If you're my age, you were in Junior High[ eh correction..grade school] School when Thriller dropped. I saw the video at school. If you lived in NYC, you remember seeing Jackson videos on Video Music Box. You know that MJ was a daily staple of MTV.
I remember being in Jamaica W.I. for a summer and the corner bar would rock Billie Jean out the jukebox. You could hear it down the street. Even in the land of Reggae MJ was tops.
You remember Bad dropping when you were in High School.
Can't never be to pro-black to love a MJ track. Not even going to discuss the other stuff.
Apparently MJ went out training for his upcoming tour. Gotta love that. Don't stop 'till you get enough. Lived that.
Live that.
(17 years of informed commentary)
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama makes Clearly False Statement on Iran.
As reported in the NY Times, Obama made a provably false statement in regards to the current Iranian situation:
From the transcript:
This is clearly contradicted be printed and readily available sources such as those linked to on this blog in the last two days.
So why didn't the NY Times, a supposed record of repute not note that Obama made a clearly false statement?
Where are the so called "liberal" bloggers who had much to say when GW Bush was doing the lying?
Where are the black people who had much to say when Bush was doing the lying? Where are they?
Where are the twits? Huh? Where are the Move On e-mails?
Where are the poets who had much to say about Bush lying?
Where are these hypocrites? They are, in the words of the Great One in DC "distract[ed] people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders."
He also said that comments by Iranian officials blaming the United States, Britain and other Western nations for inciting the protests were “patently false” and a “tired strategy to use old tensions to scapegoat other countries” that will not work.
From the transcript:
The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran -- some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the elections.
These accusations are patently false. They're an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders.
This is clearly contradicted be printed and readily available sources such as those linked to on this blog in the last two days.
So why didn't the NY Times, a supposed record of repute not note that Obama made a clearly false statement?
Where are the so called "liberal" bloggers who had much to say when GW Bush was doing the lying?
Where are the black people who had much to say when Bush was doing the lying? Where are they?
Where are the twits? Huh? Where are the Move On e-mails?
Where are the poets who had much to say about Bush lying?
Where are these hypocrites? They are, in the words of the Great One in DC "distract[ed] people from what is truly taking place within Iran's borders."
Monday, June 22, 2009
Excellent Writeup on Iran
Nice piece at Counterpunch
On the other hand, there was only one poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. The CPO has a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005. The poll, conducted a few weeks before the elections, predicted an 89 percent turnout rate. Further, it showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi...
According to official results, there were 46.2 million registered voters in Iran. The turnout was massive, as predicted by the CPO. Almost 39.2 million Iranians participated in the elections for a turn out rate of 85 percent, in which about 38.8 million ballots were deemed valid (about 400,000 ballots were left blank). Officially, President Ahmadinejad received 24.5 million votes to Mousavi’s 13.2 million votes, or 62.6 per cent to 33.8 per cent of the total votes, respectively. In fact, this result mirrored the 2005 elections when Ahmadinejad received 61.7 per cent to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s 35.9 per cent in the runoff elections. Two other minor candidates, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaee, received the rest of the votes in this election.
inside Prisons: Some Brutal Reading
Hat tip to Playahata. No Escape tells of what happens to men behind bars. I read every quote and case study and watched the video. This is brutal stuff. I have two things to say about this:
1) These prisons are not only messing up the minds of young black men who get sent there, but I believe is the primary source of HIV infection among straight African-American women, when they get out.
2) That the authorities know these things happen and feel that it's OK, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously, I don't have much sympathy for someone who burglarizes or in one case, set fire to a dumpster, but to send someone into a cell with a known rapist? The words I have for this cannot be posted without posting a warning for minors. Personally I cannot imaging going through that, being released and not wanting to commit a few homicides (against those who let it happen) and then taking myself out. Seriously.
3) I'm seriously thinking that these gang members are undercover homosexuals. Some of the stuff I read just doesn't make sense even in the power dynamic discussed. I believe that if they were really straight they would stop with the cell cleaning and beatings. The reading does demonstrate that at it's heart rape, of a male or female, is ultimately about power. I suppose the brutality written about here is a reflection of the relative powerlessness that these individuals feel.
1) These prisons are not only messing up the minds of young black men who get sent there, but I believe is the primary source of HIV infection among straight African-American women, when they get out.
2) That the authorities know these things happen and feel that it's OK, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously, I don't have much sympathy for someone who burglarizes or in one case, set fire to a dumpster, but to send someone into a cell with a known rapist? The words I have for this cannot be posted without posting a warning for minors. Personally I cannot imaging going through that, being released and not wanting to commit a few homicides (against those who let it happen) and then taking myself out. Seriously.
3) I'm seriously thinking that these gang members are undercover homosexuals. Some of the stuff I read just doesn't make sense even in the power dynamic discussed. I believe that if they were really straight they would stop with the cell cleaning and beatings. The reading does demonstrate that at it's heart rape, of a male or female, is ultimately about power. I suppose the brutality written about here is a reflection of the relative powerlessness that these individuals feel.
