Tuesday, March 31, 2009
First there is the problem with the Dolls themselves. At time marker -4:46 we see the dolls in question. They are clearly different in shade but no where near the kind of skin tone spread that is observable in the real world. In my opinion the brown doll ought to have been much darker. I'm talking Hershey candy bar dark. If you look at the footage at time point -4:20, you'll notice that the "black" doll was in fact darker than the dolls used in this current experiment. Also it appears that the dolls had "racially" appropriate hair. These I think are significant in and of itself. In fact I would have liked to see the following:
1) A spectrum of dolls ranging in complexion from practically white to Hershey dark chocolate brown.
2) With hair colors from blond, red black, brown reflective of what happens naturally in nature (That is no chocolate brown dolls with blond hair).
3) Hair textures that are also genetically appropriate: No Blond straight haired chocolate dolls and no afro'd blond white dolls.
4) Different nose widths on the dolls reflective of what happens in nature. So we can have chocolate dolls with flat wide noses AND narrow noses, but no blond white dolls with flat wide noses.
Now going into the "findings" we find the following:
88% of the African-American children in the study said the tan doll looked like them. We'll interpret this to mean that having the idea implanted in their minds that the tan doll was the "black" doll and since they are "black" they My the cognitive association between themselves and the doll. That is we see the common phenomenon of black folk associating whatever is defined as black as being a part of that group. Furthermore the association is relativistic. That is relatively speaking the tan doll most resembles most of the respondents.
But then the report gets muddy. You'll note that Diane Says: "The majority would prefer to play with the darker doll, or both or neither." This is clearly confusing. The implication of the statement is that a majority would prefer to play with the darker doll, but that is not what the actual statement says. The actual statement is that as a collective group the respondents who would prefer to either play with the dark doll, both dolls or neither, represented a majority over those respondents who wanted to play only with the white doll. That doesn't really mean much. What would be important is how many of the respondents only wanted to play with the tan doll and how many wanted to only play with the white doll. Are they split equally? I haven't seen the actual study so I don't know.
The same problem arises with the question regarding which doll was "nice." and again the majority of our kids said the black doll was nice,or both dolls equally so. Again this lumping of two clear categories to represent a "majority" is misleading. It is even more problematic because the segment proudly boasts the "88%" who identify with the tan doll but is unwilling to post any percentages in regards to the other questions. Clearly a majority is simply 51% or more. So we could imply that half the respondents thought that that tan doll was not only not nice but also not worthy of being played with. Certainly that would not be the feel good results which the program would be trying to project.
but then we get to some real deep issues. At time -2:47 we have a tan skinned girl (who incidentally is the same complexion as the tan doll) who expounds on why the white doll is nice and tan doll is bad:
In regards to the nice white doll: "It always be good and listens."
In regards to the bad black doll: "It talks back. It don't follow directions."
Now clearly this child is projecting not HER thoughts on the doll but the thoughts of her parents and/or teacher. Having never seen the doll before in her life there is no rational reason for her to claim that the doll is "always good." Furthermore; since the doll is clearly an inanimate object it could never have actually been good, or bad or ever followed directions.
If you follow the eye movement of the child before she answers the question about the nice doll you'll note that she looks up and to the right (her left). In psychology this indicates that she is constructing a visual image rather than remembering something. So it is clear that she is creating a narrative. Then she looks dead ahead which is a sign of visualization. She does the same thing with the question on the bad doll though there is a camera cut at the point where she would be making her initial eye movement. But she does show signs of visual construction during her answer.
It is clear that this young girl has been fed particular images associated with black folk and is able to reconstruct and project these images onto others at a subconscious level. she has no clue that she is creating good and bad people literally out of thin air.
The next issue was the boys answer to which doll was the prettiest. All the boys said both. With one stating matter of factly that they aren't really different except for skin color. Of course this is a statement of fact. This underscores my position that a wider range of dolls with varied physical features would have been more useful. Clearly we know that differences are far more than skin color.
Now in what I can only call a clear setup: They showed a what I assume to be, by her own statements, a biracial child who had a complexion closer to the white doll. Not a problem right? She says that the white doll is pretty? Why Because she likes the color white. Is it fair to judge this child on a color preference? Is that a broad statement? Since she, skin tone wise, is closer in color to the white doll what is wrong with her feeling an ID with that doll? Furthermore since she is biracial it means one of her parents are white (by her own admission), therefore it should be expected that she's going to have different affinities than someone who does not have a white parent or guardian.
