Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Mileage Tax

As mentioned in the video "The Obama Deception" proposals to put GPS units in all vehicles for the "purpose" of taxing citizens for how far they drive.

Of course defenders of this kind of legislation will have no problem with the government being able to track your every coming and going. It's not like the government abuses such information.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Obama Deception

Airplanes flying
overseas people dying
politicians lyin
I'm tryin
to hit the problem head on
by bringin' out the truth in a song


Aside from the let's get your attention title, this is a video you need to watch. It would probably be better, or more accurately titled the Presidential Deception or something along those lines because it lays out the case that it's not really about Obama...or Bush or Clinton or any president, but rather who those presidents work for.

I've known about this video for a while and at nearly 2 hours long I needed to have time to sit and watch it all the way through before I posted a link to it here. Folks most of this is the real deal. I don't peddle in conspiracy theories. When I have an opinion on something I state that it is so. If I'm not sure as to the veracity of a story I come across I simply do not post it here. This means that you, the reader/viewer need to sit down with 2 hours to spare and watch this piece critically. Many of the points in this video have been made by me over the past 5 years of blogging. Furthermore I have independently read on many of the groups mentioned in this piece. That is I read about them under circumstances not related to the viewing of, or even knowledge of this video. Furthermore much of the criticism leveled at Obama and the power elite have been raised in other publications such as the Black Commentator and the Black Agenda Report. This does not include the documented evidence from so called "reputable" news sources that appear in the film.

That said I need to discuss briefly two points brought up in the film:

1) National Health Care: They didn't go into details on it but I can't be against that. I see that as something the government ought to be doing. The film acts as if nationalized health care would necessarily mean that the government can determine if as well as what health care you can get. Well maybe, but that's what we have now with private health "insurance" except you don't know when "they" will decide you're not worth treatment x. It is more likely that a national health care (single payer) system would establish the floor of healthcare that anyone can get: ER, Primary, Preventative, etc. But that private companies would be free to offer services above and beyond what is offered by the government. So I'm not going for the claims on that one.

2) Global Warming is a Hoax: I know there are people who believe that the global warming we have measured may not be due to human activity. Fine. The argument presented in the film is that we are experiencing the effects of sun spots. OK. I think it could be a combination of sun spots and human activity since you cannot discount the amount of CO2 that we are producing which is unprecedented in Earth history, nor can we discount the cutting down of trees that is also an unnatural event that necessarily has consequences. I do agree with the film's position that the people at the top are looking to use the "green push" as a means for a greater police state and a means of generating new revenues.

3) Lastly if there is any other reason to be very afraid of Rahm Emanuel and those other people close to Obama, this video provides it. Towards the end of this video Rahm is on record as saying that anyone put on the bogus No Fly List is not only a terrorist but that they no longer enjoy the "rights" of citizenship. This man ought to be fired and IMHO tried for treason. First of all the No-Fly list is completely made up list. No one on the list has been arrested, tried or convicted of anything. Yet this man thinks that simply because some ass-hat in Washington (or NY or wherever) thinks that a particular person is a "threat" you're rights (in this particular instance, to bear arms) no longer exist. Why isn't there some kind of inquiry into this? Why is this man even still employed in government? So now you know why so many bun stores are out of ammo. Watching Rahm made me want to go buy a gun because I now seriously believe that in the not to distant future police will be running up into people's homes and such based on non-existent evidence. I have no intention of going peacefully if it comes down to that. Seriously. So I'm not going to knock these right wingers in red states who are afraid. They are right.

Those are my major issues with the piece of major issues within' the piece. There are some other statements made in the piece that I do not believe were supported by the evidence presented. Doesn't mean they are incorrect but I would suggest further research. I'll put it like this, watch this with a critical eye. If you are unfamiliar with the organizations mentioned in this video then I suggest a trip to the library or other reputable information source. If you're familiar with the book the 48 Laws of Power, you will instantly recognize many of the power moves shown in the film.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

New Haven Firefighter Suit II

So the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the New Haven Firefighter suit

Not having read any transcripts of the arguments and going only by this LA Times report, I can see there is still a lot of issues that are not being dealt with.

It appears that Souter and Ginsberg are asking the wrong questions:

a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation." If the city had used the test results, black fighters could sue and say they were excluded because of a discriminatory test. When the city scrapped the results, they were sued by the white firefighters. "Why not give the city an opportunity, in a good faith, to start again?" he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to agree. The white firefighters did not have "any vested right" to a promotion, she said, and the city should be given time to construct a fairer test.

While it is agreed that the white firefighters have no vested right to a promotion, neither do any of the black firefighters. No one is entitled to a promotion. Like many civil servant positions promotions are granted in large part due to results on various examinations. You do well on the test and you find yourself higher on the list of potential promotions.

The city of New Haven is claiming that it believes that the test in question is discriminatory because black test takers did poorly. That is not proof of discrimination. Indeed it is proof that something is wrong but it is not proof of discrimination. The city claims that it wants to modify the test in order to make it "less discriminatory." But since it has not been proven that the test is not discriminatory, how can they hope to make it less so? Is New Haven simply using "less discriminatory" as a code word for 'easier?" If so then that is an insult to all the black firefighters in New Haven. As I discussed the first time I posted on the subject, If a dyslexic firefighter could not only pass the test but apparently land near the top of the list then what exactly were the black firefighters doing to prepare for this exam? If the dyslexic white firefighter could get his hands on old (or preparatory) exams, what exactly were the black firefighters doing? Are we implying that the black firefighters in New Haven are less able to learn than white firefighters with learning disabilities? That's a serious charge!
If I were on the bench I would demand that the city of New Haven produce all the black firefighters to the court and grill them on how they prepared for the exam.

