Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, December 30, 2009


The present day Negro or "colored" intellectual is no less a liar and a cunning thief than his illustrius teacher. His occidental collegiate training only fits him to be a rogue and vagabond, and a seeker after the easiest and the best by following the line of least resistence [sic]. He is lazy, dull and un-creative. His purpose is to deceive the less fortunate of his race, and, by his wiles ride easily into position and wealth at their expense, and thereafter agitate for and seek social equality with the creative and industrious whites.

-Marcus Garvey

When a Negro student works his way through college by polishing shoes he does not think of making a special study of the science underlying the production and distribution of leather and its products that he may someday figure in this sphere. The Negro boy sent to college by a mechanic seldom dreams of learning mechanical engineering to build upon the foundation his father has laid, that in years to come he may figure as a contractor or a consulting engineer. The Negro girl who goes to college hardly wants to return to her mother if she is a washerwoman, but this girl should come back with sufficient knowledge of physics and chemistry and business administration to use her mother's work as a nucleus for a modern steam laundry.
-Carter G. Woodson


I trust that the Negro peoples of the world are now convinced that the work of the Universal Negro Improvement Association is not a visionary one, but very practical, and that it is not so far fetched, but can be realized in a short while if the entire race will only co-operate and work toward the desired end... it shall be the purpose of the Universal Negro Improvement Association to have established in Africa that brotherly co-operation which will make the interests of the African native and the American and West Indian Negro one and the same, that is to say, we shall enter into a common partnership to build up Africa in the interests of our race.

-Marcus Garvey

Tuesday, December 29, 2009


Let Edison turn off his electric light and we are in darkness in Liberty Hall in two minutes, The Negro is living on borrowed goods."

Those of us who study industrial conditions among the race must have noticed that Negroes in AMerica have been thrown out of jobs that they occupied formerly, and their positions taken by European Immigrants.

Negroes are still filling places, and as time goes on and the age grows older our occupations will be gone from us, because those for whoom we filled the places will soon appear, and as they do we shall gradually find our places among the millions of permanently unemployed...A race that is solely dependent upon another for it's economic existence sooner or later dies.

-Marcus Garvey

"Ujamaa," then, or "familyhood," describes our socialism. It is opposed to capitalism, which seeks to build a happy society on the basis of the exploitation of man by man; and it is equally opposed to doctrinaire socialism which seeks to build its happy society on a philosophy of inevitable conflict between man and man.
We, in Africa, have no more need of being "converted" to socialism than we have of being "taught" democracy. Both are rooted in our own past--in the traditional society which produced us. Modern African socialism can draw from its traditional heritage the recognition of "society" as an extension of the basic family unit. But it can no longer confine the idea of the social family within the limits of the tribe, nor, indeed, of the nation. For no true African socialist can look at a line drawn on a map and say, "The people on this side of that line are my brothers, but those who happen to live on the other side of it can have no claim on me." Every individual on this continent is his brother.

-Julius Nyerere

Monday, December 28, 2009

This is My Country

From the NY Times:

“There’s a lot of racism here” that goes both ways, she insisted. “When you’ve been insulted and called a ‘sale Fran├žaise’ ” — a filthy Frenchwoman — “you think: ‘Wait, this is my country.’ ”

This underscores my previous position regarding the Swiss vote. It is their country.

Sunday, December 27, 2009


The greatest stumbling block in the way of progress in the race has invariably come from within the race itself. The monkey wrench of destruction as thrown into the cog of Negro Progress, is not thrown so much by the outsider as by the very fellow who is in our fold, and who should be the first to grease the wheel of progress rather than seek to impede it.

But notwithstanding the lack of sympathetic co-operation, I have one consolation-That I cannot get away from the race, and so long as I am in the race and since I have sense and judgment enough to know what affects the race affects me, it is my duty to help the race to clear itself of those things that affect us in common.

-Marcus Garvey

[The] New Negro woman desires to take in the rebirth of Africa at home and abroad: To work on par with men in the offices as well as on the platform...

-Amy Jaques Garvey


The Negro who lives on the patronage of philanthropists is the most dangerous member of our society. because he is willing to turn back the clock of progress when his benefactors ask him to do so"

Every man has a right to his own opinion. Every race has a right to it's own action; therefore let no man persuade you against your will, let no other race influence you against your own."

-Marcus Garvey

Africans argue, and rightfully so, that one does not refer to the natives of England, or the natives of France, why then are they called natives, with the inference of contempt for their condition of handicap and suppression[?]

-Amy Jaques Garvey

Saturday, December 26, 2009


"Show me a well organized nation, and I will show you a people and a nation respected by the world."

"The greatest weapon used against the Negro is disorganization"

-Marcus Garvey

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

"It will make you Cinderella.”

Precisely the reason I believe black parents ought to steer clear of Disney:

“It’s O.K., dear,” said her mother, Seo Hye-kyong. “It will help make you pretty and tall. It will make you Cinderella.”

A growing conviction that tallness is crucial to success has prompted South Korean parents to try all manner of approaches to increase their children’s height, spawning hundreds of “growth clinics” that offer growth hormone shots, Eastern herbal medicine and special exercises to ensure that young clients will be the ones looking down, not the ones looked down upon.

