than 124,000 Prophets (infinite) have been sent by The Merciful God from the beginning of human life.”

In which case you can't revert to that which came late to the party. Of course the flip side is to reject the authors condemnation of those:

The leadership has erroneously preached that after the coming of Prophet Muhammad, all other religions are null and void, and that the Quran supersedes all other religious scriptures

Since only through the above belief can one sustain the idea of reversion and to an extent, conversion.

Overall the article is interesting in terms of it's implications. I'm not entirely convinced that the general observant Muslim population actually buys into the argument presented, but I have no way of knowing that. However; it would be interesting to see how some of the persons about whom I've written about or with would react to such statements.

Technorati Tags:

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

From The "Leaders Wasting Our Time" File

13922131 240X180

The above cartoon was printed in the Florida Times-Union.

In this cartoon a shooter with a T-shirt with the words "Stop Snitchin'" tells two kids who have apparently witnessed the murder that they are "good little ho's" for saying "I ain't seen nuttin'".

The so called the Jacksonville Leadership Coalition called the cartoon "racist, culturally insensitive and degrading to African-American women."

Draw U Brakes! While the cartoon is definitely "degrading" it is nor racist or culturally insensitive. Rewind a few months when 60 minutes had Camron on their show where he said straight out on national (and via YouTube an international audience) that "we" supposedly meaning people in the "hood" don't "snitch". I've already gone into what an actual snitch is so I won't go into that again. Anyway. Camron said that if he knew a serial killer lived next door, he would move, but not tell anyone about the killer. He said it with a straight face. He was not joking. When the stupidity of his comment came to light (most likely through his publicist) he issued a clarification statement on the matter. Pure BS in my book. But if it wasn't enough that a famous and rich MC would take to the public airwaves (in front on white folk no less) and claim that he doesn't snitch because "that's how we live", I'll turn the reader's attention to his beef video "Curtisss" which has numerous references to snitchin', street life, and how people in the 'hood and "of the streets" don't "snitch" and if a person is not from "the streets" then they get what amounts to a "snitch pass". So since I don't do "street." I'm not offended when a cartoonist of any stripe puts the stupidity of the "street code" on blast.

Thanks man.

But it get's worse. After Camron made his "I don't snitch" statement, we were treated to a panel of children who in effect said the same thing that this cartoon depicts. Now it doesn't go down the way the cartoon shows it, but that's the purpose of a political cartoon. it is to exagerate the point to make the point. The point is that unfortunately many black people in poor neighborhoods allow certain criminal activity to be seen as "authentic" black culture. It is not and I, for one am insulted that such a criminal mindset is being passed off as "real" black culture. The "stop snitchin', street life mentality is RACIST. It is culturally insensitive and degrading to African-American women AND men.

So when the Stop Snitchin' DVD's stop being produced and sold by black men. When the black on black crime stops. Then we can complain about a cartoon. Until then, just like the Danish paper had the right to post the Mohammed cartoons, so does the Florida Times-Union. That's freedom of press and speech for you.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Islam and Africa

It would appear another blog has weighed in on the issue of Islam (and Arabs) and Africa:

It is the duty of all conscientious Muslims to speak out against the hypocrisies and contradictions that exist, especially when the integrity of one’s religious tradition is at stake. Legions of Muslims attack the contradictions of Western society with no mind to looking in their own backyard to realize that it is probably even more disorderly and messy. Needless to say, there are no sacred cows here; we must be honest and sincere with ourselves about our very real problems.


Padilla and Just-Us.

Paul Craig Roberts kills it once again discussing the recent Padilla conviction

The US Constitution and Anglo-American legal tradition prevent indictments, much less convictions, based on a prosecutor's theory that a person wanted to commit a crime in the past or might want to in the future. Padilla has harmed no one. There is no evidence that he made an agreement with any party to harm anyone whether for money or ideology or any reason...

Under Benthamite law, people can be arrested and prosecuted for thought crimes. Under Benthamite law, it is the government that protects the people, not the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect the individual. Benthamite law makes "advocacy speech," for example, a call for the overthrow of the US government, upheld in the 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a serious federal crime.

I've said this before and I'll repeat it again, when the "blind" cleric was convicted for his speeches that supposedly lead the first World Trade Center bombers to do their thing, I said it was a dangerous precedent to try and convict someone for speech. Nobody wanted to listen.