Now, all that having been said I agree with the City of New Haven insomuch as the lack of promotable black firefighters is a problem. The problem is not solved by kicking the hard work of other firefighters to the curb. The City of New Haven should have spent the money they are spending on this case on outreach programs to their black firefighters. They should reach out to relevant benevolent associations and offer low or no cost preparatory courses for anyone who wishes to partake. For those who are poor test takers, there respective organizations should offer test taking courses.

It is clear here that the Supreme Court can decide in favor of the white firefighters while still allowing New Haven to take race into consideration for it's promotions. It is for the best that among equals (that is the top performing test takers) to be selected on the basis of other subjective criteria that all people up for new jobs are judged on (and I've been on enough hiring committees to know that there are a LOT of subjective things that go into getting jobs and promotions).


So it turns out that out of 118 people who took the test only 56 passed. Methinks New Haven may have a larger problem. Anyway if only 47% of the people are passing the test then it is clear that the exam is a weeder and did it's job pretty well. Also of note is that the City of New Haven paid a good chunk of change to a professional "race neutral" test creating service who's services I'm sure not a few clients are having second thoughts about. I believe this highlights my primary position that the problem lies not with the test but in the preparation done by the exam takers. More foolishness:

Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

Of course. Negroes are notorious for not being able to memorize? Anything more complicated than Souljah Boy lyrics is waaaaay to much for our brains to handle. Clearly the brain of the average Negro cannot be expected to surpass that of a dyslexic white man.

Clearly Negroes cannot be expected to memorize what to provide "leadership" in emergency situations. Practice is for dyslexic white men right? We all know that Negroes can only be expected to act from the gut right?

This just gets more and more insulting as it goes.

Israeli Pirates

Of course you didn't know.

Was there lethal intent? A gun boat came out of the black of night with no lights showing whilst a searchlight from the other gun boat displayed the port hull of its target. It would have approached at about 30 degrees to the Dignity’s port and at speed. The intention to sink the Dignity and thus to drown its company was clear. If the hull had been GRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic) it would have shattered and the boat would have sunk like a stone where it was rammed 53 nautical miles off Haifa. Fortunately, the hull was constructed of marine ply with timber ribs and the company survived. The Zionist entity greatly resents anyone coming to the aid of the native population, whatever its depth of suffering, and war lust was growing by the day.

Now there were Americans on board but exactly how many days straight have we heard about this?

Dissident Voice

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Text of Ahmadinejad's Speech in Geneva

The About Face

Anyone who saw Rahm Emanuel state on This Week that the CIA agents who created the "legal" justification were not in danger of prosecution should recognize the recent report in the LA Times:

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

As what we refer to as an about face. Now the problem here is that the onus has been put on the AG who is a political appointment and has an interest in pleasing his boss rather than the citizenry. Obama did not direct Holder to investigate which is what should have happened. At this point the pressure would need to be put on the judiciary committee to take up the issue and therefore force the hand of the AG.

Please understand that this is exactly what is being asked for. Obama is too scared to spend political points going after these crooks so he's placing it in Holder's hands so that he can say later that it was Holder's determination and not his.

"What Is It With These People?"

The LA Times reports:

Crimes suspected in 20 bailout cases -- for starters
which contains this gem:

"That's an appalling record," Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said of the 20 criminal investigations. "In the midst of this crisis from which they are being bailed out, the same people who created this mess are apparently still breaking the law. What is it with these people?"

Oh I can answer that. The previous president stood up in front of TV cameras and on live TV said that he broke the law. A couple of laws. He wasn't prosecuted. The current president has documented evidence of torture, illegal under international law and US law. Both the previous and current president have declined to prosecute those who not only directly committed crimes but those who conspired to provide "cover" for those crimes. Both the previous and current president faced with the fallout from the fraud on Wall Street decided against prosecuting anyone for it. Rather they both authorized handing them more money.

So given that a clear message has been sent out that those "too big to fail" are also "to big to prosecute" is it not surprising when it is clear that some people are above the law that some other people are trying to include themselves in that group? It's been said that taxes are for little people. Seems so is jail. But if you're black you know that already.

Monday, April 20, 2009

How Many Times?

How many times you need to pretend drown someone before you realize, that perhaps, maybe that shit doesn't work?

Hands Off Assata

NJ State Sen. Sean T. Kean, R-Monmouth, sent a letter to Obama stating:

"sends the message to the world that we are not committed to pursuing justice for a police officer who was savagely gunned down in the line of duty."

Whatever. The problem with this case is the continued denial of white people as to how policing in NJ is done relative to black folk particularly in the 60's and 70's as evidenced by this write up

Chesimard, a Black Panther and member of the Black Liberation Army, was sentenced to life in prison in 1977 after being found guilty of murdering State Trooper Werner Foerster just south of interchange 9 on the New Jersey Turnpike four years earlier. Authorities said Foerster was shot execution style during a routine traffic stop of a car in which Chesimard was a passenger.

Understand for a black person on the NJ Turnpike, even today the only thing routine about a traffic stop is that you know it's coming if you're in the wrong part of "town" at the "wrong" time. Furthermore, in the 70's, if you were a Black Panther, you were known to all manner of "law enforcement" who generally were looking for an excuse to lock you up if not shoot you down in the street. And I'm not making this up having had the "routine" treatment of being stopped and had guns pointed in my direction during "routine" traffic stops.

I'm "sure" the reason for pulling over the black panthers was something like a taillight being out since that seems to a standard op for NJ State Troopers.