NY Times

"There's Nothing We Can Do"

Jason Green, 32, and Melissa Jackson, 23, were suspended after witnesses said they callously walked out with their bagels and said "Call 911" instead of trying to help Eutisha Revee Rennix, who was gasping for air while sprawled on a coffee shop floor on Dec. 9.

NY Daily News

This really happened. Really. I think the above speaks for itself.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

No One Calls Them Out

So please tell me, how are we supposed to help build something decent and self-sustaining in Afghanistan and Pakistan when jihadists murder other Muslims by the dozens and no one really calls them out?

I believe I said this before

NY Times

NYT: Propaganda arm of the US Govt.

I swear reading this piece in the "Global" version of the NY Times, was like reading the daily report out of the Pentagon.

CAIRO — Iran announced Wednesday that it had test-fired an improved version of its most advanced missile capable of reaching Israel and parts of Europe, in a move that appeared aimed to discourage a military attack on its nuclear sites and to defy Western pressure over its nuclear program.

Ohhh Iran has a missile capable of reaching Israel! And Europe! Oh my. Israel has missiles that can reach Iran. And Israel has shown it is quite willing and able to use such weaponry on civilians. What's the bigger threat in the region? England, France, Germany, Russia and the US, a country separated from Iran by a couple of land masses and an entire ocean has missiles that can reach Iran. And the US has shown it will use said arms right next door to Iran. And the "news" is that Iran has tested a missile? That's the news?

The announcement provoked immediate rebukes from the White House and leaders in Europe, and appeared likely to intensify pressure from the United States and other Western powers to impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran.

Really? Exactly why is it the business of anyone in Washington or Europe that Iran, a sovereign nation with the right to self-defense. How is it legal in any framework of international law to impose sanctions on a nation exercising it's sovereign rights? Why is this news?

A White House spokesman told Reuters that the test undermined Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is peaceful, and said it would “increase the seriousness and resolve of the international community to hold Iran accountable” for its provocations.

Provocation? What provocation? Accountable for what? This is total BS. Total. Utter. BS. Provocation is threatening sanctions. Provocation is "all option on the table" threats. Those are provocations. Was anyone in the NY Times editorial staff actually awake and sane when this piece was written?

“It shows that Iran has the ability to stir unrest in the region and impact U.S. interests,” said Mustafa el-Labbad, director of The East Center for Regional and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “It can reach the oil fields on the other side of the Gulf.”

Stir unrest in the region? If exercising one's sovereign rights is "stirring unrest" pray tell, what is invading Iraq? What pray tell are predator drones blowing up people miles away? And this fellow is a "Director of Strategic Studies". Iran has "interests' in blowing up oil fields. Really. How many cups of coffee did he have before that idea popped into his head? oh I know! Iran will blow up Oil fields in Saudi Arabia in order to corner the market on crude oil! I mean that is some junk straight out The Wire. Iran is going to do a drive by so it can have "the corner." I want to know how I can become a "Director of Strategic Studies" So I can get paid to make up Hollywood style scenarios and get quoted in international newspapers. I could be more popular than Tiger Woods at the Playboy mansion.

2009 Klan Shit

Regardless of your position on illegal immigration the following is simply unacceptable and is as nasty as the Klan shit Black folk been subject to. From CBS News:

Four youths - including Donchak and Piekarsky - were previously charged in state court in connection with Ramirez's death. Piekarsky was acquitted by an all-white jury of third-degree murder and ethnic intimidation; Donchak was acquitted of aggravated assault and ethnic intimidation. Both were convicted of simple assault, which carry possible one- or two-year prison sentences.

A man lays in the hospital after being beat up. Later dies and the perpetrators get convicted of simple assault. "simple assault" is grabbing an arse on a subway. Putting a man in the hospital is not simple assault. That man dying is not simple assault. This is some straight out of the 50's Klan shit replete with police involvement.



According to the AP:

An 8-year-old boy was sent home from school and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after he was asked to make a Christmas drawing and came up with what appeared to be a stick figure of Jesus on a cross, the child's father said Tuesday...

An educational consultant working with the Johnson family said the teacher was also alarmed when the boy drew Xs for Jesus' eyes.

What do these people want? Every frickin'year I hear people yammering on and on and on and on about how people have taken the "Christ" out of Christmas. They yammer on tv. They yammer on radio. They boycott stores that have "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" in the store windows. Never mind that a great deal of them will have a shrine to the Norse God Thor (The Christmas tree) in their homes. Never mind all of that.

Here's a kid who put the "Christ" in Christmas and people want to get all worked up. They ought to be impressed that the kid nailed it. Pun intended.


I've been thinking about this some more. This child would be considered well balanced if he had drawn an obese white man in a red suit on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer who "by magic" slides down chimneys to place gifts under trees. And who apparently eats cookies left for him by children. 100 million households. 100 million cookies.




His new volume of essays, “The Education of a British-Protected Child,” is his first book since he was paralyzed from the waist down, in 1990, in a car accident in this book he tangles further, and profitably, with the obsessions that have defined his career: colonialism, identity, family, the uses and abuses of language. And he returns to some of the still smoldering controversies that have shaped his reputation. These include his groundbreaking 1975 analysis of the racism lurking in Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” and his defense against critics who have attacked him for writing African literature in the colonizer’s language, English.