[During one six-month period], I had the orbit of my left eye fractured, and was assaulted by another prisoner with a knife, among other altercations. This was all due to my refusal for sex. My mother has been a prison guard for over 20 yrs in Florida and the other prisoners wanted to "turn me out" to homosexuality to get back at her and the department.
After 6 months of this treatment I requested to be placed in Protective Management (P.M.), and was taken before the special review board where I presented several letters written by other prisoners who were threatening me with violence if I would not "be with them" sexually. The board refused to put me on P.M. . . . I was then placed back in administrative confienment, waiting on an open cell in population. It was then that I realized the violence would not stop. At the end of my mental and emotional endurance, I tried to kill myself with a razor. 40 stitches and 11 days later I was returned to A.M. II where I wouldn't need "protection" because I was locked in a cell 24 hours a day.
6 months later, in 1997, I was returned to population where I promptly requested P.M. once more. I was given the distinct impression that if I tried to pursue the issue I would be put back on A.M. I couldn't stand the thought of being locked away in another cell all my life, so I did the only thing I could do—I found someone to "be with." I determined I'd be better off to willingly have sex with one person, than I would be to face violence and rape by multiple people. The most tragic part to this is that the person I chose to "be with" has AIDS.
. . . . My life is in danger at F.S.P., and I want the public to know this. A place like F.S.P. could not exist, could not do such things without public support. The opposite of compassion is not hatred, it's indifference.
—M.M., Florida, 7/30/99
Paul Craig Roberts on Iran
Another example of why I'm not going along with this 'green revolution" nonsense:
And previously:
I'm just saying..
Watch the hands. Watch the hands!!
On May 16, 2007, the London Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”
It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.” It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands.
And previously:
On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”
I'm just saying..
Watch the hands. Watch the hands!!
Contrasts
From the NY Times:
And I've been saying that for about a week now. I fully support the Iranian people's right to assemble and press their case but the number of people acting like they could act like that here (US) and not have water hoses, rubber bullets, tear gas, and mass arrests are smoking some serious crack. How many peaceful organizations were infiltrated and monitored prior to the 2004 election? How many people were locked up during the Republican convention in NYC on totally bullshit charges? Reporters denied press credentials? Reporters arrested? Check and check.
All I'm saying is to keep this all in historical and factual perspective.
Mr. Qashqavi drew comparisons with American election results.
“No one encouraged the American people to stage a riot” because they disagreed with the re-election of George W. Bush, he said. Quoted by Press TV, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for the authoritative Guardian Council — a 12-member panel of clerics charged with certifying the vote —
And I've been saying that for about a week now. I fully support the Iranian people's right to assemble and press their case but the number of people acting like they could act like that here (US) and not have water hoses, rubber bullets, tear gas, and mass arrests are smoking some serious crack. How many peaceful organizations were infiltrated and monitored prior to the 2004 election? How many people were locked up during the Republican convention in NYC on totally bullshit charges? Reporters denied press credentials? Reporters arrested? Check and check.
All I'm saying is to keep this all in historical and factual perspective.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
1 in 4 South African Men admit to Rape?
Seen on The Root!
Given the population of South Africa, I'm wondering how accurate this is. 1,700 men is not exactly representative. That said, it is indeed troubling to see the age at with these rapists are starting. There was not a discussion of the belief that sex with a virgin (or being urinated on by a virgin) was a cure for AIDS and how this may be driving some of those numbers.
The original article at the Mail and Guardian had this comment:
To those men: Wives are not girlfriends. If you're going to live the polygamous lifestyle, understand that you have to wife the woman and you have an obligation to provide for all of them AND the children. The women are not disposable. If you cannot do what is required then you're not a man.
-The interviewed were a representative sample of 1,738 men in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.
-28% said they had raped a woman or girl, and 3% said they had raped a man or boy.
Almost 50% who said they had carried out a rape admitted they had done so more than once, with 73% saying they had carried out their first assault before the age of 20.
-One in 10 men said they had been forced to have sex with another man. Many find it difficult to report such attacks to the police in subcultures where the concept of homosexuality is taboo.
Given the population of South Africa, I'm wondering how accurate this is. 1,700 men is not exactly representative. That said, it is indeed troubling to see the age at with these rapists are starting. There was not a discussion of the belief that sex with a virgin (or being urinated on by a virgin) was a cure for AIDS and how this may be driving some of those numbers.
The original article at the Mail and Guardian had this comment:
"We hear men saying, 'If Jacob Zuma can have many wives, I can have many girlfriends.'
To those men: Wives are not girlfriends. If you're going to live the polygamous lifestyle, understand that you have to wife the woman and you have an obligation to provide for all of them AND the children. The women are not disposable. If you cannot do what is required then you're not a man.
European Solar Power from African Deserts?
What?
Excuse me? Ummm no. Greedy Europeans, not content to have used up the petrol reserves, want to now run up in Africa for solar power? Solar power in Africa for Africans FIRST, Europe can have what we don't use and at high prices at that.
Munich Re, an insurance company, is leading efforts to garner support for a vast project, dubbed Desertec, to collect energy at solar farms in countries like Tunisia and then send it to Europe in the form of electricity. Munich Re wants other companies like the giant engineering group Siemens, Deutsche Bank, and utilities like RWE and E.ON to become involved.