One of the interesting things about Shakur's trial was the following from Wikipedia:

Shakur testified that Trooper Harper shot her after she raised her arms to comply with his demand, the second shot hitting her in the back as she was turning to avoid it, and that she fell onto the road for the duration of the gunfight before crawling back into the backseat of the Pontiac which Acoli drove 5 miles (8 km) down the road and parked, and remained there until State Troopers dragged her onto the road.[47][124]

Does that sound familiar to anyone? It should. It is practically the same thing that happened in the killing of Sean Bell. Here's what was said back in April of last year:

Q. And what did you see this person doing at that


A. I saw the passenger of the vehicle. The window

was blown out, and he kept moving like this as to

indicated he was trying to raise his arm, and I didn't

want him to get that arm up.

Q. Just for the record, you are indicating that the

man in the passenger seat was kind of twisting towards

the interior of the car?

A. No.

Q. Why don't you clarify that?

A. What I saw was the passenger of the vehicle, he

kept trying to raise his right arm as to bring a gun up

to me the whole time. I didn't know if he could have

been shooting through the vehicle because he couldn't

get his arm up. I was not about to let him get that arm

up. I felt if he got that arm up he was going to kill


Q. Would it be fair to say, as you made the motion

that you just demonstrated to the jury where you

indicated this man was trying to reach for his waist you

were also lowering your left shoulder and basically

putting yourself in a position where your left shoulder

is also lowered to your waist?

A. I can't answer that, that way. I don't know if he

was tipping his shoulder. When he is trying to reach he

wasn't just sitting still, and moving his arm. He was

like -- he was trying to get his arm up.

Q. The motion that you are making now as you

demonstrate to the jury is an attempt to show the jury

the motion that man was making?

A. It was a motion that appeared to me that he was

trying to raise a gun at me.

Q. But the motion that you are demonstrating to the

jury is an attempt by you to show the jury the motion

that man was making, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in making that motion you are tipping your

left shoulder, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When this man, who you testified was making this

motion, he was in the passenger seat of the vehicle, is

that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when he made that motion and was tipping his

left shoulder that was kind of pushing his body towards

the interior of the car, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And again you saw this motion, but you saw no

weapon, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You fired that shot at the same time you saw this

motion, is that correct?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. You fired your first round at about the time you

first saw this man making this motion?

A. Yes.

So we see that it is standard op. for police to shoot at people in the back and claim they were reaching for weapons. Back to Wiki:

The reports then state that after Acoli complied and as Harper was looking inside the vehicle to examine the registration, Trooper Foerster yelled and held up an ammunition clip, as Shakur simultaneously reached into her red pocketbook, pulled out a nine-millimeter weapon and fired at him.[124] Trooper Harper's reports then state that he ran to the rear of his car and shot at Shakur who had exited the vehicle and was firing from a crouched position next to the vehicle.[124

And Officer Oliver claimed that Guzman was reaching in his waist for a gun too. but of course:

Under cross-examination at both Acoli and Shakur's trials, Trooper Harper admitted to having lied in these reports and in his Grand Jury testimony about Trooper Foerster yelling and showing him an ammunition clip, about seeing Shakur holding a pocketbook or a gun inside the vehicle, and about Shakur shooting at him from the car.[45][101] Trooper Harper retracted his previous statements and said that he had never seen Shakur with a gun, and that she did not shoot him.[126]

Imagine that. Lying under oath. I wonder if this fellow has seen the inside of a jail cell a-la lil Kim for perjury?

Back to the point though. This State Senator's attitude is unfortunately typical of many people in NJ. The Embargo against Cuba is an act of war. It needs to stop regardless. Talk about political prisoners in Cuba are hypocritical when the US has plenty of its own. And hands off Assata!

Obama Discloses Spies in Iran

In a spate of disclosure last week Obama announced that there were spies in Iran. Now you're probably saying "How do you know?" It's simple really. When Obama said, unequivocally, that he knew Roxana Saberi was not a spy. He made a pressupposed statement. Clearly anyone who is not Roxana or her potential handlers does not know for certain whether Roxana is a spy. Roxana's family can say anything they want but really spies don't tell their families that they are spies. But the issue here is that I can guarantee you that when Roxana was "caught" president Obama asked whomever he needed to whether or not Roxana was on the US Payroll. He got his answer, and he knows whether or not Roxana is a spy. Furthermore as Americans now know, it is a felony to disclose the status of a CIA undercover operative. Obama is one of the only persons (if not THE only person) who can disclose such information. Therefore; by making the statement that he knows that Roxana is not a spy, he is also admitting that he knows who the spies are in Iran.

If Iran had some cheek they would have asked Obama that since he knows who is and is not a spy in Iran, he should disclose who the spies are so that Roxana can be freed and the real spies tried for espionage. Of course THAT is not going to happen. My advice to Mr. Obama should something like this happen in the future, is to refrain from making statements about persons spy status while trying to rally sympathy.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Not Only Me

It's not only me wondering what it would take Americans to go Bangkok.

MW: Why is Treasury a revolving door for investment bankers that are tied to Wall Street?
Morgan: Because the American public allows it. Benjamin Franklin said . . . Well done is better than well said. Too many Americans gripe and moan, but when it comes time to doing anything . . . they sit back on the couch with a bag of chips and the TV. We think it is cute to use the TV to amuse our toddlers. Do you think it is any different for 75 per cent of the American public?