NY Times

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

"America Has Never Fought a War Against a Democracy."

Obama Lies

Obama lied in omission in his Orwellian Peace Prize acceptance speech by claiming, “America has never fought a war against a democracy.” Technically, a war is reciprocated armed conflict. However, the etymology of the word, “war” is “confusion,” which is part of the CIA role in wars against democracy in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Vietnam beginning with US support of French colonialism against Vietnamese independence and extending beyond US approval of election cancelation that began the Vietnam War. ...

In 1953, the United States CIA led by one of President Theodore Roosevelt’s grandsons, initiated a coup in Iran (Operation Ajax [8]) to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. The Iranian government was understandably dissatisfied with the terms of its contract with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company that allowed British interests to claim 85% of the oil profit from Iran.[9]

Iran, the same country that Obama has continued messing with about democracy and nuclear arms.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Reservation Life

Gang Violence Grows on an Indian Reservation
-NY Times

The prevalence of Hip Hop in this is disturbing. If Hip Hop had it's revolutionary voice it once had (and I mean popular voice, not the underground stuff) I wonder if things would be different?

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Odd Quote on FGM

But, this big thing about female circumcision - I don't like saying this, but since it has become a world discussion I might as well say it - there are women who were never circumcised as young girls, and now that they're getting older, they are getting so many problems with their whatever (genitals) that they go to doctors and appeal to doctors to cut them off.

-Shirley Yeama Gbujama
All Africa

Someone please explain to me what can happen 'down below' that would make a woman go and have her genitals cut.

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The Lego Gun

So Jeremy Bell had an encounter with the SWAT police over his Lego gun which got me to thinking about Skip Gates. But I'll get to him in a second. Firstly I'd like to know why a SWAT team, undercover police, helicopters and cordoned off streets are called in for something legal.
Stop and think for a minute. Citizens have a right to own guns. Calling the police and saying that someone has a gun in a building and is not pointing it at anyone, is not a crime. It is not a crime in progress. It is as innocent as walking down a public street. Perhaps there is a need for civic lessons. Citizens are apparently so in fear of crime and guns that they think actually possession of one is a crime. Some will say, well they needed to be careful because you never know. Careful like they were careful about Sean Bell?

And what if per chance this fellow had an actual gun? Would that have justified the SWAT team? There was no crime in commission or even reported to be suspected to be imminent. But going back to our friend Skip, imagine if Bell had decided that he would observe his constitutional right to cuss out the police on sight? Can you imagine how that would have ended? I would dare say that given the history of the NYPD, Mr. Bell is alive today because he hasn't made Skip Gates an example of how to deal with police who are "just doing their jobs".

What. The....

About that illegal immigrant thing...

Friday, December 04, 2009

Attacking the Mosque

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Attackers lobbed grenades and opened fire on worshipers, mostly active and retired military officials, at a mosque in the garrison city of Rawalpindi during Friday prayers, striking a further blow against the military establishment as the army pursues militants in the lawless tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan...

The attack stunned Pakistan for its brazenness and the apparent ease with which the attackers breached what should have been a secure area.

You would think the greater concern, particularly among those who are willing to riot over cartoons, would be the fact that so called "Holy Warriors" apparently have no respect for Mosques. Knowing full well if an "infidel" attacked a mosque these folks would be posting death threats on YouTube.

Of course there's always the possibility of agent provocateurs.

Blood They Spilt

In remembrance of Fred Hampton

They musta thought he could invade dreams
thought he wore striped sweaters
had bladed gloves
and a fedora
'cause the blood they spilt
sho nuf woulda
made you think they was scared
they thought he mighta been Jason
masked up
soon to crash through walls
and put a chainsaw to work
cause the blood they spilt
sho nuf woulda
made you think they was scared
like they thought he was an Alien
something otherworldly
a visitor
come to take their bodies
but the chi town PD
were body snatchers
move like
thieves in the night
room shot up
like this was the Matrix
and he was Neo
Agents who declared
Morpheus must be killed
For he holds to the key to Zion
Killed cause he saw the truth
You're living in a dream world people
Niggas be batteries
fueling complexes
whole economies dependent
on sleepy head negroes
having waking dreams
think they are free
while under greater control
cause the blood they spilt
sho nuff woulda
made you think they was scared
of slumbering negroes
Like they was scared of sitting bull
and crazy horse
Like Israelis scared of home made rockets from bombed out houses
cause the blood they spilt
sho nuff
made you believe they was scared

Thursday, December 03, 2009

The Iraqi Africans

on the packed dirt streets of Zubayr, Iraq’s scaled-down version of Harlem, African-Iraqis talk of discrimination so steeped in Iraqi culture that they are commonly referred to as “abd” — slave in Arabic — prohibited from interracial marriage and denied even menial jobs.
Historians say that most African-Iraqis arrived as slaves from East Africa as part of the Arab slave trade starting about 1,400 years ago. They worked in southern Iraq’s salt marshes and sugar cane fields.
Though slavery — which in Iraq included Arabs as well as Africans — was banned in the 1920s, it continued until the 1950s, African-Iraqis say.

NY Times

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

How Big is Brother?