I've also been steadfast against so called "hate crime" legislation because it attempts to criminalize thought. It does not matter if a murderer hates black people. If that person commits murder then he ought to be convicted of the act of murder regardless to the thoughts going on in his head. Such thoughts may be of interest to social scientists but it has no place in the criminal Justice [sic] system. That American citizens have been OK with the criminalizing of non-actions has laid the foundation for the prosecution of Padilla.

What is even more contradictory, and perhaps grounds for an appeal (I'm no lawyer so take this suggestion with a grain of salt), is the fact that there is a person by the name of Jack McClellan currently walking around California who admits to having pedophillic thoughts about children and who goes out looking for children to watch, but cannot be arrested for his clear admission that he harbors, what would be in Padilla's case, criminal thought. The fact is that it is absolutely correct to not arrest or otherwise detain Mr. McClellan, because regardless of how sick he is, he has committed no crime against anyone, nor has he been caught attempting to do so. There is no case.

Similarly Padilla has committed no crime. He wasn't even charged with the so called "crimes" that got him detained for 3.5 years. Odd thing is, three Jurors wore red white and blue to send a "message" to Padilla. Sadly they actually showed just how unqualified they were to even sit in the jury box.

He Who Controls The Info...

An interesting Article on Alternet regarding Wikipedia entries:

Turns out that all the anonymous propaganda and lies on Wikipedia aren't coming from basement dwellers at all -- they're coming from Congress, the CIA, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Somebody at Halliburton deleted key information from an entry on war crimes; Diebold, an electronic-voting machine manufacturer, deleted sections of its entry about a lawsuit filed against it. Someone at Pepsi deleted information about health problems caused by the soft drink. Somebody at The New York Times deleted huge chunks of information from the entry on the Wall Street Journal. And of course, the CIA has been editing the entry on the Iraq war.

Oh For The One Drop Rule

Saw the following comment here

BY ELVISLIVES AT 08/14/07 12:43 PM

It's a sad but true fact. I've worked in corporate America for seven years now, and I've never seen anyone on (or looking to be) the executive track with dreads or afros. Do you know it takes me an hour a day + an average of $40 a week in product/relaxer, etc. to keep my hair looking this white? And I'm only half black! I can only imagine what the 100 percenters have to put up with.

100 percenter! Now THAT is some psychological ish right there.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Garvey Day 2007

Collections of my writing on Pan-Africanism and Pan-Africanists:

African Union Vs. Pan-Africanism.

Pan-Africanism is not an intellectual exercize as it has been reduced to in many universities. Pan-Africanism is a structural working framework for action in regards to the multiple issues facing African people world wide...We as Pan-Africanists must be vigilant to raise the consciouness of black people as Africans first and whatever else, be it religion or ethnic affiliation second, third, fourth, etc...

Amy Jaques Garvey

I have long known that the two volumes of The Philosophies and Opinions of Marcus Garvey would not have been possible if not for the tireless work of Amy. I have also long known of her strong positions on the active roll of women in the Pan-Africanist struggle and her unapologetic critique of black men who shirked their responsibilities to family and race....

Let's Get Pan-Africanism and Garvey right

Garvey was no capitalist. His clearly written positions on limiting individual wealth and control of investment by government simply would not fly with the so called "free-enterprise" folks at Booker Rising. Garvey was bright in that he understood how to play the corporate game and the necessity of economic development among black people globally. The issue is that capitalists have somehow cornered the market on defining business. It's either you're a capitalist and you like business or you don't and therefore you are a communist. It's a simple and silly dichotomy played out to keep people dazed and confused. Africans have always been and will continue to do business but by no means should africans become capitalists...

Pan-Africanists and The Political Spectrum

On the home front the Pan-Africanist is very much opposed to "handouts." In fact this idea is what get's the Pan-Africanist in trouble with "the left." Neo-GArveyite Pan-Africanists agree with Bill Cosby. Garvey was often quoted about how black people needed to be educated, to know how to read and speak the language of their home country well. Garveyism was always about presenting oneself well. The Pan-Africanists sees that black people world wide are in a whole heap of trouble. The black man and woman is on the verge of extinction As we speak, AIDS, warfare and natural disasters are killing millions of black people on the continent and the vast majority of these victims are dependent on outsiders to help them! What kind of situation is this where people in so called "sovereign" countries are dependent on Aide agencies and NGO's for health care!...

We Remember Kwame Ture

Black Power-- is full participation in the decision making processes affecting the lives of black people, and recognition of the virtues of themselves as Black people. The black people of this country have not lynched whites, bombed their churches, murdered their children and manipulated laws and institutions to maintain oppression....The goal of Black Power is positive and functional to a free and viable society. No white racist can make this claim...