Under the plan, energy would be gathered mostly using concentrating solar power, a technology that uses mirrors to harness rays from the sun to produce steam and drive turbines that make electricity. The power would then be delivered to Europe through high voltage direct current cables.
These cables are generally more expensive than alternating current cables, but far better at conserving power over long distances.
Excuse me? Ummm no. Greedy Europeans, not content to have used up the petrol reserves, want to now run up in Africa for solar power? Solar power in Africa for Africans FIRST, Europe can have what we don't use and at high prices at that.
What I've learned from MSM Coverage of Iran
1) Iran is a nickname for Tehran.
2) There is absolutely nothing odd about these "colored revolutions."
3) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no supporters at all.
4) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters, if they exist, don't use twitter. Don't have cell phones and perhaps no computers at all.
5) Police brutality in Iran is worthy of commentary by the president. Negroes shot down in the streets of NY by police do not.
6) Exit polls are only valid in "western" "democracies." when used in Iran they are faulty.
7) There is nothing odd about the police activity being centered at the University.
"Watch the hands. Watch the hands!"
2) There is absolutely nothing odd about these "colored revolutions."
3) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no supporters at all.
4) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters, if they exist, don't use twitter. Don't have cell phones and perhaps no computers at all.
5) Police brutality in Iran is worthy of commentary by the president. Negroes shot down in the streets of NY by police do not.
6) Exit polls are only valid in "western" "democracies." when used in Iran they are faulty.
7) There is nothing odd about the police activity being centered at the University.
"Watch the hands. Watch the hands!"
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Extent of E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress
No, really?
The N.S.A. is believed to have gone beyond legal boundaries designed to protect Americans in about 8 to 10 separate court orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to three intelligence officials who spoke anonymously because disclosing such information is illegal. Because each court order could single out hundreds or even thousands of phone numbers or e-mail addresses, the number of individual communications that were improperly collected could number in the millions, officials said. (It is not clear what portion of total court orders or communications that would represent.)
“Say you get an order to monitor a block of 1,000 e-mail addresses at a big corporation, and instead of just monitoring those, the N.S.A. also monitors another block of 1,000 e-mail addresses at that corporation,” one senior intelligence official said. “That is the kind of problem they had.”
“Some actions are so flagrant that they can’t be accidental,” Mr. Holt said.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Even Now, There’s Risk in ‘Driving While Black’
Title from a NY Times op ed
Could have easily read:
"There's risk of going after people who broke into YOUR car if your black"
Or
"Let the thief get your shit or you'll be shot by the police."
or
"If you're black, beware the plain-clothed or off-duty NYPD."
Could have easily read:
"There's risk of going after people who broke into YOUR car if your black"
Or
"Let the thief get your shit or you'll be shot by the police."
or
"If you're black, beware the plain-clothed or off-duty NYPD."
Another Bible Lesson
I haven't written on religion in a while, but I was greatly annoyed by what was on my TV Sunday morning. I had left the TV on one of those channels that carries on of the Sunday mega church preachers. I don't know if it was Creflo Dollar or Dollar Bill, or whomever. Usually as soon as I recognize "Preacher" I change the channel. However; that morning I actually decided to see what the man had to say. Apparently his topic was about something "Natural" his main point being that fear is not natural and if something is not natural then it does not come from or is of God. As proof of this he offered up 2 Timothy:
Now I'm sure that one can decide to translate this in many ways, one of which could be that living in a state of fear is unnatural and not desired by God. And had Mr Preacher actually made that statement I'd have nothing to write about. But that's not what he said. He said flat out that fear is un-natural. Now if one goes to Bible.com and do a search for "fear" through the KJV, you'll come up with 21 pages of citations of "fear." the favorite of mine is:
Now then clearly this single verse utterly contradicts Mr. Preacher. His sermon ought to have been cut short by some audience member pointing this clear contradiction out. Kinda reminded me of one of the reasons I stopped with church. It's hard for me to go along with the general message when the message has so many obvious flaws in it.
Fear, like every other emotion is natural. It clearly serves us well when we decide to not cross a street against traffic. However living in a state where one fears everything is not good. Similarly, a person who has never experienced fear is a person who either has never taken a chance in life, or is a serial killer who knows he's not going to ever get caught.
Anyway, I didn't stay tuned in too long for that. I hope perhaps I missed the part where he was making some counterpoint, but I'm not really thinking so.
2 Timothy 1:7 (Whole Chapter)
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Now I'm sure that one can decide to translate this in many ways, one of which could be that living in a state of fear is unnatural and not desired by God. And had Mr Preacher actually made that statement I'd have nothing to write about. But that's not what he said. He said flat out that fear is un-natural. Now if one goes to Bible.com and do a search for "fear" through the KJV, you'll come up with 21 pages of citations of "fear." the favorite of mine is:
Proverbs 1:7 (Whole Chapter)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Now then clearly this single verse utterly contradicts Mr. Preacher. His sermon ought to have been cut short by some audience member pointing this clear contradiction out. Kinda reminded me of one of the reasons I stopped with church. It's hard for me to go along with the general message when the message has so many obvious flaws in it.