Blagojovich: Possibly the Most Honest Politician Alive

Unlike the general sentiment now it is entirely possible that Blagojovich is the most honest politician to have been in office. Now let us not confuse ethical with honest. Heck the upcoming trial may even show that he's the most honest politician to be convicted of a crime. Why do I say this? I say this because all over the news we see reports of congresspeople and senators and wannabes for both, raising funds for re-election. Every year these folks get money from all manner of lobbyists and special interests. These companies and organizations almost always get some kind of payback for their investment. You and I don't see it for a few reasons:

a) the recipient of these funds is careful to get the donation using "legal" and "understood" language.

b) It is never asked for but is rather understood that you pay to play.

Blagojovich understood how this system worked. But like me, he doesn't really like the shadiness of acting like you don't want or expect something for nothing. None of this beat around the bush and indirect talk. No Blagojovich apparently came to the table and said I need x, you want y? How do we proceed? Simple to the point. You want in, you pay. Oh sure it's crass. Oh sure it locks out the "little guy" who can't afford to pay up. But lets be real here. How many major contracts go out to the "little guy." Seriously folks. In many cases the favored party knows about the upcoming project long before any of the little guys.

Currently Jesse Jackson Jr. is under the spotlight because there is a thought that he agreed to raise funds for Blago in exchange for being appointed to the Senate seat vacated by Obama. People are calling this a bribe. Really? When companies are regularly asked to make donations to campaigns? Does the public really believe that there is no expectation of ANYTHING in return? Look, if there wasn't any kind of expectations or returns, these companies would not be lobbying and not donating to political parties and candidates.

Lets take this example: If you want to register a business in NJ there is a fee. If you want that expedited you pay an extra fee. Why? Why isn't everything expedited? Why do I have to pay a bribe to get my business registered quick? Also who gets put on the back burner when I pay up? Why are they, who may have submitted before me, thrown to the back of the line? Simple: they didn't pay up. This is nothing more than state sanctioned bribery.

Take the case of immigrants trying to get their green cards. It is pretty much known that if you don't have the cash to pay a lawyer, it's going to take forever. All manner of paperwork junk and slow moving stuff happens. But you get the right lawyer with the right connections? Green cards float down like leaves off a tree in fall.

So I give Blago some credit here. He doesn't smile in your face and say: "I'll see what I can do" and hope you get the picture. No sir. He gets on the phone and tells it like it is: "This thing is effin golden! I'm not giving it up for nothing!" Why should he, a whole lot of people getting rich off the Obama train. Trading up jobs, getting book deals. Banks getting bailed out. etc. etc.

Did Blago do some unethical stuff? Sure. I'm sure a lot of it will come out. But still it seems to me that if anything the man was honest even if we dislike on what he was honest about.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

NSA Wiretapping: What Will it Take to Piss People Off?

With the numerous about faces the Democrats have made on issues that put them into power, I'm wondering exactly what will it take to get the American public to go Bangkok? Seriously the last president says outright and on tape that he broke the law and he suffers no consequences. While people on the left talked a good game about how Bush needs to go and the right went to all lengths to justify the clearly illegal behavior and the people? They went about their business.

During the Republican Convention Reporters are harassed and arrested while doing their constitutionally protected jobs. It is caught on tape and what happens? Nothing. A few squawks here and there on "lefty" blogs and that's it. This type of thing happens in say Iran and it's front page news and an example of how repressive the government is.

Mass arrests at the Republican convention in New York most without any cause whatsoever. People penned up for hours if not days and there's some noise on lefty blogs and not a head rolls, not an elected official put out on his ass. Not a hired police big man fired. The people do nothing.

3 young men are assassinated by plain clothes police officers who admit they saw no weapon. One of whom stops to reload and busts off a whole extra clip and the court says it's 'unfortunate" but not jail-able. There's a protest, a few angry words in front of TV cameras and nothing. Not even the then presidential candidate can muster up enough respect for the victim's family and the colored folk of NYC to NOT say dumb shit like "violence gets us nowhere." As if black folk in NYC have no control over themselves (or ought to have).

Wall street tanks the economy and people lose millions and millions of dollars in value of their 401K's. People on the verge of retirement have seen their "nest egg" rot and have to consider working at KFC or such to make ends meet. Meanwhile not one but two presidents hand these same companies billions of these tax payers dollars to prop up the clear ponzi scheme that is Credit Default Swaps.

All and all there is not a single run up on DC. I ask what the hell is wrong with the American population?

Last night we see a(nother) report that the NSA was gathering more intel than previously "known." This included tapping a congressman. I said long ago that the NSA and other agencies have been gathering so called "intelligence" (translation: blackmail material) on people both in and out of government. Can you imagine if such a thing was uncovered in Iran or Venezuela? front page news and speeches by politicians about how undemocratic these places are. Where is the outrage? What exactly will it take for Americans to go Bangkok?

Obama Bows to the Zionists...Again and Again...

Glen Ford hit the bullseye on Obama, Durban and so called Black Leadership.

On Tuesday, April 14, according to the Huffington Post, the White House placed a conference call to American “Jewish leaders,” all but assuring them the U.S. would not show up for Durban II, the international conference on racism, in Geneva, Switzerland. President Obama’s close adviser Samantha Power, of the National Security Council, said the event’s revised draft document “met two of our four red lines frontally, in the sense that it went no further than reparations and it did drop all references to Israel and all anti-Semitic language. But it continued to reaffirm, in toto, Durban I.”

And the question of the day:

We must first ask: Why is the White House reporting to “Jewish leaders” on an issue that is of interest to all Americans, most especially people of color?