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Why So Few Blacks involved with KOS?

This little statement would about sum it up:

Markos may live in Oakland, but it's not 1968, and he's not hanging out with Fred Hampton and Huey P. Newton and there will be no slow motion or still life of Markos Moulitsas ZĂșniga strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving for just the proper occasion. We're not a fringe group. We're the mainstream.

Umm yeah, that's a good idea. Let's insult the black left by not only talking shit about Fred Hampton, shot in his bed by the Chicago PD under the COINTELPRO program, but also teh Black Panter Party for self defense, who for all their faults were out there trying to make a profound change in America while most KOSITES were probably in their diapers. And to write this during the week where many conscious black people are meditating on the birthday of Marcus Garvey who gave us our beloved RED BLACK AND GREEN, shows the extreme lack of respect and I'll say it, rank racism on the part of mainstream white liberalism.

And people why I keep "those folk" at an arms length.

Technorati Tags:

Kenneth Foster Death Penalty Case

I haven't said anything about the Kenneth Foster case because there are serious issues I have with the general argument that many people are using in the case.

On the one hand I realize the racialized "justice" that happens here in the US. On the other hand I don't see how it has a bearing on someone who willfully engaged in a criminal enterprise. Under what rock does one live under to not understand that sometimes robberies lead to murder? It is that understanding that is at the heart of the case. Texas has a twist on the Felony murder many if not all states have on the books. Basically if in the commission of a crime, one of the parties commits another (or just a) felony, all parties are as guilty as if they had committed the felony itself. I have little doubt that this came about as a means to deal with gangs, in which by extending responsibility to all parties involved in the entire criminal action, one could nab many people.

While I do not wish death on Kenneth Foster, I'm not inclined to go to bat for him since he was a willful party to robbery. In fact I'm not very sympathetic to those who willfully commit crime in general. Mumia Abu Jamal has weighed in on the subject saying that it criminalizes presence. In the most abstract sense it does. the getaway driver is "present" at the scene of a crime because he was party to the other criminal activities. I would be more inclined to fall to Mumia's argument if such a law was used to prosecute someone who happened to be in the area and witnessed the crime, shrugged and went about his or her business. While not reporting or helping out the victim may be unethical or morally reprehensible, I'm not of the opinion that such an action (or non-action) should be prosecutable. Thus I think Mumia's argument, which I admit I have not read, is faulty. On a side note I'll re-iterate my position that I think Mumia did, in fact shoot the officer in question AND I think it was in self defense against a racist police officer and that Mumia ought to be freed with a clean record. Not a pardon, but a clean record with compensation by the state of Pennsylvania for the years he has been imprisoned.

Of course if we are to object to "criminal presence" then I believe that we should also be against criminalizing thought. I am on record as being against hate crime legislation. I am strenuously opposed to the criminalizing of thoughts that I may or may not agree with. I am only concerned with actions. So for example, the man who harrassed and attacked the Newark 6 ought to be prosecuted for his actions, which were completely out of order, but even if I do not agree with his attitude towards lesbians, there is no place in a so called "democracy" to add extra time to his sentence for such attitudes. He has the right. Similarly I don't care what a KKK member, Aryan Nation member or what have you thinks about me. If he touches me, he ought to be charged with assault or attempted murder or whatever law that is already on the books that regulates behavior.

Unfortunately I do not see the same people who are concerned about the criminalization of "presence" voicing opposition to the criminalization of thought. That, in my opinion, is hypocritical on the level of those OK with homosexual marriage but not polygamy.

Ultimately Kenneth Foster will be an example to some black people who will hopefully be more viginlant in warning our young men about the consequences of befriending the wrong people and engaging in the wrong activities. The take home message:

You may get more than you signed up for.

Garvey Day Celebrations

Garvey Day is coming Friday. Here is a list of Garvey Day Celebrations if you are seeking to celebrate with other people. If you're the loner type, you're welcome to peruse this blog and meditate on Garveyism.