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' (GPS) location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. This massive disclosure of sensitive customer information was made possible due to the roll-out by Sprint of a new, special web portal for law enforcement officers.

slight paranoia

Deconstructing Obama's West Point Speech

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

Well in regards to Afghanistan not a single person directly responsible for the hijacking of the flights on 9-11-2001 were from Afghanistan or citizens of that nation. Every person directly responsible for the attacks on 9-11-2001 are dead. In fact the direct perpetrators of 9-11-2001 were Saudi Arabian nationals, Egyptian nationals and Lebanese nationals. Of the Hijackers who's nationalities are undetermined, none have been suspected of being Afghani nationals. By the logic of the above quote The US ought to be invading and occupying Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. That is not happening. It is beyond the scope of this piece to discus why but anyone who has watched Farenheight 9-11 knows why we do not.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

As we know Al-Qaeda is in fact an international phenomenon made up of varied Jihadist groups with a common ideology that Crusaders ought to be out of Islamic lands. We also know that the group of "Al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan are in fact the remnants of those Mujahadeen that fought the Soviet Union with our direct economic and military help. Al-Qaeda is in fact a creation of the US intelligence agency who thought that supporting a Islamic fundamentalist group that was opposed to Communism was a good idea. The US policymakers had absolutely no problem with fundamentalist Jihadist blowing shit up when it was the Soviets bearing the brunt of the abuse. It may also be the case, and I say may, that the fundamentalist terrorism in Georgia is the direct result of such meddling in Afghanistan. As I have shown in my post on the historical ties of the Taliban and the US (Ron Paul also expounds on this] It's pretty clear that the US had absolutely no problems with dealing with the Taliban government. It is the height of hypocracy to turn around and start talking junk about a government that the US was more than willing to cut energy pipeline deals with. And of course Obama didn't even discus why "America and our friends had turned elsewhere." The defeat of the Soviet Union was all that the US was interested in. It's not like policy makers in Washington had no clue what was going on there.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Note the highlighted text. This is the Bush Doctrine that many of us are accusing Obama of regurgitating. It was President Bush who took the position that anyone who had any so called "terrorists" within' their borders were targets. Except of course Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt. Right? Gary Leupp makes the point:

But neocon strategy has always required the simplistic conflation of disparate phenomena, and the exploitation of public ignorance and fear, in the execution of policy. Who are they, after all? The invasion of Iraq required the Big Lie that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11. The earlier invasion of Afghanistan required the clever sleight-of-hand by which the mainly Saudi Arab but international al-Qaeda was equated with the purely Afghan Taliban. “We don’t distinguish between terrorists and the governments that support them,” Bush declared.

So it is clear that Obama is in fact continuing the Bush policy. Afghanistan and Taliban are the enemy because we say their government supports them.

And in support of my earlier point:

The fact is, there was and is a difference between al-Qaeda, an international jihadist organization that wants to reestablish a global Caliphate and confront the U.S., and the Taliban, which wanted to stabilize Afghanistan under a harsh interpretation of the Sharia but maintain a working relationship with the U.S.  And now, eight years after being toppled, the Taliban are back with a vengeance, demonstrating that they have a real social base. Moreover a Pakistani Taliban has emerged across the border as a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.

Here is Obama's big lie. The velvet gloved sleight of hand. The truth is far more detailed. Again from Gary:

The Taliban never invited Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan; he was there when they took power, guest of a warlord who had been hostile to themselves. He had flown in from Sudan, booted out by the government there following a demand from the U.S. The Taliban extended to him the hospitality required by the pashtunwali code, in appreciation for his services in anti-Soviet struggle in the 1980s. But as Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair have documented on this site, from 2000 the Taliban initiated talks in Frankfurt with the EU, facilitated by the Afghan-American businessman Kabir Mohabbat, to transfer bin Laden out of the country. Mohabbat was employed from November by the National Security Council to negotiate with the Taliban about bin Laden’s fate... The Bush administration also dispatched Mohabbat repeatedly to Kabul---three times in 2001---to discuss bin Laden.  In other words, at minimum, on can say that the State Department knew, and we should know, and Obama should know, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are two very different things.

So lets set the record straight. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan who extended to him the customs that any govermment would do. Upon a request for extradition of Bin Laden, the Taliban, reasonably asked for proof of his crime. After all NO country simply hands over people without proper documentation. On top of that the Taliban was in the process of extraditing him. Problem was that Bush did not have either the respect or patience to be "diplomatic" and therefore invaded to the country. So I re-iterate Obama is simply carrying on the tragic mistaken policy of the Bush administration.

Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

In a matter of months Pakistan a country with, you know, deliverable nukes, had it's president tossed, Al-Qaeda move in and had it's northern territories overrun with ousted Taliban. JUst like what happens in an occupation where the previous govt goes over the border to shore themselves up for a retake.

Oh and provisional government? Oh that's what colonial powers do. Toss the legitimate "non-compliant" government and replace it with one that will co-operate. Oh the resolutions sound really good too But really lasting "peace" was what the country had (like Iraq) before the 'international force" got there. And really it's not the US's job to bring "lasting peace" to Afghanistan. The only legitimate interest the US has/had in Afghanistan is to locate Bin Laden.

blah blah blah about Iraq

The Iraqis voted that the US had to leave. End of discussion. Bombs still go off there. The country is fractured and each major group has it's own ghetto. Thanks dude.

Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

A legitimate government? Really? That's why this new plan has American taxpayer money going into the hands of "tribal elders" right? Anyone paying attention knows that the "legitimate government" in Afghanistan has control of maybe 20 square miles. I exaggerate but in reality the central government is viewed as a puppet of the US (it is) and has control of little more than Kabul.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

No actually the Taliban has an issue with being overthrown. Al-Qaeda opposes all crusader presence in Islamic lands. We've already demonstrated that the Taliban and Al-Q are not only not the same, but have different goals in mind. The "Brazen" attacks on the Pakistani people is in direct response to Pakistani involvement and cooperation with the US, you know the government that attacked their government. So the suffering of the Pakistanis is a direct result of US overthrow of, and occupation of Afghanistan. I wont' even get into the drones. Not that this was not predicted.

I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Understand people, this is an open ended event. Part of the entire problem with this so called "war on terror" is that it is not dealing with the root problems. Top of the list is the issue of Palestine. So long as the Palestinian issue is not dealt with there will be problems. Period. Secondly, since there is absolutely no way to control what people think, there will always be extremists, extremist networks and extremist allies. And really lets be clear that extremism cuts a lot of ways. And if all extremism, including that of the US is not dealt with, then this is simply about power plays.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions

Well then Obama opposed the Iraq war for the entirely wrong reason. The Iraq war ought not to have been fought simply because Iraq was not a threat to the US. Iraq had not threatened the US. The war in Iraq was justified on the basis of outright fraudulent claims and documentation. The war in Iraq is simply put, one large international war crime by the US and it's allies. Period. The opposition is not about "military restraint" and "long term thinking". The opposition to Iraq is simply about not doing illegal shit.

If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

Really. Security? We have already demonstrated that the Taliban was not in any way shape or form opposed to working with the US in terms of securing oil pipeline deals. We have already demonstrated that the Taliban was not opposed to removing Bin-Laden from Afghanistant to a neutral party and was in fact in negotiations to do so. So the fact of the matter is that the invasion of Afghanistan has made the US less secure by pissing off a whole lot of people who may not have been pissed off before. The invasion of and continued occupation of Afghanistan puts the government of Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation at risk of collapse or of being taken over by more extreme elements. How does any of that make the US more secure? As has been correctly noted by Republicans, the brighter Taliban and Al-Qaeda members will simply sit this latest phase of the occupation out until the US leaves. And if they are going to do that, then what is the difference between leaving in 2011 and now? Oh that's right an election cycle.

It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat

C'mon man, aside from the blatant fear mongering, What part of the Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt does he not understand. What part of the Taliban had no part in plotting or carrying out 9-11 does he not understand. Even TD Jakes has acknowleged the legitimacy of the Taliban fighting a group who has invaded their homeland. There will be no defeating the Taliban because Afghanistan it their home. They will not surrender.

This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali.

This is why the entire we will disrupt Al-Qaeda is stupid. The fact of the matter is that the bombings in London were done by a local group of Jihadist cells. It was planned and executed in London not in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. Same with Amman. And Bali has a entirely home grown group with it's own internal issues. It is incorrect and flat out wrong to make the argument that somehow 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan and 2 years is going to make any difference in Bali, London or Amman, or Palestine.

-- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.

Translation: Never mind the troops we already have there. Never mind that we overthrew your last government. Never mind our involvement in your war with the Soviet Union. Never mind those predator drones overheard. Never mind that we and the "Security council" decided you needed an interim government designed by us. Never mind that your president, our boy, was elected in what you understood to be a fraudulent election. Oh and let's not talk about that pipeline.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.

Translation: We gave y'all billions of dollars so your ISI could keep these people in check. What the hell have you been doing with all that money. We're scared to death that a nuke is going to land in the hands of those people. Scared. To. Death. We've seen what those things can do. After all we've dropped a few on Japan. Going forward we will do whatever we can, including death from the sky to make sure those nukes are safe or taken safely out the country.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I swear I have heard this speech in a meeting before. "Civilian surge that reinforces positive action"? This is sales pitch language. Read that sentence again. It says absolutely nothing.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

The argument about Afghanistan being another Vietnam is not based on whether Afghanistan can be stabilized. Afghanistan was stable before the US got there. Afghanistan will be stable as soon as the US leaves. The only thing causing instability in Afghanistan is the presence of the US. Period. Full stop.

Secondly, the problem with Vietnam was that the Vietnamese had no intention of allowing foreigners to occupy and defeat them. Period. Same with Afghanistan. There are only two options for "victory" in Afghanistan: Genocide or withdrawal. What Obama is doing is putting off the latter option since the former cannot be done these days.

Thirdly this so called coalition of 43 countries has been shown to be a farce. How many of those countries who are not England, France and other NATO allied countries were under the gun to support the US in Afghanistan like they were to support the Iraq war? How many of those countries are supporting the war in Afghanistan are doing so contrary to the will of the local population?

Fourthly: In regards to the "vicious attack from Afghanistan" We have already shown that to be false. The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt. They planned, trained and coordinated their attack within' the US. They trained on US soil. They took flight lessons from US flight schools. But disregarding that, even if we allow for Al-Qaeda being in Afghanistan, it was Al-Qaeda and not the Afghan government or people. It's like saying that Israel's attack on Gaza was a vicious attack by the US since US arms were used and the US stands firmly behind Israel. Are we willing to take that responsibility?