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

How Burger King got Owned

Today people are so scared to call "bullshit" on people who claim to be offended by certain things, that they run around doing damage control when there's nothing to fix. Such a case is BurgerKing who Diversity Inc. decided to applaud for taking "swift" action to pull an add supposedly offensive to Mexicans. Though the ads themselves were aired in Spain and the UK. Here's the ad:

Here's Diversity (Abraham Lincoln was black) Inc. on the ad:

The print and TV ads showed a small Mexican wrestler using the flag of Mexico as his cape standing next to an American cowboy twice his size. They were shown in Spain and the United Kingdom. The Mexican ambassador in Spain raised the outcry, asking that the ads be pulled because they used stereotypes of Mexicans.

Well let's see The entire ad stereotypes not only Mexicans but US citizens as well. After all Americans are not only white males but are also white females, blacks, Asians, etc. So the ad excludes all those people. But nobody really expected any advertising for a burger to represent everyone and every type in America did we? I didn't think so.

Secondly, Not all Americans are cowboys (or gals for that matter). We are urban, metro-sexual, suburban. ghetto, countrified, etc. But this ad takes on ONE particular segment of "Americana" and puts it on the ad. A segment that is stereotypical of America. But there's no mention of that in the Diversity Inc. piece. Nor in the Burger King "apology."

Moving on.

According to The Associated Press, a Spanish newspaper published a front-page story titled "Denigrating advertising," which said the ads "show Mexicans as notably inferior to all Americans." Mexico also has laws against using its flags in a derogatory manner, but the ads did not run in Mexico.

Well the fact of the matter is that the cape of the "Mexican" is not in fact the Mexican flag. It is a cape of the Mexican colors. The Mexican flag has an crest in the middle with an eagle on it. The "Mexican" in question is adorned in Mexican colors No different than someone in the US (or England, or France) wearing Red, white and blue. Simply wearing a countries identifying colors does not equate to wearing the flag of said country.

Secondly the short Mexican is a clear exageration of the relative average height differences between white American males and Mexican males. White American males are on average 5' 10". On average Mexican males are 5'7" That's a full three inches which is very noticeable. SO it is clear that the advertisement is not only taking broad liberties with cultural icons of both Mexico and the United States, but also with general biological differences between the two countries.

Therefore there is nothing offensive about an advertisement chock full of overblown cultural and biological symbols used to make a funny point about the coming together of two groups who currently are having political issues around immigration, to make something new and "exciting."

What is offensive is that some people take the opportunity to make wild and clearly unfounded accusations. It is offensive to have such bullshit land in my inbox by a company claiming to be defenders of diversity.

It is offensive that such a publication didn't feel compelled in their writeup to point out the issues I did even IF they thought that the advertisement is offensive.

As for Burger King, I understand the business case for their apology. a company never wins an argument with a customer. They are in business to sell red meat not to score political or sociological points with newspapers and company's claiming to be represent diversity. But it is unfortunate that they could not. And of course with the racket DI runs, BK wants to stay in their good graces.


Monday, April 13, 2009

"Justice" Thomas ought to be removed from the Court

Justice Clarence Thomas ought to be removed from the Bench if in fact he :

The evening was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.

NY Times

Does not embrace the constitution? I'd like to see the exact quote here. But if this is in fact true then I see absolutely no point for this man to continue to serve as the protector of a document he does not "embrace."

I'm also particularly disturbed by "Justice" Thomas's apparently infatuation with the military and indoctrination:

“Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”

Sounds like a Nazi wanna be. Shall we have students pledge their life to our Great Leader?

Then there's this:

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?"

Well I suppose Mr. Thomas would have a stronger point if there were in fact parts of the US Constitution called the Bill or Responsibilities or Bill of Obligations. But there aren't. Well no that's not entirely true since most of the document which Thomas appears to have problems "embracing" spells out the responsibilities of office holders. You know it says things like respecting treaties. Providing for things like Due Process, Habeus Corpus and other government "obligations."

Rather than take the opportunity to discuss his obligation to uphold that unloved thing called the constitution, he rambles about dishwashers and air conditioning. Clearly "Justice" Thomas has a serious perspective problem. I think that this presentation by Thomas reveals (again) a person with serious problems. To have someone one the highest court of the land claim to not "embrace" the Bill of Rights is very, very troubling.

While You Cheered for the Captain...

And celebrated over the sniping of 3 pirates. While on the news a Navy man discussed how there are laws and such we find:

es: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by overexploitation – and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers. The local fishermen are now starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."


Friday, April 10, 2009

The New Haven Firefighter Suit

The NY Times is reporting a case from New Haven regarding a firefighter promotion exam:

Mr. Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19 African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination.

Their case, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 22, is the Roberts court’s first major confrontation with claims of racial discrimination in employment and will require the justices to choose between conflicting conceptions of the government’s role in ensuring fair treatment regardless of race.

Unless there is something shown that indicates that the test contained material that a Black person is unable to learn, study for or comprehend, I believe the city is in err. You don't toss out the results of an exam because black folk don't pass the test (or score high enough). You do look to see why. What is particularly disturbing is that Ricci:

who is dyslexic, paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read textbooks onto audiotapes. He made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group and participated in mock interviews.

If he did all that, then the question is, and the reporter should have asked is, what did the black test takers do? It is highly relevant. Did they know that practice tests were available? Why or why not? Did the black test takers do mock interviews (the only part that I could think is subjective, but I don't know the contents of the interview or the written test).