Asa Hililard joins the Egun

I had stumbled across a posting on Playahata that Baba Hilliard had passed. I was awaiting confirmation and it finally came in the form of a posting from the AJC

I reached my youthful bloom of black consciousness at Tuskegee University. It was there that I was introduced to the text Stolen Legacy and began my transformation from using black history and study as a tool to improve self esteem to a place where this was "serious business" that required an entire change of thinking. In that fateful text was the introduction by one Asa. Hilliard, who until that point I knew absolutely nothing about. That intro contained what I call the "infamous" opening paragraph:

Mental Bondage is invisible violence. Formal physical slavery has ended in the United States. Mental slavery continues to this present day. This slavery affects the minds of all people and, in one way, it is worse than physical slavery alone. That is, a person who is in mental bondage will be "self-contained." Not only will that person fail to challenge beliefs and patterns of thought which control him, he will defend and protect those beliefs and patterns of thought virtually with his last dying effort.

During my stay at Tuskegee, this paragraph, along with choice quotes from Frantz Fanon and Carter G. Woodson along with the Oracles of Maat became texts that I and my compatriots could recite on demand. It was also at Tuskegee that I was afforded the opportunity to see and hear Dr. Hilliard speak. When he came he dropped the "Sheepdog" analysis on us. I remember that speech like it was given this morning. For those unfamiliar with the Sheepdog analysis it is as follows:

The process of raising a sheepdog involves taking a dog when it a mere pup and removing him from his family. The pup is made to live with sheep until it is grown. By being raised with the sheep the dog identifies itself as a sheep. As a consequence the sheepdog, will defend the sheep against any predator including other dogs. This is of course a totally unnatural state. This state is also highly reflective of the state of Africans in America.

I didn't see Dr. Hilliard again until after I left Tuskegee. However; when I did it was another educational event. That last time (for me) he discussed the issue of integrated education and the people behind it and the studies done to see what effects integrated and "isolated" education would have on the "Talented tenth". The subject highlighted the dangers in African people simply handing over our children to be "educated" by other people.

So though my overall exposure to Dr. Hilliard may have been short, it was powerful and life altering. So I thank Egun Hilliard for his spirit.



Ase -o!

Technorati Tags:

Monday, August 13, 2007

Quote of the Day

Paul Craig Roberts, a vociferous critic of the Bush administration has penned what has to be the best political line I've heard this year:

If only a sweet young thing would volunteer to give Bush a blowjob so that he can be impeached before he leads us to Armageddon.

The rest of the article is golden too.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Thomas Sowell..*sigh*

In light of bridges falling down due to lack of maintenance precipitated, in part by "conservative" governors cutting spending and giving tax breaks to wealthy people, you'd think they would lay low. Not Mr. Sowell. I suppose that since he writes better than I do, and is more connected that I am, he can get a ready forum for his nonsense. His latest:

Government has been the principal factor preventing the “affordable housing” that politicians talk about so much.

I mean really. Are the editors of NRO THAT dumb as to let this pass for journalism? Let's examine Mr. Sowell's argument:

n the San Francisco Bay Area, 66 percent of the new mortgages were of this type.

Why this difference in times and places? Because housing prices were skyrocketing in some places and times, so that people of modest incomes had to go out on a limb to buy a house, if they expected to buy a house at all.

But why were housing prices going up so fast, in the first place? A number of studies of communities across the United States and in countries overseas turned up the same conclusion: Government restrictions on building.

While many other factors can be involved — rising incomes, population growth, construction costs — a scrutiny of the times and places where housing prices doubled, tripled, or quadrupled within a decade shows that restrictions on building have been the key.

What say MR. Sowell provide a link to that report? See these anti-government types see evil anytime a government agency says, hey, this is a residential zone and people shouldn't have to live where there are massive diesel emissions or chemical run off or where children will be at risk for being run over. Things like that. That's a problem to Mr. Sowell. Mr. Sowell apparently has no problem with landlords and real estate agencies that are simply greedy. How about that? How about plans for stadiums in say, NYC and Brooklyn, paid for, in part by huge tax contributions by the the city of New York to extremely wealthy people? How about THAT Mr. Sowell

It seems simply implausible to Mr. Sowell that there are actually greedy mofo's out there. No it cannot possibly be the "free market" where greedy banks and hedge fund people are more concerned with lining their pockets by selling loans to Asian banks and therefore not even holding the risk for the mortgages they gave out to people who should have never been given a red cent to begin with.

It should also be noted that the run up in housing prices also coincides with the popularized notion of houses as investment properties to be "flipped" at will and the rise in the home equity loan market, where Americans, no longer satisfied with running up credit card debt and leasing vehicles they otherwise would not be able to "purchase" took out loans against the values of their homes in order to buy more consumer goods.