Fear, like every other emotion is natural. It clearly serves us well when we decide to not cross a street against traffic. However living in a state where one fears everything is not good. Similarly, a person who has never experienced fear is a person who either has never taken a chance in life, or is a serial killer who knows he's not going to ever get caught.
Anyway, I didn't stay tuned in too long for that. I hope perhaps I missed the part where he was making some counterpoint, but I'm not really thinking so.
A Small Note on the Iranian Elections
You know, I'm not surprised by what's going on in Iran right now. Anyone who has a clue as to what the US has been doing in Iran for the past couple of years should have seen this coming. First I do think there was some electoral fraud going on. I say this for the simple reason that if accurate, reports that the challenger lost his hometown is highly suspect. I have a hard time accepting that kind of news from that part of the world. Secondly the victory of the current president is pretty wide for the reported turnout. I realize there is a desire for legitimacy but they could have made that victory closer. And the reason I'm so nonchalant about it is because we know that the Supreme authority in Iran does NOT lie in the president, but rather the Supreme religious leader. So any president is going to be limited by that higher authority anyway.
Now what I find particularly disingenuous about the news coverage of the rioting in Iran is how downright hypocritical. The various news media in the US act as if police here wouldn't do the same things as the Iranian authorities are doing. See unlike many of my younger cohorts here in the US, I've actually been in on the street, no "permission" from the police protests. You know, back when Al Sharpton wore a sweat suit rather than an Armani suit. And I've been hit up by police in riot gear and watched people get tossed into "paddy wagons."
If that's not enough, I would ask the reader to recall the riots at the G8 summit that occurred in Seattle. Plenty of night sticking and tear gas there.
Not enough? Perhaps the reader will recall the Republican national convention in NY in 2004, where massive numbers of people were "detained" on bogus charges.
People, I can come up with a whole lot of examples. Simply put the only news here is that the Iranian people have the balls in a so called "dictatorship" to take to the streets for days, when they feel an election is stolen, and Americans? Those people in the "land of the free"? well they sat back in 2000, shrugged their shoulders and asked what was for dessert.
In anycase, not to long after the invasion of Iraq, Bush had stepped up efforts in Iran to have a regime change happen there by providing support (money) for "opposition" parties. And you'd be a fool to not believe there are not actual persons on the ground in Iran. This would be a direct meddling in the internal politics of Iran which would partially explain what I believe to be vote fraud. So when you're reading and viewing reports on the situation keep these points in mind. There's a lot not being said.
Now what I find particularly disingenuous about the news coverage of the rioting in Iran is how downright hypocritical. The various news media in the US act as if police here wouldn't do the same things as the Iranian authorities are doing. See unlike many of my younger cohorts here in the US, I've actually been in on the street, no "permission" from the police protests. You know, back when Al Sharpton wore a sweat suit rather than an Armani suit. And I've been hit up by police in riot gear and watched people get tossed into "paddy wagons."
If that's not enough, I would ask the reader to recall the riots at the G8 summit that occurred in Seattle. Plenty of night sticking and tear gas there.
Not enough? Perhaps the reader will recall the Republican national convention in NY in 2004, where massive numbers of people were "detained" on bogus charges.
People, I can come up with a whole lot of examples. Simply put the only news here is that the Iranian people have the balls in a so called "dictatorship" to take to the streets for days, when they feel an election is stolen, and Americans? Those people in the "land of the free"? well they sat back in 2000, shrugged their shoulders and asked what was for dessert.
In anycase, not to long after the invasion of Iraq, Bush had stepped up efforts in Iran to have a regime change happen there by providing support (money) for "opposition" parties. And you'd be a fool to not believe there are not actual persons on the ground in Iran. This would be a direct meddling in the internal politics of Iran which would partially explain what I believe to be vote fraud. So when you're reading and viewing reports on the situation keep these points in mind. There's a lot not being said.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
"Frick Over Frack"
Since people don't listen when black folk say it, and I suppose since people get all pissy with me when I keep telling them there's a hairs width difference between Democrats and Republicans, I'll let Thomas Golisano, who engineered the recent NY Senate coup, say it:
Now maybe the billionaire white guy from upstate NY will get your attention. Either way the billionaire gets what he wants.
Golisano was skeptical that Republicans, who ran the Senate for more than 40 years, would make reforms he wants, including an independent Senate budget office and term limits for leadership posts.
"He told him you had 40 years and didn't make a difference," Pigeon said of Golisano. "He said, give me a reason why it should be Frick over Frack."
Now maybe the billionaire white guy from upstate NY will get your attention. Either way the billionaire gets what he wants.
RE: Commentary: Don't hold Obama to race agenda
In America, well not only America, there is a general observable split in the general political leanings of black folk. I'm not talking about a conservative/liberal split since a large majority of black folk in the US can be categorized as "liberal." No, what I speak of is a split among the liberal side. One side I will call the George Jeffersons and the others the Malcolm X/Kwame Ture faction.