Lastly in regards to "risk of additional attacks on our homeland." Further troop deployments will do nothing to drop the risk of further attacks on the homeland. Anywhere there is anyone with an Axe to grind with the US, there is a risk. There is always risk. Life is risky. Furthermore the most serious and immediate risk to the homeland comes from within'. The number one means of reducing the risk of a future attack on the US is to deal head on with the continued oppression of the Palestinians and the propping up of corrupt Arab governments.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have.

These people are just as deluded as those supporting the extra troops.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

$30 billion this year? This year? This year has less than 30 days left in it. Is he saying that we're in for 30 billion in the next 29 days? Or is the total cost of this year's operations going to cost $30 billion? In either case where is this money coming from? I cannot understand the logic of spending $30 billion that we claim we don't have on a war of dubious purpose and justification and not having national single payer health insurance. The US cannot continue to spend this kind of money AND reduce the deficit. It cannot do these things without a serious impact on social programs, education or infrastructure projects.

And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.

This single sentence undermines everything pro-troop said before. If you can't kill or capture them all then you cannot end the threat posed by such persons. And if you can't kill them all then they can form networks. If they can form networks... So in the end Obama admits that the solution is not military. Therefore he admits that in terms of "national security" there is no point to the surge in troops. If he truly believes the above statement, then he knows that he's pulling a fast one on the American people. And if he's pulling a fast one on the American people why? I suggest that it has to do with the pipeline.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

Total bull right here. The US has one of the largest piles of tools of mass destruction on the planet. It has the largest military budget on the planet. It has them spread out world wide. And this country has actually dropped nukes on civilian populations. The US provides cover for Israel a country that is believed to have upwards of 200 nuclear warheads (I'm not clear as to whether such a claim has been confirmed). Even if Israel does not, the US regularly sells weapons to Israel, who is in violation of numerous UN resolutions, that are used against civilian populations. To think that this fact is out of sight to, and a major motivation for those who would join Al-Qaeda is to be stupid. The talk of "all options on the table" for "deterring" Iran from it's sovereign right to develop nuclear capabilities (civilian or otherwise) is also the height of hypocrisy and stupid foreign policy. That also does not go unnoticed by would be Al-Qaeda recruits.

We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

Is this for real? the UN which has a security council with veto power over everything largely made up of previously colonizing and slave trading powers? The World Bank with it's structural adjustment programmes (or is that the IMF?) that has messed up many an economy? NATO? NATO? Who's reason for existing was to fuck with the Soviet Union? And continues to aggravate Russia. Really?

United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

Ok I want to know what kind of weed is smoked in the whitehouse and whether I can get some. Does Obama REALLY want to talk about the last 6 decades? Really? Is he REALLY prepared to have that conversation? Seriously whatever drugs they are on over in the Oval office, crackheads want a taste.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.

Wowwwwwwwwwwwww. Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Does Obama actually believe the shit that came out his mouth? OK lets be fair The US government doesn't care for world domination, It does what it does on the behest of large corporations most of whom are headquartered in the US. Well no that's not right either. The US has declared a policy of near space dominance. Yes the US has declared that it intends to be the supreme power in space. No world domination my ass. Spy satellites in space where the US goes and tells other people "you're building a nuke right here and you need to stop." Look, I know way too much history for that line to even come close to passing the smell test.

I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose.

NO doubt Mr. President. Let me tell you how it could have been done. All you had to say is this:

"We went into Afghanistan with one purpose and one purpose only to capture Bin Ladin dead or alive. Preferably alive to face justice. We will continue this fight until he is captured or his dead body is brought to us. That is all. We can end this tomorrow if Bin Laden is turned over to us. We will sit down with any party who can help us get this done."

No one, left or right would have objected to this declaration. Not even I.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

The Swedish Vote and Self Determination

I will probably lose fans over this post. So be it. I've thought pretty hard on this subject since the French decided to ban head coverings and I think the point I'm going to put forward is a needed point even if it is flawed (and I'm sure someone will point flaws out and I welcome it).

Europe and Europeans are an easy target to kick about. Especially if you're not white and non-Christian. With the history of Nazism, Trans-Atlantic slave trading and colonialism of much of the world who could be blamed for picking on Europe and Europeans for xenophobia and discrimination? But while that is easy to do, it also denies the European their right to self determination which we extend to the same groups the European has historically occupied and oppressed. Do the Swiss and the French or whomever have the right to say: This is what it is to be Swiss or French? This is what is and is not acceptable in our land? Is that their right?

Lets look at it from another angle. You can't walk around Saudi Arabia dressed how most Americans dress in the summer. Not only would you most likely insult the cultural sensitivities of the locals, it is highly likely that you'd be arrested for public indecency (Never mind that you'd probably get sun burn). You ever see women who report from some of these Muslim countries? Head draped. For all the talk of tolerance I am yet to see an American reporter show up and broadcast from Arabia like they do from Manhattan. Why not? If the reporter isn't Muslim why should she be subject to the rules of dress or even be looked at oddly for not doing so?