No, Instead of government being the cause of the lack of affordable housing it has been historically a moderating force in that market with things such as rent stabilization. It is when the government acts in the interests of the monied, as it did with the "credit reform" that people get shafted. It's really sad how big business and their lackeys blame the government for problems that the businesses themselves created trying to compete with each other to get more money.

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Bonds and Race

I'm going to just come out and say it, the vast majority of people who are sticking Barry Bonds with the "cheater" label are racists. Period. This particular post has been prompted by a posting on the Daring Fireball website in which the author wrote:

Bonds Makes History With 756th Home Run ★

See, sometimes cheaters do win.

You know, that was completely unnecessary. I decided to do a search on that site's archives for Floyd Landis. The only "Flyod" that comes up in the search is:

Login Delays and Damaged Font Caches on Mac OS X 10.3
At some point a few weeks ago, I noticed my iBook had ... Other than this delay at login, however, nothing else ... was ssh gruber@floyd.local. ...

A search for Landis returns squat. Didly. Nada. Not-A-DAMN_THING. Yet Floyd Landis has failed not one but TWO, read that, two drug tests. Where's the

"See, sometimes cheaters do win" in reference to that? Gruber has been writing long enough to have commented on that.

So I went and did a search on Daring Fireball for seven time Tour De France winner Lance Armstrong. Like Barry Bonds, Lance has had people try to smear him with doping allegations. However; unlike Floyd Landis, Mr. Armstrong has never tested positive for squat. He, like Bonds has had contact with questionable doctors, yet not a mention on Daring Fireball about Lance Armstrong being a cheater.

Why is that?

Perhaps John Gruber isn't into Cycling. But even if one is under a rock, you know about Lance Armstrong.

No, instead the general reason why most of the people who think Bonds is a 'cheat" are white, is because Bonds refuses to buck and shine for the media. He's not "approachable". Look at the outrage that happened in the NBA when there were high profile fights between players and members of the audience. The league was aghast of these black bucks not being "sportsmanlike" and allow fans to repeatedly insult them from the stands. God forbid a professional athlete not take that junk. This goes back to why Jackie Robinson was chosen to integrate baseball. He wasn't the best player in the Negro Leagues but he was the most, shall I say "timid". He would take the inevitable shit that was sent his way and still have "class."

So, no, until proven otherwise, Bonds is not a cheat and all these folks out here hating Bonds need to take a really hard look at themselves.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

The Black Man Made Me Do It

It would appear that Florida State Rep. Bob Allen (Republican), was caught out there offering head to a black under cover officer. Upon arrest, Allen claimed to be intimidated by the big black people around the park.

.."This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away.

Wow. Maybe Allen is onto something. Perhaps if negroes in Newark simply offered blow jobs to would be gang bangers the murder rates would drop. Clearly offering head to black guys is a good survival tactic. Who knew!

The officer's story:

The officer: "I was standing against the far wall of the stall. Allen closed the door behind him and stood against it. I said "what's up" and Allen said "Hi." Allen then said "this is kind of a public place isn't it." I said "do you have somewhere else where we can go?" Allen said "How about across the bridge it's quite [sic] over there." Allen engaged me in a conversation in which he agreed to pay me $20.00 in order to perform a "blow job" on me."

Check the linky. We cannot make this stuff up.

Newark Shooting 2

It's funny when and what blog entries the "press" will pick up on. Anyway.
I noticed that there were people marching around the front of City Hall putting pressure on mayor Cory Booker to "do something". If I may, I'd like to disagree that the fault or even the bulk of the responsibility lies on the shoulders of Mayor Booker. First and foremost Mayor Booker just got into office. We can bicker about how and why he got into office, but the fact is that a segment of black people in Newark have been killing each other and innocent bystanders long before Cory Booker took office. The fact of the matter is that if one wanted to blame an individual in office for Newark crime that person would logically be Sharpe James.

Now I'm not saying that Sharpe James is responsible either, I'm just pointing out the futility of blaming the office holder for crime in Newark. Recently Mayor Booker brought up the situation in which the lack of jobs and ability for ex-con's to get jobs as a serious impediment to reducing crime in Newark. He has a point on this. It is the state of NJ that prevents ex-cons from holding jobs that they, due to their educational background, would most qualify for (Airport jobs for example). Given the high incarceration rates of black men in big cities due to the drug trade that many choose or are forced into in order to make money, the closing of employment doors is not a good way to reduce crime. But this is not my main problem.