Going back to the dolls. She says that she does not like the "brown doll" because it's brown. You'll note that this is a different answer than the answer to why she thought the white doll was pretty. In that case she made a blanket statement about color preferences and in the latter case she made a specific object color reference. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I think it's significant.
However; most disturbing was her response to the which doll she ID's with question. She claims to ID with the brown doll because as she says: "I'm brown cause I'm mixed up with white and black." While she makes this statement (time code -1:20) she puts her hand to her head as if she's trying to figure something out and makes a face that shows clear confusion and exasperation as to how she identifies herself. When she ID's the tan doll as the one that looks most like her she blurts out "but I'm not mean." (time -1:13). Clearly then someone has informed her that brown people are mean.
Taking this "mean" theme, the next child, clearly black and not biracial though her specific lineage is not disclosed, states that the tan doll is the ugly doll because it is frowning. Never mind that both dolls are physically constructed the same. Unfortunately the between the angle of the camera and the girl's eyeglasses it is impossible to see how she is constructing her reasons for the supposed ugliness of the doll but she is clearly troubled by either the question or the possible mental processes going on because she nearly broke off her fingers while her eyes darted left and right looking for a justification for a statement she has already taken to be true.
The other problem with this line of questioning is that the questioner has given a powerful suggestion to the child. By asking which is the ugly doll she has implanted the idea that one of the dolls MUST be ugly. Therefore the child, who is more susceptible to suggestion, must think that there must be an ugly doll on the table and therefore goes about trying to justify whatever choice they are going to make. I think that this particular child was torn by this suggestion. Had she been asked if she thought either of the dolls were ugly would she have said something different? What about instead of asking which doll they would want to play with, tell them they have to go to another room and they need to bring one of the dolls and see which they choose.
There are clear problems with how the study was done and how it was presented. I think if some of the issues I brought up were addressed the study could be far more useful. Secondly I think that the focus on Obama at the end of the piece is also misleading. Between 1940 and 2009 there have been a lot of changes in the visible rolls of black folk (and some not so much). The black pride movements in the 60's and late 80's /early 90's have created a parent class that is different than those of the 1940's. Obama's election is the culmination of a lot of changes as well as a lot of missteps by the previous administration. But also it's simply not just about skin color.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Attempts and comparing this cartoon to that of the NY Post Chimp cartoon fall flat. The Star of David, is representative of the state of Israel which does, in fact use the Star of David in it's national flag. This state uses force of arms (The headless soldier) against a population that is relatively defenseless (represented by the dimunitive figure of "gaza"). The headless soldier can be said to represent the lack of thought behind the recent actual event of invading gaza and the admitted murder of civilians by Israeli forces.
So, If the ADL and Simon Weisenthal center don't like the cartoon, then perhaps they ought to take up the subject with the government of Israel.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Ghost did sound the warning didn't it? We discussed the impending pollution problem.
And so we find the following from the NY Times as further evidence of our warnings:
China’s approach to securing minerals in Africa has been to sign agreements to build huge projects in exchange for minerals. In Angola, this kind of arrangement has guaranteed Chinese access to oil in Africa’s second largest oil producer, which is now booming after emerging tattered and broke from a vicious civil war that lasted decades. Chinese and Angolan officials trumpeted this partnership as a model for Chinese investment in the continent, a win-win relationship benefiting both countries.
But that formulation has proved problematic in an economic downturn. African governments are now realizing that these deals are in essence loans against future revenue, and falling prices could leave them saddled with giant piles of debt...
In Guinea, China has backed away from what Guinean officials portrayed as a done deal to build a much-needed $1 billion hydroelectric dam.
“The dam is not a gift; it is an investment,” said Mr. Huo, the Chinese ambassador. “That is what win-win means.”
Guineans are increasingly suspicious of Chinese investment. Many people see Chinese companies as being just as exploitative as Western ones, if not more so. After the military took power in December, it raided Chinese companies suspected of selling fake medicines, but the raids degenerated into open looting of Chinese businesses, tapping a vein of resentment long suppressed.
So mad at the Chinese for looking out for their own interests? Mad at the Chinese for having the foresight to make sure they could enforce those interests. You would think that these "leaders" would only borrow that which they could project to pay for. Surely they didn't THINK that price fluxuations wouldn't happen? Anyway the picture from the Times says it all.
Who's doing the pushing and who's doing the managing? Same situation different race of people. Just not bright enough to notice.