Look at Afghanistan, one of the things about that area of the world is that they do not want or like outside cultures coming in. Oh it's easy to say that they are backwards (and I'm sure many of these "liberals" who are upset about the Swiss vote secretly think just that). But understand that a great deal of the people there would simply not accept foreign or what they perceive as non-Islamic influences on their lives. And I say that is perfectly within' their right.

I would also draw attention to the reader of the fact that in some Muslim countries there are negligible numbers of Christians (or other religious groups). One of the large reasons for this is that apostasy is not looked upon very favorably. In fact in some places that is a crime punishable by death. In fact a Christian convert to Christianity was nearly put to death. Next to a Minaret ban I think the death penalty for conversion is a far more problematic issue.

So we have countries with such a different culture and worldview from the Swiss. The Swiss are presented with immigration of persons from these cultures and who are clearly not Swiss (and in some cases Swiss converts to Islam). The same can be said for France. a huge influx of people who are not French by any definition and on top of that some don't care to be. Now the average reader, particularly one from the States, will say "well what's wrong with not wanting to be Swiss or French?

To that person I would offer this explanation: The US (and Canada) is a country unlike most others on the planet. Unlike Switzerland, France, England, etc. the US is not a country born from it's native peoples. It does not have thousands of years of history of forging an identity that is tangled in it's race and/or ethnicity. It does not have a common language born of it's native people. The US is a colony of people from all over the world. Yes, it's government was created by Englishmen. It's common law is based on English common law, but in essence it is a land not bound by creed but by an adherence to the Constitution. You can (idealy) look like whatever. You can practice whatever religion. Dress how you like, The only real thing required of a US citizen is adherence to the law of the land. A Quaker is just as much American as the Rancher in Texas. In essence this is the basis of the illegal immigration debate. Who gets to define what and who an American is? Unless you're a Native American anyone can trump another person's claim of Americaness by asking "where did YOU come from" where 'You" may mean your ancestors.

This simply does not apply in Europe. The answer to "Who is French" is "I'm from here. I am a Gaul." That is the end of the conversation. No immmigrant, no matter how long they have been there can make such a claim. A Gaul can say to be French is to be, x,y and z and that's it. The Frenchman has every right to determine for himself what Frenchness IS and is not. And they can change that definition at will. Nobody else has the right to tell the French what French culture is. Equally the French cannot tell the Yoruba what Yoruba culture is and WHO is a Yoruba. Catch my point?

If the Swiss want to define their country as a Christian country it is fully within' their rights as a people with self-determination. If they decide that women cannot walk around in public with their faces veiled they are also within' their rights to do so just as the house of Saud can determine that women cannot drive and must be veiled in public. Don't want to be veiled? There are regular flights out the country and special compounds where foreigners live out of sight. If certain countries in Europe allow prostitution. That's their business and their culture. If they allow people to smoke weed in public, it is also their business. We don't regularly question these things.

The argument the Swiss public is making is not so hard. They feel that they do not want to deal with public culture of those who are outsiders in their country. Why should they? Really. The only answer you can give is a projection of your values on the Swiss. It can also be argued that it is the "tolerance" of the Swiss why they are passing such laws. They may see the presence of veils and such as oppressive and intolerant of women. Oh sure the law is about minarets but be sure, this is about far more than that.

I can cite another example. For those that support the state of Israel as a Jewish state are essentially making the same argument as the Swiss. The Zionist is simply far more blatant in his claim to Jewishness and the Jewishness of the homeland. It declares who is and is not a Jew. And there are a lot of people who support this. I do not. The great flaw, and difference, with this Jewishness is that Israel, like America, is a colony state. The Jews that are there have no more claim to the historical land they are on, than I do. There were people there who were displaced to make the state only unlike the Native American, the Palestinian refused to roll over and play casino. Though to be fair to the Native American, they were at a severe disadvantage.

Of course there is a twist. In many countries in Europe the native population is not reproducing at a rate to sustain itself. If they are to survive and maintain their social programs they need to attract immigrants. Of course immigrants come from non-Swiss countries and therefore bring their own cultures (including religion) to their new homes. So the Swiss, while focusing in on their Muslim population may be ignoring their own self created demographic problem. If Europeans want to draw hard lines about what it is to be of a certain culture, then they ought to start reproducing to the extent that they can sustain and grow their own populations and have enough workers to man the jobs they import people for. Of interest about the Minaret law is that it is reported that most of the Muslims in Switzerland are from Eastern Europe and not Arabia or Indo-china, which throws a tool into the straightforward anti-Arab argument. You would think, and I'm sure the Swiss thought that such Europeans would have been easier to integrate into Swiss society.

I'd like to think of it like visiting someone's house. Yes they are expected to show hospitality. But you can't walk in the house stay for a few days and then start talking about how you're going to paint the place a different color, play loud music that the host doesn't care for, tell them to stop cooking whatever food they like 'cause it offends you. No. If you don't like house you leave. In that vein I think that Muslims who veil, when in Europe, ought to show the same deference that Europeans are expected to show in Muslim countries and take off the veil if the local population is offended by it. That's being a gracious guest.

Self determination is the right of all people. That includes Europeans. I think it is foolish to simply talk about the recent Swiss vote as merely or solely about xenophobia (a term I think is way overused) or Islamophobia (another overused term). But one has to take into consideration the hostility that European concepts of freedom took with the Cartoon mess. You have to think of the Director who was killed over his movie on the abuses some women in Muslim countries undergo.