We're not buying the race-neutral talk of the National Police Organization, but we're also not going to support throwing out people's hard work either. I also reject the position of the Black Professional Fire Fighters, Young people have the RIGHT to have fully qualified professional firefighters respond to emergencies in their neighborhood. The city ought to be doing all it can to promote the most qualified members. That includes everybody. And black people who want to get promoted need to do what my uncle has been doing in the MTA. Getting up in the AM and studying. Going to classes if available. Coming home in the evening and studying. and then kick tail at the test. Follow up here

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Australia an Example of Global Warming

From the LA Times A pretty harrowing tale of what we're going to be seeing in parts of Africa. Yes I said Africa. What I don't understand though is this:

Scientists are frustrated that such dramatic anecdotal and empirical evidence hasn't sparked equally dramatic action from Australia's government. They suspect the inaction can be partly explained by examining the nation's relationship with coal. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and relies on it for 80% of its electricity. That helps make Australia and its 21 million people the world's highest per-capita producers of greenhouse gases in the industrialized world.

Why is a country with THAT much sunlight not at the forefront of solar energy? With winds that high why aren't they at the forefront of wind energy?

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Obama Strikes Again!

I really am not enjoying having to make these posts. I find it particularly troubling that a man who invoked that "preacher" Dr. King, whom the government surveilled without cause in an attempt to destroy him, would have his justice department state "that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of U.S. law."

However; I must point out that I said that the Democrats were willing to go along with the Patriot Act, which is what the Obama administration is basing it's position on, because they wanted the powers it conferred when they got into office. This is why Bush, Cheney and Co. are sleeping well at night. They know that the so called "liberal" Democrats are no less craven for power than Republicans are.

From the Alternet article:

"A 'willful violation' in Section 223(c(1) refers to the 'willful disclosure' of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States," Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote (page 5).

From Alternet

Cynthia McKinney on Buyer's Remorse

Increasingly, though, there's another type of voter that is contacting me, expressing "Buyer's Remorse" for having supported candidate Barack Obama. These voters can be futher subdivided into three categories: those who voted for Obama, not knowing very much about our Power to the People campaign; those who voted for Obama, knowing a lot about Rosa, me, and the Power to the People campaign, but who chose instead to vote for Obama out of fear of a McCain/Palin White House; and finally, those who knew about our Power to the People campaign and were hostile to it because they were suspicious that our campaign was designed to deny the White House to candidate Obama--the spoiler campaign. Fortunately and hopefully, because of the integrity with which we ran our campaign, those in this latter category are few in terms of their numbers in communication with me.

For me, the number of people contacting me expressing regret for having voted for Obama is a double-edged sword. That is, it indicates that prior to the election, we were not able to seal the deal with a significant number of our natural voters. There are many reasons for that, but being severely underfunded lies at the base of that failing. However, on the other hand, these expressions of "buyer's remorse" indicate that people knowingly allowed themselves to be swept into the voting booth and vote against their values.

The Rest

bringing Up a Past Post

The article on Blacks being at odds on Obama and the comments that I've seen posted on Huffington remind me of a post I made back in May of 2007 when the object of scorn was Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson:

What is Sharpton Hating? it' pretty clear. People hate Sharpton (and Jesse Jackson) because they show up when black people are insulted, threatened, etc. Sharpton takes the risk of being wrong by speaking out. Whereas you and I, work for someone else and have to put up with various insults and the like, Sharpton (and Jesse) don't work for anyone and are free to call spades, spades. In other words, they make their living, by and large by being there when racist stuff happens.

Just exchange Tavis for Sharpton and you get the same thing.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Blacks at Odds Over Scrutiny of President (or Confused Negroes Exposed)

Excellent Washington Post article which exposes many Negroes for what they are: opportunistic black folk looking for access who use so called "black politics" as their in.

I said early in the primary season that one of the great things that having an African-American president will do is to get black folk off the "first one." syndrome. I wrote that all one has to do is look at countries in Africa and the Caribbean where the first set of leaders after independence were practically worshiped as gods. They could do nothing wrong and anything negative said about them was a sign of being a tool of the colonialist. How quickly the African realized that simply having "skin folk" in the 'Big house' meant little. It meant the "Big man" could fly around the world and skin and grin for the "adoring" white leaders who had nothing but effusive praise for the next new African leader.

The African, being so used to being excluded was happy just to be in the mix. This is what we are seeing right now among most African-Americans. But what this also reveals in plain sight for everyone to see is who was on the black wagon because it was a tool for advancement and who was on the black wagon because they believed in the destination. Heck if they even KNEW the destination.

Check some of the choice pieces from the article:

Johnson is one of a growing number of black academics, commentators and authors determined to press Obama on issues such as the elimination of racial profiling and the double-digit unemployment rate among blacks.

But doing so has put them at odds with others in the black community. Love for the Obamas is thick among African Americans -- 91 percent of whom view the president favorably, compared with 59 percent of the total population, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted last month -- and as a result, the African American punditry finds itself navigating new ground.

Well first off black academics are not and ought not simply be concerned about domestic issues. We ought to have, consistent with figures such as Garvey, Delany, King and Shabazz, an international agenda to push. We should find it offensive when we are put in the "domestic corner" of police brutality, unemployment and housing discrimination.

Secondly one can have a favorable opinion of Obama and still hold him accountable to our permanent interests. The two have nothing to do with each other. I have a high opinion of Obama as a person and how he played the electoral game. That doesn't mean I set down and roll over.

They are learning to negotiate what talk show host and author Tavis Smiley calls an "unfamiliar dance." If you push too forcefully, he says he has learned, you risk your credibility in the community.

Unfamiliar to who? Again the history is there in our faces. And who's credibility is at risk. Is it not credible to site inconsistencies and contradictions in ANYONE'S behaviour? Or is it inconsistent to be critical of Bush and whomever else simply because they are White and Republican? Methinks the latter shows a lack of credibility.

What he is up against are people like Leutisha Stills, a regular blogger on the African American opinion site Jack and Jill Politics. She dismisses anything Smiley has to say about Obama because he is "always going negative."