I found a post on the Bro-log on climate change that caught my attention and made me think of some of Diop's work. The post highlights an article in the New Scientist. A couple of things stood out in that article that made me think of Diop:
In order to survive, humans may need to do something radical: rethink our society not along geopolitical lines but in terms of resource distribution. "We are locked into a mindset that each country has to be self-sustaining in food, water and energy," Cox says. "We need to look at the world afresh and see it in terms of where the resources are, and then plan the population, food and energy production around that. If aliens came to Earth they'd think it was crazy that some of the driest parts of the world, such as Pakistan and Egypt, grow some of the thirstiest crops for export, like rice."
The thing is that for those of us who are Pan-Africanists we've already come to this conclusion. If we take a look at Diop's Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis for a Federated State, we find in part 3:The Industrialization of Black Africa in which Diop lays out how Africa can be seen has having 8 natural zones of development. Diop discusses how each zone could specialize in certain types of industries rather than each of the 53 states attempting to do all industries within their own borders.
In terms of energy production the New Scientist article points out:
Supplying energy to our cities will also require some adventurous thinking. Much of it could be covered by a giant solar belt, a vast array of solar collectors that would run across north Africa, the Middle East and the southern US. Last December, David Wheeler and Kevin Ummel of the Center for Global Development in Washington DC calculated that a 110,000-square-kilometre area of solar panels across Jordan, Libya and Morocco would be "sufficient to meet 50 to 70 per cent of worldwide electricity production, or about three times [today's] power consumption in Europe". High-voltage direct current transmission lines could relay this power to the cities, or it could be stored and transported in hydrogen - after using solar energy to split water to provide hydrogen for fuel cells.
Again, we saw that Dr. Diop as prescient in his discussion of Solar power in Africa (though due to cost he was more inclined to Hydro-electric and nuclear. I'm sure that if his treatise was written in this current time he would not be so favorable of nuclear and would definitely be more bullish on solar power.
One thing we must understand is that Africa is not the source of much of these emissions. Yet due to it's geographic location, under the scenarios presented in the New Scientist article, Africans stand to lose a great deal if much of it becomes desert.
Some other interesting issues in the New Scientist article is the proposition of moving large portions of the world population to the newly greened northern and southern poles. Given that a vast majority of the people who will be adversely affected by global warming and whom had played the least part in it's occurrence will be subject to moving the most, I wonder what kind of sociological issues will arise with this crush of "colored' non-western peoples who will have to inhabit lands long void of non-Europeans (in the case of northern regions). There undoubtedly be serious friction where people of very divergent customs and values are forced to live in the same geographic location and under the same government.
Things to ponder.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Olatunji Foundation has signed up with Kiva in order to add a new dimension to our mission. The Olatunji Foundation was founded on the principle that those of us who are Pan-Africanists and who are relatively economically well off should put our money where our mouths are. We believe that by pooling our resources in such a way that makes a minimal impact on our individual finances, we can push forward a Pan-African agenda by training the next generation and now by directly providing economic assistance to Africa by way of it's people. Furthermore through the Olatunji Foundation team we can make it know WHO we are and WHAT we stand for rather than donate to organizations who are doing things but perhaps not in a way that reflects our particular values.
There are three ways you can push forward this initiative:
1) You can join Kiva yourself and join the Olatunji Foundation team and donate on it's behalf. You will need to use Paypal to transfer funds.
2) You can donate directly to the Olatunji Foundation at its website and we will disburse the funds via the Kiva page. You can see that we mean business because you can check the Kiva website to see exactly where we have put your money.
3) You can purchase a Garvey's Ghost T-shirt and support both the Olatunji Foundation itself and have a portion of sales go towards Kiva and our Scholarships.
What will we be doing with the pooled money? We are going to target our donations to Africans and to black people in the Diaspora. In other words the recipient will be a person of African descent. A goal that I would like to have by the end of the year is for the Olatunji Foundation team to be the premier donor to Africans. I would like to see us be able to fully fund requests.
Imagine for a minute that in a village or city in Africa a Kiva representative hands over a micro-loan to a small business owner and tells them it came from the Olatunji-Foundation Team. Imagine they go to the website and see a collection of black folk following in the steps of Garvey (remember that Garvey wanted black folk of the diaspora to use their technical skills and financial resources to develop Africa so this is directly in line with that age old goal).
One of the biggest potentials here is that these loans are to be repaid (if possible) When that happens we will be able to pool previous donations into a growing pool for future donations. Of course it is entirely possible that the business that we donate to will fail and be unable to repay the loan. Such is the risk we take with anything.