The biggest problem for Newark and indeed many urban areas is this silly "snitchin" thing. As was exposed on 60 minutes for the world too see. A great many black youth (and adults I assume) think that not reporting a crime is a good thing. In fact it is seen as a "black" thing to do. I understand full well that this is an outgrowth of the civil rights and black power eras where black informants in the community were undermining real progress in black communities. Unfortunately this solidarity move has been co-opted my criminals, sucked into so called "Hip Hop" music and fed to our youth and is now a means to oppress the people in the very communities that many of these criminals live and work. The sad thing is that many of these youth have no clue that if one is not involved in committing a crime one cannot be a snitch or a rat. Fact is, that only a person involved in a crime can be a snitch. Everyone else is either a victim or a potential victim. Until that particular point is understood, no amount of protesting in front of Newark city hall or marches down streets will change things. once the community, the entire community, not just the activists, decide that they will have a zero tolerance for criminal, then it will continue.

On the governmental level there needs to be a serious change in how drug offenses are dealt with. There are far too many people who are involved in the drug trade because that is seen as a means of substantial income. No one here is asking that we condone the drug trade but we have to understand that people have the right to live and will do whatever they deem necessary to do that. If the perceived choice is between being homeless on the street and selling rock. Rock will be sold. if a person is already on the street due to addiction or what have you and there is no real place they can go to get clean, rock will be bought and people will get robbed. This is not rocket science. decent employment opportunities need to be made available to these young men. This is my beef with illegal immigration. It is simply not right to have people working on construction sites who are not even legal aliens, while there is rampant unemployment in Newark.

So yes, there is room for improvement on all sides, but we should not allow the existence of racist institutions to be an excuse for the silent accommodation of criminal activity.

Monday, August 06, 2007

First RE5 now THIS

WHAT THA &*(*^&()*^*(& is going on?

WHO THA (*&^(*&^(*&^ is approving this *(&^*&^(!!!!!

courtesy: Blackademics

(Another) Shooting in Newark

This isn't a case of undercover police shooting at unarmed civilians outside a night club.
This is not a case of undercover police shooting at an unarmed immigrant.
This is not a case of State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike shooting at motorists.
No. This is something far more common than that.

This is: Shooting of 4 College Friends Baffles Newark and it makes no sense.

I think that it was either an initiation or a case of being on the "wrong turf". I'm less inclined to believe that this is a case of college gang members, and yes, there are "grown up" gang members with regular jobs, some in offices.

In any case it's all too sad.

Sunday, August 05, 2007

G.O.P Debate

After watching Haile Gebrselassie break the half-marathan record I watched the spectacle that was the G.O.P "Debate". I put "debate" in quotes because, to be honest I didn't see much of what I would call a debate with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul, who, in my opinion was the most honest and real Republican I've heard. It is unfortunate that his "old school" mannerisms doesn't play too well to the camera, but he was the most truthful of the bunch. But anyway, what was most bothersome about this group was the repeated reference to "socialized medicine".

I think it was Tancredo (I could be mistaken) who said that it was not the government's job to provide health care for everyone. Also, it may have been him but it could have been another candidate who said that the primary job of the president is to "protect" America. Let's be clear that the constitutionally defined job of the president is to uphold the Constitution. Not to wage war. But that's not my biggest issue.
The problem I had was when the issue of "single payer" healthcare came up no one asked the next obvious question: What is government supposed to do?

Guiliani said something that the "middle class" ought to pay attention to. He explained how he raised money in NYC. He "relieved" taxes on the rich and as he put it "raised more money further down the tax base". So understand that Guiliani, like the rest of these people will stick it to those who have the highest tax burden already. The reason why they don't tax the rich is because they know that the rich, who can afford tax advisors who will put the money in tax deferred or offshore accounts. In other words, as admitted to by one of the richest men on earth, the rich have a lower tax burden (as a percentage of income) than the "middle class" and the GOP will do anything they can to continue to reduce that tax "burden". But back to the Health care issue.

Guiliani said that we 'don't want the English system". Now no one asked why we don't want it. No one asked that question. Someone needs to ask Guiliani and co, why the English or French system sucks other than their supposed ideological opposition to government run (or at least financed) health care. There is one reason they will point out which was the so called "$100 wrist brace". They made it appear that if the government was running the health care system, that the tax payer would be soaked for items such as those. The problem with that example is that the reason such prices exist is because the immorality of the American capitalist who clearly has an incentive to get rich: low taxes. I would like to know what the UK government is paying for various medical hardware in comparison to US institutions.