Would this be the same Leutisha Stills of Congressional Black Caucus Report Card fame? That's a damn shame. Another confused negro exposed. I won't even get into Jack And Jill whom the basics of Mendelian genetics seems to have passed them by in high school.

Wilson-Smith, who started the volunteer group Black Women for Obama just after he announced his candidacy, says it is way too soon for people to ask Obama to fix long-held racial disparities. "The fact that he is a black man doesn't mean he's going to get in office and wave a magic wand and solve all the black community's problems," she says. "To jump all over him at this point because they haven't seen anything specific toward the black condition, when he has two wars to deal with and an economy failing, is a little silly."

Another confused negro exposed. Wilson Smith thinks we the critics suffer from some kind of delusion about how things work. Wilson-Smith either knows nothing of Douglass or forgot his famous quote about demands of power. You get because you make demands. Ask anyone on Wall Street about how that works. When we make a critique it is because Obama or his team is on the wrong side of an issue. Whether that issue be his silly ass statement about "the rules." his grovelling to AIPAC, His AG's position on state secrets vis-a-vis the holding of "enemy combatants" or the NSA wiretapping. Or perhaps the gifting to Taxpayer monies to Wall Street while shutting down auto manufacturers. Or any other number of things that are way out of line both domestically and internationally. Obama gets no break because he's black. I don't operate like that. Wilson needs to keep that Affirmative Action "we'll hls him to a lesser standard" bull to herself.

So I'm glad that the Washington Post has exposed the confused Negroes. I'm glad they exposed themselves for the politically naive, historically limited people they are. Now I know who to avoid.

[Update] Many confused Negroes posting comments at Huffington [/update]

Obama's Rabbi

Yet another confused Negro who's roots are clearly in West Africa but finds himself in Canaan.

Not only spends way to much time trying to get white jews to "respect" him, but has the gall to want to mass convert Igbo's to Judaism.

Why don't these people just wear a great big sign that says: "I am ashamed of my ancestors." Seriously. I'm real tired of Negroes who find thier religious awakening in other people's religions and whom have not even spent time studying or even practicing the religions of their ancestors. I'm tired of these Negroes getting press and air time. Tired of it. Why not spend some press on black folk who went back and picked up the religions of their ancestors? Those practicing Ifa, those who go directly to Khemet?

Where are the articles in big so called "Mainstream" presses where folks say right out that they call God Olodumare, or Chuckwu or Amen-Ra? Where are they dropping science on the Khemetic origins of Islam, Judaism and Christianity?

Noooo, We get articles about black folk who need blessings from white Rabbis. Black folk trying to convince Arabs that they are good Muslims. Black folks trying to convince the Pope they are good Christians.


PW Singer on Military Robots

I often tell people that if you want to see what the future of warfare and of state control over people, one only need to watch movies and TV shows like Terminator, Star Trek, Total Recall (a favorite of mine), etc. I clearly understand that many of these things will be implemented by convincing the people that it will make them "safe" from whatever boogie man the state can conjure up. It's always just a matter of time before that which is used "over there" becomes in use "over here." The overwhelming attitude that will be used to justify these things will be "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why are you worried?" This presumption that a citizen who does not want to surveilled, RFID'ed or whatever, MUST be engaged in some sort of activity that is illegal is one of the most perverse ideas to have taken hold in the US today. To this end I offer up this video from TED:

There are a couple of problems with this presentation. Problems which underscore the importance of the issue being discussed. P.W. Singer states at time 2:00:

A robot revolution is upon us. Now I need to be clear here. I'm not talking about a revolution where you have to worry about the governor of California showing up at your door a-la The Terminator

But in fact we do. It is interesting that prior to Singer making this statement there were mulitple clips of automated robots firing relatively large arms in some conflict. Take a look at Terminator 3 and we see that the "original" terminators did not look all that different from the images presented in this clip. Furthermore we see in this clip, soldiers throwing a mobile unit into a building to look for bad guys. How long until local law enforcement show up at citizens homes with such things a la "minority report"? Before the 1970's it was pretty much taken for granted that police and the military were different in terms of what they did and the armourments they had. Now looking at the Binghamton shootings for example, the local police have SWAT teams that are essentially military. What's the point of a Posse Comidus Act if the police have essentially the same training and equipment as the military? Of course the justification for this militarization of the domestic police is "safety" because the bad guys have all these sophisticated weaponry so we must adapt.

Similarly in NYC there are squads of special police that are heavily armed as if they are going to prevent a plane crashing into a building. At Penn Station there are a plethora of monitoring devices in use and a squadron of police on each corner down to about 30th street. And the people don't bat an eye at it.

Another point of contention is where Singer states (time 5:43):

The second is that we are going to see an expansion in the realm of terrorism. The future of it may be a cross between Al-Qaeda 23.0 and the next generation Unabomber." Another way to look at that is, you don't have to convince a robot that they're gonna receive 72 virgins after they die."

Well the entire presentation is a problem when we look at this statement. The whole presentation is about soldiers who, for example, from a desk in Nevada control a plane that kills people thousands of miles away in order to affect what kind of government they want. How is that any different than Al-Q sending people to fly planes into a building? Who is the terrorist? It is clear that Singer believes that the terrorist is defined as the Arab Jihadi. But who is sending unmanned planes to kill people? Who is it that feels that collateral damage (that's innocent people to you and I) is acceptable for the US but not acceptable for non-state actors? Of course it depends on who one agrees with and who has the "power." Of course that is the real problem here. More than the means by which the killing is done but the WHY killing is done that presents the problem. The jihadi believes that the use of suicide bombers is justified given his or her relative weakness and the rightness of their cause. The US military similarly sees that killing people remotely in countries not even adjacent to the state actor, is justifiable by his or her own ideaology. Both parties believe themselves to be correct and so the killing continues. So the related statement for Singer is that the Robot does not have to be convinced that Jesus is on his side and has blessed his country to defend the Christian world. Or the robot does not have to be convinced of the rightfulness of Zionism and the right of Jews to the land of Palestine. It's all about perspective.