Those familiar with the sitcom "The Jefferson's" know that the theme for that show was "Movin On Up." it is the "strivers" anthem of getting a piece of the pie. The wish to be included in society. To show that we too can "play that game."
The Malcolm X/Kwame Ture faction has an ideology that in general that the pie is spoiled and needs to be tossed and a new pie created. We can all partake in both the disposal of the pie and the enjoyment of it's replacement. Moving up isn't a problem, it's how you move up and what you do when you're up there. It is the morality side of the climb rather than the climb itself.
Having generalized these two wings, let me get to the inspiration for this post. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, penned a piece that appeared in CNN entitled "Don't hold Obama to race agenda". Right from the title I had a problem. I've discussed this particular habit of certain black folk to willingly back burner their own issues as if they don't deserve to be addressed head on or that those issues are somehow not good for the rest of the country. I said:
So when I see black folk, particularly "intellectuals" who dismiss "black issues" as parochial all manner of red flags go up with me since it is a clear example of Carter G. Woodson's observation that black folk will find a way to see themselves out.
Now I understand there is clearly an ideological difference between Lacewell and Smiley. And to be clear, I'm not wholly in Smiley's camp, but in my opinion it's not exactly balanced to have a known "blank cheque" Obama supporter writing commentary against Smiley. I'll be looking forward to a rebut. It would be fair. Carrying on though.
Lacewell states:
Well I can't speak for Smiley but I think it's unfair to say that he's not enthusiastic about the opportunities that made an Obama possible as well as what an Obama represents for the future. I think the comment is a serious insult the man's intelligence. That said, there is a difference between enthusiasm, and outright blind following. How many times have I read about the dangers of blindly following this or that "black leader" only to watch people do this for Obama? Which is in fact alluded to in the very same piece. Shockingly two faced that is.
Lacewell writes:
I haven't read either of Obama's books and probably will not. However; I did watch and critique his philly speech and there was much to fault in that speech. For many people they were shocked and awed by the fact that a candidate had a speech on race. I won't go into it here but I have a detailed discussion on the speech here
Anyway, Lacewell gets to the meat of her ire, a "low production value" film produced in the "Get on the Bus" vein which I'm sure if it were a film made by Obama supporters, would not have warranted the "low production value" commentary, but you know...
I will grant her this, that she points out that the film features "prominent black male public figures" is a great point. These public figures are public figures who, as she also points out have corporate backing. How about a film witl Glen Ford and other non-corporate blessed thinkers and writers who can more than hold their own in the political arena? It's a valid point that she makes.
Lacewell writes:
This particular part gets to my earlier point about the George Jeffersons vs. the Malcom X's. I used to despise Dr. King. I say this openly. Just as I despised Booker T. Washington. as a youth, unlearned, unread and under-experienced, I thought that Dr. King's whole Dream bullshit was just that. I could not stand what I saw as a begging black man preacher. What? I'm supposed to let people hit me? Forget that! It wasn't until I really studied Dr. King past the I have a Dream speech that is pushed on the public, that I came to respect the man. Dr. king, when he was killed, was moving much closer to Malcolm X, and Kwame Ture, then anything that the I have a Dream speech indicates. The Riverside church speech is highly indicative of that shift. The shift that made many people in and out of government to label him a communist and the like. But what struck me the most was a quote from Dr. King that said:
It became clear to me that Dr. King understood that which Malcolm and Garvey understood: There needed to be a fundamental structural change in society, including government. That the aims of the movement he was involved in, was not to simply get access to power. So when I, and I suppose Tavis, et al. bring up the legacy of Dr. King. they are not necessarily reminiscing about the good old days, but rather they are stating their concerns about black America straying from the moral principles of the civl rights movement in their quest for power. And if it is indeed a wish to simply be in power (as Lacewell appears to state in so many words) then it is indeed a betrayal of not only Dr. King, but of the movement that has gotten African -Americans where they are today.
Since I brought up Booker T., let me discuss him for a minute. Most black people revile the Atlanta Compromise speech that Washington gave. The whole 5 fingers and we don't want political power thing. It wasn't until I got to Tuskegee and saw what Washington was up against that I understood why he could make such a statement. Do we not see in South Africa, how that blacks have political power but still live in shanty towns? Do blacks in Harlem have the vote, but still find themselves priced out of business opportunities and real estate? Booker T. Washington understood that a community that has no means to be self-sufficient will be at the mercy of those who have the ability to not only take care of themselves but also to enough to take on someone else as well. Furthermore; at that time Tuskegee was completely dependent on money from white folk. White folk who generally were not receptive to the idea that black folk had the capacity to play on the big field. in the book 48 Laws of Power we learn that one means of getting that which you need from a patron is to play upon his or her weaknesses. White folk, particularly at that time, but not too much less so today, eat up talk that makes them comfortable in their supposed privilege. Therefore it would be best to play to that in order to get what one wants. Booker T. apparently succeeded at doing that. Since he built something for black folk, I'm not going to kick the man over that.