So please use one of the options to support our Kiva initiative.
Sondjata K. Olatunji
When asked why that elderly woman was killed, a squad commander was quoted as saying: “What’s great about Gaza — you see a person on a path, he doesn’t have to be armed, you can simply shoot him. In our case it was an old woman on whom I did not see any weapon when I looked. The order was to take down the person, this woman, the minute you see her. There are always warnings, there is always the saying, ‘Maybe he’s a terrorist.’ What I felt was, there was a lot of thirst for blood.”
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AIG supposedly received $170 billion in bailout money. It gave out $160 million in bonuses to a number of executives. First lets do a little math. Sure $160 million sounds like a lot of money to the average person on the street who will see less than $50,000 per year and will probably never have a net worth of even 1% of the bonus amount. But when you start dealing in billions and trillions; millions are not that much. 160 million is but 1/10 of 1% of the total bailout money that AIG got. divide 160,000,000 by 170,000,000,000 and multiply that number by 100. That would be .094117%. To put that in perspective That would mean if I gave you 100 bucks and you had to bonus someone out of that you'd be giving them $1 buck. And even that would be too much.
So in terms of the amount of capital we're talking about this is a drop in the buck. But we have another interesting thing here. Since this is realized income (taxable) these execs will be subject to Federal, State and City taxes on that windfall come 2010. So it's likely that 30% of that $160 million is coming back to the treasury. That's 48,000,000 leaving $112,000 more or less in actual expenditure (say 70 cent on every 100 bucks loaned out).
Now personally if I were one of those execs I would be more concerned with the attention my assets were going to receive by the IRS than with the bonus. I bet that if the IRS looks hard enough there is going to be evidence of tax evasion found in some of these execs. You don't run the kind of scam that AIG's financial arm was running and not try to put one over on the IRS as well. So if I was one of these execs I would turn down the money simply so that I could avoid the IRS getting in my financial business. Anyone who has dealt with the IRS knows they can get very grab happy.
But even so this whole bailout is simply a distraction. The big news that came out was how AIG had to pay on policies to banks out of the bailout money given to them. So in essence the institutions that were AIG clients got taxpayer money via AIG. I believe that was some $43 billion. That number is way larger than the mere $160 million the AIG execs got. Can we say 268 times larger? The NY Times has a list of institutions that it paid tax dollars to,
Bank of America received another half billion bucks of tax payer money via AIG among other institutions, some not even so called "American." I use the term loosely because anyone who still thinks of these large institutions as somehow beholden to or could give a damn about "Americans" is in complete denial. So don't let yourself get distracted by the small payout to some rogue execs at AIG, that's like worrying too much about the pawns on a chess board and neglecting to notice that your king is being cornered.
The money shot?
As Monroe lay dying, the witnesses said, the second police officer, who has not been publicly identified, picked up a handgun that Monroe, an avid hunter, always kept in plain sight on the porch for protection. Using a police-issue blue latex glove, the officer grasped the gun by its handle, the witnesses said, and then ordered everyone to back away from the scene. The next thing they said they saw was the gun on the ground next to Monroe's body.
Straight up movie style frame up of the victim. And these cops are so convinced that they are above the law that they commit the frame up in front of witnesses.
I won't even get into the legalities of running up into someone's property without a warrant or imminent danger to the occupants or immediate probable cause.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
At a time when America has elected its first black president, more African-American men are losing jobs than at any time since World War II.
No group has been hit harder by the downturn. Employment among black men has fallen 7.8 percent since November of 2007, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.
The trend is intimately tied to education, the report’s authors say. Black women – who are twice as likely as black men to go to college – have faced no net job losses. By contrast, black men are disproportionately employed in those blue-collar jobs that have been most highly affected – think third shifts at rural manufacturing plants.
And this short paragraph deserves attention:
Unemployed black men like Anthony Gilmore aren’t surprised by the findings. Laid off five months ago from a call center, Mr. Gilmore recently interviewed for a job detailing cars. A Hispanic man got the job.
I have been very direct in my criticism of those who act as if illegal immigration, particularly from or through Mexico has not had an adverse effect on black employment. We have written here of proof of how illegal immigration has directly affected the employment and wages of poor blacks.
The damage to the black family and specifically the potential choices for lifemates is particularly disturbing:
Correspondingly, his data suggest that, as of January, about 120 African-American women were employed for every 100 African-American men. “The current size of the overall gap in employment between black women and black men is historically unprecedented, and black Americans are the only group for whom the gender employment gap is in favor of women,” the report notes.