Guiliani thinks we should "take personal responsibility" for our healthcare. It's a nice line coming from someone who can afford the premiums and medication. How is it not responsible for the citizens to agree to being taxed in order to ensure they can get healthcare whenever they need it? How is that not "responsible".

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Resident Evil 5 follow up

So a supposed, non-white poster at Ars-Technica wrote, in part:

. Those of us that have lived with racism all of our lives know it when we see it, and this ain't it.

Well actually some people who have lived with racism all their lives have to have it pointed out to them. And sometimes those who live with racism their entire lives actually buy into racist ideologies themselves and think it is quite normal.

Friday, August 03, 2007

External Authority

Counterpunch has an excellent interview with Noam Chomsky Which contains a very nice quote:

And, again, there are a lot of illusions about this -- in the media, too. Tom Wicker is a famous example, one of the ‘left commentators’ of the New York Times. He would get very angry when critics would tell him he’s conforming to power interests and that he’s keeping within the doctrinal framework of the media, which goes back to their corporate structure and so on. And he would answer, very angrily -- and correctly -- that nobody tells him what to say. He wrote anything he wanted -- which is absolutely true. But, if he wasn’t writing the things he did he wouldn’t have a column in the New York Times.

That’s the kind of thing that is very hard to perceive.

People do not want,or often are not able, to perceive that they are conforming to external authority. They feel themselves to be very free, and indeed they are, as long as they conform. But power lies elsewhere. That’s as old as history in the modern period. It’s often very explicit. M

I've said similar things in the past and it is the basis for my critiques of so called "diversity" efforts in which it is often the fact that the black face (or more often the case, the female face) that is wanted but not the critical analysis or completely different worldview of the black activist that is wanted. Integration suffers from the same issue of "power lies elsewhere" again the entire point is to make Negroes think like the group they are to be integrated into rather than the larger group coming to terms with it's negative racist ideologies.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

White Racist Gamers: Nothing New Here

I happened to stumble across this blog post by Kym Platt of Ask This Black Woman in which she briefly, and I mean briefly comments on Resident Evil 5 and the images of black people in the game. What is extremely disturbing is the crass and "dictionary" racist remarks made on her blog in regards to that post. Commentary that I know full well would never EVER been posted or tolerated at sites such as GameSpot.


the owner of this blog is a rascist bitch

You stupid bitch

This is a game about Zombies set in Afric, did you expect the Zombies to be chinese? stupid fucking black hooker playing the race card as usual…

Get back into the cotton fields, you filthy nigger.


I play video games. I'm not a big "kill everything that moves" fan, but I play enough and follow enough to know full well that dictionary racism is alive and well in the gaming industry as in most of the entertainment industry. The biggest games with main characters that are black are mostly Sports and DEF Jam wrestling and other franchises, none of which I indulge in. Personally I'd like to see a nice Black Panther game, where say, you get to off the pigs. I wonder just how that kind of game would go over. Oh, I know one. How about "Deacons for Defense" where the main black characters get to off Klan members and their supporters.

Oh! Oh! Oh! how about a video game set in Africa as the Europeans arrive, It's your job to off the settlers and change history as we know it. Oh Oh Oh!! I know, How about a re-enactment of the Haitian revolution. Off Brits, Spaniards AND Frenchemen and free your people! Oh Oh another idea! How about a game called "Urban Rebellion" were you are placed in various urban "riots" of the last century. You can shoot at police, Army Reserve or make your way into nice suburban neighborhoods and do some "payback". Maybe that's to heavy on the black for some. I know... how about a vietnam game where you're the vietnamese and you get to off the invading US soldiers. I mean we ALLL know by now that the whole vietnam affair was wrong. So there shouldn't be a problem.

But I don't quite expect to see these kinds of games because, well, they don't exactly fit the target demographic of young white males.
Ultimately though it's not about whether Kym had a clue about the game or not. Simply put the kind of commentary directed at her was simply due to her being a black female outsider; emphasis on the black and female. There are always arguments on game boards about games and game systems, In my experience I have simply never seen people sink to this level on those boards. Whether that is due to moderation, I cannot say, but if the people involved have such vitrol about black people they don't even know, then I don't think playing a game where they get to shoot at them is a good idea.