OK, going back to Lacewell. when she points out that King was accountable to "that movement." She highlights an issue that is important when dealing with Obama. Obama came out of nowhere. Really outside of Chicago, who the heck knew who he was in the black community? This has been an issue highlighted in publications like Black Agenda Report. Obama hit the stage in 2004 and boom 4 years later president. Shocking but true. No other black candidate with high name recognition among black people, who have political experience has been able to do such a thing. That fact should make people ask a lot of questions. So relatively speaking, Tavis, et al. have far more accountability than is suggested. But accountability does not mean one stays quiet.
Lacwell writes:
I think it disingenuous to say the the "soul patrol" missed the last 40 years. As discussed earlier I believe the issue is what has occurred in the past 40 years. The question they are posing, well let me not speak for them, The question I am posing and have been for some time now, is what are these "enfranchised subjects" doing and thinking? Going back to the Harlem example; if you have all these black political leaders and Harlem still gets gentrified, then what's the use? If the black president is as imperial as the white one, then the whole moral issues raised by the Civil Rights movement gets dropped. Is that a good thing? While it may be a good thing that voices of a "few men stood for the entire race." Is it a good thing when new sanitized voices are the replacements? I still have not seen any other than the George Jefferson left regularly on TV so I'd like to know how this multi-voiced new black polity is representing black folk in an effective manner. And let us be clear, Lacewell. Tavis, West and Dyson represent cases of "respectable" black voices but by no means represent the "entirety" of black thought to the public.
I wont go into Lacewell's analysis of the Obama campaign. it was, contrary to her words, slick and media generated. Heck I wrote about one of the very impressive campaign adverts that the Obama camp came out with as well as very well structured YouTube videos and the like all of which sent very emotionally charged messages out to people. Very little of that campaign was directed at black folk. The message to black folk was clear: Black, Democrat, who whites will vote for. There are long time activists who are on record stating they could care less what the man was doing, they just wanted a black person in the white house. At least she was honest.
To close I want to point out that in my opinion Obama was not and is not the turning point for black politics and political thought. I think the travails of Cynthia McKinney are much more indicative of what has gone terribly wrong in Black America. It seems that the new cohort of black leadership has been cowered into a position where they cannot advocate openly for black people. They are almost embarrassed to do so unless some really obviously racial stuff happens. They have bought into the notion that in seeking wider office, they cannot be seen as too "black" even when their white counterparts have no such burden of expected "less-whiteness." That clear double standard does not bother them in the least bit. Like Obama's Philly speech, they need to explain away the "antics" of black folks, rather than challenge the racism of others. And why do they do this? It is clear: It pays
Those familiar with the sitcom "The Jefferson's" know that the theme for that show was "Movin On Up." it is the "strivers" anthem of getting a piece of the pie. The wish to be included in society. To show that we too can "play that game."
The Malcolm X/Kwame Ture faction has an ideology that in general that the pie is spoiled and needs to be tossed and a new pie created. We can all partake in both the disposal of the pie and the enjoyment of it's replacement. Moving up isn't a problem, it's how you move up and what you do when you're up there. It is the morality side of the climb rather than the climb itself.
Having generalized these two wings, let me get to the inspiration for this post. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, penned a piece that appeared in CNN entitled "Don't hold Obama to race agenda". Right from the title I had a problem. I've discussed this particular habit of certain black folk to willingly back burner their own issues as if they don't deserve to be addressed head on or that those issues are somehow not good for the rest of the country. I said:
Another example is the Civil Rights Act itself. Anyone who reads the document will clearly see that it is not directed only at Black people as it includes protections for ethnic groups, gender, etc. Again mostly black folk who took water hoses, dogs, lynchings, etc. got legislation through that now protects a large number of people many of whom lifted nary a finger to gain those protections.
So when I see black folk, particularly "intellectuals" who dismiss "black issues" as parochial all manner of red flags go up with me since it is a clear example of Carter G. Woodson's observation that black folk will find a way to see themselves out.
Now I understand there is clearly an ideological difference between Lacewell and Smiley. And to be clear, I'm not wholly in Smiley's camp, but in my opinion it's not exactly balanced to have a known "blank cheque" Obama supporter writing commentary against Smiley. I'll be looking forward to a rebut. It would be fair. Carrying on though.
Lacewell states:
One might suspect that Smiley would be enthusiastic about the opportunities presented by America's election of a black president.
Well I can't speak for Smiley but I think it's unfair to say that he's not enthusiastic about the opportunities that made an Obama possible as well as what an Obama represents for the future. I think the comment is a serious insult the man's intelligence. That said, there is a difference between enthusiasm, and outright blind following. How many times have I read about the dangers of blindly following this or that "black leader" only to watch people do this for Obama? Which is in fact alluded to in the very same piece. Shockingly two faced that is.
Lacewell writes:
Despite writing about race in both of his books, addressing race in the historic Philadelphia speech during the Democratic primary and repeatedly acknowledging that racial inequality endures, Smiley's critique implies that Obama's approach to race is both inadequate and inauthentic.
I haven't read either of Obama's books and probably will not. However; I did watch and critique his philly speech and there was much to fault in that speech. For many people they were shocked and awed by the fact that a candidate had a speech on race. I won't go into it here but I have a detailed discussion on the speech here
Anyway, Lacewell gets to the meat of her ire, a "low production value" film produced in the "Get on the Bus" vein which I'm sure if it were a film made by Obama supporters, would not have warranted the "low production value" commentary, but you know...