You know there is a blog called "What about our daughters." Perhaps it's time for black folk to start asking and answering seriously: What about our sons?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Mr. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, angrily withdrew his name from consideration and charged that he had been the victim of a concerted campaign by what he called “the Israel lobby.”
Mr. Freeman had long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally. In 2006, he warned that, “left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them and enrage those who are not.”
He did not soften his tone even on Wednesday, saying in an interview that “Israel is driving itself toward a cliff, and it is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people.”
The critics who led the effort to derail Mr. Freeman argued that such views reflected a bias that could not be tolerated in someone who, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, would have overseen the production of what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments destined for the president’s desk.
Who are we fooling?
The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.
What is the percentage of Jews in the US? And what proportion of that support the Zionist policies of the state of Israel? So AIPAC represents what? 50% of US Jewery at best but has this kind of lock on policy? Recent polling in Israel itself shows a sharp split in regards to the policies of the Israeli government and Obama can't do better than this? But I told ya'll about this long ago:
Monday, March 09, 2009
Oh this should be good. The linked text started with:
While the New York Post denied that their cartoon of a chimpanzee being shot and the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" was a racist stab at President Barack Obama, Barnes & Noble is putting the blame on a customer.
This would be the emotional setup. Next:
:The Barnes & Noble bookstore's storefront in the Miracle Mile Mall in Coral Gables, Fla., featured several books about Obama and one about monkeys.
In a public statement, Barnes & Noble spokesperson Mary Ellen Keating said, "We believe that a customer played a cruel joke and placed an inappropriate title in the front window of our store. We are looking into it and are taking the steps necessary so that it does not happen again."
So a display about Obama is put up with a single Monkey picture in the middle. Odd. Very odd.
A photo of the display began circulating via e-mail by an unknown photographer and has sparked widespread criticism and the public apology from the U.S. bookseller. But is putting the blame on a customer really an apology?
So just to be clear, an unidentified man or woman took a picture of a display which they were offended by and RATHER than march into the store and demand an explanation and removal, they merely forwarded this message to whomever without attribute. OK so we expect first that the photographer ID him or herself then tell us why they didn't bring it up to the store manager immediately since they felt so inclined to defend the race.
Secondly though there is no direct evidence that the store in question is not telling the truth. Worse, the title implies that B&N as a corporate entity approved of such an action when we know that a B&N store is much more like a franchise.
On contrast the NY Post, owned by Newscorp has direct control over the content of the NY Post. No individual can sneak in a photo such as the offending one into the paper. There must be approval from the Editor in Chief to have such an item show in a paper. In fact it is common for so called "offensive" syndicated columns and cartoons to be rejected by a newspaper. Ask Aaron McGruder.
I'm not familiar with the store in Florida but I am familiar with two such stores here in Northern NJ where I as a customer could EASILY muck about with a window display or any other display in the store without much notice from anyone. Furthermore; it is entirely plausible that it was not a customer but an employee acting on his or her own behalf. In neither case would this be reflection on B&N the corporate entity unlike the situation with the NY Post where the very fact that the cartoon was approved up the chain reflected directly on the corporate entity.
So the comparison to the NY Post incident thus far is so far fetched that it would seem to me that Diversity Inc. is courting a libel suit by making such comparisons.
Anyway unless or until Diversity Inc. takes to actual reporting, like calling the store, tracking down the photographer or perhaps tracking down surveillance footage, their report ought to be taken with the same grain of salt used by the "know your 5 black presidents" poster they are selling.
on a side note though, I guess Flavor Flav doing his black face impression is OK by everyone
Anyone who saw the NY Times website this morning ~7:30AM saw the article on David Axlerod with an Obama sign with Hebrew lettering under the logo. It was commented on by a couple of readers. It is now gone. Poof. It has been replaced with a photo of Obama and Axlerod in the Oval office. I don't think it is an accident that the picture was changed. Not at all. And of course between Axlerod and Emmanuel we understand why Obama has decided to boycott Durban II over Zionism.
Just a day after the Information Commissioner raided a firm for possessing a covert database of construction workers’ personal information, it emerged that the police force is keeping a potentially illegal database listing the details of political activists and journalists.
In a Guardian newspaper investigation, the Metropolitan Police force, which is said to have pioneered surveillance techniques at demonstrations, was accused of storing details including names, photographs, political associations and video footage of protesters and reporters.