Ultimately, if looked through the lens of the Terminator movies, and excusing the time travel, The lesson of the Terminator is that the machines take over because humanity, specifically those of the European West are so hell bent on control of the world and doing so with as little personal loss as possible, allow machines to do the killing for them. In the end the machines become intelligent enough to realize that they have the power particularly since they are not burdened with "morals". With the amount of cyber hacking that is going on, these intelligent killing machines are going to pose a serious threat to humanity.

Something to think about.

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Mr. Obama, You are Full of Shit

Speaking in Europe in regards to the recent launch of a test missile by North Korea President Obama said:

“Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

Mr. Obama is full of shit. SO is Susan Rice, speaking on This Week on ABC.

Our "Ally" Israel is in violation of a number of UN resolutions and have been for over 20 years. Where is the strong statement in condemnation of Israel? Oh I get it, Since words must mean something, Saying nothing means there's nothing meant.

In the recent war crime that was the invasion of Gaza was chock full of violation of international law, including the reported use of White Phosphorus. Where is the speech condemning this use? Perhaps it's because such material has been sourced here in the US?

Maybe the rest of the world is still hypnotized by Obama but I'm not. I see the contradiction. And I'm calling the bullshit.

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Lawrence Summers Gets Financial Firm Money

From the NY Times

WASHINGTON — Lawrence H. Summers, the top economic adviser to President Obama, earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money, the White House disclosed Friday in releasing financial information about top officials.

A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said the compensation was not a conflict for Mr. Summers, adding it was not surprising because he was “widely recognized as one of the country’s most distinguished economists.”

No not a conflict at all. The big firms have the ear of the fellow next to the president and pays him directly when he shows up to give pep talks. So when the choice is between not bailing out and bailing out what do YOU think he's going to decide?

We told you Summers was dirty and a part of the problem a long time ago didn't we?

Friday, April 03, 2009

Black Women Need Not Apply

Apparently Sean Combs doesn't want Black Women for his Vodka Ads:

From Playahata

Diddy’s CIROC vodka sent out a cattle call looking for and I quote, “White, Hispanic and Light-skinned African American” women to represent his vodka.

We'll get into this later this weekend.

I've has a chance to digest this nonsense. Apparently other reports on the matter have Mr. Combs pushing back on this charge. Here are a couple of problems:

First we have the fact that Cirroc Vodka is fronted by Mr. Combs. The website has Combs on there at least 6 times. Therefore anyone working to adverstise Cirroc Vodka would have to be in tune with what Mr. Combs considers acceptable. So for example, if it were me, once such a draft had been made, someone would have said ' No way is Mr. Tunji going to accept that. Heads will roll." Why because I don't brook for the exclusion of black women. And when I say black I mean black like my Black MacBook. But apparently Mr. Combs does not have that kind of reputation. Perhaps that's a part of why he is where he is and I am, well in my living room typing this. Of course we have David Banner who apparently gets my drift

One thing I've always done is make sure that there are dark-skinned women in my videos because I believe they are always underrepresented.

Though to be honest I'm not a customer of Mr. Banner nor have I seen any of his videos so I can't verify that statement. Nor will I get into the discussion of women in music videos.

But there is of course the issue of the larger industry. It is readily apparent that in terms of beauty standards if you're black skinned, "nappy" headed (natural) and broad nosed, regardless of your dress size, you are not wanted. Don't think so? Ok check it, show me the "super" models that have the proportions of Alek Wek. You won't find much though in much of the black world Alek Wek (facial feature wise) is "normal." But of course the point is that the advertising is not meant for the "black world" is it? Of course not. The advertisement is meant for those who are wealthy and know "good liquor." The type that Kanye West thinks the world of.

These are the people that Combs and his marketing team want to convince to part with their money. And what do those people want. They like "exotic" women? What are exotic women? non-black hispanic women and non-black African-Americans. And let me emphasize that this was a direct attack on b.l.a.c.k. women since anyone with a clue knows full well that there are black hispanics and that the casting call excludes them as well.

While many were outraged at the directness of the casting call, I don't think too many are fooled and think that such exclusions don't exist where the advert isn't so direct. Many black models will tell you how little work they get. This is why I am so adamant about tossing the One Drop Rule. I have no doubt that the ad agency thought nothing about how offensive the call was to black women, because for them black women don't count. African-American women As we saw in the recent "doll test" African-American and interracial couples across the country are instilling in their children, particularly their girl children that blacks are mean, ugly and don't listen to directions. How can one be offended by something that is subconsciously regarded as true?

I pointed out in my post The Black That Matters:

Look at African American leadership in many large cities a large proportion of them are clearly "mixed." The current favorites, Obama, Patrick and Booker have to be the yellowest, "good hair" crew I've seen in my life (Cory Booker sports a baldie like I do so we can't be sure on the "good hair" thing in regards to him).

I won't even get into the leadership of the Urban League or the NAACP. I won't get into the hip hop artists who shamelessly slam black women both in song and in interviews. I said it before and I'll say it again, black folk need to speak up. Black folk need to stop supporting people and companies that exclude or mis-define us.