I will grant her this, that she points out that the film features "prominent black male public figures" is a great point. These public figures are public figures who, as she also points out have corporate backing. How about a film witl Glen Ford and other non-corporate blessed thinkers and writers who can more than hold their own in the political arena? It's a valid point that she makes.
Lacewell writes:
The film and its participants (two of them my senior colleagues at Princeton University) appropriated the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. to implicitly claim that they, not Obama, are the authentic representatives of the political interests of African-Americans. They used King's images and speeches, gathered on the balcony where King was assassinated, and explicitly asserted their desire to play King to Obama's LBJ, and Frederick Douglass to Obama's Lincoln.
On its face, this is not a bad model. Presidents are deeply constrained by the structural and political limitations of their office. A robust administration needs an active and informed citizenry to engage, push, cajole, criticize and applaud its efforts.
But this appropriation misrepresents rather than preserves King's legacy. King was a powerful questioner and, at times, ally of President Johnson because he was at the helm of a massive social movement of men and women who were shut out of the ordinary political process. It was not King's intellectual capacity or verbal dexterity that made him an effective advocate for racial issues; it was his own accountability to that movement.
This particular part gets to my earlier point about the George Jeffersons vs. the Malcom X's. I used to despise Dr. King. I say this openly. Just as I despised Booker T. Washington. as a youth, unlearned, unread and under-experienced, I thought that Dr. King's whole Dream bullshit was just that. I could not stand what I saw as a begging black man preacher. What? I'm supposed to let people hit me? Forget that! It wasn't until I really studied Dr. King past the I have a Dream speech that is pushed on the public, that I came to respect the man. Dr. king, when he was killed, was moving much closer to Malcolm X, and Kwame Ture, then anything that the I have a Dream speech indicates. The Riverside church speech is highly indicative of that shift. The shift that made many people in and out of government to label him a communist and the like. But what struck me the most was a quote from Dr. King that said:
We have no desire to integrate into this society
It became clear to me that Dr. King understood that which Malcolm and Garvey understood: There needed to be a fundamental structural change in society, including government. That the aims of the movement he was involved in, was not to simply get access to power. So when I, and I suppose Tavis, et al. bring up the legacy of Dr. King. they are not necessarily reminiscing about the good old days, but rather they are stating their concerns about black America straying from the moral principles of the civl rights movement in their quest for power. And if it is indeed a wish to simply be in power (as Lacewell appears to state in so many words) then it is indeed a betrayal of not only Dr. King, but of the movement that has gotten African -Americans where they are today.
Since I brought up Booker T., let me discuss him for a minute. Most black people revile the Atlanta Compromise speech that Washington gave. The whole 5 fingers and we don't want political power thing. It wasn't until I got to Tuskegee and saw what Washington was up against that I understood why he could make such a statement. Do we not see in South Africa, how that blacks have political power but still live in shanty towns? Do blacks in Harlem have the vote, but still find themselves priced out of business opportunities and real estate? Booker T. Washington understood that a community that has no means to be self-sufficient will be at the mercy of those who have the ability to not only take care of themselves but also to enough to take on someone else as well. Furthermore; at that time Tuskegee was completely dependent on money from white folk. White folk who generally were not receptive to the idea that black folk had the capacity to play on the big field. in the book 48 Laws of Power we learn that one means of getting that which you need from a patron is to play upon his or her weaknesses. White folk, particularly at that time, but not too much less so today, eat up talk that makes them comfortable in their supposed privilege. Therefore it would be best to play to that in order to get what one wants. Booker T. apparently succeeded at doing that. Since he built something for black folk, I'm not going to kick the man over that.
OK, going back to Lacewell. when she points out that King was accountable to "that movement." She highlights an issue that is important when dealing with Obama. Obama came out of nowhere. Really outside of Chicago, who the heck knew who he was in the black community? This has been an issue highlighted in publications like Black Agenda Report. Obama hit the stage in 2004 and boom 4 years later president. Shocking but true. No other black candidate with high name recognition among black people, who have political experience has been able to do such a thing. That fact should make people ask a lot of questions. So relatively speaking, Tavis, et al. have far more accountability than is suggested. But accountability does not mean one stays quiet.
Lacwell writes:
Further, Smiley and his "soul patrol" seemed to have missed the intervening 40 years between the era of King and the election of Obama. African-Americans are no longer fully disfranchised subjects of an oppressive state.
African-Americans are now citizens capable of running for office, holding officials accountable through democratic elections, publicly expressing divergent political preferences and, most importantly, engaging the full spectrum of American political issues, not only narrowly racial ones. The era of racial brokerage politics, when the voices of a few men stood in for the entire race, is now over. And thank goodness it is over. Black politics is growing up.