Guiliani The Face Of America

As I read a report on Rudy's health care "Plan" I was almost slack jawed. I was already irate that Guiliani could even be a Republican front runner, but his "plan" was one of the stupidest things I had read in a very long time and I read a lot.
In a more perfect world that speech would have been the death of Rudy's presidential bid. In a more perfect world, after his actions after Diallo and Dorismond, Guiliani would be untouchable as a candidate for anything. But this is the money corrupt US of A where consumer scares over goods made in China for no other reason than it is cheaper and therefore more profitable for already profitable companies to manufacture; citizens have been scared against anything that has the word "socialist" or "socialized" possibly attached to it. In this bizarre world that many a US citizen reside, Tax breaks for corporations is not a government handout or welfare. It's "creating a good business environment." However; creating a safety net for citizens is a sign of laziness and government dependency. This is the world where Rudy and a good number of not too affluent Americans live where as Michael Moore has demonstrated, even the intrusion of reality, such as a savings depleting medical bill, does not alter the mindset of these people. But back to Rudy and his "plan".

Mr. Guiliani suggested that each citizen (I assume) would be given a $15,000 tax break in order to purchase their own insurance. It's a funny thing what can come out of the mouths of the self-employed. Se we the self-employed earn our money and pay taxes on a quarterly or yearly basis. So we get to hold onto our money and spend it and then get taxed on what is left. The average citizen is an employee who has taxes taken out of their checks at each pay period. So the citizen would see, assuming 26 paychecks $577/ per check. That assumes that they make enough money that they would have a tax liability that is more than the $15,000. That is not the case for most of the uninsured in America.

This site gives a slightly dated overview of the COBRA system that is currently in place that affects unemployed people:

Under COBRA, unemployed workers and their families generally are eligible to maintain health insurance through their former employer for up to 18 months, so long as they pay the full cost of the premiums. As noted, average annual premiums for family coverage in job-based health insurance equal or exceed $7,000, however, and are unaffordable for many unemployed workers, especially those with low- and moderate incomes. As a result, only 20 percent of those eligible for COBRA make use of it during their period of unemployment...

A COBRA subsidy also would be of no help to laid-off workers who lacked job-based health insurance prior to becoming unemployed. Many such individuals were previously employed by firms — usually small employers — that did not offer health insurance coverage. Only 58 percent of firms with three to nine workers offer health insurance to their employees. The low-income unemployed also include substantial numbers of people who were offered coverage through their employer while on the job but could not afford the employee contributions. One of every five workers with incomes below the poverty line who have access to employer-based coverage is uninsured; three-quarters of the uninsured workers cite cost as the principal reason they declined coverage. If these workers cannot afford subsidized premiums when they are receiving paychecks, they surely will not be able to afford the premiums for health insurance when they lose their jobs.

A person making 30,000 dollars (many more people than Guiliani would like to believe) has a tax liability of ~$4,122.50 (based on the 2006 tax rates schedule. It is clear that they cannot even begin to pay full COBRA rates nor would they be even close to the $15,000 tax credit in a given year unless their income climbed to near $60,000.

So it's pretty clear here that Guiliani's "plan" is about as substantive as the wind passing his teeth. I think the Guiliani camp knows that his speech was so much bull-ish, and that was why they had him go into attack mode on those who favor so-called "socialized medicine."

"We need an American solution" said Rudy. "Not a Canadian solution or a European solution."

No of course we don't want a European solution. No. Americans would absolutely balk at the idea of having a medical emergency and being able to go to the hospital and get top notch treatment and not worry about a bill at the end of the stay because *gasp* the taxes they paid all the years they were well paid for that system. No. No one wants THAT. The only Canadian thing they want are Canadian built "US" cars. The only European things they want are Bimmas and Benzes (Check the latest auto sales reports). They want European leather, bags, etc. But not the health care. OK.

The coup-de-grace has to be the completely laughable line that "we cannot expect the government to take care of you." I will suppose then that Guiliani would have been happy with the response of FEMA in New Orleans. But the whole "government can't help you" line is so laughable because anyone paying attention will recall the nice bailout of Chrysler. We know about all the 'tax incentives" offered to businesses to stay in the US. The government seems quite content to help out other countries with all manner of "aid" and yet to ask the government to give a rats behind about it's own citizens and spend whatever is necessary to fix the system that Nixon created by getting parasitic "health care companies" off the consumer titty, is asking too much.

Yes, in a more perfect world, Rudy's speech would have been his last. In that world Diallo and Dorismond would be alive today. But it's not and so Guiliani and others can continue to say dumb stuff while Americans east it up.