Mind you England is one of, if not the biggest police states in the English speaking world. Don't feel comforted by being in the USA since the NYPD and other police departments have been doing this kind of stuff as well. It just underscores the recent re-airing of a Like It Is report from 1980 about the infiltration of various black organizations and the extent to which the government will interfere with people and organizations who are doing nothing illegal just because they can.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
the assault began when Rihanna picked up Brown’s phone as the couple drove away from a pre-Grammy party in Beverly Hills. The singer saw a long text message on Brown’s phone detailing a sexual encounter between him and another woman, the warrant said.
The pair began arguing, and Brown pulled the rented Lamborghini to the side of the road and tried to make Rihanna get out of the car, according to the warrant. When her seat belt got in the way, he began punching her in the face.
“The assault caused Robyn F.’s mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the car,” the police detective wrote in the warrant filed Feb. 20.
During the alleged assault, the detective wrote, Brown told Rihanna, “I’m going to beat the [expletive] out of you when we get home. You wait and see.”
After Rihanna feigned a call to her personal assistant -- pretending to ask the woman to have police waiting at her home -- Brown became enraged, telling her, “Now I am going to kill you,” according to the warrant.
The assault escalated with Brown biting Rihanna on the ear and putting her in a headlock until she lost consciousness, according to the warrant. When she attempted to free herself by “gouging his eyes out,” the detective wrote, he bit her finger. Her screams for help were heard by a neighbor, the warrant says.
So Brown gets the gas face. But Ms. Fenty is dumb.
1) Finds long text message from some chick about some sex chick and Brown had.
2) Gets her ass beat when she confronts him on it.
3) Gets back together with the cheating beater.
Sympathy has now left the room. Clearly she likes it.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
In what may signal a dangerous new, "post-racial" approach to global race relations, President Barack Obama's Administration announced that it will not attend the second World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Geneva next April. According to this article in the New York Times, the Administration will boycott the conference to protest what it deems the unfair equation of Zionism with racism in the outcome documents of the first conference held in Durban, South Africa, and now the second conference, also known as "Durban II, as well." Other concerns cited by Administration officials, some of whom recently attended preparatory meetings in Geneva, in their justification of the boycott include a proposal to place restrictions on the defamation of religions and any language calling for reparations for slavery. According to the Times article, one of the primary reasons for the Obama Administration's decision was that "Israel and some American Jewish groups urged a boycott of the April conference, and several close American allies, including Canada."
Yes because Barack Emmanuel....I mean Obama has no problems with things like this:
According to the Israeli Association for Civil Rights, anti-Arab incidents have risen sharply. “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” says Sami Michael, the organization’s president. Among the Association’s findings:
* Some 55 percent of Jewish Israelis say that the state should encourage Arab emigration;
* 78 percent of Jewish Israelis oppose including Arab parties in the government;
* 56 percent agree with the statement that “Arabs cannot attain the Jewish level of cultural development”;
* 75 percent agree that Arabs are inclined to be violent. Among Arab-Israelis, 54 percent feel the same way about Jews.
* 75 percent of Israeli Jews say they would not live in the same building as Arabs.
Nope. Zionism is A-okay!
Monday, March 02, 2009
Right. Lets get some legalities out the way. I know some people don't realize it but ANY unwanted contact with a person is legally assault. I have given advice to students having sit ins and the first thing I tell them is DO NOT touch ANYONE who is not part of the sit -in. And usually that contact with a police officer, trustee or other member of the university administration is the pretext for mass arrests. I say that so that the reader/viewer will understand that the girl here legally assaulted the officer when she kicked off her shoes at him. You will see in the video that the shoe did in fact hit the officer's foot and it was after that contact that he proceeded to do his illegal act.
The police cannot use any more force than is necessary to subdue a "suspect." It is clear that that though the officer was legally assaulted, that the girl did not pose a physical threat to the officer: she was already in the cell/room and had her hands crossed in front of her.
We cannot hear anything on the video but the question is, why did they feel that they had to cuff this girl given that she was not a physical threat. Clearly since they could have easily charged with assault on a police officer there was no need to have any further contact with her. Secondly, even if they did want to make a point by hand cuffing her and booking her for assault, there was no need for the bum rush, the hits to the head, the throwing on the ground or pulling her up by the hair.
So legally both the girl and the officer are on the hook. Morally it s clear that the officer is out of order. Being "lippy" with an officer is a constitutionally protected activity even though many police officers don't think so.