I think it disingenuous to say the the "soul patrol" missed the last 40 years. As discussed earlier I believe the issue is what has occurred in the past 40 years. The question they are posing, well let me not speak for them, The question I am posing and have been for some time now, is what are these "enfranchised subjects" doing and thinking? Going back to the Harlem example; if you have all these black political leaders and Harlem still gets gentrified, then what's the use? If the black president is as imperial as the white one, then the whole moral issues raised by the Civil Rights movement gets dropped. Is that a good thing? While it may be a good thing that voices of a "few men stood for the entire race." Is it a good thing when new sanitized voices are the replacements? I still have not seen any other than the George Jefferson left regularly on TV so I'd like to know how this multi-voiced new black polity is representing black folk in an effective manner. And let us be clear, Lacewell. Tavis, West and Dyson represent cases of "respectable" black voices but by no means represent the "entirety" of black thought to the public.
I wont go into Lacewell's analysis of the Obama campaign. it was, contrary to her words, slick and media generated. Heck I wrote about one of the very impressive campaign adverts that the Obama camp came out with as well as very well structured YouTube videos and the like all of which sent very emotionally charged messages out to people. Very little of that campaign was directed at black folk. The message to black folk was clear: Black, Democrat, who whites will vote for. There are long time activists who are on record stating they could care less what the man was doing, they just wanted a black person in the white house. At least she was honest.
To close I want to point out that in my opinion Obama was not and is not the turning point for black politics and political thought. I think the travails of Cynthia McKinney are much more indicative of what has gone terribly wrong in Black America. It seems that the new cohort of black leadership has been cowered into a position where they cannot advocate openly for black people. They are almost embarrassed to do so unless some really obviously racial stuff happens. They have bought into the notion that in seeking wider office, they cannot be seen as too "black" even when their white counterparts have no such burden of expected "less-whiteness." That clear double standard does not bother them in the least bit. Like Obama's Philly speech, they need to explain away the "antics" of black folks, rather than challenge the racism of others. And why do they do this? It is clear: It pays
Sunday, June 07, 2009
White Supremacists in Wells Fargo?
The NY Times has a piece on a lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore against Wells Fargo. Of particular interest to me is the language that was allegedly used in the company "servicing" blacks:
Now the only place that I read or hear the phrase "mud people" used in among White Supremacist organizations. I've known for a long while now that many white supremacists are gainfully employed in various companies and instead of the stereotypical skinhead, black jacket, tatted up persona popularized by sensationalist news media, they are well or "average" dressed men and women who could be your cubicle-mate.
So I'm wondering whether there will be any digging into the backgrounds of these individuals using such coded language
“They referred to subprime loans made in minority communities as ghetto loans and minority customers as ‘those people have bad credit’, ‘those people don’t pay their bills’ and ‘mud people,’ ” Mr. Paschal said in his affidavit.
Now the only place that I read or hear the phrase "mud people" used in among White Supremacist organizations. I've known for a long while now that many white supremacists are gainfully employed in various companies and instead of the stereotypical skinhead, black jacket, tatted up persona popularized by sensationalist news media, they are well or "average" dressed men and women who could be your cubicle-mate.
So I'm wondering whether there will be any digging into the backgrounds of these individuals using such coded language
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
RE: Justices Gone Wild
By Ross Douthat asserts that the Supreme Court
Asserting that the High Court has overturned an increasing number of state and federal laws. Me thinks this fellow's concern is misplaced. The issue as I see it is with legislatures who create and pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional in attempts to mollify some segment of the voting population rather than showing actual leadership and saying: "No. This is America, We don't do that."
For example we have the case of Terry Shiavio (II, III). That the Federal government saw that it had any business in the personal end of life decision of a private citizen was a clear sign that certain members of congress have no clue as to what their actual job is.
Attempts to ban pornography clearly runs afoul the constitution, yet without fail some legislator somewhere tries to pass a law (and sometimes succeeds) only to be struck down later wasting taxpayer money.
Attempts to ban violent video games clearly run afoul the constitution, yet laws are passed and struck down at taxpayer expense.
If anything the problem is not with the Supreme Court asserting some legislative power, but instead the problem is with legislatures who write and pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Perhaps if law makers stopped pandering to certain groups the Supreme Court would have less intervening to do.
"gradually become a kind of extra legislative body — a nine-person super-Senate graced with the power of the veto, where liberals and conservatives alike turn when they’re confounded in the Congress."
Asserting that the High Court has overturned an increasing number of state and federal laws. Me thinks this fellow's concern is misplaced. The issue as I see it is with legislatures who create and pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional in attempts to mollify some segment of the voting population rather than showing actual leadership and saying: "No. This is America, We don't do that."
For example we have the case of Terry Shiavio (II, III). That the Federal government saw that it had any business in the personal end of life decision of a private citizen was a clear sign that certain members of congress have no clue as to what their actual job is.
Attempts to ban pornography clearly runs afoul the constitution, yet without fail some legislator somewhere tries to pass a law (and sometimes succeeds) only to be struck down later wasting taxpayer money.
Attempts to ban violent video games clearly run afoul the constitution, yet laws are passed and struck down at taxpayer expense.
If anything the problem is not with the Supreme Court asserting some legislative power, but instead the problem is with legislatures who write and pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional. Perhaps if law makers stopped pandering to certain groups the Supreme Court would have less intervening to do.