In the end though, anyone who was paying attention to demographics could have seen this coming. And I think it is a mistake to think of Europe as one thinks of America. And one has to seriously consider why is it wrong for Europeans in their own homelands to expect their homelands to look like their homelands? I seriously doubt that such a question would even be broached for a non-European country. And if the Swiss have nothing to fear, then are Nigerians making too much (or little) fuss about Sharia? Is that fearmongering or an observation?

A Past Denied

History is not the past, it is how we recount the past. A Past, Denied: The Invisible History of Slavery in Canada is a feature-length documentary by independent filmmaker Mike Barber. The film, which is currently in production, explores how a false sense of history—both taught in the classroom and repeated throughout our national historical narrative—impinges on the present. It examins how 200 years of institutional slavery during Canada’s formation has been kept out of Canadian classrooms, textbooks and social consiousness.

In Job Hunt, College Degree Can’t Close Racial Gap

Straight from the "No kidding" files:

College-educated black men, especially, have struggled relative to their white counterparts in this downturn, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for black male college graduates 25 and older in 2009 has been nearly twice that of white male college graduates — 8.4 percent compared with 4.4 percent.

Various academic studies have confirmed that black job seekers have a harder time than whites. A study published several years ago in The American Economic Review titled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” found that applicants with black-sounding names received 50 percent fewer callbacks than those with white-sounding names.

An interesting portion of the article, for me at least, was this:

Mr. Williams recently applied to a Dallas money management firm that had posted a position with top business schools. The hiring manager had seemed ecstatic to hear from him, telling him they had trouble getting people from prestigious business schools to move to the area. Mr. Williams had left New York and moved back in with his parents in Dallas to save money.

But when Mr. Williams later met two men from the firm for lunch, he said they appeared stunned when he strolled up to introduce himself.

“Their eyes kind of hit the ceiling a bit,” he said. “It was kind of quiet for about 45 seconds.”

Last year I had to replace a car that had become to broken to be economical to fix rather than replace. I found it's replacement on AutoTrader. The owner and I came to an agreement on where and when to pick up the vehicle. I friend and I went to pick up the vehicle and when we arrived at this individual's office I called to let him know we were in the lobby. The owner came down and upon exiting the elevator proceeded to walk around looking for the owner of "the voice". Never mind the fact that my friend and I were the only persons in the lobby. It did not occur to this guy that the well spoken voice belonged to the black guy in jeans and sneakers. discussing this with my friend he commented: "you have no nigger in your voice."

So it shows that the attitudes seen in this article extend much further than employment. I used to wonder why Russel Simmons always wore his cap and sweater everywhere. I can't speak for him, but I think he wants to let everyone know that they cannot assume that the black guy in the cap and sneakers is a 'hood. He may run a multimillion dollar business. He may have more legal money in his pocket than you do. Not that one's value should be based on that, but for the sake of argument.

Another issue, which I think is significant and which I have e-mailed the author of the Emily and Greg study si whether Africans with actual African names (rather than hybridized Anglo-Muslim ones, which are most common) experience the same level of discrimination starting from resume through interview. I believe this is a relevant question because I have been in resume review sessions where the reactions to "clearly" African resumes was different than others. I observed a similar pattern with "full" Indian names and hybridized Indian names. It is also known that in some cases the employment of blacks who are not African-American (meaning a product of slave trade) is done to meet diversity goals without the "burden" of racial animosity that blacks supposedly harbor.

NY Times

Bleach, Nip. Tuck: The White Beauty Myth

Hat tip Kenyatta Edition

Tiger Woods Owes Us Nothing

It is a sad sight to see all these news reports about Tiger Woods. They keep asking "what is he hiding?" Like it's any of our business.

Guess what folks. Tiger Woods doesn't owe anybody an explanation. Not you. Not me. Not even the police. Perhaps the neighbor but that 's it. Folk could stand to learn a lot from Mr. Woods. Just because the rest of you feel obligated to talk your business does not mean that it's a requirement. I said on a discussion board many months ago in reference to Google Latitude, that there is a great danger to American privacy. In court expectations of privacy are not written in stone. They are based on what is "commonly accepted" by the public. If the public commonly accepts having their movements tracked via GPS and available to the public, then they cannot go to court and claim they were illegally tracked, because they gave up that particular "right" when they allowed themselves to be tracked via GPS. There is a great danger in the replacement of the expectation that "it's none of your business", to the expectation of "why wont you tell?" It is the assumption that the guilty hide information and the innocent spill the beans. Law enforcement loves this because it makes their jobs easier when the public is compliant. But this assumption is contrary to the founding ideas of the country. It is why there is a 4th amendment, 5th amendment and Habeus Corpus.

SO yeah. Tiger Woods has it right. The police come to your door asking questions? You tell them to talk a walk and speak to your lawyer. You don't have to say squat without representation (in most questioning situations) and more people ought to do that.

[update] Watching the state police discuss the fining of Tiger Woods, a statement jumped out at me:

There has been no testimony that warrants any criminal charges

Understand, THIS is why Woods did not give any statement. Anything he said could and WOULD have been used against him. So he said nothing and because he said nothing, there was nothing to charge him with.